Jump to content
The Corroboree
tripsis

Kangaroo industry's sham science hides ugly truth

Recommended Posts

Kangaroo industry's sham science hides ugly truth

December 10, 2010

kangaroo-420x0.jpg

Marsupial slaughter ... 3 million of these sentient, highly social and intelligent creatures are killed commercially in this country each year. Photo: Simon O'Dwyer

Brian Sherman, co-founder of Voiceless, says the push to market kangaroo meat to Australians obscures the industry's darker side.

Calls by kangaroo industry advocates and environmentalists to get more kangaroo meat on the plates of Australians ignore serious issues associated with the industry. Pre-eminent among these is the institutionalised animal abuse that underpins the commercial trade in kangaroo meat.

The kangaroo meat industry represents the largest single sustained massacre of land-based wildlife in the world.

Approximately 3 million of these sentient, highly social and intelligent creatures are killed commercially in this country each year. Behind these figures lies the hidden, usually unremarked truth about the industry. Its entrenched cruelties put in perspective those of its more celebrated international counterparts such as the Canadian seal hunt.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Unlike food animals which are "produced" on farms, such as cows and pigs, kangaroos are shot in the bush by people ranging from recreational to professional hunters, free of any oversight or scrutiny.

While the relevant Commonwealth Codes of Practice for "humane" commercial kangaroo shooting prescribe killing by a single shot to the brain, the capacity for a clean kill can be impaired by many factors. These include poor visibility (kangaroo hunting frequently takes place at night), the size of the kangaroo's head presenting a small target and some shooters' limited skills and inexperience.

In a significant number of instances, kangaroos hunted for meat are not killed outright, but seriously injured and left to die slowly and in agony in the bush. Further, kangaroos that are shot in the body cannot be commercially harvested for meat. These victims of the trade are left in the field.

Then there are the dependent joeys at foot or in the pouch – an estimated 1.1 million per year – which are the industry's "collateral damage".

The unfurred young are bashed to death on the head with a metal pipe or against the tow bar of the hunter's truck, or decapitated. The Code calls this "euthanasia". Alternatively, once his or her mother is killed, the joey at foot is abandoned and left to die alone.

Further, environmental arguments that kangaroo meat represents a sustainable alternative to other red meat, particularly from sheep and cattle, do not withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny.

This is demonstrated by a new report released last week at the launch of the UTS-based think tank for kangaroos, THINKK, which has been supported by Voiceless, the animal protection institute I founded together with Ondine Sherman.

As the authors - including kangaroo ecologists Dr Dror Ben Ami, Dr David Croft and Dr Daniel Ramp - show, the number of kangaroos necessary to supplant meat production from sheep (more if cattle and goats are included) is simply ecologically unfeasible.

To provide Australians only one small portion of kangaroo meat per week, 22 million kangaroos would have to "harvested" a year. The total population of kangaroos would need to be 151 million to support this offtake. This is more than five times the 30-year average population of 27 million, to provide one serving of meat per Australian a week. The "go green, eat roo" push is sham science.

But even if there were to be ecological benefits to be gained from the kangaroo trade, there are broader problems with a purely environmentally-driven approach.

As Keely Boom and Dror Ben Ami of THINKK point out, it fails to recognise adequately the sentience of wild animals; the fact that these creatures, like us, are conscious beings with the capacity to perceive and feel, and, in the case of kangaroos, with complex social structures and strong maternal-infant bonds.

The disregard for individual animal's lives which goes hand in hand with the ecosystem-level approach is compounded by parallel failures on the part of law and policy pertaining to kangaroos to protect these animals.

As Boom and Ben Ami argue, Codes and Acts regulating the kangaroo industry pay "insufficient regard to the ethical demands of kangaroos as sentient beings".

Their conclusion is stark: "Current law and policy is a form of legalised cruelty against adult kangaroos and joeys."

Voiceless has worked to address this problem, by supporting the establishment of THINKK, and by providing funding to a number of kangaroo related projects through its annual grants program.

At its 2010 grants and media awards event, a TV ad on the kangaroo industry supported by Voiceless was premiered, before its dissemination on commercial free to air networks next year.

