Afton

= EATING MEAT IN 2013 - DO ANIMALS GET A SAY? =

Student Name: Afton Cahill Student Number: 8907277 Tutor: Steven Badman

CULTURAL ARTEFACT
The cultural artefact represented above is a cartoon based on the live animal export trade. In particular, this cartoon depicts the export of live cattle from Australia to Indonesia shown by the cattle on the ship, the words on the back of the ship and the crewman dressed in stereotypical Australian attire of a blue singlet and an Akubra hat. Aboard this vessel it is clear to see that there is overcrowding as the cattle are overflowing on each level of the ship. In addition, the cattle have taken control of the ship and are in complete disgust with the crew which is illustrated by the crewmen being relegated to the rowboat, the cattle throwing items at the crewmen whilst holding swords, which could be likened to pirates, and the caption “Mootiny on the Bounty.”

PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE
The cultural artefact above represents the issue of animal welfare. The Australian Government Department of Agriculture (2007) states that “the Australian approach to animal welfare requires that animals under human care or influence are healthy, properly fed and comfortable and that efforts are made to improve their well-being and living conditions. In addition, there is a responsibility to ensure that animals which require veterinary treatment receive it and that if animals are to be destroyed, it is done humanely.” To analyse this issue, the current views and practices in Australia and foreign practices will be explored. In addition, social theory developed by Max Weber and McDonaldization by George Ritzer will be looked at and linked to animal welfare practices today.

LITERATURE REVIEW
When it comes to animal welfare in Australia, legislative responsibility rests primarily with State and Territory Governments however other levels of Government also play a role. T he Federal Government is responsible for trade and international agreements and Local Governments have legislation relating to the management of companion animals (Department of Agriculture, 2007). It is clear to see that animals are well regarded and laws are in place to ensure animals are treated humanely. In the event that the duty of care to an animal has been breached, inspectors have the power to seize or destroy the animal to prevent any further harm (Queensland Government, 2013).

When it comes to the 500 million production animals in Australia, the animal welfare laws simply do not cover them. After World War Two, the food shortage prompted a growth in factory farming to increase production to feed the population. As factory farming continued to grow the treatment of animals has become more inhumane. Pigs are confined to pens so small they can’t turn around. Most battery hens never get the chance to spread their wings and are painfully de-beaked to reduce injuries from living in such small areas. In the wool industry, lambs have their tails cut off and males are castrated without providing any pain relief (Bagaric, 2008). This isn’t to say that all farming practices directly contradict the view of animal welfare in Australia. The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy is working to develop national animal welfare guidelines to promote consistency in regulation across Australia which will also include the treatment of livestock (Department of Agriculture, 2009). The inconsistencies in the treatment of animals in a domestic versus production setting came to the forefront in 2011 when video of cruel slaughtering practices in Indonesia came to light. The cruelty was carried out on exported Australian cattle which created a moral panic among the Australian population. On 7 June 2011, in response to this moral panic, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry suspended live animal exports sent to Indonesia for slaughter (Department of Agriculture, 2011). Whilst this knee-jerk reaction may have temporarily satisfied the general Australia population, this action had a devastating impact on Australia’s cattle industry.

Australia is the largest exporter of livestock in the world which plays an important role in Australia's growing livestock industry. There is l egislation in place under the Australian Standards for Export of Livestock which was introduced by the Federal Government to ensure exported animals are treated well during road and sea transportation. Ships must comply with strict rules about ventilation, drainage and the provision of water and food. Each animal must have access to food and water on demand, enough space to lie down and there must be special pens for sick animals to receive veterinary care (Department of Agriculture, 2013). However, as shockingly pointed out by the live cattle export to Indonesia incident, once the livestock reaches its destination the Australian Government is no longer in control of the welfare of the animals. Live cattle export has since been reinstated and the Australian Government is now working closely with importing countries in an effort to influence animal welfare conditions.

