The Inkwell - Issue 2

0

1

Editors’ note In this issue some students allowed us to publish their scholar’s essay. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the Inkwell for this Issue. If you would like to be involved in the next issue, contact either of us.

Thank you, Alice and Louisa Contents Page 2 – Editors’ note and Contents Page 3-5 – Racism in Secondary Schools: The effect on students’ education Page 6-8 – Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long- and Short-Term Effects Page 9-10 – “Are You Happy to be in Paris” “Oui”- A summary of the Paris trip Page 11-13 – Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Page 14-17 – Veganism: Is it a better option?

Page 18-20 – The Monarchy: Does it benefit Britain’s Economy?

2

Racism in Secondary Schools: The effect on students’ education

By Temi Adeniji The definition of racism according

indeed a problem within our

to the Oxford Dictionary is the

schools.’ (Schulz, 2021). She then

‘discrimination, or antagonism by

goes on to write, ‘school policies

an individual, community, or

and beliefs about norms and

institution against people on the

values stereotypically only reflect

basis of their racial or ethnic

the dominant culture- that of white

group, which is a minority.’ UK

British people.’ From this quote,

secondary schools have recorded

we can infer Schulz believes the

more than sixty thousand racist

education system is failing those of

incidents in the last five years.

an ethnic minority. These

Many studies have been conducted

experiences can then be related to

to determine the success rate in

a lower self-esteem and depressive

the students affected for their

symptoms. Having a high self-

important exams, such as GCSE

esteem is necessary for students to

and A levels. In addition, studies

be able to take risks in their

also consider the student’s chance

learning. With low self-esteem,

of excelling in several types of

students are hesitant to engage in

universities. This essay will go

learning or take appropriate

through different opinions such as

academic risks. A research project

whether racism builds the child’s

in 2020 by Nerys Roberts and Paul

learning ability or if it does the

Bolton (Roberts & Bolton, 2020)

complete opposite.

contains data to back up this evaluation. The data shows that

Racism is usually associated with

black pupils have the lowest pass

abusive and offensive language

rate for GCSE Maths and English

used in a derogatory way against a

combined. Based on the research,

person from a different race or

the authors argue that reforms

ethnic background. An article

must be made to the national

published by the guardian written

curriculum an associated exam

by Freia Schulz states ‘racism is 3

content and racism ‘still plagues

study confirmed that Black

our society and schools’ Paul

Caribbean adolescents are far

Bolton. In addition, the study also

more likely than their peers to be

calculated the number of students

excluded. Exclusions can impair a

who achieved a first or upper

child's learning and cause them to

second-class degree. The results

lose interest in school. Some

show white participants being the

individuals incorrectly attribute

largest at 82% and Black students

this to cultural or racial

being the lowest at 60%. Asian

differences, while there are a

students came to a total of 72%

number of factors at play,

and Mixed students obtained 75%.

including institutional racism. A

Some of the disparity can be

sense of belonging has been linked

explained statistically by

to improved academic achievement

disparities in entry qualifications;

and increased student motivation.

nevertheless, even after accounting

To develop the argument, the

for other characteristics, there is

Guardian gives examples from

still a difference between White

students who have been affected

and ethnic minority graduates.

by racism and how it changed

Using the statistics, it is possible

them eventually. Naomi Bakare

to infer that Racism has an effect

shares experiences that happened

on students’ results in their

almost ten years ago, but the

exams. However, we are unable to

effects of them are still clear, ‘I

measure how large an effect it has

really struggled with insecurity

on one’s ability to learn.

and anxiety due to how I was

Moreover, the NEU commissioned

treated… schools really need to

research, Place and belonging in

work harder so that children don’t

school, (Kathryn Riley, 2020)

suffer like I did.’ (Parveen &

suggest a feeling of being accepted

Thomas, 2021) According to

is a good predictor of academic

a study Bakare participated in, the

achievement, and it's typically

vast majority of young Black

lower among pupils from

British people have experienced

disadvantaged ethnic groups. The

racism at school, with one in every

4

two believing that racial

This is shown in the views of 49%

stereotypes impede their academic

of young students who felt that

success. This helps conclude the

racism is the biggest barrier to

argument that racism can affect a

reaching success at school.

student’s education. School-based

(Swiszczowski, 2020)

racial discrimination has a

During my research, I found no

particularly negative impact on

evidence that racism in schools

academic participation. schools are

motivates students to work harder.

places where adolescents spend a

This emphasises the impact of

large deal of their time taking part

racism on students throughout

in educational, extracurricular,

their life. To close the achievement

and social activities. As a result,

gap between ethnic minority and

how students think about

white kids, more efforts must be

themselves as learners, as well as

taken. In addition, it will improve

their motivation and engagement,

childrens' mental safety and

is influenced by their interactions

security at school.