Claims by industry and environmentalists that kangaroo meat is a plentiful, green alternative to meat from farmed introduced species need to be seen against this background - institutionalised, legally condoned cruelty to kangaroos on a scale that dwarfs other wildlife-killing industries worldwide.

Once they know the ugly truth, most fair-minded Australians would find this abuse of our unique and beloved national symbol hard to stomach.

Source.

ALSO

Food for thought as roo culling reasons come under fire

November 29, 2010

THERE is limited scientific or environmental evidence to support the killing of large numbers of kangaroos every year, a series of reports has found.

Despite being the national symbol of Australia, more than 3 million are killed each year for their meat, or because they are considered pests that compete with livestock for food and other resources.

There is a growing movement to promote the consumption of kangaroo meat over beef and lamb as it is seen as a more environmentally sustainable option, because kangaroos emit less greenhouse gas.

Advertisement: Story continues below

But a report by THINKK, a research group based at the University of Technology, Sydney, found some of the assumptions, which allow for the largest land-based wildlife cull in the world, were misguided and not grounded on scientific evidence.

The ecologist and THINKK co-founder Dror Ben Ami said their reports, based on numerous studies, found kangaroos rarely competed for food with livestock.

''Long-term studies indicate that competition is intermittent, occurring only during a period of climatically driven food depletion,'' he said.

The report also found significant reductions in greenhouse gases from livestock would only occur if kangaroo meat consumption replaced beef and lamb demand.

But Dr Ben Ami said it was unlikely that farmers would choose to farm kangaroos over livestock because there were not enough roos to fill the current demand for meat in Australia, let alone an international market.

''To replace one meal a week with kangaroo meat you need to have about 130 million kangaroos in the landscape to have a sustainable industry,'' Dr Ben Ami said.

On average there were about 27 million kangaroos in the outback, he said.

The co-author of the reports, Keely Boom, a lawyer, said culling kangaroos presented issues of animal cruelty.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act stated animals could not be killed unless there was a reason to do so. Only licence owners were permitted to shoot kangaroos.

As there was limited evidence to show kangaroos damaged the environment, and several studies showing they were not pests, culling them for those reasons might be illegal, she said. Ms Boom works as a research fellow at THINKK, which is partly funded by the Sherman Foundation, a supporter of the animal protection group Voiceless.

The reports called for the government to review whether killing kangaroos in such large numbers was necessary.

"And where it is necessary let's look at the reasons for and against, and have a quantitative means of measuring its effectiveness," Ms Boom said.

The government should also ban the killing of female kangaroos, which often had joeys in their pouches or with them, she said.

A spokeswoman for the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water said kangaroos were protected fauna not pests in NSW.

''It is [the department's] view that kangaroos do cause damage and economic loss to the farming community, the extent of which does vary across the landscape.''

She said the department stood by the legality of the licensing system.

The kangaroo expert Gordon Grigg agreed that research over the past 20 years had demonstrated kangaroos were not pests.

But he said some of the report's assumptions were not correct.

Most people realised that kangaroo meat could never totally replace beef and lamb, said Professor Grigg, an emeritus professor at the University of Queensland.

Instead it should be marketed as gourmet or as a low fat alternative to beef and lamb, he said.

The biologist Michael Archer, of the University of NSW, disputed the findings of the reports and said the sustainable wild harvesting of kangaroos was a conservation strategy.

If graziers made money from kangaroos it gave them a reason to value the native environment, and reduce their sheep and cattle population, Professor Archer said.

The findings of the THINKK reports will be presented at a free public lecture at the University of Technology, Sydney tomorrow evening.

Source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wish they would come and cull a few here. they are in plague proportions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you base them being a plague on? They were there before you no doubt. We're more of a plague than any species of kangaroo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah your right. they where here before me thats for sure.

The environment (national parks and remnant bushland) here cannot sustain the numbers they are now in.

As soon as this lush grass goes, there will be literally 10's of thousands of starving kangaroos.

they are a hazard here when the parks dry up and they have to search for food, writing of cars causing damage, injury and even death on a weekly basis.