The theory developed by Max Weber can be applied to this situation of commercial industry versus animal welfare. Weber focused on the relationship between individuals and culture and in particular, how culture influences behaviour. Weber saw that in a modern world, individual freedom would decline and attention would turn to efficiency and profit. If economic rationalisation was applied to the factory farming and live animal export industries, it is clear to see that animal welfare would be seen less favourably in place of efficiency and profits. The more animals produced and exported in a timelier manner, the greater the profits. Unfortunately the trade off is likely to be a decline in animal welfare. In a modern society, Weber saw social actions being based on either value-rational faith or legal-rational reasoning. In Australia’s capitalist market environment, many actions to do with factory farming or live animal export are driven by the economic benefit derived however this is offset by the moral theory of animal rights and a balance must be struck between generating a profit and treating animals humanely.

The business of factory farming or live animal export and the issue of animal welfare also fit well with George Ritzer’s idea of McDonaldization and the four principles of efficiency, calculability, predictability and control. These principles emphasize getting the maximum output for the least cost, quantification and output, uniformity and use of technology (Ritzer, 2012). Through this process factory farms and live animal export would have increased production, reduced costs, greater profits and greater uniformity in their produce. It is clear to see why farmers would opt for a system like this which maximises return. It is worth noting however, that rational systems like this inevitably bring about irrational consequences. One of the main consequences of this system is that animal welfare would suffer which could result in outcomes such as poorer produce quality, ethical outrage from consumers and ultimately a decline in consumers choosing to support their industry.

CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS
Society and culture play a huge role when it comes to advocating animal welfare. When an animal is injured, it feels pain. This alone elicits an empathetic response from people as we can relate to what the animal is experiencing. Furthermore, animals do not have the ability to speak out for themselves so they need someone to give them a voice to stop cruelty. This notion has been adopted by Australians and our culture does not support the abuse of animals.

As discussed in the literature review, in Australia animals are governed by legislation to protect them. In the event duty of care is breached to an animal a member of the community is likely to be outraged and report the offender to either the police or RSPCA to have the matter addressed. Most of us treat pets as part of the family and can’t comprehend animal cruelty. The same can’t be said for factory farmed animals. As outlined earlier, these animals are kept in extremely confined spaces or treated painfully through de-beaking or castration without any anaesthetic. Members of the public are unlikely to respond to these issues due to a lack of awareness of the issue. This is changing though through animal welfare groups such as Animals Australia and WSPA promoting awareness through platforms such as television or newspaper advertisements or social media. By doing so these groups are helping to put this issue in the forefront of the minds of the general Australian population which in turn becomes action such as spreading the word, avoiding factory farmed produce or supporting their cause through avenues such as donating money.

Not everyone in Australia has the same disposable income so it is not always possible to donate money to help the animal welfare cause. In addition, the same problem arises when avoiding factory farm produce as the alternative such as free range eggs are more expensive. This raises the idea of whether this is an issue is supported by all Australians or whether it is an issue predominately supported by wealthier individuals who have the luxury to purchase more expensive produce from trendy farmers markets. The moral panic that arose amongst Australians resulting from the live cattle export incident in 2011 highlights the high regard held for animal welfare in Australia. In addition, any animal cruelty seen on domestic animals is not tolerated in Australian culture and complaints are made to the authorities to intervene in the abuse. It would be fair to say that as a society, Australians hold animal welfare in high regard and are driving legislative changes to protect all animals, both domestic and production, in Australia. As consumers, Australians who have the means to do so act by avoiding factory farmed produce.