with teachers and classmates at school. Stereotype-based

To conclude, racism in secondary

behaviour and overt harassment in

schools to a great extent has an

the classroom erode children’s'

effect on the student’s education

personal feeling of worth and

and ability to succeed in further

belonging, raising the risk of

education. Statistics from a variety

school disengagement. (Leath,

of reports/studies, as well as real-

Mathews, Harrison, & Chavous,

life situations, are used to

2019)

illustrate this. This demonstrates the size of the effect on students

Lastly, a 2020 report by

and why racism has to start to be

Runnymede says that ‘racism is

taken seriously and treated with

deeply embedded in schooling’.

appropriate consequences.

5

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long and Short Term Effects

On the 6th and 9th of August 1945, two atomic bombs were dropped by the United States of America in a successful attempt to cause Japan’s ‘unconditional surrender’ at the end of WWII (CNN, 2019). As well as causing the end of the war, the dropping of the bombs caused immediate devastation on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The more long-term effects include those on the Cold War and the possible long-term health effects people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have experienced due to radiation exposure.

first glance these casualties seem very great, however some people believe that the bombings were perhaps no more damaging than other events during the course of WWII. Dr Tami Davis Biddle, stated that the use of atomic bombs on Japan wouldn’t have crossed ‘any moral lines that hadn’t already been crossed’ (Biddle, 2019) due to the Firebombing of Tokyo in March which had already killed around 130,000 people (History.com Editors, 2009). Moreover, British bombings on cities such as Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin are estimated to have caused over 100,000 deaths in total (Heziel Pitogo, 2015). In summary the deaths caused by the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extremely devastating. However, there were also other bombing campaigns such as the Firebombing of Tokyo and the British strategic bombing of German cities that caused similar numbers of immediate casualties.

Both of the atomic bombs caused many casualties almost immediately after being dropped.

The first bomb dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th of August was named ‘Little Boy’ and the second bomb, named ‘Fat Man’, was dropped 3 days later (Atomic Heritage Foundation, 2014). It was estimated by the Manhattan Engineer District that there were around 199,000 casualties caused by both bombings and the Japanese made an early estimate that in Hiroshima 95% of deaths were caused by burns (Yale Law School, 2008). The percentage of casualties out of the entire population of Hiroshima was considerably higher than of Nagasaki this is due to the geography of the two cities, rather than the power of the bombs. At

Another immediate effect of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the fact that they caused the ‘unconditional surrender’ of the Japanese on the 2nd of September 1945 (The National WWII Museum - New Orleans, 2022). The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S Military defines unconditional 6

surrender as ‘the surrender of a military force or nation without being able to set any limits on the subsequent actions of the victorious power’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2002). After Germany’s surrender in May of 1945 (Blakemore, 2020), the war in Japan continued. Before the testing of the first atomic bomb, the Allies had planned a conventional invasion of Japan – the plan was named Operation Downfall. However, this plan didn’t go ahead because President Truman decided to authorize the use of an atomic bomb in Japan to avoid a large number of American casualties that were predicted to occur (Trueman, 2015). Although the atomic bombs did indeed reduce the number of American casualties in causing the surrender of Japan, it has been speculated that President Truman had other motives, such as highlighting the strength of the American arsenal to Russia (BBC, 2022).

predicted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation that ‘Within the first few months after the bombing between 90,000 and 166,000 people died in Hiroshima, while another 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki’, this includes those killed by the immediate effects of the bombing but it also includes the effects of radiation on a larger scale (Listwa, 2012). After the bombings, according to (War History Online, 2018), there were increases in many different illnesses, for example: cancers (including leukaemia, breast cancer and thyroid cancer), anaemia and cataracts. However, Lesley M.M Blume wrote an article on the National Geographic Website stated that when she visited Hiroshima in 2018, she was ‘struck by how ordinary it looked and felt’ (Blume, 2020).

Furthermore, most of the radiation caused by the bombings decayed within a few days of the explosion, therefore it is completely safe to visit both Nagasaki and Hiroshima without risk of radiation poisoning (Listwa, 2012). This shows that, although the initial impacts of the bombings on human life were catastrophic, within a relatively short period of time, the health risks related to them have become significantly less evident.

Both of these immediate effects of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are significant. The large number of casualties caused when the bombs were dropped is very important because of the pain and poverty that it caused.