Im a fan of roos. seriously. But I am not lying when I say they are in plague like proportion here.(central west nsw) , and I am wondering how far off a cull will be in place. If in that cull the meat could be used to feed people more economically all the better.

I think the land would be far better off if roos where farmed for meat instead of cows and other hard hooved animals.

for what its worth i think the woolies roo tastes shithouse. This i believe is because its grey kangaroo. Bunjalung dudes i worked with said they wouldnt touch it wth a 10ft pole. If u want a tasty marsupial its the wallabies u want(apparently)

Edited by incognito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it if you are on your own property you can't kill a roo for meat or if you do you must leave the carcass where it lies, someone misses out on some $$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for what its worth i think the woolies roo tastes shithouse. This i believe is because its grey kangaroo. Bunjalung dudes i worked with said they wouldnt touch it wth a 10ft pole. If u want a tasty marsupial its the wallabies u want(apparently)

 

wallabies :puke: 2y old red skip :drool2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it if you are on your own property you can't kill a roo for meat or if you do you must leave the carcass where it lies, someone misses out on some $$$$

you cant kill a roo full stop. they are protected. You need to obtain a license.

wallabies 2y old red skip

the bundjalung guys used to rave on about "pretty face" wallabies being the bomb, but yes they did say a young red roo is the goods as well. They basically said they would eat their shoes before going near a grey.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but farming them is no better than farming other livestock...

that means their food will be substituted and their meat properties will change, you will no longer be eating wild, healthy roo's meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike food animals which are "produced" on farms kangaroos are shot in the bush by people ranging from recreational to professional hunters, free of any oversight or scrutiny.

:rolleyes: what a load of bullshit

No offence tripsis but i really wish people who write this shit would research the subject at least or go work with a HC roo shooter for a week

sounds like PETA RSPCA propaganda to me

this story is just another beat up

so this so called data is it only HC human consumption roos ? or both HC & pet food industry ?

incog ya wont greys in woolies Greys are shot for pet food more often & red roos are used for HC you will find the thing that taints HC meat is the commercialization of the product

pickling solution (shit thats sprayed into the gut cavity to kill off bacteria, worms) etc & preservatives additives co2 or whatever they vacume seal them with to preserve the meat that makes supermarket meat taste like shit compared to freshley killed natural meat

most people who have lived on property's & farms will say the same with lamb, beef meat & dairy products,

one of the biggest desecrations to native wildlife i have seen im my lifetime was when working on big commercial farms not so much roos

I have witnessed the killing of native birds when working for a big name farm (galahs & white cockies) etc..trapped every season so we can have our weetbix & GM canola & stock feed

not to mention marsupial mice & insects etc killed from eating baits or from roundup, herbicides & pesticides that i was also sprayed with :blink:

Edited by mac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They basically said they would eat their shoes before going near a grey.

 

Never a truer word spoken

Some of the older blokes say pretty face are very nice but they are a bit thin on the ground in this part of the world now so they generally get left in piece.

Mac is dead right about factory meat, its generaly insipid muck IMHO

& increasingly not even aussie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the bundjalung guys used to rave on about "pretty face" wallabies being the bomb, but yes they did say a young red roo is the goods as well. They basically said they would eat their shoes before going near a grey.

I've tried (swamp) wallably and I've tried roo and I definitely preferred roo.

Why is it if you are on your own property you can't kill a roo for meat or if you do you must leave the carcass where it lies, someone misses out on some $$$$

Because they are protected animals and if that protection and the restrictions that go with that protection are lifted, people can rampantly kill as many roos as they wish for whatever reason they wish. Roos hunted commercially should be tagged, the tags given out in limited numbers by the government. If a roo turns up at an abattoir without a tag, theoretically it should not be processed. Thus why if you shoot a roo, you won't be able to sell it for its meat. Also thus why it is illegal for you to kill roos. Do you expect to be allowed to kill any other wildlife on your property?

but farming them is no better than farming other livestock...

that means their food will be substituted and their meat properties will change, you will no longer be eating wild, healthy roo's meat.

