The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) describes itself as “an active, powerful lobby group dedicated to the interests of farmers and making a difference to communities”.
On 5th January 2018, the organisation issued a statement in which it said it had “slammed” key aspects of the Victorian state government’s recently released animal welfare action plan.
In what he described as a “stern warning to government”, president David Jochinke condemned the proposal to introduce the concept of sentience to animal welfare legislation.
In its action plan, the government had described “sentience” as the notion that animals “experience feelings and emotions such as pleasure, comfort, discomfort, fear and pain”. Similarly, the Oxford dictionary defines the adjective “sentient” as “able to perceive or feel things“.
The government’s examples of pleasure and fear are psychological in nature, while comfort, discomfort and pain can be psychological and physical.
In condemning the government’s proposal, was Jochinke implying that animals do not experience physical and psychological pain?
Alternatively, was he implying that any pain they may experience does not matter?
Jochinke claimed the proposal would “introduce language into law that can be manipulated by animal extremists for their own purposes”.
It is easy to brand people as “extremists” when they act on the belief that animals have a right to live without being exploited by farmers and others.
Are those farmers not extreme when they harm animals? At the present time (as referred to in more detail below), they are permitted to perform acts that would be illegal if they involved a companion animal such as a dog or cat.
The “purposes” of so-called “animal extremists” generally involve protecting the interests of animals, unlike the profit motive, at animals’ expense, of most farmers.
Cartesian scientists and farmers
The term “Cartesian scientists” stems from the seventeenth century philosopher René Descartes, who argued that only humans have minds and therefore the ability to think. His followers took the argument to also mean that animals cannot feel.
In his book “Animals like us”, author Mark Rowlands wrote:
“If you were an animal in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, then one of the things you should have made a point of avoiding would be Cartesian scientists. If not, then, you could expect to find yourself nailed to a vivisection board, being slowly cut open. You would be conscious throughout. The Cartesian scientists did not take any steps to prevent your suffering or pain for one very simple reason: they did not believe you were capable of suffering or feeling pain.”
Like most of us, VFF and its members may be horrified by the actions of Cartesians, as described by Rowlands. However, routine actions of farmers at the current time, with the full support of the law, are also deplorable. Such actions are currently permitted by means of exemptions to the erroneously titled “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act”.
As I have stated elsewhere, the government continues to outrageously claim the exemptions do not permit cruelty to occur when, by their nature, they do.
Here are a few examples (generally performed without pain prevention or relief): hot-iron branding; tail docking; ear notching; teeth clipping; castration; dehorning; removal of toe segments; lifelong confinement indoors (often in cages); forced separation of mothers and babies; and forced breeding, often involving stimulation by humans, penetration with artificial devices, and ongoing confinement.
A key concern for farmers
In an article written for Stock and Land, VFF livestock president, Leonard Vallance, stated:
“The introduction of sentience into law will only provide a platform for the argument against the existence of farm animal production systems as has been exposed by extremists in Europe.”
If Vallance is seeking to indicate that horrific routine practices only occur overseas, then his claim is not valid. Such practices have been extensively exposed in Australia, with a prominent example being the Aussie Farms website.
Vallance’s concerns about a platform for arguments against farm animal production systems may be well founded. Legislation that acknowledged sentience and was claimed by its authors to promote care and respect of animals, while also allowing acts of cruelty, could be regarded as callous and contradictory.
There is no indication in the government’s action plan that it intends removing legislative exemptions. Indeed, the plan appears to strongly support the livestock sector.
Even where standards or codes of practice stipulate protective practices, they are often vague and therefore easy to overlook. For example, the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Sheep specify that “sheep and lambs should be provided with adequate shelter”. They go on to say that, in the absence of natural protection, “consideration should be given” to the provision of shade, windbreaks or sheds.
Farmers may briefly consider such measures, without necessarily doing anything about them. It was estimated in 2012 that around 15 million lambs die each year in Australia within 48 hours of birth due to inadequate protection in bitterly cold conditions.
VFF vice president creates a new word
The VFF’s vice president, Brett Hosking, recently released a video on Twitter, expressing concern over the government’s action plan. In it, he appears to have created a new word, “sentenance”. He used it or “sentinent” four times, presumably intending to mean “sentience” and “sentient”.
Hosking only referred to the psychological aspects, failing to acknowledge the physical component. (He used words such as “emotions”, “thoughts”, “happy”, “sad”, “nervous”, “anxious”, “scared”, “afraid” and “excited”.)
As indicated by these comments, he is not convinced that any animals are “sentinent”:
“Whether animals are ‘sentinent’ or not, I’m not really sure. I like to think that when my dog runs up to see me in the morning that he’s running up because he wants to hang out with me because I’m a fun fellow, but it could be just instinct because he’s used to, you know, [he] knows that things are all right when I’m around.”
He also reiterated a point made by VFF in its statement, by arguing that using the word “sentinent” in legislation would mean, “what we’re kind of saying is that animal welfare depends on the animal, not on the person doing it.”
The VFF’s statement argued: “Animal welfare law is about addressing human behaviour towards animals, not addressing animals”.
Leonard Vallance made a similar point in his article.
In his video, Hosking went on to say:
“It’s kind of like saying that if the animal doesn’t get sad or upset, then it’s all right to be cruel to them, and that doesn’t really rest easy with me. [It’s a] little bit like saying it’s okay to discriminate against someone as long as they don’t realise it’s happened.”
That is a fallacious argument, in that it fails to acknowledge the fact that all animals farmed by VFF members are sentient. Hosking and VFF seemingly fail to accept that the existence of animal sentience, and the need to prevent cruel practices, are inextricably linked.
With the Victorian government failing to indicate it will remove legislative exemptions in favour of the livestock sector, along with the VFF’s attitude toward sentience, what chance do “production” animals have of avoiding cruelty?
The most effective way to minimise cruelty in food consumption is to avoid animal-based products. We have a choice, and should use it for the benefit of those who have none.
This post highlights some material from this site’s memes and charts page, focusing on animal slaughter and meat production figures from 1961 to 2016.
Although there appears to have been significant progress in veganism (from a small base) in many countries, there is a long way to go on a global basis, with a strong overall increase in slaughter numbers over the full period and in recent years. For example, in the ten years from 2006 to 2016, the annual number of animals slaughtered globally increased by 19 billion, or 34 per cent, to 74.1 billion.
In 2016, we slaughtered a staggering 2,352 animals per second, on average.
The animals paying the highest price are chickens. In 2016, 65.8 billion of them were slaughtered for meat, representing 89 per cent of the total. The figure does not include male chicks gassed or macerated (using a conveyor belt and industrial grinder) on the first day of life in the egg industry. As they cannot lay eggs, they are considered waste.
There has been an increasing preference for the flesh of chickens over the flesh of other animals, such as cattle and sheep. As highlighted in my article, The global slaughter index, anyone adopting such an approach is massively increasing their cruelty footprint.
In the USA, 182 chickens are required to replace the meat from one cow. The figure varies by country, and depends on the average yield of meat from each species. In Australia, 138 chickens are required.
Whether they are a chicken or a cow, animals suffer in almost unimaginable ways. They are regarded by the livestock sector as products or commodities, bred simply for the purpose of being killed. The horror includes legalised and routine cruelty, including practices such as: mutilation without pain prevention or relief; lifelong confinement indoors; and forced breeding with human intervention.
By definition, any form of human intervention is unnatural, and livestock production represents an extreme example.
Here are the latest figures for the world, USA and Australia. The charts reflect absolute and “per person” figures.
Global
USA
Australia
Conclusion
We have been conditioned socially, culturally and commercially to ignore the horror that exists behind these charts. They represent hell on earth for animals, but animals are not the only ones paying a price.
Animal-based food production is a grossly and inherently inefficient method of satisfying our nutritional requirements. That is a key factor in it having a far greater impact on the natural environment and the existential threat of climate change than animal-free options. It causes us to use far more resources, including land, than would otherwise be required, and is not sustainable on a scale required to feed the masses.
The livestock sector, with the mass slaughter and environmental destruction it entails, may seem like a juggernaut, but the juggernaut can be stopped. Recognition of its massive scale and impact is an essential step on that path.
The article was published at 12.13 am on 10th January 2018 Australian eastern summer time, which was 9th January in most parts of the world, including North America.