However, what is possibly more substantial is the fact that, years after the bombing, people are still suffering due to the radiation caused by the bombing (War History Online, 2018). It was

After the surrender of Japan and, consequently, the end of WWII, the Cold War began between the United States of America (US) and the Soviet Union (USSR). The 7

Cambridge Dictionary defines the Cold War as ‘a state of extreme unfriendliness existing between countries, especially countries with opposing political systems, which expresses itself not through fighting but through political pressure and threats. The expression is usually used of the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union after the Second World War’ (Cambridge Dictionary, 2022). The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki meant that as the Cold War continued, a race between the two powers to have the most powerful weaponry (especially in terms of atomic bombs) began. The arms race led to the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which was the idea that because the use of the atomic bombs could end life on earth, no government would actually use them (BBC, 2022).

Therefore, it could be argued that the use of atomic weapons in Japan in 1945 is the reason as to why nuclear weapons have not been used since.

terms of health, the immediate effects seem more catastrophic than any lasting ones as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no longer radioactive. Possibly the most significant effect of the atomic bombings is the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction which was caused by the race to create more atomic weapons by both the US and USSR. This means that, because of the fear that atomic weapons could end life on earth, it is less likely for them to be used on the same scale as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki again.

Thus far, this has been demonstrated by the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used since. However, during the current situation in Ukraine many people believe that Putin may resort to using at least low grade, atomic weapons. One of Putin’s advisors has stated the willingness to do so (Reuters, 2022) and the fact that Putin has already committed so many crimes against Ukraine including ‘the indiscriminate shelling of civilian neighbourhoods, preventing civilians from using humanitarian corridors to escape the fighting, using civilians as human shields and using autonomous killer drones’ (KHAN, 2022) indicates that he may be willing to use further force if the war does not progress in the way he would like.

To conclude, in order to analyse the significance of the 1945 atomic bombings it is important to understand both the immediate and long-term effects. The use of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the desired effects of causing the unconditional surrender of the Japanese. In

8

"Are you happy to be in Paris" "Oui" A summary of the Paris trip

By Louisa Jabbari and Marie Weisheimer

On the 11th of March 2022, the French department took a group of 30 students on a trip to Paris. This was the school’s first trip abroad since the coronavirus lockdowns.

metro trip, to the Louvre. We all loved the metro and although it was crowded, no one got lost.

We arrived at our first tourist destination, the Louvre, the largest museum in the world. It was a marvellous opportunity for photos as well as to experience the art.

Afterwards, we took another metro to the Eiffel Tower, where we had planned to have a boat trip along the Seine. We were running late so we all had to run along the bank of the river. Eventually, the rain stopped, and we were able to go onto the deck of the boat which provided us with an amazing view of Paris. One student had their birthday on the Friday, and Mr Rogeon had organised for the boat crew to give her a birthday shoutout, making it a very special day. To add to the birthday celebrations, the Eiffel Tower sparkled at 19:00, which was magical to observe. Later that evening, after some trouble with French boys, we all went to bed tired, but happy and excited for Day 2

We started the trip with a 3:45am meet at school and a bus journey to St Pancras Station. Although a lot of us were tired, we knew it would be worth it. The security and passport checks ran smoothly without any complications. This was a huge relief for Mr Rogeon, who had been planning and stressing about those few minutes for the past six months. Once we arrived in Paris, we posed for our first group photo (as seen below).

A coach took us to the hotel, where we stored our luggage, but we were off again quickly to have some lunch. We walked to a Franprix, a nearby French supermarket.

We bought our authentic French lunch, a baguette, and a packet of salami.

Next, we took our first

The second day started with a visit to the Stade de France, where we also made a trip to the much sought9

after souvenir shop. Afterwards, we travelled to Les Halles, for some lunch and shopping. The teachers went to a

Galeries Lafayette. Numerous girls had been looking forward to the shopping opportunity at the huge department store, famous for its architecture and roof-top observation deck. It was then time for our last metro ride in Paris, and we loaded the luggage into the coach to the Gare du Nord. We arrived at Queen Anne's School at 21:00 at the end of an exhilarating weekend in Paris, which was thoroughly enjoyed by all. Mr Rogeon, the organiser of the trip commented "I think the girls had a fantastic time, they really made an effort to use the target language. It was the perfect trip to be the first trip abroad since the pandemic sta rted!"

crêperie, and many girls went to Paul, a famous French bakery. Mr Rogeon was pleased to hear us order in French and immerse ourselves in the French language and culture.

We walked to Notre Dame where many souvenirs and crêpes were bought, whilst learning some information about the fire in the cathedral. After another walk, we admired the panoramic view from the Montparnasse tower, the third tallest building in Paris. We observed many well-known buildings in Paris, such as Sacré Coeur, Arc de Triomphe, and of course also The Eiffel Tower. By the end of the day, we had walked a total of 25000 steps and were all “très fatiguée”.

