How+much+is+too+much?+Can+we+ethically+keep+up+with+the+demand+for+meat.

**Name:** Peter Bowe

 * Student Number:** 08687366
 * Tutor:** Michelle Cornford

**Can the Australian live export industry ethical keep up with the demand for meat?**
=ARTEFACT= = =

__**Cultural Artefact**__
The cultural artefact that is presented illustrates a view of the Australian live export industry and the ethics surrounding the issue. It is a cartoon that depicts a systematic guide for the Australian industry to follow if the public uncovers that ‘Australian animals’ are being exported to countries without animal welfare laws. It guides the live export reader through situations they might find themselves in. These include whether the animals were abused, was it filmed, and how to respond to the public outrage. Like all comic strips that address social and ethical issues, it is presented in a comical manner to attract readers to the underlying issue. This is evident by both the language used, and the image of comically drawn animals with worried expressions in the lower right corner.

__**Public Health Issue**__ The artefact represents the public health issues surrounding the ethical aspects of eating meat. In particular there is a focus regarding the growing ethical concern of live exports in relation to the globalization of the meat industry. By 2050 it is predicted that the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion occurring mainly in developing countries. Urbanization will continue at an accelerated pace becoming a major driving force influencing global demand for livestock products. (Yates‐Doerr. 2012) Due to this there is, and will continue to be, increased demand that puts pressure on supply. Ultimately, this leads many within the industry to respond to this demand by over-looking ethical practices in favour for simplified and cheaper methods. These practices include: Shipping to countries without animal welfare practices, using unskilled and untrained workers in both farming, transportation and slaughtering sectors and finally not addressing the industries underlying issues that are causing this trade defect, i.e poverty reduction, food security, environmental sustainability and human health, all of which will be discussed below.

Australia has been exporting livestock to the overseas market for over 50 years. It has managed to become an integral component of the Australian agricultural sector, equating to an average of $1 billon in export earnings annually to the national economy. (Penfold. 2013) Overall the industry employs approximately 13,000 people within rural and regional areas, providing significant employment opportunities to the indigenous population within Northern and Western Australia. (Kidane. 2008) For many cattle producers within these areas the industry is the only source of income, as livestock production has been transformed to meet the requirements of South-East Asian and the Middle Eastern markets. 75% of sheep and 80% cattle are exported to these regions. (Penfold. 2013) The chief ethical concerns within the Australian industry does not come from the industry itself. In perspective to the rest of the world Australia is considered to be the strictest in terms of standards for animal farming and slaughtering within its borders. (This is not including arguments proposed by ethical vegetarianism i.e Animal Liberation Movement: ‘Killing for consumption is always morally wrong’.) The industry is guided by the ‘Animal Welfare Act’ which generally indicates that five codes of practice must be upheld, these being: (AMIC, 2013)
 * __Literature Review__**
 * 1) Freedom from hunger and thirst
 * 2) Freedom from discomfort
 * 3) Freedom from pain, injury and disease
 * 4) Freedom to express normal behavior
 * 5) Freedom from fear and distress

However under Australia’s constitutional arrangements, state and territory governments are responsible for animal welfare arrangements within their jurisdictions. The states and territories set and enforce animal welfare standards through animal welfare or legislation dealing with the prevention of cruelty to animals. (DAFF, 2013) This legislation does not always uphold all 5 principles leading to some un-ethical practices like Battery Hens. However the major ethical concern, which breaks all five principles, extends from the live export sector and its willingness to exports animals to countries that lack stringent animal welfare standards, especially livestock regulations. Additionally, these countries have poor measures to enforce their legislation regarding OIE guidelines. (Russell, 2011). In June 2011, ABC TV’s Four Corners program aired footage of the outrageous cruelty and living conditions live cattle within the Australian live export industry experienced when exported from Australia to Indonesia. The viewers witnessed Indonesian slaughterhouse workers beating, whipping and dismembering the cattle while they were still conscious. This footage generated significant public outcry, leading the Australian government to suspend the live export of cattle to Indonesia. (Hastreiter, 2013) This was not the first time footage had been leaked showing the mistreatment of Australian cattle in overseas industries. In 2006 recordings surfaced showing cattle mistreatment at Cairo’s notorious abattoir, Bassateen in Egypt. (Smietanka, 2013) and the numerous cases that occurred in Saudi Arabia between 1989 and 2003, which resulted in Saudi Arabia refusing to trade with Australia. (Smietanka, 2013) The typical animal welfare breaches reported, apart from inhumane handling and slaughter practices include: Death due to lack of on-board ventilation; death in feedlots from disease; poor accommodation and conditions on board with serious illness, injury, and next to no veterinary care; and finally starvation of sheep that do not adjust to pellet feed. (Smietanka, 2013)





