DOCSLIB.ORG

Wool Producers' Thoughts on Mulesing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wool Producers' Thoughts on Mulesing Understanding Australian farmer’s intention to adopt practices advocated by animal welfare groups – The case of mulesing in the Australian wool industry by Alexandra Wells Bachelor of Science in Animal Science This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The University of Western Australia School of Animal Biology 2011 1 DECLARATION FOR THESES CONTAINING PUBLISHED WORK AND/OR WORK PREPARED FOR PUBLICATION STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION The work presented in this thesis is the original work of the author. This thesis contains published work which has been co-authored. The collection of data, statistical analyses and manuscript preparation was carried out by me after discussions with my supervisors Dominique Blache, Julie Lee and Joanne Sneddon. Significant advice and feedback was contributed by Dominique Blache, Julie Lee and Joanne Sneddon, who are co-authors of the published material for this reason. The work is independent and has not been paid for by any third party. Alexandra Wells November 2011 PUBLICATIONS ARISING FROM WORK IN THIS THESIS Wells, Alexandra E. D.; Sneddon, Joanne; Lee, Julie A. and Blache, Dominique. Farmer's Response to Social Concerns About Farm Animal Welfare: The Case of Mulesing.(Report), Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, Dec. 2011, Vol.24(6), p. 645 - 658 2 SUMMARY The present thesis seeks to contribute to the limited understanding of Australian farmer’s intentions for change when pressured to adopt more animal-friendly practices by animal welfare groups. The example used in the thesis was pressure from the animal welfare group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) on the Australian wool industry to stop the practice of mulesing by the end of 2010, due to the pain it causes sheep. The problem with stopping mulesing is that it is a long-held practice that is effective at reducing breech strike, a condition that itself causes welfare problems for sheep. Another issue with the cessation of mulesing is that Australian farmers tend to have greater choice over their production methods than their European or U.S. counterparts, meaning farmers may be reluctant to adopt alternatives to mulesing that are newer, are not proven as effective as mulesing for preventing breech strike and are likely to entail more time, effort and costs to implement. Two research questions were posed regarding farmer’s intentions for change in regards to mulesing: 1. Which method/s of preventing breech strike do Australian farmers intend to use after 2010? 2. What factors influence Australian farmer’s intentions to stop mulesing and use alternative methods to prevent breech strike after 2010? Review of the literature suggested that despite a lack of testing in a farming context, conceptual models from social psychology may prove useful in explaining farmer’s intentions regarding future use of mulesing. Further, perceptions of risk and uncertainty were identified as being potentially influential in farmer’s decisions to adopt change. As such, existing models from social psychology were tested in the present thesis, along with a novel research model that combined these existing models with the concepts of perceived risk and uncertainty. 3 An initial, qualitative study using in-depth interviews was employed to assess the applicability of the research models to the issue of mulesing. The interviews also identified common breech strike prevention methods, terms and language for use in the following quantitative study. The survey was then used to quantitatively test the ability of the research models to explain farmer’s intentions regarding mulesing after 2010. The results indicated that mulesing is likely to be the most popular method for preventing breech strike beyond 2010, despite opposition to the practice from PETA. Out of the alternatives to mulesing for preventing breech strike, genetics and husbandry techniques appeared popular whereas clips and intra-dermal injections were much less likely to be used. The implication of these results is that there is likely to be further conflict between PETA and the Australian wool industry, given that farmers are likely to continue mulesing despite PETA’s opposition. Further, investment in alternatives such as genetics and husbandry may be more worthwhile than investment in clips and intra-dermal injections, given the lack of popularity of these methods. Alternatively, further investment in clips and intra-dermal injections may improve farmer’s perceptions of these methods and thus increase their adoption (meaning uptake) in replacement of mulesing. Further, the results suggested that the research models applied in the present thesis were very useful for explaining farmer’s intentions to stop mulesing and adopt alternatives after 2010. In particular, factors such as attitudes, affective emotions (positive and negative), past behaviour and perceived risk influenced these intentions. A major implication of these results is that the models tested in the research may be useful in explaining farmer’s intentions to change their animal production practices in other situations where pressure to change comes from a source external to the industry. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION 2 PUBLICATIONS ARISING FROM WORK IN THIS THESIS 2 SUMMARY 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 LIST OF TABLES 8 LIST OF FIGURES 9 LIST OF ACRONYMS 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 12 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 14 1.1. CONCERNS FOR FARM ANIMAL WELFARE.....................................................................14 1.2. THE ISSUE OF MULESING IN THE AUSTRALIAN WOOLINDUSTRY................................18 1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS.................................................................................................22 1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS..........................................................................................24 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 25 2.1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................25 2.2. BREECH STRIKE AND BREECH STRIKE PREVENTION...................................................26 2.3. FARM ANIMAL WELFARE: SOCIAL AND FARMER PERSPECTIVES.............................30 2.4. UNDERSTANDING FARMERS’ INTENTIONS TO ADOPT ETHICAL FARMING PRACTICES.............................................................................................................................35 2.5. IMPROVING THE UNDERSTANDING OF FARMERS’ INTENTION FOR CHANGE REGARDING FARM ANIMAL WELFARE........................................................................................................45 2.6. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................53 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH APPROACH 55 3.1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................55 3.2. EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF RESEARCH APPROACH..................................57 CHAPTER 4. QUALITATIVE STUDY 60 5 4.1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................60 4.2. METHOD.....................................................................................................................61 4.3. FINDINGS....................................................................................................................63 4.4. DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................72 4.5. SUMMARY..................................................................................................................79 CHAPTER 5. QUANTITATIVE STUDY METHOD 80 5.1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................80 5.2. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES..............................................................................81 5.3. THE DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH..............................................................................94 5.4. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................111 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE STUDY 112 6.1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................112 6.2. FARMERS CURRENT AND FUTURE USE OF METHODS FOR PREVENTING BREECH STRIKE................................................................................................................................113 6.3. FACTORS INFLUENCING FARMERS’ INTENTIONS TO STOP MULESING AFTER 2010....117 CHAPTER 7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 145 7.1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................145 7.2. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS...................................................................................145 7.3. THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF THESIS...........................................................154 7.4. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS.................................................155 7.5. LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................158 7.6. FUTURE RESEARCH.............................................................................................159 7.7. GENERAL CONCLUSION.............................................................................................161 REFERENCE LIST 162 APPENDIX 1 184 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Examples of studies utilising
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Which Political Parties Are Standing up for Animals?
    Which political parties are standing up for animals? Has a formal animal Supports Independent Supports end to welfare policy? Office of Animal Welfare? live export? Australian Labor Party (ALP) YES YES1 NO Coalition (Liberal Party & National Party) NO2 NO NO The Australian Greens YES YES YES Animal Justice Party (AJP) YES YES YES Australian Sex Party YES YES YES Pirate Party Australia YES YES NO3 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party YES No policy YES Sustainable Australia YES No policy YES Australian Democrats YES No policy No policy 1Labor recently announced it would establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare if elected, however its structure is still unclear. Benefits for animals would depend on how the policy was executed and whether the Office is independent of the Department of Agriculture in its operations and decision-making.. Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) NO No policy NO4 2The Coalition has no formal animal welfare policy, but since first publication of this table they have announced a plan to ban the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals. Australian Independents Party NO No policy No policy 3Pirate Party Australia policy is to “Enact a package of reforms to transform and improve the live exports industry”, including “Provid[ing] assistance for willing live animal exporters to shift to chilled/frozen meat exports.” Family First NO5 No policy No policy 4Nick Xenophon Team’s policy on live export is ‘It is important that strict controls are placed on live animal exports to ensure animals are treated in accordance with Australian animal welfare standards. However, our preference is to have Democratic Labour Party (DLP) NO No policy No policy Australian processing and the exporting of chilled meat.’ 5Family First’s Senator Bob Day’s position policy on ‘Animal Protection’ supports Senator Chris Back’s Federal ‘ag-gag’ Bill, which could result in fines or imprisonment for animal advocates who publish in-depth evidence of animal cruelty The WikiLeaks Party NO No policy No policy from factory farms.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission for the Inquiry Into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture
    AA SUBMISSION 340 Submission for the Inquiry into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture 1. Term of reference a. the type and prevalence of unauthorised activity on Victorian farms and related industries, and the application of existing legislation: In Victoria, animal cruelty – including, but not limited to, legalised cruelty – neglect and violations of animal protection laws are a reality of factory farming. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) affords little protection to farm animals for a number of reasons, including the operation of Codes of Practice and the Livestock Management Act 2010 (Vic). The fact that farm animals do not have the same protection as companion animals justifies applying a regime of institutionalised and systematic cruelty to them every single day of their lives: see, for example, the undercover footage contained on Aussie Farms, ‘Australian Pig Farming: The Inside Story’ (2015) < http://www.aussiepigs.com.au/ >. It is deeply concerning and disturbing that in addition to the legalised cruelty farm animals are subjected to, farm animals are also subjected to illegal/unauthorised cruelty on Victorian farms. The type of unauthorised activity on Victorian farms is extremely heinous: this is evidenced by the fact that it transcends the systematic cruelty currently condoned by law and the fact that footage of incidences of such unauthorised activity is always horrific and condemned by the public at large. Indeed, speaking about footage of chickens being abused at Bridgewater Poultry earlier this year, even the Victorian Farmers Federation egg group president, Tony Nesci, told the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age that he was horrified by the footage and livid at what had happened.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 31 Animals Australia
    Submission No 31 INQUIRY INTO PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT (RESTRICTIONS ON STOCK ANIMAL PROCEDURES) BILL 2019 Organisation: Animals Australia Date Received: 6 August 2020 6 August 2020 The Hon. Mark Banasiak MLC Chair, Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry New South Wales Legislative Council By Email: [email protected] Dear Mr Banasiak, Animals Australia’s Submission to the New South Wales Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Restrictions on Stock Animal Procedures) Bill 2019 Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this important Bill to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTA), and to provide evidence at the Inquiry on 11 August 2020. If the Committee requires any further information or clarification prior to my appearance, we are able to provide these on request. Animals Australia is a leading animal protection organisation that regularly contributes advice and expertise to government and other bodies in Australia, and though our international arm (Animals International) works on global animal welfare issues. On behalf of our individual members and supporters, we are pleased to be able to provide this submission. A. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Schedule 1 Amendment of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200 [1] Section 23B Insert after section 23A— 23B Mules operation prohibited (1) A person who performs the Mules operation on a sheep is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty—50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. (2) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) until on or after 1 January 2022. [2] Section 24 Certain defences Insert “or” at the end of section 24(1)(a)(iii).
    [Show full text]
  • Dorper Sheep and the Production of Lean Lamb in Arid Australia
    International Specialised Skills Institute Inc DORPER SHEEP AND THE PRODUCTION OF LEAN LAMB IN ARID AUSTRALIA Richard Knights International ISS Institute/DEEWR Trades Fellowship Fellowship supported by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australian Government ISS Institute Inc. MARCH 2010 © International Specialised Skills Institute ISS Institute Suite 101 685 Burke Road Camberwell Vic AUSTRALIA 3124 Telephone 03 9882 0055 Facsimile 03 9882 9866 Email [email protected] Web www.issinstitute.org.au Published by International Specialised Skills Institute, Melbourne. ISS Institute 101/685 Burke Road Camberwell 3124 AUSTRALIA March 2010 Also extract published on www.issinstitute.org.au © Copyright ISS Institute 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. This project is funded by the Australian Government under the Strategic Intervention Program which supports the National Skills Shortages Strategy. This Fellowship was funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views and opinions expressed in the documents are those of the Authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Whilst this report has been accepted by ISS Institute, ISS Institute cannot provide expert peer review of the report, and except as may be required by law no responsibility can be accepted by ISS Institute for the content of the report, or omissions, typographical, print or photographic errors, or inaccuracies that may occur after publication or otherwise. ISS Institute does not accept responsibility for the consequences of any actions taken or omitted to be taken by any person as a consequence of anything contained in, or omitted from, this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Prevention and Control of Blowfly Strike in Sheep
    RESEARCH REPORT: Prevention and control of blowfly strike in sheep JANUARY 2019 CONTENTS The RSPCA view ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Flystrike ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Mulesing .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 An integrated approach to flystrike prevention and control ............................................................................ 6 Breeding and selection ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Breeding and selection - SRS Merino .................................................................................................................. 7 Breeding – getting started .................................................................................................................................. 8 Monitoring blowfly activity and reducing blowfly populations .......................................................................... 8 Preventative chemical fly treatments ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Advocating for Animals in Australia
    THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE : ADVOCATING FOR ANIMALS IN AUSTRALIA * DAVID GLASGOW A movement of activist ‘animal lawyers’ has recently arrived in Australia. This article contends that Australian lawyers have a significant role to play in advancing the animal protection cause. Part I discusses the philosophical foundation of the modern animal protection movement and describes the important theoretical divide that splits it into animal ‘welfare’ and animal ‘rights’. Part II explains the Australian legal regime governing animal protection to show how the law acts as a site of exploitation. Part III explores the role of lawyers within the movement. It does this by appraising the obstacles in the way of animal protectionism and exploring what makes an effective lawyer advocate. It then uses a case study of battery hens to demonstrate the valuable role lawyers can play to support the animal cause. We are now at a new and strange juncture in human experience. Never has there been such massive exploitation of animals… At the same time, never have there been so many people determined to stop this exploitation. 1 Laws relating to animals have existed for centuries. However, a movement of activist ‘animal lawyers’ has only recently arrived in Australia. This movement seeks to advocate for animals and challenge deficiencies in laws that adversely impact upon them. There has been a surge of animal law activity in recent years, signalling the birth of the movement in Australia. A few examples include the rise of law schools teaching Animal Law; 2 the advent of organisations such as Voiceless, 3 the Barristers Animal Welfare * BA/LLB (First Class Honours), Melbourne (2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Experimentation Fact Sheet
    Animal Experimentation Fact Sheet In this factsheet... 1. Introduction 2. Types of Research 3. Alternatives 4. Animals in Education 5. Animal protection laws? 6. Reform is needed 7. Further information Introduction The use of living animals in research and teaching became significant in the second half of the nineteenth century as part of the development of the emerging sciences of physiology and anatomy. The post-war expansion of the pharmaceutical and chemical industries saw an enormous increase in the use of animals in research. Today it is a multi-billion dollar industry, encompassing the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and university and government bodies. There is also a significant industry providing support services in relation to animal research, including animal breeding, food supply, cage manufacture, etc. The vast majority of animals used in research are subjected to some degree of pain or stress during experimental Rabbits are commonly used overseas in painful eye irritancy tests for products procedures to which they may be subjected, or as a result available in Australia. of the environment in which they are kept prior to or after those procedures. Many people think that all animal research is part of medical research - this is not true. Types of Research The following are the most common (but not only) categories of animal-based research: Basic 'Biomedical Research' The majority of animals used in research and teaching in universities and research establishments are used in experiments or procedures which are aimed at finding out more about the processes governing the function of living organisms. Some of this work may be relevant to the understanding of human disease, but most of it will not be.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Political Parties Are Standing up for Animals?
    Which political parties are standing up for animals? Has a formal animal Supports Independent Supports end to welfare policy? Office of Animal Welfare? live export? Australian Labor Party (ALP) YES YES1 NO Coalition (Liberal Party & National Party) NO2 NO NO The Australian Greens YES YES YES Animal Justice Party (AJP) YES YES YES Australian Sex Party YES YES YES Health Australia Party YES YES YES Science Party YES YES YES3 Pirate Party Australia YES YES NO4 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party YES No policy YES Sustainable Australia YES No policy YES 1Labor recently announced it would establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare if elected, however its struc- ture is still unclear. Benefits for animals would depend on how the policy was executed and whether the Office is independent of the Department of Agriculture in its operations and decision-making. Australian Democrats YES No policy No policy 2The Coalition has no formal animal welfare policy, but since first publication of this table they have announced a plan to ban the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals. Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) NO No policy NO5 3The Science Party's policy states "We believe the heavily documented accounts of animal suffering justify an end to the current system of live export, and necessitate substantive changes if it is to continue." Australian Independents Party NO No policy No policy 4Pirate Party Australia policy is to “Enact a package of reforms to transform and improve the live exports industry”, including “Provid[ing] assistance for willing live animal exporters to shift to chilled/frozen meat exports.” 6 Family First NO No policy No policy 5Nick Xenophon Team’s policy on live export is ‘It is important that strict controls are placed on live animal exports to ensure animals are treated in accordance with Australian animal welfare standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Animal Protection Law Journal Issn 1835-7008