Sadly, Sunday was our last day in Paris, and it began with a visit to the Arc de Triomphe on the Champs Élysées, one of the most famous avenues in France. We walked through the Champs Élysées until we arrived at the 10

Humanitarian aid in conflict

By Alice Read-Clarke Humanitarian aid is defined by the Global Humanitarian Assistance organisation as aid 'intended to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and after man-made crisis' (Global Humanitarian Assistance, 2017).

This type of aid is often given in conflict zones, ‘an area marked by extreme violence’ (MerriamWebster, n.d.). Conflict effects the local population as it causes illness and injury, as well as creating an environment where there may be harassment of specific groups and forced displacement. It can also result in the destruction of places of importance, crops, and economic and social infrastructure such as hospitals and schools (Perrin, 1998). It is important that countries and organisations with the financial means donate humanitarian aid to places in a state of conflict as they have a moral obligation to save the lives of and prevent the suffering of other human beings (Ball, n.d.). Between 2002 and 2011, 15 out of 20 of the countries which receive the largest amounts of humanitarian aid were either currently experiencing or had recently experienced major civil conflict (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Despite the necessity of humanitarian aid, there are many criticisms of its uses, particuarlly in conflict situations, where it can increase violence, prolong conflict, create further problems within the country of conflict and be used as a tool by the donor to push their own politics and policies.

The provision of humanitarian aid in conflict zones can be attributed to an increase in rebel violence.

There are two main ways in which this happens, the provision of aid to non-combatants can encourage looting by rebel forces as they attempt to acquire supplies, and where rebels see humanitarian aid projects and organisations as a political force or as a challenge to their local authority they are more likely to use violence as a means of control (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). In most conflict situations rebel groups are the weaker party and thus experience pressure to secure resources. Rebel organisations benefit massively from the procurement of aid packages as they do not need to process or sell any resources before they are beneficial; food, medical resources and vehicles can be put to immediate use (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Whilst looting supplies during the civil war in Sierra Leone, members of the Revolutionary United Front attacked, killed, and abducted refugees staying in camps along the Guinean border (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Rebels in Monrovia during the Liberian Civil War took possession of around $20 million of aid (Wood & Sullivan, 2015) and members of the Lord’s Resistance Army attacked inhabitants of a settlement camp in Uganda killing and kidnapping inhabitants whilst looting food and other supplies (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Moreover, rebels are likely to perceive aid organisations as a threat to their control of the local 11

population, particuarlly where they are seen as a tool of the government or where they advocate non-violence and reconciliation (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Studies

by Fiona Terry and Ashley Jackson & Antonio Giustozzi show links between neutrality of aid organisations and increased Taliban violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Furthermore, the high concentration of civillians that amass around aid sites presents the opportunity for rebel organisations to turn civillians to their cause. This gives them the ability to increase their control and access to the local population and aid resources, as well as their military and organisational capabilities, and they can act as a more significant challenge to the government (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). On the other hand, rebel organisations are likely to use violence, or the threat of it, to control local populations even where there are other feasible ways of gaining control, and unless aid groups work under the authority of rebel organisations violence is the most likely rebel strategy (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Whilst it can be argued that rebels are likely to resort to violence with or without the provision of aid, there is indisputable evidence that aid and the presence of organisations who provide it increases the risk of rebel violence and endangers civillians.

population, such as food, water, and shelter, meaning that the government can reallocate money that they had previously been spending on these basic needs to purchasing more weaponry. The diversion of these resources can thus result in greater amounts of violence from the state (Perrin, 1998). As discussed above, rebel forces often take control of and utilize aid, as well as using the populations of civillians who aggregate around aid sites as a recruitment source. It becomes difficult to distinguish rebels and civillians from each other, incentivising governments to attack areas such as refugee camps (Wood & Sullivan, 2015), increasing indiscriminate state violence. In Syria, government military forces killed civilians living in refugee camps outside Damascus when they suspected them of providing aid to rebelling forces (Wood & Sullivan, 2015).

Unlike the links between aid and rebel violence, there are many reasons why humanitarian aid may result in a decrease in state violence. Governments often utilise humanitarian aid as a force to reduce social and economic instability, as well as to increase civilian support for the state (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). The presence of the international community at aid sites results in heightened international scrutiny reducing the incidents of state violence (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Although it is possible to justify the increased violence of governments with the increased violence of rebel organisations, is clear that aid, and actions of rebel organisations around aid, threatens the safety of civilians.

Whilst the increase in rebel violence is more obvious and predictable, the provision of humanitarian aid can also increase violence from the state. Aid supports the basic needs of the 12

reasearch and evidence to back them up. For example, in situations where the government is weak, aid organisations may choose to set up a parallel economy or a health care system which is not associated with the state. Whilst the intentions of these schemes are positive, it can exacerbate the problems within the already weak state, quickening their collapse and increasing the risk of violence (Perrin, 1998).