Sure it is, they are still much better more the environment than any hoofed animals. They do not compact the earth like cattle do, they require far less water, they do not produce large amounts of methane. Unless they are farmed in a very wrong way, the qualitites of the meat should remain the same.

No offence tripsis but i really wish people who write this shit would research the subject at least or go work with a HC roo shooter for a week

sounds like PETA RSPCA propaganda to me

Well Mac, seeing as you are clearly so knowledgable on the subject that you can singlehandedly discredit an entire study with one comment, would you care to elaborate on what you know?

To answer your question, I would think that the study is based on both meat for human consumption and for the pet food industry.

I have witnessed the killing of native birds when working for a big name farm (galahs & white cockies) etc..trapped every season so we can have our weetbix & GM canola & stock feed

not to mention marsupial mice & insects etc killed from eating baits or from roundup, herbicides & pesticides that i was also sprayed with

It's well known that the mass killing of birds such as corellas, cockatoos and galahs happens in the name of crop protection. It's completely fucked that is it legal, but it's not very different from using the excuse that roos compete with livestock for resources and thus should be culled. Kangaroos are also a keystone species in many/most places, so while killing off marsupial mice might be criminal, doing so may not have such a far reaching consequence for the ecosystem in which they inhabit, while killing off roos probably will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures they're working on is for every Australian (21-odd mill) to eat roo once a week. I just don't think that's going to happen, even if you take out all the vegetarians, infants, elderly etc.

If licences are required to shoot roo, why are "some shooters' limited skills and inexperience" allowed to obtain a licence? Isn't that the fault of the licencer or the inept shooter?

Why aren't roos being farmed in replacement of at least portions of sheep and cattle land?

Why are roos given more respect in regards to their "sentience and intelligence" over cattle and sheep? Aren't pigs intelligent?

Unnecessary cruelty to animals about to be slaughtered for food (IMO our right as the human being animal) is abhorrant no matter the animal. Cruelty should be abolished, not the whole industry which is serving to try to replace less native-land compatible ones currently employed in Australia.

Animals in plague proportions do well to be culled IMHO; I realise lots of people think differently. If feral horses can be culled (which I agree with in general) why shouldn't plague-proportion roos, especially for food?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The figures they're working on is for every Australian (21-odd mill) to eat roo once a week. I just don't think that's going to happen, even if you take out all the vegetarians, infants, elderly etc.

While you are probably correct, the demand for roo meat is growing. Most people who would eat roo would probably eat it more than once a week too. In my opinion, it is better for a study like this to assume the worst than actually wait for it to be too late, as we tend to have the propensity to do. I'm well and truly sick of people that fence sit until the tipping point has past.

If licences are required to shoot roo, why are "some shooters' limited skills and inexperience" allowed to obtain a licence? Isn't that the fault of the licencer or the inept shooter?

Perhaps it is, but it is still contributing to the problem. If inept shooters are a recognised issue, then there should be better tests before a shooter is hired to go out into the wild wielding a gun.

Why aren't roos being farmed in replacement of at least portions of sheep and cattle land?

The article gave reason for that.

Why are roos given more respect in regards to their "sentience and intelligence" over cattle and sheep? Aren't pigs intelligent?

The researchers are not comparing them to cattle, sheep and pigs, nor are they saying they have greater levels of sentience or intelligence, all they are doing is pointing out that they are in fact intelligent and sentient animals. They are also making a point that as we are hunting wild animals with complex social structures, we are disrupting those structures when we take out members of a social group, something which doesn't happen so much on farmed animals as they are all slaughtered.

Unnecessary cruelty to animals about to be slaughtered for food (IMO our right as the human being animal) is abhorrant no matter the animal. Cruelty should be abolished, not the whole industry which is serving to try to replace less native-land compatible ones currently employed in Australia.

It's not just a question of animal cruelty, it's a question of sustainability. If this study is even remotely correct, then what we are doing is not sustainable. Does it really surprise you? Most of what we do is not sustainable and hunting wild animals en masse shouldn't be any different. Consider the fishing industry. Over 90% of the world stocks of large predatory fish have been depleted since the mid-20th century. As demand grows, stocks dwindle. The same thing is happening and will continue to happen with kangaroos.

