'Cruelty-Free Food' 🤔

Three hypothetical questions 👇🏻

1- If there was a food that didn’t come from an animal but in order to produce it at a large scale, animals would have to be killed, ecosystems ruined and humans either harmed or killed in the process, would it still be considered cruelty free?

2- If the death of one animal nourished a family for a whole year, its life helped increase the amount of lives within its ecosystem and increased the quality of plants within the land it lived on. Would that still be considered cruel?

3- If there was a food that didn't come from an animal and was renowned for its health benefits but its production and harvesting was shrouded in a lack of transparency resulting in forced labour, exploitation of children, acid burns and inhalation of acid fumes among other things like ecosystem destruction, would this food still be considered cruelty free?

Actually these questions aren't hypothetical at all. It's a reality we live every day - this is what our food system looks like.

1- Avocados
2- Regeneratively raised cow
3- Cashews

The term 'cruelty-free' means absolutely nothing, it is a very good marketing tactic that's allowed us (those who live in first world countries) to look the other way.

You can be causing more harm than good with your diet, even if there is no meat on your plate.

The push to eat more plant based food from large corporations has nothing to do with actual health and healing of the planet and has everything to do with unethical marketing and increasing profit margins by exploiting people in third world countries who don't have a voice.

HOW your food gets onto your plate is so much more important than WHAT is on it.

Have you ever thought about your food this way before?