Humanitarian aid is often organised or funded by world governments, even if it is distributed by NGO’s, meaning that they can use it to push their own foreign policies. This can result in ineffective aid, as well as aid which is rescinded when a recipient does not follow the requirements of the donor country.

Humanitarian aid can also result in a longer conflict than would have prehaps otherwise happened.

When citizens are being looked after by humanitarian aid schemes, there is less urgency for the conflict to be settled, and both governments and rebel groups can neglect the needs of their citizens choosing instead to spend their money on weaponry (Perrin, 1998).

This can lead to a prolonged conflict. The way in which aid is distributed can also impact on the duration of conflict. When humanitarian organisations begin distributing aid, they become part of the conflict. Although many organisations practise neutrality in volatile conflict situations, if they choose to show solidarity to one side, there is the possibility that the faction who receive help will be less willing to engage in peace negotiations (Smock, 1996).

Furthermore, there may be situations in which the NGO’s providing aid have more than the government - usually later on in a conflict - creating an imbalance, which makes it difficult for institutions to build peace (Smock, 1996). Despite this, the implementation of humanitarian aid in conflict zones can help to shorten conflicts by re-opening dialogue between warring parties (Perrin, 1998).

In conclusion, humanitarian aid in conflict zones has great potential to increase violence, both for rebel and state factions, as well as prolong conflicts, and push the political agendas of donors.

Despite these criticisms, humanitarian aid is vital in preserving the lives of noncombats and ensuring recovery, and for this reason should be present in conflicts. They must, however, be mindful of how they can perpetuate conflict and take steps to ensure that they are having the smallest negative impact possible.

Humanitarian aid in conflict zones can also have other negative impacts, although there is less

13

Veganism: Is it a better option?

By Rivi Lock-Phillips There are millions of vegans all over the world trying to persuade us to take up a vegan diet. What I want to know is; is veganism really better than any other diet? There are so many vegan celebrities such as Zac Efron, Jay-Z, Beyoncé, and Paul McCartney who believe that veganism is better for us and/or the planet. I have heard this several times, but I have never seen any actual evidence, so I decided to investigate it, to see if veganism really is better than a vegetarian or omnivorous diet.

Obviously, there is more than one factor to finding out how much better a vegan diet is than what we are used to. The factors I have researched are how veganism affects our physical health, the environment, and its natural resources.

A Harvard study has reached the conclusion that a healthy meal should consist of ¼ healthy protein-fish, poultry, beans, or nuts-, ¼ whole grains- brown bread, brown rice, or whole grain pasta-, 1/3 pasta and 1/6 fruits. The article states clearly that potatoes are not counted as vegetables. Harvard recommends drinking water, tea, or coffee, with a limited amount of dairy.

Firstly, to decide what diet is the best choice, you need to understand the differences between different diets. A traditional omnivorous diet is what most people are exposed to from a young age. This is a diet that includes meat, dairy, eggs, and other animal products. The most common vegetarian does not eat meat or fish but can eat other animal products.

There are 3 different types of vegetarians: lacto-ovo-vegetarians (who don’t eat meat, fish or shellfish but can eat eggs and dairy), lactovegetarians (who don’t eat meat, shellfish, fish or eggs but still consume dairy products), and ovovegetarians (who don’t eat meat, shellfish, fish or dairy but still eat eggs). People often get vegetarians confused with pescatarian, who can eat fish. Another common diet is flexitarianism, which is when a person is ‘semi-vegetarian’, and goes long periods of time without eating meat, but still eats it on some occasions.

Lastly, veganism is when a person cannot eat meat, fish, dairy or any other animal products. This has been seen as extreme in the past but is a growing concept.

Dr Ambika Satija led an investigation, published in 2017, in which she had followed the dietary data of more than 200,000 adults, of which 43,000 were male. Her team of researchers looked at the heart disease risk presented by 3 different categories of plant-based diets: A healthy plant-based diet, consisting of almost 100% healthy plant foods such as grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts, reducing consumption of less healthy plant foods and animal products; an unhealthy plant based diet consisting of less-healthy plant based options such as fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes and sweetened drinks; an overall plant-based diet which ‘emphasized consumption of all healthy plant foods’ and avoided animal products. As expected, the people following the healthy plantbased diet had the lowest risk of heart disease. They were also the fittest and most active group. However, those following an unhealthy plant-based diet may have actually had a higher 14

risk of heart disease than the average meat eater.

previously mentioned experiment, all 3 subjects lost weight. The bad cholesterol levels in the subjects dropped by 18-26 points in all subjects. There was also a significant drop in blood pressure in 2 of the subjects. A relatively low blood pressure indicates a healthy lifestyle, but if it gets below 90/60mmHg it could mean your heart is failing or you are suffering from liver disease.

