terrastendo

Free range is not the answer

July 22, 2016 1:02 am

“If cattle were to form their own nation, they would rank third behind China and the United States among the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.”

World Resources Institute 2016 [1]

Ceres Agricultural Company Pty Ltd has applied to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to register a Free Range Pasture Finished certification trademark in respect of cattle raised for slaughter within the food production system. This is my submission (in conjunction with Vegan Australia) in response to the application.

The submission highlights some of the many detrimental impacts of beef production.

Here’s the Executive Summary:

General

Whether produced in free range or more intensive systems, red meat is extremely detrimental to animals, human health and the environment.

Animal Health and Welfare

Many exemptions in favour of the livestock sector apply to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals legislation in Australia (and similar legislation elsewhere), thereby permitting cruelty.
There are no legislated free range standards, and the standards proposed by Ceres offer only limited protection to animals.
Free range animals are usually slaughtered at the same abattoirs as more intensively farmed animals. Regardless of the effectiveness or otherwise of different stunning methods, the sights, sounds and smells of an abattoir create a terrifying experience for animals awaiting their fate.

Safety of Meat

The evidence of red and processed meat’s adverse health impacts is overwhelming, whether or not produced in a free range system.
Oxford University researchers have estimated that that if the global population were to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet, more than 7 million lives would be saved per year by 2050 due to reductions in the rate of coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, and type 2 diabetes. More than half the avoided deaths would be due to reduced red meat consumption.

Environment

Beef production is a key contributor to global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, introduction of invasive pasture grasses, loss of biodiversity, and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.
In addition to dealing with coal-fired power, we will not achieve a critical threshold level of 350 parts per million of CO₂ in the atmosphere without massive reforestation. The only way to meaningfully reforest in the context of the climate emergency is to reduce the extent of animal agriculture.
Beef from grass-fed cattle is far more emissions intensive than beef from mixed feed systems, involving grain and grass.

What is the Answer?

Ceres’ proposed CTM certification may cause consumers to wrongly believe that critical problems involved in red meat production do not exist in relation to the relevant products.
As such, we believe the proposed certification should be considered unacceptable in terms of the spirit, and potentially the letter, of consumer protection regulations.
A general transition from animal-based to plant-based diets is essential if we wish to maximise our effectiveness in protecting the environment, avoiding catastrophic climate change, preventing animal cruelty, and achieving optimum human health.

Author

Paul Mahony

Reference

[1] Ranganathan, J. and Waite, R., “Sustainable Diets: What you need to know in 12 charts”, World Resources Institute, 20th April, 2016, http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/sustainable-diets-what-you-need-know-12-charts

Image

skeeze | Pixabay.com | CC0 Public Domain

Posted by Paul Mahony

Categories: animal cruelty, Animal Rights, Climate Change, Environment, Health

Tags: animal agriculture, animal cruelty, Animal Rights, climate, climate change, environment, Factory farming, Free range, livestock, sustainability

« Older Newer »

4 Responses to “Free range is not the answer”

I enjoyed reading this thorough, factual and respectful analysis by Paul Mahony and could not agree more. I will forward this to friends and family members who might still doubt. This is the way to win people’s hearts and minds and most importunity in this context their taste buds.

Last week 150 or so very intelligent scientist wrote an open letter to Malcolm Turnbull urging him to take more action mitigating Climate Change. Amazing that one of its biggest contributors to pollution ‘meat production’ as it called euphemistically was excluded. As if these writers were blindfolded for some undeniable facts. This is nothing new. Same phenomenon in the USA where Greenpeace focusses exclusively on fossil fuel emitters and treats the meat industry like a sacred cow.

We should however, not wait for others to take action on our behalf: we can have an impact immediately by making a conscientious choice what we put on our plates. Eating a Whole Food Plant Based diet (avoiding the risk to be a ‘junk-vegan’) is at this stage convincingly the nutritional pattern promoting longevity and health for human beings (www.pcrm.org). Moreover our livestock/fish and our planet will no longer suffer. Three compelling argument to make the change now.

I want to stress that agriculture has the time to change: berries for dairy has shown to work in Finland were the farmers were supported to move away form Milk production in favour of planting crops and berries for human consumption. We are not against farmers. To the contrary. Overtime Australia should become a plant food bowl.

Hope to meet you all at the Vegan Festival in Melbourne or Adelaide where my wife Heleen and I will give talks mainly focussing on the human/health benefits. The omnivorous western diet has truly spoiled our health.

Adelaide Dr Alphonse Roex, MD PhD Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, WFPB doctor.

By Alphonse Roex on August 31, 2016 at 7:28 pm
1. Thank you Alphonse for your feedback and additional thoughts.
  
  By terrastendo on August 31, 2016 at 11:00 pm
Hi

Appreciate your huge contribution to the animal welfare issue; just like to share with you the slaughter process and my observation / theory.

I âworkedâ at an abbatoir for 6 weeks (over 40 years ago) and in the ensuing years of anti- vegetarian abuse I have challenged âthemâ to go and work and/or observe the process; that the animals are âall knowingâ totally terrified with fear levels easily seen in the eyes of the animals as they are herded into the slaughter house.

My argument to âthemâ is that âyou as a meat eater are ingesting extreme levels of stress hormones that are damaging to your health.â

I have always wondered why tests are not done to demonstrate the stress hormones levels of slaughtered animals; given the âresearchâ re red meat eaters and cancer link.

People who work in the process of slaughter of animals are âdesensitizedâ to the process and the industry peddle rhetoric of reassurance of how considerate they are being in the process; the carrot being the profit / greed component.

I have retired from years of work as a Stress Consultant Counsellor with PTSD sufferers; too high a level of stress hormones create trauma and aggression.

Hope this makes sense and thank you for challenging the barbaric system that contributes to the violence in our society. Sylvia Thompson. sylord@bigpond.com

By sylord on July 22, 2016 at 10:20 am
1. Thanks for your feedback and insights Sylvia, which are greatly appreciated.
  
  By terrastendo on July 22, 2016 at 10:57 pm

Mobile Site | Full Site

Get a free blog at WordPress.com Theme: WordPress Mobile Edition by Alex King.