I did not expect to see significant improvements for animals in the Victorian government’s recently released Animal Welfare Action Plan, so I was not surprised when I read it. [Footnote 1]
It has outlined four areas for action: policy and legal framework; collaboration; education; and compliance and enforcement.
A draft version was released in 2016, and I highlighted two key points in my response:
Exemptions to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in favour of animal-based industries permit horrendous acts of cruelty to occur on a routine basis.
The community should be informed of the reality through advertising, public relations and product labelling, to enable informed purchasing decisions.
Neither issue has been addressed in the final plan, despite references to “care and respect” and “consumer confidence” (as referred in more detail below).
The government still claims elsewhere, as it has for over three years, that the exemptions do not permit cruelty to occur. That is an outrageous claim, which shows no respect for animals or people seeking information on the issue. By their nature, the exemptions permit cruelty.
Such government doublespeak is consistent with the failure to adequately address community education in the plan, with its intention (for example) to communicate “information about . . . good practice husbandry”, as referred to under the item “improve general animal welfare knowledge”.
It appears that most animals have again been abandoned for the sake of political support from animal-based industries and others, with the government trying to give the impression that something meaningful has been achieved. (In referring to “most animals”, I note that the government has indicated there are more that 150 million farm animals in Victoria, compared to 6.7 million companion animals.)
The focus is unashamedly welfare rather than rights. A welfare approach treats the question of rights as a one-way street by taking the position that humans have the right to exploit animals.
It looks like a business plan
The banner heading for the plan’s vision and purpose is: “Victoria cares”
But does it?
The vision:
“A Victoria that fosters the caring and respectful treatment of animals.”
The purpose: “To ensure Victoria continues to improve animal welfare and is well respected globally for animal welfare practices.”
It seems the plan has been created largely with the aim of ensuring that Victoria is well respected globally, with the related aim of protecting export markets.
Most animals are clearly regarded by the government as products, with reference to “production animals” and “ethical and responsible animal production”. However, it is not in an animal’s interest to become someone else’s product.
That means they are being exploited.
Exploitation is unethical.
It is irresponsible.
It does not reflect “caring and respectful treatment”.
With contradictions such as those, the “vision and purpose” statement does not represent a strong base on which to establish a plan for the benefit of animals. They are only some of the contradictions and inconsistencies within, or related to, the plan.
The vision statement also refers to the need to avoid “unnecessary” harm. However, it is all unnecessary. For example, in respect of diet, both the American Dietetic Association and Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council have written favourably about a vegan approach.
Within her foreword to the plan, the minister for agriculture, Jaala Pulford, states (with my underlines):
“The government is also committed to promoting market access and maintaining consumer confidence in Victoria’s livestock industries.”
The economic theme is prominent throughout. Here are some more examples (with my underlines):
“The way animals are treated reflects on Victoria’s national and international reputation, including market access, consumer confidence and the ability to create and sustain jobs.”
“Australian and overseas markets are experiencing growing demand for humane and responsibly produced food. Many of the world’s food production companies are setting animal welfare standards for their suppliers. Many industry quality assurance programs include animal welfare requirements to provide confidence to consumers and markets about Victoria’s standard of care for production animals. This is important to maintain and expand Victoria’s domestic and global market access in an environment where there is growing demand for animal products that are produced in animal welfare credentialed systems.”
“The new Act must be capable of evolving to keep pace with animal welfare science, community expectations, industry practices, and domesticand international market access opportunities.”
“For example, Victoria’s agricultural industries recognise that animal welfare underpins productivity.”
“The Victorian Government values and continues to support key animal industries and activities, such as agriculture, sport, recreation (including hunting and fishing), research and teaching, invasive species management, pets, breeding and exhibition.”
I accept that economic issues need to be treated seriously by governments. However, animals should not be forced to pay the price for the well-being of the human population. The government is virtually admitting that “production animals” are regarded as economic cannon fodder, while pretending to be concerned about them.
Other animals, such as those used in research, sport and entertainment, are suffering a similar fate, with financial motives again often playing a part.
Some more contradictions and a massive generalisation
In her foreword, Jaala Pulford also states (with my underlines) that we all have a role to play in ensuring the welfare of pets, farm animals and wild animals.
Similarly, the minister’s ambassador for animal welfare, Lizzie Blandthorn, states that we must protect animals from cruelty and support their quality of life, including on farms and in their natural environment.
Those statements are from members of a government that (as indicated earlier) exempts many animal-based industries from the provisions of cruelty prevention legislation.
They are from members of a government that permits the shooting of ducks, kangaroos and other wild animals as “recreation”.
Allowing people to shoot animals “in their natural environment” is not my idea of protecting animals from cruelty. Many suffer horrendously before dying, and those left behind in their family and social groups are forced to fend for themselves, if they are able. Many victims of shooting are supposedly protected species.
A grave concern in respect of kangaroos is that the prime targets of shooters are the largest, strongest individuals, with potentially critical impacts on the prospects of their mob (the term used to describe their group), along with the gene pool and the resilience of the species in increasingly challenging environmental conditions.
The minister also claims that “animal welfare matters to all Victorians”. That is a massive generalisation in a state of over six million people.
Sentience
Much of the media reporting of the plan’s release focused on the intention to recognise animal sentience within legislation. However, that may be a form of tokenism, without meaningful benefits for animals.
According to the plan:
“Science demonstrates that animals are sentient. This means they experience feelings and emotions such as pleasure, comfort, discomfort, fear and pain. Sentience is the primary reason that animal welfare is so important. All people and industries within Victoria have a responsibility to treat all animals with care and respect.”
Do we really need science to tell us that? Any child who has interacted with an animal knows it.
As to treating animals with “care and respect”, here are some examples of practices permitted by legislative exemptions, most of which I highlighted in a letter to the minister in March 2016 and in my plan submission:
Pigs:
life-long confinement indoors;
confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
tail docking, ear notching, teeth clipping and castration, all without anaesthetic or subsequent pain relief.
The Australian pig industry’s so-called voluntary ban on sow stalls allows them to be used for up to eleven days per pregnancy, and is not be binding on individual producers. In any event, the ability to monitor compliance is questionable, while the alternative of “group housing” is also inherently cruel.
The industry has not indicated any action in respect of farrowing crates, which are even more restrictive than sow stalls.
Chickens and turkeys:
life-long confinement indoors, including (for egg-laying hens) cages;
beak trimming of chickens without anaesthetic;
removing the snood of turkeys (the skin drooping from the forehead) without anaesthetic;
removing terminal segment of males’ inward pointing toes without anaesthetic;
killing of “surplus” chicks (mainly male) in the egg industry through gassing with CO2 or by “quick maceration”, whereby they are sent along a conveyor belt to an industrial grinder while still alive.
Cattle:
castration without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age;
dehorning without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age;
disbudding (prior to horns growing) without anaesthetic. Caustic chemicals may be used for that process under certain circumstances, including an age of less than fourteen days;
hot iron branding without anaesthetic;
forced separation of cows and calves in the dairy industry within a day of birth to enable human access to the cow’s milk, with most male calves being sent to slaughter and many females retained for future production.
All:
forced breeding, often involving stimulation by humans, penetration with artificial devices, and ongoing confinement.
Here’s an image of a calf being branded with a hot iron, which I included in my submission responding to the draft plan.
Here’s an example of group housing of sows, which is the main alternative to sow stalls. [Footnote 2]
What appears to be the intended continuation of exemptions in respect of practices such as those described above is particularly damning when a stated outcome in relation to the legal framework is for the law to provide for “reasonable and considerate treatment of all animals, regardless of species, use or activity”.
Does this mean that the relevant practices are considered “reasonable and considerate” for “production animals”, when many could result in jail terms if committed on companion animals?
Conclusion
With the release of the new plan, the Victorian government has effectively abandoned animals and misled the community. The plan represents a classic and tragic example of government doublespeak and disregard for others. We and the animals deserve much better.
For the purpose of the article, my usage of the word “animal” is based on the definition used in the plan, being “an animal covered by Victorian animal welfare legislation”.
In nature, pigs are clean animals, and do not defecate where they eat and sleep. Wallowing in mud is an evolved behaviour, which they share with other animals, such as the hippopotamus. In a paper published in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science, researcher Marc Bracke from the Wageningen University and Research Centre reported that pigs and other wallowing animals did not develop functional sweat glands because wallowing was a part of their lifestyle. The mud now helps them to regulate their body temperature. Most pigs and other production animals lack the opportunity to undertake natural behaviours, with resultant detrimental impacts on their well-being.