Another study held in 2014 by the American Heart Association concluded that men ages 45-79 who ate more than 75g of processed red meat daily had a 28% higher risk of heart failure than men of the same age who consumed under 25g of red meat daily.

In 2011, a different experiment was held in which 3 people from completely different backgrounds took on the challenge of going vegan for 6 weeks. These people included a college student whose parents had been cooking meat dishes for her whole life, a 27-year-old bachelor who thought vegans were ‘from outer space’, and a working single mother with two children. They had the same intentions; to lose weight, look good and feel healthy. However, none of them thought they would stay vegan after the 6 weeks.

There are 2 types of ‘fake meat’- cell based protein and plant-based protein. Plant based protein-e.g., the Impossible Burger, the Beyond Burger- is where the protein is extracted from a plant and combined with other plant-based ingredients.

Cell based protein, however, is when a cell is extracted from an animal, then lab-grown to create meat. This is technically real animal meat, but because it does not involve animal slaughter, it is considered a loophole by some people. Examples of this include JUST Meat and Memphis Meats. Plant based proteins are much lower in calories compared to animal meat. The Impossible Whopper from Burger King is lower in calories, fat, and cholesterol than the regular Whopper burger. However, it contains much more sodium and processed ingredients (such as soy protein isolate and modified food starch) than the original Whopper. Obviously, plant-based proteins are manufactured products, so every product uses different ingredients.

This makes it a lot harder to figure out if they are better for you than real meat.

Within the first 2 weeks of the experiment, they reported feeling ‘lighter’ and getting stronger physically. Veganism has been demonstrated to do this in several cases; even I experienced it personally after going vegetarian. Veganism has been proven to benefit our health in other areas as well. It lowers the risk of several diseases such as colon cancer, with a strong link to red meat.

A vegan diet also reduces the risk of prostate cancer, which is linked to dairy. A vegan diet can almost prevent diabetes and treat it better than the American Dietetic Association diet can.

The biggest health issue that comes with a vegan or vegetarian diet is a lack of certain vitamins. Vitamin B12 is an essential vitamin found in fish, meat, dairy products, and eggs, so many vegetarians suffer from a B12 deficiency. A B12 deficiency can get as

Veganism can often make people look better as well. By this, I mean it helps people to lose weight. This also boosts people’s mental health when they feel confident in how they look. During the 15

bad as causing neurological and psychological disorders, megaloblastic anaemia and possibly Alzheimer’s disease. There are few vegan foods that provide B12. These include marmite, fortified cereals, nori seaweed and tempeh (a fermented soy product). Vegetarians can also be deficient in creatine, which is not essential to a diet, but is an easy-toaccess energy store for muscle cells.

Carnosine is an antioxidant found in meat, poultry, and fish. It is concentrated in our muscles and brains. Vitamin D3 is an essential nutrient mainly found in animalbased foods, and lack of it can cause illnesses such as osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease and depression. Heme iron can only be found in red meat, and it is a lot easier to absorb than non-heme iron, which can be found in plant foods, as it is not affected by antinutrients. However, if a vegan diet includes plenty of non-heme iron, anaemia is easy to prevent.

Docosahexaenoic acid is an essential fatty acid crucial to helping brain development and function. If a pregnant woman is deprived of this, her baby could end up with an underdeveloped brain. Lastly, taurine, which appears to help with muscle function, bile salt formation and antioxidant defences, is proven to be much less present in vegans compared to meat eaters.

listened to and read about the processes, and I was shocked by the cruelty going on behind closed doors.

Animals in farms are treated like machines, trapped in tight spaces on top of each other. People have been led to believe that free-range farms let their animals roam freely, but in reality, that could not be further from the truth. The only real difference between factory farms and cage-free farms is the fact that the hens are not in cages. Even in free range farms, chickens are only provided with 3 square feet of floor area. The hens still suffer from conditions that caged hens suffer from, like lung lesions and ammonia burns. Male chicks are often ground up or suffocated because they do not produce eggs and any meat they produce isn’t profitable.