The issue of animal welfare in Australia has evolved through the overall prosperity enjoyed by Australians over the past 50 years. Many human rights issues have now been addressed, opening up the capacity to focus on animal rights. Compared to Indonesia where animal cruelty on the treatment of Australian export animals is evident, it is clear to see that these two countries do not hold the same views on animal welfare. Indonesia is a developing nation, experiencing conflict and poverty. The priorities between these two countries are different. Indonesia is still fighting for what Australians consider basic human rights and do not have the same capacity at this stage to champion animal welfare. As a way around this issue it has been proposed that the live animal export trade could be halted completely in favour of chilled and frozen meat to ensure animal welfare standards are maintained. This idea fails to take into account the requirements of the market. Socially, there is a lack of refrigeration and cold chain facilities to support this change and culturally, the export markets have a strong preference for freshly slaughtered meat. Both of these social and cultural issues were not fully considered by the proposal, making it an inappropriate solution.

Awareness plays an important role in advocating animal welfare. If awareness isn’t raised in the community then nothing will change. Buying produce from the supermarket can be so disconnected from the farm that consumers will remain unaware of the cruelty being carried out. Through being aware consumers can spread the message, avoid buying factory farmed produce where possible and support animal welfare groups. Public health experts should focus on ways to raise awareness, assist people who wish to support the cause but are financially unable to, lobby against current factory farming practices and work on ways to improve live animal export conditions while satisfying both domestic and foreign cultural practices.

ANALYSIS OF ARTEFACT AND OWN LEARNING REFLECTION
The cultural artefact above succinctly represents the issue around animal welfare as it depicts that different views are held about animal welfare depending on social and cultural standings such as economic prosperity and the impact this has on a society’s capacity to champion animal welfare rights, awareness of the issue and the idea that animals feel pain and are unable to fight for themselves. The cartoon also highlights the challenges faced by the livestock industry in running a business to produce a profit and the trade off on animal welfare. Personally to me it also represents that there needs to be a greater awareness of the treatment of animals in the Australian community to reduce horrific incidents like the live export trade slaughter cruelty seemingly appear out of the blue and in turn devastate Australia’s livestock community. As a result of completing this assessment piece I have learned that society and culture have a big impact on animal welfare and to address this issue changes need to be made to the social structures surrounding it. Going forward this will prompt me to think about how society and culture are intertwined with an issue and I will think more about agency, determinants of health and the social structure currently supporting it.

REFLECTION
“Say No to Drugs, Say Yes to Life”

A Few Reasons Why- Transgender Rights and the Human Rights Argument

REFERENCE LIST
Alley, S., & Marangos, J. (2006). A comparative political economy approach to farming interest groups in Australia and the United States. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 65(3), 497-524. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2006.00467.x

Bagaric, Mirko. Humanising Animals - Civilising People [online]. Original Law Review, The, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2008: 1-7. Availability: ISSN: 1449-9053. [cited 25 Sep 13].

Barbara Noske. (2007). Animal nation: The true story of animals and Australia. Sydney: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Department of Agriculture. (2011). Australian Government response to mistreatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from []

Department of Agriculture. (2009). Consistency the key - animal welfare law. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from []Department of Agriculture. (2007). Legislation. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from []

Department of Agriculture. (2013). Live animal export trade. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from []

Gregory, N. G. (2008). Animal welfare at markets and during transport and slaughter. Meat Science, 80(1), 2-11. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.019

Joe Stork. (2012). Egypt: Human rights in transition. Social Research, 79(2), 463.

Live export ‐ A critical time viewpoint. (2006). Australian Veterinary Journal, 84(4), N6-N6. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2006.tb13388.x

Phillips, C. J. C., & Ebooks Corporation. (2009). The welfare of animals: The silent majority. London?: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9219-0

Queensland Government. (2013). Animals covered by the animal care and protection act. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from []

Queensland Government. (2013). Inspectors' powers under the animal care and protection act. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from []

Ritzer G (2012) The McDonaldization of Society (6th ed.) Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press

Roeder, L. W. (2011). Animal welfare: Diplomacy, funding and animal welfare Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Singer, P. (1990). Animal liberation. New York, N.Y: Avon Books.

Singer, P. (2013). In defense of animals. Hoboken: Wiley.