You indicated in your comment that we had “chatted” about your approach previously. However, I received little more than the following comment:
“#beefjam is a project collaboration with @Target100AUS amazeballs crew.”
You never responded to my Facebook question of 25th July 2015:
“What about misinformation promoted by Target 100 and published by Meat & Livestock Australia in the form of its primary level (age 5-12) ‘study guide’, ‘Cattle and the environment‘?“
You have also not responded to the straightforward questions contained in my latest article, as referred to above.
Nor have you commented on these extracts from that article:
The links between YFM and the livestock sector also include the fact that co-founder, Joanna Baker, spent nearly two years (while also holding senior positions with YFM) as manager for membership, communications and policy at Dairy Connect. That organisation describes itself as “an advocacy body, 100% focused on being the voice for all partners in the dairy industry”. xxx
The other YFM co-founder, Alexandra Iljadica, was a speaker at the two-day 2016 Australian Dairy Conference, sharing speaking duties with high-profile industry participants. She was given two speaking opportunities; a plenary speech and a workshop, with the title of the latter being, “How to herd consumers toward Australian dairy: A workshop in human behaviour change”.
As I said in my Facebook comments, the issues apply to much more than BeefJam, including the forced and permanent separation of cows and calves as a fundamental aspect of dairy production in all its forms (with the calves sent to slaughter or retained to become dairy cows themselves). Also the maceration (and other forms of killing) of male chicks as a fundamental aspect of supplying layer hens for all forms of egg production.
I would have thought the issues I have raised would be of interest to many of your subscribers, volunteers and others who follow you, including people who have attended your “meet the maker” events (including the event with dairy and egg producers) and those who generally rely on your “food education projects”.
I look forward to hearing from you in a display of your professed values of transparency and authenticity.
I have written three articles dealing with Youth Food Movement Australia (YFM) and its relationships with the animal agriculture sector. Links to the articles can be found below this post, which outlines some questions for the organisation in the form of memes.
Some of the memes refer to “BeefJam”, which was a project in which YFM collaborated with “Target 100”, an initiative of: Meat & Livestock Australia; Australian Lot Feeders Association; Sheep Meat Council of Australia; Cattle Council of Australia; and Australian Meat Industry Council.
YFM has described BeefJam as “a 3-day event that takes young producers and consumers on a crash course of the Australian beef supply chain and gives them 48hrs to reshape the way we grow, buy and eat our red meat.”
I’ve seen some very slick videos released jointly by Target 100 and YFM about the event that look to me like promotions for the meat industry. However, I have seen no evidence of the fifteen “young consumers” and “young producers” who attended reshaping the industry.
The links between YFM and the livestock sector also include the fact that co-founder, Joanna Baker, spent nearly two years (while also holding senior positions with YFM) as manager for membership, communications and policy at Dairy Connect. That organisation describes itself as “an advocacy body, 100% focused on being the voice for all partners in the dairy industry”.
The other YFM co-founder, Alexandra Iljadica, was a speaker at the two-day 2016 Australian Dairy Conference, sharing speaking duties with high-profile industry participants. She was given two speaking opportunities; a plenary speech and a workshop, with the title of the latter being, “How to herd consumers toward Australian dairy: A workshop in human behaviour change”.
I believe it is important for YFM to keep in mind its professed values of transparency and authenticity and its stated role of running “food education projects for young people”.
Here are the memes. I hope they cause those involved with YFM to consider issues involved in food consumption beyond those that the organisation appears to have addressed to date.
Conclusion
I believe any group that states its mission is to “grow a generation of young Australians empowered with the ability to make healthy and sustainable food choices” must highlight the issues raised in this post.
I look forward to seeing if YFM addresses the issues in future.
Kroon, F., Turner, R., Smith, R., Warne, M., Hunter, H., Bartley, R., Wilkinson, S., Lewis, S., Waters, D., Caroll, C., 2013 “Scientific Consensus Statement: Sources of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment”, Ch. 4, p. 12, The State of Queensland, Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, July, 2013, http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/scientific-consensus-statement/sources-of-pollutants.aspx
Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, 2016. Land cover change in Queensland 2015–16: Statewide Landcover and Trees Study report. DSITI, Brisbane
Wedderburn-Bisshop, G., Longmire, A., Rickards, L., “Neglected Transformational Responses: Implications of Excluding Short Lived Emissions and Near Term Projections in Greenhouse Gas Accounting”, International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2015, pp.11-27. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Published Online: August 17, 2015, http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.269
Springmann, M., Godfray, H.C.J., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., “Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change”, PNAS 2016 113 (15) 4146-4151; published ahead of print March 21, 2016, doi:10.1073/pnas.1523119113, (print edition 12 Apr 2016), http://www.pnas.org/content/113/15/4146.full and http://www.pnas.org/content/113/15/4146.full.pdf
I have written previously of my concerns regarding the practices of Youth Food Movement Australia (YFM). Those concerns relate primarily to YFM’s close relationship with the meat and dairy industries, while seemingly saying nothing meaningful (and possibly nothing at all) about the negative impacts of those industries in terms of animal cruelty, environmental damage (including climate change) and human health.
Is its failure to highlight such issues inconsistent with the group’s stated values of authenticity and transparency? Possibly, but I am not in a position to explain its reasons for ignoring such critical issues.
However, I am able to convey publicly available information about the group’s involvement with the industries.
I admit to finding it odd that co-founder Joanna Baker, while still in senior positions with YFM, spent nearly two years as manager for membership, communications and policy with Dairy Connect, an organisation advocating on behalf of the dairy industry.
I am uncomfortable with the industry relationships in the context of YFM describing its role “in a nutshell” as running “food education projects for young people”.
It also claims to “provide a place – be that in pubs, in living rooms, on laptop screens – for information and skills to be exchanged and for learning to happen”.
I recently discovered another industry relationship in the form of co-founder Alexandra Iljadica’s involvement in the two-day 2016 Australian Dairy Conference.
Iljadica was a presenter, sharing speaking duties with industry luminaries such as: Abhy Maharaj, Chief Financial Officer and Commercial Director of Fonterra Australia; Barry Irvin, Executive Chair of Bega Cheese Ltd; and Philip Tracey, the then Chair of Murray Goulburn (at the time Australia’s largest dairy company and co-operative).
She was given two speaking opportunities; a plenary speech and a workshop. I found the online workshop slide show of particular interest.
Remember that Iljadica at the time was a founding director, and soon to be CEO, of a group that has said its mission is to “grow a generation of young Australians empowered with the ability to make healthy and sustainable food choices”.
A group with stated values (as mentioned earlier) of authenticity and transparency.
But also a group whose co-founder and future CEO presented a workshop session at the 2016 national dairy industry conference with the title:
“HOW TO HERD CONSUMERS TOWARD AUSTRALIAN DAIRY: A WORKSHOP IN HUMAN BEHAVIOUR CHANGE”
Is that the aim, regardless of the consequences for the animals, the planet and the health of YFM supporters and others who follow them?
So what are Iljadica’s recommended methods for herding youthful consumers toward the dairy industry?
Her tips (citing the book “Changeology” by Les Robinson) included (among six necessary characteristics overall): “positive buzz”; “an enabling environment”; and “the right inviter”
Immediately after Iljadica’s slides listed the six characteristics, another asked how those characteristics might apply to dairy.
Immediately following that came the concluding “thank you” slide, showing a YFM registration desk and people wearing YFM gear at an outdoor event.
The message I took from the slide show (without attending the presentation itself): The “right inviter” for the dairy industry, and the group with the other necessary characteristics, is Youth Food Movement Australia.
Do you love dairy? Please check out this video of forced separation of mothers and calves on a Tasmanian dairy farm. This standard practice occurs for the purpose of ensuring the mothers’ milk finds its way to supermarket shelves rather than the calves’ stomachs. The calves are generally either slaughtered for meat or raised for a life of misery as producers of milk many times beyond what would occur naturally, enduring physical and psychological distress and many more forced separations.