These chicks will have never seen their own mother. According to the U.S. department of agriculture, animals in cage-free/ free-range farms are allowed to be “temporarily confined for reasons of health, safety, the animal’s stage of production or to protect soil or water quality”. Farmers will often take advantage of this loophole and use it as an excuse to barely let their animals outside. This is because birds make up for 9 of the 10 billion animals slaughtered worldwide for food every year. Another one of the most common animals farmed for food is cows. Even a vegetarian who doesn’t eat meat still has an effect on cows. Baby cows are taken from their mothers within 48 hours of birth, so that the mother’s milk can be taken and used for our own benefits. Male cows are either killed within several days of birth or grown until a certain age where they can be killed for meat. Female cows are forced to have babies so that humans can take their milk. If a cow suffers from a mental condition, it will oftentimes be shot in the head with a

Many people go vegan purely because they do not agree with the concept of eating animals. Paul and Linda McCartney, who are both devout vegans, said that “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian”. Oftentimes, people have seen footage of these slaughterhouses and they can never look at meat the same way. However, I am very squeamish, so I did not watch any actual videos of farms. Instead, I 16

bolt gun. This drives a steel bolt into the cow’s head, forcing a slow, painful death. However, if there wasn’t such a high demand for meat, would farms still have to use such harsh processes? Probably not.

vegans, as they’re versatile and you can find them almost anywhere.

Despite its ideal properties for us, WWF has named soy the “secondlargest agricultural driver, after beef”, but only 6% is consumed directly by humans. Most of the world’s soy produced goes towards feeding the meat and dairy industries.

So, a vegan diet would mean you don’t contribute to the slaughter of animals, but is it better for the environment itself? Well, as far as I’m aware it is. The UN declared this year that meat and dairy account for 14.5% of all manmade greenhouse gas emissions. According to a 2016 report, the world’s food-related carbon emissions could drop by 70% by 2050! Dairy milk produces more carbon emissions, uses more water and uses more than rice, soy oat and almond milk. To produce dairy milk, you need more than 3x the amount of land needed for any other milk. On top of this, cows produce methane when they fart, burp and breathe.

Methane is one of the biggest contributors to climate change, even above carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas. However, there are essential plants in a vegan diet that aren’t so environmentally friendly. We need more than 2,000 litres of water just to grow 1kg of avocados. Due to the sudden rise in demand for avocados, farmers have been forced to illegally cut down forests to grow the profitable crops. In Kenya, previously the 6th largest exporter of avocados, they have recently banned avocado trade due to the lack of supply in their own country. Australia has also reported a shortage of avocados, causing rationing. Soybeans are another essential protein provider for

Vegan diets almost always have a lower carbon, water and ecological footprint than a regular meat or fish eater, but if all your food is imported then you may even have a higher environmental footprint than that of a meat eater. In a 2017 study of more than 200,000 people, 2 of them were vegans who only ate fruit. Importing all of these foreign fruits has its impact on the environment, which might even be worse than the environmental impact of a meat eater.

However, newly introduced meat alternatives such as jackfruit haven’t been researched enough at the moment to know their true ecological footprint, though, so we can’t be sure.

In conclusion, a vegan diet is ideal for anyone who wants to lose weight, feel healthier or be kinder to the planet, but it all depends on what you eat. If you locally source, or even home grow your foods, you are reducing your carbon consumption by a huge amount. To stay healthy, all you have to do is make sure you get enough vitamins, either by taking supplements or eating nutrient-rich foods. If you’re considering going vegan, why not give it a try now?

17

The Monarchy: Does it benefit Britain’s Economy?

By Marie Weisheimer

Valued at £67bn, The Monarchy is Britain’s greatest treasure (Jagodzinski & Pannu). Brand Finance estimates that in 2017, The Monarchy's annual contribution to the UK's economy was £1.766bn (Jagodzinski & Pannu).

The contribution includes the Crown Estate’s surplus, which supplied £343.5million in 2018/19 (Bosley), as well as the Royal Family’s indirect influence on various industries. During the course of this essay, I will discuss to what extent the Royal Family benefits the UK's economy, and whether it is economically worthwhile to have a monarch.

achievements and contributions to society to be recognised. Therefore, Royal Patronages greatly benefit the UK's economy.

Furthermore, many royal events that take place are often broadcast, which has provided several benefits for the UK’s economy in the past and will continue to in the future.

When the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were wed, not only did half of the UK watch some of the wedding’s coverage, but several millions of people around the world watched too. The wedding was livestreamed seventy-two million times on YouTube, in over one hundred eighty-eight countries (Gibbs), which totals to more than two billion people globally (Haven-Tang).

The added value to Britain's 'brand' due to global media coverage is worth approximately £1bn (HavenTang), although the cost of the wedding was only just over £27million (Raphael).

This demonstrates how influential the young royals have been for both the public and The Monarchy’s image.

Richard Fitzwilliams, royal commentator, told Consumer News and Business Channel, “The colourful ceremonial of The Monarchy with links to the past, royal anniversaries, weddings and state visits, is much loved by the public as it attracts both national and international attention" (Gibbs).