Animals in plague proportions do well to be culled IMHO; I realise lots of people think differently. If feral horses can be culled (which I agree with in general) why shouldn't plague-proportion roos, especially for food?

Who sets out what a plague proportion is considered? It's a very convenient terms to be flung around when in support of the culling of roos. Even if in some areas roos are actually in "plague proportions", do you honestly think that those areas are the only ones where roos are hunted, or that only populations which have reached "plague proportions" are hunted?

I agree, horses, camels, water buffalo, rabbits, etc should all be hunted for their meat. In fact, these feral animals should be hunted before any native animals areeven considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's well known that the mass killing of birds such as corellas, cockatoos and galahs happens in the name of crop protection. It's completely fucked that is it legal, but it's not very different from using the excuse that roos compete with livestock for resources and thus should be culled.

wow i cant see how that could be legal? aernt all Australian Native Fauna protected??

I have seen first hand what damage roos in plague numbers can do to crops, and the fences that surround them.

When i was growing up on a farm, we had a licence to cull 80 roos a month. The government subsidised our bullets.

It wasnt a nice job, and one I personally look back on with regret. But seriously we had to shoot roos to get out the gate to go roo shooting. If we wheerent out most nights shooting during the start of crop season, right up until the wheat crop went into head, we could expect to lost close to a quart of our crop. Its not just the wheat they consume, but also the crop they trample. We could stand on the back verandah and see them coming down in waves, like a shadow, no shit.

You couldnt really blame them, they where hungry, nay starving most of the time. It gets damn dry here, and being no natural predators of the roos here, asides from man, they swell in size to plague proportions.

Im glad they are protected. They are a magnificent creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to get a licence you need a reason to shoot roos.

this can be either for the meat trade or for crop protection, when numbers have been assessed to endanger crops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probabyl legal to kill birds which attack crops in the same way that cullings roos is. Farmers need to protect crops, so they are given liberties above the laws to do so, maybe with licensing but probably not, as least not in the same way that farmers are licensed to kill a particular number of roos. From what I've heard the methods deployed for killing the birds are anything but "humane".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that roos don't get to plague proportions in some areas, but it can't be used as an excuse to shoot roos across their range. Culling as a means of population control and hunting them for meat are two different issues and while they may overlap, the meat industry is not reliant on there being plagues of roos to hunt. We need to keep in mind that it is our impact on the land that has allowed roo populations to swell as they have, but then they suffer for it too. We are the ones who take their habitat away, outcompete them and then kill them when they become as nuisance to us. If we converted to farming roos instead, I think there would be many fewer problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story seems to imply licences are handed out willy nilly to any one who feels killing some roos would be fun

most times its near impossible for a new shooter to get a licence, most are handed down or inherited (yes they do issue new licences now & again but only when roos are in huge numbers & they tend to be for a short period of time

im glad you mentioned the tagging this is very strict & shooter must account for all tags, Tags are issued by whoever sets the numbers after doing studies on the population & land conservation (national parks & primary industrys ?) some government mob

yes shooters do drop a shot every now & again but its no worse than mass abattoir industry were im positive the animals are stressed more

i had a few other points to bring up about piggery's & farmed chickens if they want to look into cruelty

the only thing i see wrong with shooting roos for human consumption is that some shooters go for the big KG bucks to get a quick quota (this takes out the good genetics from the male population)

i dont see why the greys should be shot for pet food, so someones fluffy pet can eat tinned dog cat food

no mention of this in the story what % is Hc & what % of the 3 million are used for peoples pets :rolleyes:

Edited by mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether the article implies licenses are handed out without regard, the fact the 3 million roos are shot each year speaks for itself. Whether it's a single shooter or ten thousand shooters, the result is the same. Even though the licensing system is supposed to limit the number of roos shot, if they keep increasing the quotas to meet a growing demand, what good is it? Then there's the issue of if a roo is shot in the body it has to be left there as it can't be processed. What kind of a law is that?