Caption: “As I was around these dairy farms, there were just paddocks full of calves without their mothers. Calling for their mothers, just so alone. There was one paddock that had recently been occupied by bobby calves, and as I was walking along the fence next to the main road, I saw a dead calf lying on the ground. He was not more than a week dead, he just lay there in the paddock. I discovered another dead calf further along the fence, that had also died alone, without his mother. This was just next to the fence, on the main road, so I can’t imagine how many more would have died out of sight. Both dead calves that I found would have had mothers that loved them and cared for them, and that right was taken away from them just so someone can have a glass of her milk.I can’t imagine their pain. Witness #4″
The New South Wales government’s Office of Environment and Heritage has just announced the winners of its 2017 Green Globe Awards, which are supposedly designed to “showcase people and projects making real progress toward sustainability” across the state.
This is the conservative government that passed legislation in 2016 to repeal the Native Vegetation Act, with a large increase in land clearing seemingly inevitable, involving increased carbon emissions, loss of ongoing sequestration and destruction of wildlife habitat. The repeal took effect in August this year.
It was in anticipation of such law changes in NSW and Queensland (and the livestock-related clearing that would result) that the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) listed eastern Australia as one of eleven global deforestation fronts for the period to 2030.
The NSW government’s poor legislative performance in relation to the environment may be consistent with it naming Youth Food Movement Australia (YFM) and one of its co-founders, Alexandra Iljadica, as finalists in the categories of Community Leadership and Sustainability Champion, with Iljadica winning the latter.
The main driver of land clearing in Australia and around the world is livestock production. In Queensland alone, livestock-related clearing since 1988 (when detailed records began) has represented 91 per cent of total clearing. It has equated to more than 11 million rugby fields at rates of 42 per hour overall and 50 per hour in 2015/16.
Despite that appalling record, YFM supports the sector and has failed miserably to highlight its negative environmental and other impacts.
Cattle grazing on cleared and uncleared land in Queensland has also contributed massively to the ongoing demise of the Great Barrier Reef’s corals. Erosion caused by grazing has released sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus to the reef’s waters. The sediment blocks the sun and smothers coral, making it less resilient than it would otherwise have been to the impacts of other stressors, such as warming waters. [Footnote 1]
The fertilisers promote algal growth that is a food source for crown-of-thorns starfish larvae. Adult starfish eat nothing but coral, and have had a devastating impact. They were doing so decades before the first coral bleaching event in 1998, and the destruction is continuing.
As I have reported previously, YFM has collaborated with Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) via its Target 100 “initiative” on some very questionable projects. A key output from one of those was what appeared to be an MLA promotional video, laughably described by the two organisations as a “documentary”. The video featured Iljadica’s fellow YFM co-founder, Joanna Baker. [Footnote 2]
Joanna Baker (left) and Alexandra Iljadica, YFM Australia
MLA is no mug in the PR game, and has won advertising industry awards such as Marketing Team of the Year and Advertiser of the Year. It has utilised firms with expertise in PR, branding or advertising, such as: Republic of Everyone; Totem; One Green Bean; BMF; and The Monkeys, and prefers the term “community engagement” over “PR”.
The promotional concepts have included “Bettertarian”; “#Goodmeat”; “You’re better on beef”; “Generation Lamb”; “The beef oracle”; “The Opponent”; and Australia Day campaigns such as “Richie’s BBQ” and “Boat People”.
Republic of Everyone has also been nominated for a Green Globe Award. In addition to the “Bettertarian” campaign (launched by MLA as a “counter campaign” during Meat Free Week), its work for MLA has included graphics proclaiming the supposed health benefits of eating red meat. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
That’s from a firm that claims to only create projects “that make the world a better place”, where “everything is fair” and where no animals are “harmed in the making”.
Why doesn’t it tell people that forced breeding, tail docking, castration and hot iron branding (all without pain prevention or relief) are all routine aspects of beef production?
Why doesn’t it tell people about the true environmental and health impacts of the industry?
Why doesn’t YFM do the same?
MLA prefers to provide primary school children with so-called “curriculum study guides”, containing erroneous information about its members’ products.
Another YFM link with the livestock sector involves Dairy Connect, a group based in New South Wales, which describes itself as “an advocacy body, 100% focused on being the voice for all partners in the dairy industry”.
During most of 2014 and 2015, Joanna Baker was Dairy Connect’s manager for membership, communications and policy. While in that role, she was also in senior positions with YFM.
I am not in a position to explain the motivation behind the collaborations and relationships mentioned here, but I do wonder if the Green Globes are effectively nothing more than straw man awards, with some straw man nominees.
The Queensland government’s 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement reported that livestock grazing was responsible for 75% of sediment, 54% of phosphorus and 40% of nitrogen in the Great Barrier Reef’s waters.
In addition to MLA, the Target 100 “initiative” involves Cattle Council of Australia, Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Australian Meat Industry Council, Australian Lot Feeders Association and Australian Meat Processing Corporation. MLA maintains copyright over the Target 100 website, and some material (e.g. the so-called “curriculum study guides”) has been released under MLA’s name.
Images
Paul Looyen | A herd of cattle in pasture, standing in early morning fog | Shutterstock
A recent initiative of Terrastendo has been the creation of the global slaughter index.
Across 194 countries for which relevant data is available, the index shows the number of land animals slaughtered per member of the human population in a single year. The index was prepared using the most recent (2014) livestock data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and human population data from the World Bank for the same year.
Although it also shows the total number of animals slaughtered in each country, the rankings are not based on that measure.
Israel’s position at the top of the list may surprise some readers given the recent prominence of veganism in the country, with (for example) animal rights marches and significant media coverage devoted to the work of activist Gary Yourofsky, amongst others. However, the country’s vegan population was still a small percentage of the total during the period covered by the index, and is unlikely to have grown sufficiently to alter the country’s position on the table.
The ratings of the top twenty countries (ranging from 53.5 to 22.1) are significant given the median figure of 6.3. This indicates that the top twenty have ratings that are at least three times those of half the covered countries.
A key purpose of the index is to highlight the enormous scale of the global livestock sector and provide a meaningful comparison of each country’s contribution to mass slaughter.
For any meat-eater concerned about their cruelty footprint, it can also potentially indicate (after allowing for the animal-bodies-equivalent of cross-border meat sales) how many animals are consumed by a typical individual in their home country. They could also use life expectancy figures to estimate their potential lifetime consumption in the absence of change.
For example, the current life expectancy in Australia is around 82 years. Assuming constant consumption levels, and allowing for the fact that domestic consumption is responsible for around 92 per cent of slaughtered animals, a typical Australian would be responsible for the slaughter of over 2,000 land animals in their lifetime.
The actual figure could be much higher if past trends continue. The overall number of animals slaughtered in Australia in 2014 was 8.4 times the 1961 figure, while the number of chickens was 16 times. By way of comparison, the size of the human population in 2014 was only 2.2 times that of the 1961 level. Here’s a snapshot:
A similar trend has occurred globally:
A critical factor in the increase has been a growing preference for chicken meat over (for example) beef. However, if you replace beef with chicken meat for perceived health or environmental benefits, or for other reasons, then you are massively increasing your cruelty footprint. This chart shows the number of chickens required to replace one cow in the top per capita beef-eating countries:
Here is another way to view the comparison for the United States:
In addition to showing the number of animals slaughtered per person, the global slaughter index shows the number of animals slaughtered per second and per minute in each country. The “leaders” are China with around 350 per second, the United States with nearly 300, and Brazil with nearly 200. Globally, the figure is over 2,200 per second or nearly 134,000 per minute.
Conclusion
The numbers presented in this article may seem astonishing. A general transition to a vegan lifestyle would avoid the horrendous cost and suffering created by the consumption of animal-based foods, which are a grossly and inherently inefficient way to obtain our nutritional requirements.
If you would like to learn more, please visit the not-for-profit campaign sites, veganeasy and whyveg.
Recent material from the federal and Victorian governments on the treatment of food production animals includes some disturbing examples of political doublespeak and propaganda.
We should not be surprised, as governments generally support the livestock sector at the expense of animals, arguing along the lines of the federal government’s current “jobs and growth” mantra. (The “left” and “right” divide is virtually non-existent in Australian politics.)
We are persuaded by psychoanalytical techniques
The difficulty arises when governments concurrently feign concern for animals, ignoring the fact that all animal-based food production is a form of exploitation driven by consumer demand, which in turn is largely generated by sophisticated advertising and PR (public relations) practices.
Indeed, it was “the father of PR”, Edward Bernays, who successfully applied principles of psychoanalysis that had been developed by his uncle, Sigmund Freud, to convince Americans in the 1920s that bacon and eggs should become a standard choice for breakfast. He had been commissioned by the Beech-Nut Packing Company, which specialised at that time in vacuum-packed pig meat products.
