Live Export

Anti-live export report demonstrates activism in science

Eric Barker 01/08/2024

A GROUP of academics from some of the country’s most respected institutions have this week decided that the live export industry has too much power.

Yep, you read that right – that is the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study funded by the World Health Organisation.

The research was published in conjunction with an article on The Conversation which makes the broad claim that “production, trade and consumption of meat is harmful in many ways”, while failing to acknowledge that huge amounts of scientific evidence exist to the contrary.

Led by Deakin University researcher Katherine Sievert, with Deakin’s Mark Lawrence, the University of Melbourne’s Christine Parker and The University of Sydney’s Phillip Baker, the study on the power of “big meat” looked into three case studies where the industry was supposedly possessing too much power.

The case studies included soybean production in Brazil, labour standards in United States processing plants and the Australian live export industry.

While the researchers cherry-picked facts and made big assumptions, a quick flick through Beef Central or any other rural media outlet could have debunked the conclusion on live exports before the researchers spent the time and money.

A phase out of live sheep exports has just been legislated despite a united agriculture industry lobbying against it and the cattle industry is still waiting on compensation from a snap live export ban 13-years-ago that was found to be illegal in the Federal Court.

The idea that the Australian live export industry has any power over the Department of Agriculture could also be questioned by the many concerns the industry has been raising about the department’s direction over the past year. You could also mention the hundreds of healthy cattle that were rejected from export ships because they had skin blemishes and the department was taking a conservative approach to Indonesia’s lumpy skin disease concerns.

The paper is worded in a similar way to anti-meat activist reports that are being published almost daily at the moment. The activists are getting increasingly outrageous with their claims and loose with facts. They are also purporting to be impartial sources like journalists and, in this case, researchers.

“Big meat” or “big beef” is a phrase the activists are using in their reports – including this one Beef Central covered last week. They are obviously conflating the meat industry with “big tobacco” and “big fossil fuels”, both of which have a reputation of using slick and underhanded public relations campaigns to distract from the respective health and climate problems they are associated with.

The characterisation ignores the fact that Australia has a diverse array of beef producers, 52,000 levy payers, and that the industry has been consistently found as an important part of diets and land management.

The research paper is unclear on who “big meat” is, especially with the Australian live export industry, which raises questions about why the phrase was used in the first place.

As Swiss scientist Peer Ederer recently told Beef Central, the role of science is vastly different to the role of activists. Prof Ederer says scientists are supposed to be aiding discovery and building evidence rather then coming up with their own policies.

He is part of a group of scientists who have been raising concerns about other scientists letting their work be influenced by their ideology, particularly the ideology that the world needs to move away from meat and livestock. Last year, they formulated the Dublin Declaration recognising meat and livestock as essential to the planet, which has been signed by more than 1200 scientists.

While difficult to read through all the papers cited in this week’s Deakin University study, a cursory glance at some of the headlines and excerpts demonstrated just how much scientific literature is out there attacking the Australian beef industry.

In another article today, Beef Central has highlighted several examples from the live export section where crucial facts have been left out.

The fact that this article article has attracted funding from some of the world’s most important health organisations and passed the peer review process of respected universities raises questions about the rigour of the other research attacking the industry.

HAVE YOUR SAY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your comment will not appear until it has been moderated.
Contributions that contravene our Comments Policy will not be published.

Comments

  1. Joanne Rea, 02/08/2024

    Food Standards Australia and New Zealand’s web page headline is,
    “Food safety is our business. FSANZ has set the standards for safe food in Australia and New Zealand for more than 25 years. Our work is at the heart of the world class bi-national food regulation system, ensuring consumers in both countries can be confident the food they buy is safe to eat.”
    Why then, are they getting involved in hit pieces against the Australian livestock industry which is undoubtedly the safest food in the world to eat. Red meat also provides essential nutrients.

    Editor’s note: FSANZ has since come back to Beef Central saying that while one of the report’s co-authors is an FSANZ director, there was no financial involvement from the regulator We’ve removed the FSANZ reference from the original article.

  2. Stanley Bruce Collins, 01/08/2024

    No doubt this study would have been funded by an ARC grant. If your topic is not left wing it doesn’t get a grant.

  3. James Fortune, 01/08/2024

    Some interesting and easily available numbers on what might happen to Brazil soy – – issue when they busily conflate numbers and their arguments naively across sectors

    Over one-third (37%) of global soy is fed to chickens and other poultry, one-fifth to pigs, and 6% to aquaculture. Very little soy is used for beef and dairy production – only 2%. One-fifth of the world’s soy is used for direct (i.e. not from meat and dairy) human consumption.

Get Beef Central's news headlines emailed to you -
FREE!