Again, this isn't just an issue of cruelty. Battery chickens, pigs and sheep are all far worse in terms of cruelty, no doubts there, but the roo problem is greater than that. We are hunting wild populations of animals here, of a level which cannot be sustained, just like we are overfishing the seas. Must be hunt them until they are listed as endangered before we stop? They are keystone species, critical for the proper functioning on the ecosystems they live in. They form complex social structures which are disrupted by us hunting members from their social groups. Females are shot results in an approximate million joeys being killed savagely each year with no benefit for us.

What difference is there between hunting for humans or pets? I don't see why roos should be hunted for humans so that some uncaring dick can eat a healthy and alternative meat.

We may as well start hunting echidnas, possums, gliders, native pigeons, quolls and anything else that catches our fancy, because as humans and thus top animal, we have that right to fuck over whatever we want. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: what a load of bullshit

No offence tripsis but i really wish people who write this shit would research the subject at least or go work with a HC roo shooter for a week

sounds like PETA RSPCA propaganda to me

 

totally agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of just agreeing that it's a load of bullshit, why not provide some details of how you can just discredit a study like this out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in terms of cruelty we're talking relativity... compared to the farmed meat industries...

these roo's are all going about their merry happy wild lives until out of the blue they are knocked off by a bullet to the head... i'm sure that they don't all die instantly but most of these guys that do this job are a very good shot so over-all i don't think the suffering caused by this kind of hunting would be overly extreme.

with the massive amount of deforestation which has taken place in this country & millions of hectares of forest being converted to grassland, kangaroo populations in many many areas ARE in plague proportions which as you could imagine (put simply) has a massive environmental as well as economic impact... there is plenty of evidence to show that massive populations of roo's can severely affect remnant tracts forests ability to regenerate & spread due to over-grazing.

it just sounds to me like the work of a well intentioned but short sighted person. they definitely make some very good points & i'm sure there are a lot things about this industry that could be done much much better, but until there is any over-all more intelligent options for supplying meat for the masses then my original opinion stands. of course we should all just eat a lot less meat, but do you really think that's going to happen any time soon? vegetarianism i am totally down with... unfortunately (& i mean no offense) vegans i find kind of hypocritical as in order to survive, or even to basically find enough food to meet your nutritional needs as a vegan you must live in a very rich & decadent society. my point being that you can only be so extremely picky about what you eat if you live in a grossly decadent society such as our own which has more food than it knows what to do with... but now i'm ranting aren't i...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but as pointed out it's really not just an issue of cruelty, as a matter of fact, I think it comes after the others.

While plague proportions of kangaroos are detrimental to both the environment and farmer, hiding behind the argument that kangaroos need to be culled due to their explosive numbers is delusional. It is not as if these shooters moniter populations and only hunt where a "plague" is expected to appear, they are hunting all over the shop and on such a scale that it is simply not sustainable. There is no argument in the face of that. If an industry cannot be sustained, then it should either halt or change so that it is sustainable. When comparing the environemtnal impact of cattle to roos, even if the roos are in "plague" numbers, I'm sure that you'd find cattle are much worse. But we don't cull cattle, we breed them, more of them with every year, as that's what our economy dictates. Growth is all important, so more cattle should be bred, more roos should be shot.

but until there is any over-all more intelligent options for supplying meat for the masses then my original opinion stands

I believe that farming has been forquite some time and always will be the way of supplying meat to a growing population, such as ours. Hunting cannot be sustainable when talking about feeding millions, or even billions or humans.

unfortunately (& i mean no offense) vegans i find kind of hypocritical as in order to survive, or even to basically find enough food to meet your nutritional needs as a vegan you must live in a very rich & decadent society. my point being that you can only be so extremely picky about what you eat if you live in a grossly decadent society such as our own which has more food than it knows what to do with...

Actually, you'll find your wrong there. Many people in the developing world are vegan, perhaps not all of them intentionally, but they still exist. While most people would prefer not to be vegan, it's cheaper and easier than eating meat most of the time (although when dealing with processed food it becomes a lot harder). I hardly see what is so decadent about a life of beans, rice and vegetables. Animal products invariably cost more than plant products. I'm not saying we should all be vegan, but it's not a disease of the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×