Here’s how his campaign has been described in the American Psychological Association’s Monitor on Psychology:
“But in creating the new Freudian-style campaign, Bernays asked himself, ‘Who influences what the public eats?’ His answer was to survey physicians and ask them whether they would recommend a light breakfast or a hearty breakfast. Physicians overwhelmingly recommended a hearty breakfast, paving the way for Bernays to convince Americans to swap their usual juice, toast and coffee for the now-ubiquitous, all-American ‘hearty’ breakfast of bacon and eggs.”
If interested, you can see a video here of Bernays discussing the pig meat campaign. Elsewhere, Bernays freely used the word “propaganda” (including as the title of a book), and regularly interchanged it with the term PR.
Bernays was also famous for developing the “torches of freedom” campaign that convinced women that it was acceptable to smoke in public. Decades later, he said he would not have accepted the American Tobacco Company’s assignment if he had known of smoking’s health dangers.
With subsequent warnings from the World Cancer Research Fund and the World Health Organization on the dangers of consuming pig meat, it may be reasonable to assume he would have felt the same about his assignment for Beech-Nut had he been aware of those dangers at the time. Indeed, he said in 1928 that a PR practitioner “must never accept a retainer or assume a position which puts his duty to the groups he represents above his duty to society”.
Some of the physicians surveyed by Bernays for the pork industry in the 1920s suggested bacon and eggs as a “hearty” breakfast. That may have been consistent with a tobacco industry survey of doctors in the 1940s, which portrayed cigarette smoking as a beneficial practice.
Here’s an extract concerning Edward Bernays from the BBC documentary “The Century of the Self”:
“Bernays was the first person to take Freud’s ideas about human beings and use them to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations for the first time how they could make people want things they didn’t need by linking mass produced goods to their unconscious desires . . . It was the start of the all-consuming self which has come to dominate our world today.”
How much more beneficial for human and non-human animals would our world have been if such domination had not occurred.
In the draft plan, the Minister’s Ambassador for Animal Welfare, Lizzie Blandthorn MP, states that we must protect animals, including those on farms, from cruelty. That’s a noble suggestion that most people would probably agree with, but it seems to be the type of comment that would fit neatly into a Bernays-style propaganda campaign.
The statement does not reflect our current reality, which may be unlikely to change in a meaningful way as a result of the government’s action plan process. If we fail to acknowledge an injustice, then we have little chance of removing it.
Many consumers may be blind to the fact that the livestock sector is largely exempt from complying with Victoria’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and similar legislation in other states and territories, which permit acts of cruelty specified in industry codes of practice.
As an example of the injustice involved, exempted practices in relation to poultry include: life-long confinement indoors; beak “trimming” (debeaking) without anaesthetic; removing the snood of turkeys (the skin drooping from the forehead) without anaesthetic; removing segments of toes without anaesthetic; forced breeding; killing of “surplus” chicks in the egg industry through gassing with CO2 or being sent into an industrial grinder while still alive.
Despite those and other permitted practices, Agriculture Victoria remarkablyclaimsthat the exemptions do not permit cruelty to occur.
That claim is outrageous!
Whose definition of cruelty is Agriculture Victoria using?
I anticipate cruel practices continuing after the Victorian Government completes its review. I have raised the issues with the Minister for Agriculture, Jaala Pulford. However, when responding, she effectively ignored my key points, including those made in this article.
Free Range Egg Labelling
At the federal level, the government recently released its new information standard for free range egg labelling. The standard allows eggs to be labelled as free range where there is an outdoor stocking density of up to 10,000 birds per hectare. Coles and Woolworths nationally, and Aldi in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, had already adopted the limit of 10,000 for their home brand free range products.
To provide some perspective, the limit applying under various voluntary free range standards in Australia ranges from 750 to 2,500, while European Union and UK free range standards range from 1,000 to 2,500.
Not only is our new outdoor stocking limit exceptionally high, the standard does not specify a minimum period of time to be spent outdoors or the density of indoor areas. To make matters worse, many of the practices of mutilation, stunning and killing described earlier are permitted in respect of free range establishments under the CSIRO’s code of practice for domestic poultry, which is a voluntary standard that includes free range guidelines.
A free range animal’s final day may also be far more horrific than most people realise. For example, birds raised on free range farms are generally slaughtered alongside those raised in conventional facilities.
After being packed tightly into crates and transported without food or water, the slaughter process generally begins with birds being hung upside down on a conveyor with their legs shackled. They are supposed to be stunned by having their head dipped in electrically charged water before their throat is cut, but there is no guarantee of that happening. There is also no guarantee they’ll be dead before reaching the scalding tank, which aids the removal of feathers.
In February 2017, animal rights group Dreamer’s Hen Rescue released this undercover video, reported to be from an Australian slaughterhouse. It shows the full slaughter process, and includes chickens entering the scalding tank while still alive. [WARNING:Graphic footage]
xxx
The massive scale of the industry reflects the effectiveness of industry PR and advertising campaigns, and is demonstrated by the fact that around 580 million chickens were slaughtered in Australia during the most recent reporting period, 2014. That’s equivalent to more than eighteen per second, day and night.
Such huge numbers mask the fact that every animal is an individual, with the ability to suffer physical and psychological pain. The fact that one species is smaller than another, or perceived as less animated or sociable, does not reduce the suffering. If we treated our companion animals the way we generally treat those we use as food, we could rightfully spend time in jail.
The unconscionable avoidance of honest communication
Governments must start to communicate honestly with the community about the plight of animals, cutting through the fairy tales that they and the livestock sector have created and propagated. To do anything less would represent unconscionable behaviour.
The Victorian Labor government simply needs to adhere to the words of former party leader and premier, Steve Bracks, who said a feature that would differentiate his government from that of his predecessor was “leadership that believes in openness and accountability, that isn’t afraid of scrutiny, that credits the people of this state with the intelligence to make their own judgements”.
He also said (with my underline): “When you’re proud of what you’re doing, you don’t want it hidden; you want people to know about it. You only keep secret the things that you’re ashamed of.”
The Bracks government subsequently performed poorly in relation to openness and accountability, but surely it is not too much to ask of the current government.
Palugada, “Happy farm animal cartoon collection”, Shutterstock
(The image has not been used in government or industry PR campaigns to my knowledge, but has been used here to symbolise the world of make-believe created by those campaigns.)
Less Meat Less Heat (LMLH) is an Australian climate change campaign group that was created in early 2015. Its mission is “to reduce the consumption of meat most damaging to the climate by promoting a Climatarian diet”.
It describes such a diet as one that involves “. . . choosing what you eat based on the carbon footprint of different foods”, and focuses on a reduction in the consumption of cattle and sheep meat (“beef” and “lamb”). The group’s founder, Mark Pershin, has said, “the only guideline we have for the climatarian diet is cutting back beef and lamb consumption to one standard serving a week”.
This post considers some of the climate change, animal rights and health aspects of LMLH’s campaign. Much of the LMLH material referred to comes from the FAQs concerning its “Climatarian Challenge“, which LMLH describes as a challenge “to eat in a carbon-conscious way . . . for 30 days“. Participation occurs via a specially-prepared smartphone app.
LMLH is a relatively recent arrival on the scene of climate change campaigning, and the basis of its message is not new. In fact, Pershin has said he was inspired to take action by (in addition to some post-graduate environmental studies) the 2014 documentary “Cowspiracy”, which was also a relatively late (albeit effective) arrival with the livestock message.
The group’s approach seems to be largely marketing based (reflecting Pershin’s background), in seeking behavioural change to an extent that it considers achievable. LMLH seems to see a reduction in ruminant meat consumption as “low hanging fruit” with a “big bang for the buck” in terms of climate change mitigation, as reflected in the relative greenhouse gas emissions intensity of different products.
That might seem a reasonable approach, but there are many shortcomings, some of which I aim to highlight in this post.
The urgent need to act
It seems impossible to overstate the extent of the crisis we are facing in the form of climate change. I agree with LMLH on the urgent need to act in order to avoid a global catastrophe. Feedback mechanisms within the climate system are (by definition and in practice) accelerating, potentially leading to runaway climate change beyond the scope of any mitigation efforts we might seek to initiate.