Firstly, Royal Patronages, including Royal Ascot and Royal Opera House, greatly benefit the UK’s economy.

Ascot Racecourse is part of the Crown Estate, a property business owned by The Monarch but run independently, and the Royal Family regularly attends horseracing events at Royal Ascot. The Royal Family's interest in horseracing attracts many members of the public to Ascot Racecourse.

Consequently, Ascot Racecourse generates millions of pounds each year, with £68million spent in 2013 on off-course expenditure by the public (Gibbs). Having a Royal patron or president provides vital publicity for the work of these organisations and allows their 18

In total, the UK's economy benefited from £107 million profit from Prince William's and Kate's Middleton’s wedding (Wood). On the other hand, the news broadcast about the Royal Family can also be infamous, such as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s move to California.

However, the majority of news broadcasted about the Royal Family is positive and provides benefits to the UK's economy.

The Queen herself showing support for more than six hundred.

Moreover, the Royal Warrant also benefits the UK’s economy. Having a Royal Warrant makes a great marketing tool domestically and abroad. There are currently around eight-hundred holders of the Royal Warrant (Smith), ranging from individual craftsmen to giant companies like Aston Martin and Fortnum and Mason. The Queen is great for branding, as she remains one of the strongest symbols of the UK for the rest of the world, instantly conveying its tradition and history. Her Majesty is a great fashion inspiration and seen as an idol to some, and the majority of The Queen’s dresses inspire members of the public to buy the same dress. Many get their inspiration for fashion and home style from The Queen and the Royal Family. If a dress is worn by royalty, it increases the chances of consumers purchasing the same dress by 47% (Smith). After the birth of Princess Charlotte, the UK’s Centre for Retail Research estimated it would trigger not only a short-term boost of £80 million for the economy, but the fact that Kate gave birth to a girl, could be crucial to the UK’s fashion and retail sales in the long term (Gibbs).

Additionally, the majority of the Royal Family’s members are involved with charitable organisations. For example, The Prince of Wales has been involved in charitable events for over 35 years and is estimated to have raised £100million annually to his causes (Gibbs). In 1979, he founded ‘The Prince of Wales’s Charitable Foundation’, one of the UK’s largest independent foundations, while his charitable work also encompasses the United States, Australia, and multiple countries in South Asia.

The charity founded by the Prince of Wales supports the built environment, responsible business and enterprise, young education, and global sustainability.

In addition, The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, founded by Prince Phillip, works to increase opportunities for young people to develop essential life skills by doing their Duke of Edinburgh Award. In total, around three thousand charities have been established with the help of members of the Royal Family, with

Unsurprisingly, the largest benefit provided by the Royal Family is the tourism attracted from all around the world.

The Royals are intrinsically linked with the UK’s international image and most 19

tourists plan a visit to one of the many iconic properties owned by the Royal Family. More than 60% of overseas visitors who come to Britain visit places associated with the Royal Family. VisitBritain says that visits to royal landmarks such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year (Euronews.travel). Visitors to the UK who are drawn in by British culture and heritage, spend in the region of £4.5bn annually, with profits of over £485 million (euronews.travel). Approximately, £500 million of the total sum is attributed to attractions and events connected to the Royal Family, from the past and the present. The UK's Association of Leading Visitor Attractions claimed that at Prince William and Kate’s Middleton’s wedding in 2011, an additional 600,000 people visited London for the weekend, and spent more than £107million on that weekend alone (Haven-Tang). Tourism Manager said William and Kate brought priceless publicity and some tourism businesses reported a 20% in business in 2011 (Haven-Tang).

Queen is given a single payment by the government every year called the Sovereign Grant. Last year this was set at £85.9million, which is the equivalent of £1.29 per person in the UK (Edgington). This money comes from UK taxpayers, although the Royal Family themselves do not pay taxes. This is often seen as unfair, unjust and a waste of money.

Some think that the Royal Family is prodigal, and the money would be more useful and meaningful elsewhere.

In conclusion, The Monarchy benefits the UK's economy to a certain extent due to the impacts on various industries that the Royal Family influences, including Royal Patronages; news and broadcasting; charities; The Royal Warrant; and tourism.

In opposition, The Monarchy does provide additional costs to the UK's taxpayers, which can be prodigal and unjust as the Royal Family themselves do not pay taxes. Overall, the Royal Family is commensurately innocuous, and provides numerous benefits to the UK's economy.

On the other hand, The Monarchy has sometimes been described as an expensive institution, with royal finances shrouded in confusion and secrecy. In reality, the Royals are committed to ensuring that money is spent as wisely and efficiently as possible, and to making royal finances as transparent and comprehensible as possible. The 20

21