AN academic report has claimed Australia’s livestock export industry wields disproportionate power as part of what it terms “big meat”.

This is despite legislation recently being passed to force the live sheep trade to shut down within four years, and the Federal Government still yet to settle a class action after a court ruled its 2011 suspension of cattle exports to Indonesia was illegal.

The academic paper reads in a similar way and uses similar language to recent activist reports taking aim at the beef industry’s lobbying efforts, including one from the Changing Markets Foundation, which wrongly implied that key scientific work was funded by industry.

However, this study is peer-reviewed and produced by some of the country’s most respected academic institutions including Deakin University, the University of Sydney and the University of Melbourne. It used funding from the World Health Organisation . The researchers published an article in The Conversation upon releasing the study.

Northern Territory Cattleman’s Association chief executive officer Will Evans said the article did not reflect well on the publishers.

“Dedicating your time to writing academic articles this vacant should be considered a form of self-flagellation of such concern as to require mandatory leave from work,” Mr Evans said.

“Its conception is almost certain to have done far more harm to the reputations of those involved than to their intended target.”

The researchers imply that decades of animal welfare concerns and media exposés should have resulted in a complete ban on live exports.

“These animal welfare externalities are justified by framing them as crucial for global food security, emphasizing the industry’s economic contributions, and leveraging its historical and cultural significance in Australia’s diet,” the report says.

Australian Live Exporters’ Council deputy chief executive officer Scott Kompo-Harms said the industry stands by the crucial food security role livestock exports play in customer markers.

“I recently travelled to Indonesia and our whole supply chain is set up to service the needs of consumers in that country,” Mr Kompo-Harms said.

“Indonesia is a lower-to-middle income country, there are a lot of people in that country who are not as wealthy as Australians. A lot of people in Indonesia are paid daily and they can only buy small amounts of protein and fresh food daily – they can’t go to a supermarket like Australians can.”

Who is big meat?

The study makes the argument that Australia’s livestock export trade wields significant power as part of what it terms “big meat”  – despite the fact an entire arm of the trade – the live sheep export industry – was recently forced to close in four years by the Federal Government.

With more than 50,000 levy paying cattle producers across Australia, the vast majority of which are small family operations, many who Beef Central have spoken to this week say they are unsure who “big meat” is referring to.

Beef Central asked lead author Katherine Sievert earlier this week who she was referring to with the term “big meat”.

Two of the agencies the paper refers to are LiveCorp and Meat & Livestock Australia, which are not commercial enterprises but levy and taxpayer funded industry service organisations, similar to those that exist in all agricultural sectors.

Dr Sievert had not replied to Beef Central by the time of publication.

She did however do an interview with ABC Radio National breakfast host Patricia Karvelas, who asked what evidence she had of disproportionate power being used by the meat industry.

She gave an example from the US where processors were able to open plants in the middle of the COVID 19 pandemic – which presumably was more about ensuring food security during a period of massive supply disruptions – but no examples from the Australian industry.

Mr Kompo-Harms said it was important to note that the industry had a right to lobby its position.

“To say that we are wielding some kind of disproportionate influence over the Government of the day is not backed up by facts,” he said.

“We do try to have a constructive working relationship with our regulator because that is what our members need us to do. We need to be able to talk to the regulator and resolve issues and propose policy settings.”

Report leaves out key facts

The report uses three case studies to back up its claim that “big meat” has disproportionate lobbying power. It looked at soybean production in Brazil and labour standards in American processing plants alongside Australian live exports.

The report’s main charge against the live export industry is about the Awassi Express incident in 2018, where more than 2000 sheep died on a vessel heading to the Middle East.

The authors say the fact that the incident did not result in the entire live animal trade being banned is a show of disproportionate lobbying power.

The statement ignores the increased wave of regulations placed on the live export industry over the past 10 years.

The paper erroneously suggests that the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) under which exporters are required to operate are only ‘‘guiding principles’’ and “not binding rules”.

This is in direct contrast to what the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website clearly states – that is exporters must follow ASEL, and if found to be in breach of those standards, exporters face regulatory actions ranging from being required ot operate under extra conditions right through to possible criminal sanctions including fines or imprisonment.

It also fails to point out that unlike any other agricultural industry in the world, Australian livestock exporters are held legally responsible for the welfare of the animals they export from the point of disembarkation through to the point of slaughter in the destination country.

It paints ESCAS as a system that “hinders effective contract tracing” when in reality it requires exporters by law to be able to trace all livestock at all points of the supply chain, for that process to be independently audited, and for exporters to self-report any animals that move outside that secure supply chain as soon as they become aware that has happened.

Again, there are signficiant consequences for exporters if they do not comply.

It also fails to provide the important context that on many export voyages – and particularly on those where previous issues have arisen – exporters are now required to pay at their own expense to have a Government appointed independent observer to travel on their vessel and publicly monitor and report on the welfare of animals throughout.

Another misleading claim in the academic paper is that “Meat & Livestock Australia relies on continued Government funds for its core activities”. MLA’s work is funded primarily by compulsory levies paid by livestock producers on the transaction of every animal they sell (ie $5 per head for cattle and 20c per head for sheep). Government funding applies only to matching dollars for research.

And yet another is that the live export ban has “bi-partisan” support. The references to support this claim are the ALP’s policy to ban sheep exports and Greens website. Bi-partisan support would normally be used to suggest something has the support of both major parties, yet the Coalition has pledged to overturn the live sheep ban if re-elected.

There are more examples we could point to. Beef Central contacted Dr Sievert highlighting some of these concerns but has not yet received a response.

Industry “needs to take threats seriously”

With the Western Australian industry having a phase out of its live sheep export market legislated a-month-ago, WA Farmers president and National Farmers’ Federation vice president John Hassall said it was important for industry to take the rhetoric seriously.

“These are terms that have absolutely no basis in fact and are used against industry to try and garner support,” Mr Hassell said.

“It is not until the farmers get cranky that we start getting pushback for it, there are so many issues coming at us right across the country.

“It is a never-ending litany of minority groups pushing their green barrows with no basis in fact and we haven’t stood up to them as an industry.”

Mr Hassell said reports like the one this week lack basic understanding.

“They don’t seem to have a clue where their food comes from and if the food systems we have today we would not have society as we know it,” he said.

“Every-time they play with the food system, it is people that can afford it the least that suffer.”