Nevertheless, we must fight to retain a habitable planet, and I also agree with LMLH that a key plank in the required emergency action must be a general change in dietary practices. However, rather than adopting LMLH’s approach of focusing almost exclusively on certain types of meat, I argue for a general transition toward a plant-based diet. More on that below.
The danger of “bright-siding”
To support its position, LMLH cites global “high meat” and “low meat” scenarios developed by UK “think tank” Chatham House, along with its own more optimistic scenario. The scenarios utilise the “global carbon calculator” developed by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, the World Resources Institute and others. It has used the two low meat scenarios to argue that a reduction in beef and lamb consumption will give us a reasonable chance of staying within a 2°C temperature target. Here’s some of what it has said.
LMLH STATEMENT:
“If we can all cut back our consumption of beef and lamb down to once a week for a standard serving size (65g) or once a month for a large portion such as a roast or steak then we can actually limit climate change to what climate scientists consider safe levels . . .
This sounds too easy, like changing light bulbs, but that is what the climate models used by world leaders tell us and hence what we are telling you. So be part of the solution, take part in The Climatarian Challenge and become a climatarian!” [LMLH, Climatarian Challenge]
RESPONSE: That is a major overstatement that masks the true danger
The first problem with LMLH’s statement is that the 2°C target is widely considered politically expedient and lacking scientific merit.
The former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr James Hansen, has described it as “a prescription for disaster”.
Authors of “Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action”, David Spratt and Philip Sutton have said:
“A rise of 2 degrees over pre-industrial temperatures will initiate climate feedbacks in the oceans, on ice-sheets, and on the tundra, taking the Earth well past significant tipping points.”
Although LMLH understands the danger of runaway climate change and the need to stay well below 2°C, its message is inconsistent, and it appears to give challenge participants the impression that all will be well if people simply reduce their red meat consumption.
LMLH also fails to say that Chatham House’s low-meat scenario gives us less than a 50% chance of staying below 2°C. They are horrendous odds when the future of the planet (as we know it) is at stake.
It should perhaps also highlight the fact in its challenge material that an aspirational target of 1.5°C (which is also dangerous but perhaps inevitable) was established at the 2015 Paris climate summit.
Critically, Chatham House’s low meat scenario assumes: (a) global meat consumption will fall below current projections, with monogastric meats, such as chicken and pork, largely replacing ruminant meats like beef and lamb; and (b) nations will comply with pledges to limit energy-related emissions and seek to improve energy efficiency.
LMLH’s third scenario is consistent with the dietary aspects of Chatham House’s low meat scenario, but is more optimistic regarding energy-related emissions, assuming a general transition to renewables. It would almost certainly also involve a high risk of failure relative to what is at stake, and may reflect a high degree of wishful thinking.
LMLH’s notion that “we can actually limit climate change to what climate scientists consider safe levels” by reducing consumption of beef and lamb may represent a form of what David Spratt calls “bright-siding“. Spratt uses the term to describe the tendency of many environmental groups to act on the belief that only positive “good news” messages work, thereby avoiding “bad news” such as climate change impacts (or in this case, the fact that continued consumption of all animal-based foods will contribute significantly to climate catastrophe). LMLH seems to be offering a potential solution to climate change that falls well short of the mark if we want to have a reasonable chance of overcoming the crisis.
A key component of LMLH’s bright-siding approach is its aim “to drive behavioural change in the mainstream population by taking a pragmatic approach”. That approach is consistent with the fact that “pragmatism” is one of its stated values, and reflects the marketing background of its founder.
In the words of David Spratt:
“Is selling ‘good news’ and avoiding ‘bad news’ the way to engage communities in understanding how climate change will affect them and what they can do about it? In the commercial world the answer is yes, you can sell a ‘solution’ without a real problem, because half the game is about fabricating demand (status, for example) for things people don’t need (a new car) . . .
But with climate change, the problem is not a commercial or political construct, and not fully solving the problem will be catastrophic beyond most peoples’ imaginations and current understandings.”
LMLH dangerously ignores the actual and potential impacts of animal products other than beef and lamb. With meat consumption currently increasing in developing nations such as India and China, we cannot afford to focus solely on beef and lamb in our efforts to create dietary change. Some more focus by LMLH on the impact of fossil fuels and the Catch 22 of aerosols would also be helpful.
Greenhouse gas emissions intensity
LMLH’s main concern is the high greenhouse gas emissions intensity of beef and lamb.
Per kilogram of product, the emissions intensity of those foods is high relative to that of other foods, including other animal-based and plant-based foods, and LMLH is justified in being concerned. However, if we measure the emissions per kilogram of protein, those other animal-based foods do not seem such favourable choices, as shown in Figure 1. The charts show the emissions intensity based on 100-year and 20-year time horizons for determining the global warming potential (GWP) of various greenhouse gases. [Footnote 1]
Figure 1(a): Emissions intensity (kg CO2-e/kg protein) for beef, sheep meat and cow’s milk
Figure 1(b): Emissions intensity (kg CO2-e/kg protein) for other products
Even when measured per kilogram of product, the emissions intensity figures of other animal-based foods are multiples of the figures for plant-based options, with the emissions intensity of eggs, chicken, fish and pork being between 160 and 340 per cent higher than that of soy beans. Economic rationalists may be horrified at efficiency differentials of 5 or 10 per cent, but here we have climate change inefficiencies that are up to 68 times as bad as those figures (5 per cent versus 340 per cent).
A related point is that the inherent inefficiency of all animal-based food products means we require far more resources, including land, than with plant-based options. That creates grave risks for what are currently carbon sinks, such as the Amazon rainforest. With no buffer in our need to deal with the climate crisis, we must use every mitigation opportunity available, including revegetation and avoidance of further land clearing.
The second point is highlighted by the fact that we need many kilograms of plant-based protein to produce one kilogram of the animal-based variety, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Feed conversion ratios
Some major impacts of industrial and non-industrial fishing on our climate system are not accounted for in emissions intensity figures or national greenhouse gas inventories.
The problem arises from the fact that fishing disturbs food webs, changing the way ecosystems function, and altering the ecological balance of the oceans in dangerous ways. The loss of ocean predators such as large carnivorous fish, sharks, crabs, lobsters, seals and sea lions, and the corresponding population increase of herbivores and bioturbators (creatures that disturb ocean sediment, including certain crabs) causes loss of carbon from vegetated coastal habitats and sediment. The ocean predators are either caught intentionally by fishing fleets, or as by-catch when other species are targeted.
These factors also reduce the ability of the oceans to sequester carbon. If sequestration capability was reduced by 20 per cent in only 10 per cent of vegetated coastal habitats, it would equate to a loss of forested area the size of Belgium.
In respect of emissions intensity figures generally, a major inconsistency in the approach of LMLH is that in written material it refers to methane’s GWP on a 20-year basis (e.g. methane’s warming impact is 86 times that of CO2), but figures used for the app are based on the more conservative 100-year timeframe.
Multiply your cruelty footprint with the Climatarian Challenge
LMLH expresses concern for animals, as demonstrated in the quotations below.
LMLH STATEMENTS:
“Let it be clear that we are firmly against the cruel treatment of animals in the factory farming system . . . we do encourage you to understand the compassionate footprint of your food and engage with other organisations that advocate for animal rights and bravely fight against factory farming. We think that together we can work towards a safer and more compassionate world . . .” [LMLH, Climatarian Challenge, FAQ, Other Issues, What about animal rights?]
“When we buy meat that is not free range it is factory farmed. Animals raised in factory farms are subject to intensely stressful conditions and sometimes unimaginable cruelty all in the name of cutting costs. These conditions are fuelled and passively accepted by us, the consumers who demand more for less.” [LMLH, “Why free range?”, The Animals]
RESPONSE: The expressions of compassion and concern are not consistent with other aspects of LMLH’s campaign.
If LMLH is “firmly against the cruel treatment of animals in the factory farming system“, then why is it continually encouraging people to replace beef and lamb with chicken and pig meat?
As stated by Eric Baldwin in the short 2002 documentary, “Meet your meat“, “chickens are probably the most abused animals on the face of the planet”. Pigs are not far behind.
Every animal is an individual, with the ability to suffer physical and psychological pain. The fact that one is smaller than another, or perceived as less cuddly, does not reduce the suffering.