    AUSTRALIAN ANIMAL PROTECTION LAW JOURNAL ISSN 1835-7008 Australia’s first peer-reviewed Animal Law journal (2011) 5 AAPLJ EDITOR John Mancy ASSISTANT EDITOR Jacquie Mancy-Stuhl Published by John Mancy t/as LEGAL BULLETIN SERVICE 18 Wavell St., Carlingford, N.S.W. 2118 Australia E-mail: [email protected] © 2008 John Mancy t/as Legal Bulletin Service (2011) 5 AAPLJ ! 1! CONTENTS DEFINING THE PUPPY FARM PROBLEM: An Examination of the Regulation of Dog Breeding, Rearing and Sale in Australia Katherine Cooke …… 3 THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS AND THE WELFARIST APPROACH TO PROTECTION: May the Twain Meet? Stephen Keim SC & Tracy-Lynne Geysen … 26 SHOOTING OUR WILDLIFE: An Analysis of The Law and its Animal Welfare Outcomes for Kangaroos & Wallabies Keely Boom and Dror Ben-Ami … 44 TOWARDS THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF ANIMALS IN CHINA Deborah Cao … 76 NOTES Whaling Update (Celeste Black) … 82 Bobby Calves: an example of the Standards Development Process (Elizabeth Ellis) ... 89 CASE NOTES Australian Consumer and Competition Commission v CI & Co Pty Ltd & Ors 1 (Ian Weldon ) … 96 BOOK REVIEWS 102 • Animal Rights What Everyone Needs To Know • Kitty McSporran Saves the Animals ANIMAL LAW COURSES 2011-12 104 1 [2011]FCA 1511. (2011) 5 AAPLJ ! 2! Defining the Puppy Farm Problem: An Examination of the Regulation of Dog Breeding, Rearing and Sale in Australia By Katherine Cooke ! ‘Human beings do not treat animals harshly because they are classified as property; animals are classified as property so that human beings can legally treat them harshly.’2 This article examines the regulation of dog breeding, rearing and sale in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare Assessments of Analgesic Options in Female Lambs for Surgical Mulesing and Its Alternatives
    Project No.: ON-00026 Contract No.: PO4500006124 AWI Project Manager: Bridget Peachey Contractor Name: CSIRO Agriculture & Food Prepared by: Alison Small & Caroline Lee Publication date: 29 May 2018 Welfare assessments of analgesic options in female lambs for surgical mulesing and its alternatives Published by Australian Wool Innovation Limited, Level 6, 68 Harrington Street, THE ROCKS, NSW, 2000 This publication should only be used as a general aid and is not a substitute for specific advice. To the extent permitted by law, we exclude all liability for loss or damage arising from the use of the information in this publication. © 2018 Australian Wool Innovation Limited. All rights reserved. Australian Wool Innovation Limited gratefully acknowledges the funds provided by the Australian government to support the research, development and innovation detailed in this publication. Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction/Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Success in Achieving Objectives..................................................................................................................... 11 Methodology.........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review] a Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015 Gonzalo Villanueva, a Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015
    Animal Studies Journal Volume 7 Number 1 Article 16 2018 [Review] A Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015 Gonzalo Villanueva, A Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015 Christine Townend Animal Liberation, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj Part of the Art and Design Commons, Australian Studies Commons, Creative Writing Commons, Digital Humanities Commons, Education Commons, Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, Film and Media Studies Commons, Fine Arts Commons, Philosophy Commons, Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, and the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons Recommended Citation Townend, Christine, [Review] A Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015 Gonzalo Villanueva, A Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015, Animal Studies Journal, 7(1), 2018, 322-326. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol7/iss1/16 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] [Review] A Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015 Gonzalo Villanueva, A Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015 Abstract This is a book that every student of politics would enjoy reading, and indeed should read, together with every person who wishes to become an activist (not necessarily an animal activist). This is because the book discusses, in a very interesting and exacting analysis, different strategies used to achieve a goal; in this case, the liberation of animals from the bonds of torture, deprivation and cruelty. Gonzalo Villanueva clearly has compassion for animals, but he is careful to keep an academic distance in this thoroughly researched, scholarly book, which is nevertheless easy to read.
    [Show full text]
  • Pig 'Welfare' Code Egypt Investigation Sea Shepherd
    animals TODAY Pig ‘Welfare’ Code Egypt Investigation Sea Shepherd ... and much more! Vol. 15 - No. 1 - 2007 The magazine speaking up for all animals animals TODAY Vol. 15 - No. 1 - 2007 Examination of the review processes reveals We’ve been conditioned by past generations that, despite what government and industry to accept the eating of animals. Yet more and would like the public to believe, they had little more we are learning of the health impacts to do with animal welfare. Rather, the priority connected to the consumption of animals, has been for the ‘welfare’ of industry operators. the impact of animal agriculture on the envi- ronment, and the suffering of animals in the Does government have a responsibility to production and slaughter process. We know consider the welfare of the millions of non- that we don’t have to eat animals to survive or voting Australian animals in this country? The to be healthy, meaning that the tremendous answer is yes – both legislatively and ethically. suffering inherent in the production of ‘food’ However, for as long as the responsibility for animals is totallly unnecessary. It becomes a the welfare of agricultural animals is deter- personal choice , and with that choice comes mined by Primary Industries Ministers – whose repercussions for animals, humans and the main interest is the furthering of rural indus- environment that few people are willing to tries - there is no prospect of animal welfare acknowledge. being given appropriate consideration. This ‘conflict of conscience’ has played a Directions... It is impossible not to acknowledge the com- significant role in assisting governments and mon denominator regarding those animals industries to reduce ‘food’ animals to the During the past seven years Animals Australia whom our legislation is failing to protect: They status of ‘commodities’ in our legislation.
    [Show full text]