So why does the industry continue to be involved with such unethical practise? The industry itself and the Federal government have tried to appease the public outrage that resulted from the Indonesian footage. They did this by implementing a temporary suspension of the live export industry to Indonesia. Evidently this had a devastating impact on the Australian industry which had no substitute trade to turn to. Thus it was lifted with the promise that cattle would receive humane treatment throughout the entire export chain. (Atkin, 2011) According to the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council (ALEC), under ESCAS (Exporter Suppy Chain Assurance), the responsibility for ensuring global animal welfare standards are now met at each stage of the export supply chain lies with commercial operators. (Smietanka, 2013) It dictates that Australian exporters seeking a permit to export feeder and/or slaughter livestock must show that their supply chain complies with a 130-point animal welfare standards checklist based on The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines. (Penfold. 2013) That being said in late 2012 and again in 2013 Indonesian and Pakistan abattoirs were still found to be continually breaching animal welfare practices, showing that the measures put in place by the Livestock Exporters’ Council had failed. (Kidane. 2008) Australia is continually grappling with how to balance economic concerns with animal welfare concerns, resulting in a continuous cycle of Australian live export trade suspensions followed by resumptions. This continuous cycle exposes an ongoing battle of priorities between parties interested in preserving animal welfare and those that profit from live exports. (Hastreiter, 2013)

While many animal activists are lobbying the Australian government to ban the live export trade, other concerned parties demand that Australia actually needs to continue as an active participant in the trade to regulate and fix it. (McLeod, 2009) Brazil, Australia’s chief competitor, has been continually reported for breaching animal welfare guidelines, the most recent event occurring in October where more than 2700 cattle were reported to have died on the recently converted livestock exportvessel the MV Gracia Del Mar in the Red Sea. (BC, 2013) Due to the abrupt suspension on the export of cattle to Indonesia, many fear that the Indonesian farming community may influence their government to alter its trade policy and choose to import processed meat products from Brazil. (Hastreiter, 2013) This would definitely be the case if the Australian industry stopped altogether. However as discussed above, the measures that were put in place by ALEC had little effect on stopping breaches in animal welfare outside of the Australian industry. On top of this the ban did not promote food security within Indonesia. Since 1995 it has been reported by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation that some 30-40 per cent of Indonesian children are stunted. They don’t get enough food. Stunting during childhood usually causes a host of other physical and mental problems in later life. (Russell, 2011). As these children and their families struggle to afford rice when grain prices rise, (the food shortages that gain little media attention in 2008) they cannot afford the imported beef that goes mainly to tourists and wealthy Indonesians. This is evident by there being no increase in the per capita beef consumption since 1995. (Russell, 2011).



Therefore to say Australia needs to ‘regulate the system to promote positive effects for both animal welfare and food security’ is noble, but a futile and false statement. The only reasons to keep the live export industry running is for Australia’s personal financial interest, being the top earner in the agricultural industry. But could it be phased out positively by following the New Zealand model of exporting only processed meat? (Russell, 2011) While an immediate cessation of the live export industry would cause substantial financial harm to Australian farmers and their communities, a gradual reduction leading to an eventual termination of the entire industry could improve the long-term economic condition of farmers and their communities, by expanding the domestic meat processing industry and Australia’s domestic and international trading markets. (7, 2003) Although processed meat exports may not be a perfect substitute for live cattle, Australia has the infrastructure to transition its agricultural industry from one dominated by live exports to a diversified industry that includes processed meat and alternative markets, domestically and abroad. (Hastreiter, 2013)Ultimately such a transition would need to be gradual and would require substantial collaboration between the industry and the government to ensure that the farmers’ livelihoods would be protected. (Kidane, 2008) Additionally the Federal Government would need to continually consult with its current and potential future trading partners to ensure that its transition from live exports does not permanently harm its trade relationships or cause trade to cease altogether. (Hastreiter, 2013)

This would ultimately allow the industry within Australia to keep up with the growing demand for meat exports, while also controlling the farming and slaughtering methods, thus abiding by animal welfare practices while also creating jobs within rural and regional areas. This is the only way the industry could ethically keep up with the demand for meat.

