June 17, 2021 - 7:00am
Yesterday the UK agreed a historic free-trade deal with Australia, and while much has been written about how the move will affect farmers, less has been considered about how this will affect animal rights.
The RSPCA released a statement yesterday warning that the deal will lead to lower welfare imports of animal products that have been reared in ways that are currently illegal here; for example, 40% of beef produced in Australia has been made using hormones, a practice not allowed in the UK.
Indeed, Australia has a pretty poor record when it comes to animal welfare standards; the Chief Executive of RSPCA Australia called them “basic at best.” In Australia, CCTV is not compulsory in slaughterhouses; hot branding is permitted; beef cattle can be transported for up to 48 hours without food or water in intense heat; and they also allow chlorinated chicken. Battery cages for laying hens and sow stalls (tiny cages used to prevent pregnant pigs from moving) are also both legal, as well as the practice of mulesing (cutting off parts of the sheep’s buttocks and tail with no pain relief.)
The government is breaking a promise to the UK public: in its manifesto it vowed to maintain animal welfare standards and Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove explicitly said that Brexit would “not diminish animal protection in any way, shape or form.” While it may be easy to claim that it is ultimately down to consumer choice, this is obviously complicated by cost (such processes inevitably lead to cheaper prices, which will undercut UK farmers), and a lack of knowledge around the issue.
It is very hard for people to make informed decisions about what food they buy. Firstly, many consumers disassociate meat from its animal origins, either wilfully (for example, squeamishness) or ignorance (lack of education). Despite Brits consuming 61kg of animal protein per person per year, nearly 75% of people do not know where rump steak comes from on a cow, 65% of people have never seen a butcher at work, and 22% of the public are unaware that bacon comes from a pig. Perhaps it is unsurprising that we know so little about meat preparation given that one in six 16-20 year olds and one in eight 21-34 year olds eat fast food at least twice a day.
The second reason we may not realise that we are complicit in animal cruelty is that packaging standards are also woefully inadequate. Food labels must include information like ingredients, use-by-dates and storage conditions, but apart from country of origin, they are not legally required to disclose any other details about manufacturing processes. Labels are also often deliberately misleading — free range, for example, does not necessarily mean that the chickens were free to range outdoors.
If the government wants to honour its commitments, then it must either hold Australian imports to our standards or update its packaging policies so that people are more aware of the barbaric conditions these animals are put through.
I remember a conversation I had with a class once where I asked them what they thought future generations would judge us most harshly for. The most popular answer was our slowness to act on climate change, and the second was our treatment of animals. They may well be your typical green Gen Z-ers, but they may also well be right; let’s just hope that this ‘historic’ trade deal isn’t remembered for all the wrong reasons.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAustralian cattle are much more likely to be pasture-fed free range than UK cattle. End of story.
It’s certainly no surprise that UK consumers are generally ignorant of meat production.
What?! This piece is nonsense. As one of the comments below has mentioned, Australian cattle is far more likely to be pasture-fed than in the UK. There is also way less factory farming in Australia than in the UK. And no, citing the RSPCA, an organisation that is rapidly turning itself into PETA, doesn’t cut it either.
Correct about RSPCA.
They have an arsenal of headline-grabbing attack videos ready for every country, including the UK. They don’t so much care for the welfare of beef cattle, as want to destroy the beef industry altogether.
In Australia, “Animals Australia” activists in league with the taxpayer-funded broadcaster ABC destroyed the valuable live export trade to Indonesia after political agitation based on a wildly misrepresented report on Indonesian slaughterhouses.
http://www.farmonline.com.au/story/3623727/4-corners-fall-out-wrecking-live-export-industry-part-one/
Extract:
The live export trade is an obscenity.
As meat consumption continues to grow in Africa and Asia, what a bunch of middle class vegetarians in UK think about it is increasingly irrelevant.
But so is beef irrelevant, mostly, to this trade deal which covers a wide range of issues and products and does not rely on changing UK or Australian consumer law to force feed the UK population with hormones. Although perhaps they might benefit.
The only person I pay much attention to to when they discuss animal husbandry is a farmer. My experience is that they know what they are doing and that their care for their animals is understanding, thorough, and sincere.
To cite the RSPCA simply irritates and alienates me, as to describe them either as charitable or caring for animals is largely a misnomer in my view. I have no regard for anything that they say nowadays and I stopped donating to them many years ago go when they started showing signs of wokeness, corruption and and mission creep.
Our farmers are among the best in the world and quite capable of operating in a market which is also served by any other country in the world. This article is rather alarmist and seems to be be a slave to an agenda, in my view
As the human populations get bigger and richer, their consummation must not be at the cost of farmed animals welfare.
Simple answer – Buy British.
“You too can eat a kangaroo like many fine Australians do!”
Overherd.
See the essay on Jewishness.
My eyes were opened to disastrous animal rights in America generally 3 yrs ago & I have been mostly vegan since. This disassociation with another creature’s plight and our treatment of it while living sickened me. Only if roles were reversed!
While I agree that as a species, meat has supplemented our diet in the past but it was never a main stay like it is now. There was hunting & competition for it. With 7b & counting mouths wanting ready made meat, the situation both environmentally & for animal welfare is in dire straits. The more we farm meat, the more stressed the environment, it’s unsustainable.
They’re also very cruel to cricket balls.
The first piece I’ve read on UnHerd where I find it hard to disagree with one word.
I wish people would eat less meat, for the benefit of themselves and for animals. The only way that’s going to happen is by keeping prices as high as possible so that welfare standards can be maintained.
No one needs to eat more than 2 to 3 portions of red meat or chicken per week.
Of course this most decadent Conservative government ever will get round UK animal welfare standards. They will make sure it gets buried or mangled in the next manifesto*.
As this article implies most people don’t care about animal welfare…
*How depressing – I have resigned myself to more & more years of these depraved clowns.