If you have a spare couple of minutes, why not watch this short clip, demonstrating the link between a mother hen and her chick, who (unlike most) were given the opportunity to live in a natural way.
xxx
Quite apart from the horrendous conditions experienced by most chickens and pigs in the food production system, to replace the meat from one cow with chicken meat in the top beef-consuming nations would require between 101 and 360 additional chickens to be bred, raised and slaughtered. (88 per cent of the 70 billion land animals slaughtered around the world annually are chickens. In Australia, they represent 90 per cent of the 642 million slaughtered.) The number of pigs is smaller, but still a multiple of cows.
Here are the comparisons by country, determined by the relevant production yields for each product. (Yes, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) publish pig meat figures for all the countries shown here.)
Figure 3(a): Number of chickens required to replace one cow in top per capita beef-eating countries
Figure 3(b): Number of pigs required to replace one cow in top per capita beef-eating countries
Here is a statement that appears to demonstrate LMLH’s lack of concern for animals:
LMLH STATEMENT:
“Fill your plate with ethical deliciousness.Trade your centrepiece of Christmas roast beef or lamb shanks for a lower-carbon alternative. Turkey, ham, chicken, and kangaroo will be sure to satisfy the hunger of your guests with less of a heating effect on the Earth. [LMLH, “An Ethical Christmas Guide”, Dec 2016]
RESPONSE: Shouldn’t cruelty feature in a discussion on the ethics of consuming turkey, ham, chicken or kangaroo?
Here are some examples of legalised cruelty involving chickens, turkeys and pigs, enshrined in Australian livestock codes of practice and legislation (with similar arrangements in place in many other countries):
Chickens and turkeys:
life-long confinement indoors;
beak trimming without anaesthetic;
removing the snood of turkeys (the skin drooping from the forehead) without anaesthetic;
removing terminal segment of males’ inward pointing toes without anaesthetic;
forced breeding;
killing of “surplus” chicks (mainly male) in the egg industry through gassing with CO2 or by “quick maceration”. (The Oxford defines “macerate” as “soften or become softened by soaking in a liquid”. In the case of chicks, they are sent along a conveyor belt to an industrial grinder while still alive.)
Pigs:
life-long confinement indoors;
confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
tail docking without anaesthetic;
ear notching without anaesthetic;
teeth clipping without anaesthetic;
castration without anaesthetic;
forced breeding.
They are some of the legal forms of cruelty, and do not include brutality which has frequently been recorded with under-cover cameras.
It should go without saying that the slaughter process is also not something to be taken lightly, but that seems to be how most people consider it. According to the animal advocacy group, Aussie Farms:
“Due to the high demand for meat and other animal products, abattoirs are required to kill very large quantities of animals per day, resulting in a typically rushed environment where ineffective stunning can easily occur. Animals that reach the kill floor without first being properly stunned are then ‘stuck’ and bled out while still conscious.“
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 terrible fate.
If interested, you can see undercover footage from the Aussie Farms website here and from Animal Liberation NSW here. (Warning: Graphic footage.)
The great majority of pigs in Australia are stunned for slaughter using the CO2 method, whereby they are directed into a cage, which is then lowered into a CO2 chamber. Many people may wrongly believe that the process is free of pain and stress for animals. This video (Warning: Graphic footage) from Animal Liberation Victoria appears to indicate otherwise, a view supported by Donald Broom, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Veterinary Medicine at Cambridge University.
LMLH also overlooks the horrific suffering of fish and other aquatic animals. Like other animals, those in the oceans and other waterways feel pain. In the aquaculture industry, they spend their lives in crowded, often filthy enclosures, with many suffering from parasitic infections, diseases, and debilitating injuries. In the wild, hundreds of billions of fish and non-target “bycatch” are caught each year in nets or dragged for hours on long-lines. Most fish die slowly through suffocation, and many aquatic animals are prepared by cooks for eating while still alive or killed in horrific ways.
Please also see comments below in relation to kangaroos and free range systems.
Kangaroos: The gross injustice of our present approach
It is pleasing that LMLH recently stated that it would cease advocating the consumption of kangaroo meat as a low-carbon option. However, three items in which it does so were appearing on its website at the time of writing, and kangaroo meat was mentioned by Mark Pershin in a radio interview as recently as 10th April 2017, without reference to its negative aspects.
To the extent that it applies, the decision may have been prompted by interactions on social media with individuals who pointed out various aspects of the kangaroo meat trade, such as its extreme and inherent cruelty (including the plight of joeys who are clubbed to death or abandoned) and the fact that it is not viable as a food source on a scale anywhere near that of the cattle and sheep meat sectors.
A grave concern is that the prime targets of shooters are the largest, strongest individuals, with potentially critical impacts on the prospects of their mob (the term used to describe their group), along with the gene pool and the resilience of the species in increasingly challenging environmental conditions.
Most modern kangaroo species have evolved over a million years or more. Without human intervention on the scale imposed by Europeans commencing just over 200 years ago, they would have continued to live in harmony with the landscape to the extent that it remained habitable. Like our interaction with most non-human animals, the power balance in our favour and a lack of compassion in respect of kangaroos create an example of gross injustice, for which we should be ashamed.
In any event, we consume kangaroo meat at our peril. Parasite infestations and the role of red and processed meat in bowel cancer, heart disease and stroke are major concerns in terms of human health. The fact that kangaroo meat is relatively low in cholesterol may offer little comfort, as it is high in L-carnitine, a compound associated with increased incidence of cardio vascular disease in the form of atherosclerosis.
The folly of “free range” and “grass-fed”
LMLH is a strong advocate of “free range” and “grass-fed” production systems, but free range production methods will never be able to respond on the scale required to feed the masses.
Here are some issues to consider.
Greenhouse gases
LMLH STATEMENT:
“When selecting your beef and lamb meal for the week we recommend opting for a grass-fed option . . .”
RESPONSE: Why does LMLH recommend grass-fed when the emissions intensity is far higher than the alternative?
Meat from grass-fed animals is far more emissions intensive than that from animals fed in mixed systems. [Footnote 2]
Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has estimated that cows fed on grass produce four times as much methane as those fed on grain. [Footnote 3]
Similarly, Professor Gidon Eshel of Bard College, New York and formerly of the Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, has reported, “since grazing animals eat mostly cellulose-rich roughage while their feedlot counterparts eat mostly simple sugars whose digestion requires no rumination, the grazing animals emit two to four times as much methane”.
The estimates from CSIRO and Eshel relate to the period an animal is eating grass as opposed to grain. The “mixed-fed” result allows for both feeding regimes, resulting in a comparison that is less stark. For example, the FAO has recently reported that the global average emissions intensity of “grass-fed” beef was 62 percent higher than beef from mixed systems, based on the 2010 reference period (95.1 kg vs 58.6 kg CO2-e/kg product). [Footnote 4]
Cruelty
Please see comments from LMLH under the earlier heading “Multiply your cruelty footprint with the Climatarian Challenge”.
There are no legally enforceable free range standards in Australia, and the systems still involve cruelty.
In respect of cattle (who generally live in free range systems for most of their lives), the livestock industry codes of practice (endorsed by legislation) permit:
castration without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age;
dehorning without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age;
disbudding (prior to horns growing) without anaesthetic. Caustic chemicals may be used for that process under certain circumstances, including an age of less than fourteen days;
hot iron branding without anaesthetic;
forced breeding.
Here is a calf, possibly “free range”, enduring the horror of hot iron branding.
Major problems have been exposed in relation to pig meat production on the “Free Range Fraud” website of Animal Liberation Victoria, involving brands accredited as free range by the RSPCA. A related point is that the RSPCA has been reported to earn a royalty equal to 2 per cent of sales from accredited producers. In any event, the RSPCA has no power in relation to the legalised forms of cruelty.
Many free range farmers send their animals to regular abattoirs for slaughter. Tammi Jonas of Jonai Farms has confirmed that her business sends the animals to Diamond Valley Pork in Laverton, Victoria, where the CO2 stunning shown in Animal Liberation Victoria’s video, referred to earlier, occurs. (Warning: Graphic footage)
In its FAQ on dairy, LMLH recommends “grass-fed cheese”. The failure to acknowledge the animals whose milk is used seems to demonstrate a lack of empathy. It also highlights a failure to recognise the immense, inherent cruelty involved in dairy production, whereby cows are impregnated in order to stimulate their mammary glands, only to have their newborn calves removed within a day of birth so that the milk that was meant for them can be consumed by supermarket customers.