As the meat industry, in particular the live export sector has been the backbone of the Agricultural industry within Australia for the last 50 years there is a general interest to keep it going. The economic stability of $1 billon in export earnings annually to the national economy is a major driving factor as to why the industrialised production of meat will not slow down. (Meadows 2011) Due to this increasing globalization the industry is often compared to the mining industry: coining the term “dining boom” instead of “mining boom”. (Condon 2013) The dominance of the industry is best based around cultural ideology of capitalism, both economically and socially. Economically it has prospered due to it being a mass production process that has developed to provide cheap food for the working class, both within Australia and in other countries. Socially, within western societies, meat is still associated with luxury, social status and health therefore making it a desired commodity that keeps the local economic markets active. (3. 2005)
 * __Cultural and social analysis__**

Since the release of the first mistreatment video in the late 1980s there has been a steady flow of opposition to the live export sector. This opposition accumulated the biggest following the release of the ABCs Four Corners video which sparked huge amounts of public outrage. The public outcry was immediate and unsurprising; some 250, 000 Australians signed a petition within days to ban live animal exports. (Smietanka, 2013) Evidently animal ethics groups have increasingly been involved in promoting protest, awareness programs, petitions and investigations. The most predominate being Animals Australia, the group behind the 2011 video. While the cruelty needs to be stopped, even having enough support that Jennifer Macdougall, a cattle producer and member of Meat and Livestock Australia stated: “there is a systemic abuse of animals in all our importing countries, and our animals fall victim to that abuse, it must come to an end”. (Smietanka, 2013) An eminent and continuous ban would have devastating impacts on the rural and remote livestock communities in Northern and Western Australia, as well as severely damaging the Australian economic and trade relations with importing countries. (Hastreiter, 2013) Therefore with all these groups, in consideration, the best plan of action it to follow the New Zealand model as discussed above.

__**Analysis and Reflection**__
As discussed earlier the present artefact represents the ethical dilemmas sounding the live export sector. It accurately portrays the topic as it shows the perception of those who are within the industry and have to deal with the public outrage. This outrage would not only extend from the discovery of animal mistreatment, but also from the failure to implement programs that address the underlining factors of why this cruelty is happening in the first place. Before undertaking this assessment I had little understanding of how the meat industry handled its ethical issues. It has given me an in-depth understanding of both the ethical, social and economic consequences of the live export industry. Although it has not changed my feeling for personal meat consumption it has broadened my understanding of how meat reaches my plate, ultimately allowing me to express more sympathy towards the animal.

__** Works Cited **__
Atkin M. (2011). //Growing interest for 'ethical' meat.// The world today Sydney:Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Duncan, R. (1999). The australian beef export trade and the origins of the australian meat board. //Australian Journal of Politics and History, 5//(2), 191.

Livestock export standards updated. (2005). //Australian Veterinary Journal, 83//(9), 529-529. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb13317.x

Hastreiter, M. T. (2013). Animal welfare standards and australia's live exports industry to indonesia: Creating an opportunity out of a crisis. //Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 12//(1), 181.

Kidane, H. (2008). Export market for australian beef industry: Constraints, potentials and implications for other beef exporting countries. //Journal of Food Products Marketing, 14//(1), 11-36.

McLeod, S. (2009). //New book questions ethics of meat industry//

More australian livestock imported. (2003). //Economic View, Trade Journals Shanghai SHELnet Corporation. Doi: 215548645//

Meadows, R. (2011). Aussies switch to kiwi cows. //The Nelson Mail,//, 1. ProQuest Issues, 21, 33

Penfold A. (2013). Australia leads the world in livestock export. ProQuest //Issues, 103//, 9.

Russell, G. (2011). Slaughterhouse live: Our bloody cattle exports. //Chain Reaction,// (112), 34-35.

Smietanka A. (2013). Live export: A cruel and risky industry. ProQuest //Issues, 103//, 4.

Yates ‐ Doerr, E. (2012). Meeting the demand for meat? //Anthropology Today, 28//(1), 11-15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2012.00849.x

Animals Australia (2013) Ban Live Exports Retrieved from: [] 26/10/13

Animals Australia (2012) Indonesia: New investigation. Same cruelty Retrieved from: [] 26/10/13

The Australia Meat Industry Council (2013) Constitution boards and council. Retrieved from: http://www.amic.org.au/content_common/pg-constitution-board--councils.seo

Department of Agriculture and fishers (2013//) model code of practice for the welfare of animals.// Retrieved from: [|http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant health/welfare/model_code_of_practice_for_the_welfare_of_animals]

Condon, J. (2013). //'Mining boom' to 'dining boom', predicts beef exporter.// Retrieved from []

[]
 * Learning Engagement and Reflection **

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64698190