LMLH erroneously uses the term “animal rights”, when in reality it means “animal welfare”. The latter assumes that animals have no rights, and must be available for our use.
Health
LMLH STATEMENT:
“Meat is nowhere near as good for you as when the animal is raised on pasture and eats what it has evolved to eat.”
RESPONSE: Whether “grass-fed” or “grain-fed”, red meat has serious health implications.
The only health issue raised by LMLH is the fatty acid composition of meat. However, whether a cow eats grass or grain, the meat represents a serious health risk, with the detrimental impacts being well documented by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), the World Health Organization, and others.
A recent example was the April 2016 study by researchers from the Oxford Martin School (University of Oxford) reporting on the health and climate change benefits of changing diets, including reduced consumption of animal products. The researchers estimated that if the global population were to adopt a vegetarian diet, 7.3 million lives per year would be saved by 2050. If a vegan diet were adopted, the figure would be 8.1 million per year.
More than half the avoided deaths would be due to reduced red meat consumption. (The health organisations classify pig meat as red meat.) The results primarily reflect anticipated reductions in the rate of coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, and type 2 diabetes.
In 2012, Harvard University released a study involving more than 120,000 participants over twenty-six years, with similarly damning results. Citing the study, the New York Time reported that “eating red meat is associated with a sharply increased risk of death from cancer and heart disease . . . and the more of it you eat, the greater the risk . . . Previous studies have linked red meat consumption and mortality, but the new results suggest a surprisingly strong link”.
Land use
LMLH STATEMENT:
“Cows provide many valuable services to the grasses that they graze on, including feeding them with nitrogen from their manure.”
RESPONSE: The impact on land of cattle grazing is overwhelmingly negative.
Much of the land on which cattle graze was once forest or other forms of wooded vegetation, with an ongoing loss of carbon sequestration on top of the impact of carbon being released at the time of clearing. Even perennial grasslands are no match for forest in terms of sequestration, with Australia’s Chief Scientist reporting that forests are typically more than ten times as effective as grasslands, per hectare, at storing carbon.
Rather than promoting the growth of healthy grass, cattle grazing generally degrades soil, with devastating impacts well beyond the pasture. For example, the erosion generated by cattle grazing is one of the largely hidden reasons behind the ongoing demise of one of the world’s natural wonders, the Great Barrier Reef. Cattle grazing is responsible for 75 per cent of sediment in the reef’s waters, along with 54 per cent of phosphorus and 40 per cent of nitrogen. The sediment blocks the sun and smothers coral. The fertilisers promote algal growth that represents a food source for crown-of-thorns starfish larvae.
Researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the University of Wollongong estimated in 2012 that the reef had lost around half of the coral cover that existed in 1985. [Footnote 5] The research attributed the loss to three main factors in the following order: cyclones (48 per cent), crown-of-thorns starfish (42 per cent) and coral bleaching (10 per cent). It is estimated that if crown-of-thorns starfish predation had not occurred during that period, there would have been a net increase in average coral cover.
The release of carbon due to soil erosion following livestock-related land clearing was a key factor in Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (University of Melbourne) estimating that animal agriculture was responsible for around 50 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other factors included an allowance for short-lived climate forcers and a 20-year GWP.
The Pew Charitable Trusts have reported on the destructive environmental impacts of livestock grazing in remote areas of Australia, including the introduction of invasive pasture grasses, manipulation of fire regimes, tree clearing, and degradation of land and natural water sources.
According to Professor Ian Lunt of Charles Sturt University, managed grazing systems are only suitable in a small number of Australian ecosystems, particularly lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands on productive soils in areas of moderate to high rainfall.
Conclusion
LMLH appears to have been effective in engaging with the public and media on climate change and the impact of diet, but there is too much at stake to avoid highlighting concerns over various aspects of its campaign.
Although those involved can be proud of their efforts in many respects, they appear to be: (a) understating the true dangers; (b) ignoring or overlooking key mitigation measures; and (c) failing to adequately recognise or acknowledge the plight of food production animals.
I hope LMLH will reconsider some aspects of its current approach, potentially enhancing its effectiveness while also raising awareness of various issues that are currently largely out of public view.
Greenhouse gas emissions intensity and GWP:The 100-year figures have been published by the FAO, while the 20-year figures represent an adjustment allowing for the apportionment of various greenhouse gases for each animal-based product as also reported by the FAO, along with and the IPCC’s 2013 GWPs for methane and nitrous oxide. The GWP-20 figures are approximations, as the apportionment of greenhouse gases per product was based on results from GLEAM 1 (2005 reference period), while the latest FAO GWP100 figures are from GLEAM 2 (2010 reference period). [GLEAM is the FAO’s Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model.] Some figures are higher than estimates I have conservatively reported elsewhere, where I chose not to adjust for yield. The beef figures include beef from the dairy herd, the emissions intensity of which is lower than that of the specialised beef herd, as emissions are also attributed to other products, such as milk and cheese.
FAO reporting:A recent FAO spreadsheet using the 2005 reference period indicated the opposite result, but the organisation has confirmed that emissions from land use change for pasture expansion had inadvertently been attributed to mixed, rather than grassland, systems. The spreadsheet has been withdrawn, and correct results will be published for the 2010 reference period.
Emissions from grass-fed cattle:Although the CSIRO subsequently reported a reduction of around 30 per cent in emissions from the northern Australian cattle herd, emissions from grass-fed cattle remain on a different paradigm to those of most food-based emissions. The same can be said for potential reductions in methane emissions through the use of seaweed and chemicals in animal feed, which are likely to have the added problem of being an impractical option for grass-fed animals.
Feeding regimes for cattle:Cows are not fed grain exclusively. They have not evolved to consume it, and if it is used at all, they are generally only “finished” on it for up to 120 days prior to slaughter.
Loss of coral from the Great Barrier Reef: The precise figure lost since 1985 was 50.7 per cent.
Some minor concerns
Here are some less serious concerns with LMLH’s material:
In explaining the use of “carbon points” in its climate challenge app, LMLH has linked to a 2011 article from the Guardian, explaining Global Warming Potential. The problem is that the figures are out of date, and do not represent the figures used in the app.
Twice on its Climate Challenge FAQ page, LMLH refers to “The United Nations Farming and Agriculture Organisation”. The title used is incorrect, with the main problem being the use of the word “Farming” rather than “Food”.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) – Results, http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/
Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1
Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” , Table 8.7, p. 714 [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. 2013. “Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm
Croft, D.B., “Kangaroos maligned: 16 million years of evolution and two centuries of persecution” from “Kangaroos: Myths and realities” by Maryland Wilson and David B. Croft, 2005, Australian Wildlife Protection Council
Koeth, R.A., Wang, Z., Levison, B.S., Buffa, J.A., Org, E., Sheehy, B.T., Britt, E.B., Fu, X., Wu, Y., Li, L., Smith, J.D., DiDonato, J.A., Chen, J., Li, H., Wu, G.D., Lewis, J.D., Warrier, M., Brown, J.M., Krauss, R.M., Tang, W.H.W., Bushman, F.D., Lusis, A.J., Hazen, S.L.,“Intestinal microbiota metabolism of l-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis”, Nature Medicine 19, 576–585 (2013) doi:10.1038/nm.3145, Published online, 07 April 2013, http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v19/n5/full/nm.3145.html
Kennedy P. M., Charmley E. (2012) “Methane yields from Brahman cattle fed tropical grasses and legumes”, Animal Production Science 52, 225–239, Submitted: 10 June 2011, Accepted: 7 December 2011, Published: 15 March 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN11103
Springmann, M., Godfray, H.C.J., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., “Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change”, PNAS 2016 113 (15) 4146-4151; published ahead of print March 21, 2016, doi:10.1073/pnas.1523119113, (print edition 12 Apr 2016), http://www.pnas.org/content/113/15/4146.full and http://www.pnas.org/content/113/15/4146.full.pdf
De’ath, G., Katharina Fabricius, K.E., Sweatman, H., Puotinen, M., “The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes”, PNAS 2012 109 (44) 17995-17999; published ahead of print October 1, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1208909109, http://www.pnas.org/citmgr?gca=pnas%3B109%2F44%2F17995
Longmire, A., Taylor, C., Wedderburn-Bisshop, G., “Zero Carbon Australia – Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry – Discussion Paper”, Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, October, 2014, http://bze.org.au/landuse
terrastendo 