Right: halal slaughter is required by Muslim religious law, as is the kosher ritual under Jewish law. Spokesmen for both religions deny that animals suffer a painful death, despite not being stunned before a knife is applied.
. Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments opposing the new recommendations for the export and slaughter of Australian livestock
1. The recommendations do not require stunning
Many opponents of the recommendations argue that they are inadequate because they do not require stunning. This opposition has come from both animal welfare spokespeople and from livestock producers.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has welcomed the new protections but said it was 'profoundly disappointed' that slaughter of animals without stunning would continue.
The chief executive of the RSPCA, Heather Neil, has stated, 'This review was an opportunity to properly protect animals at the point of slaughter but instead there is no recommendation on stunning and the government has made no commitment to require it.'
The president of the Cattle Council of Australia, Greg Brown, has stated he was also disappointed the review had not recommended mandatory stunning.
Greens Senator, Lee Rhiannon, has claimed that the Government has failed to tackle animal cruelty. Senator Rhiannon has stated, 'What we do know is that when an animal is stunned, that in most cases ... cruelty diminishes enormously. I've been informed that cattle that have not been stunned can remain conscious for up to two minutes after their throats are cut. That's why we had to have pre-slaughter stunning made mandatory.'
The independent MP Andrew Wilkie has indicated that he would push ahead with a private member's bill to require the stunning of all animals before slaughter.
2. Importers would have adopted stunning if the Australian government had insisted
It has been claimed that the new recommendations are a failure of resolve on the part of the Australian government. The ban on the export of live cattle to Indonesia has resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of stunning within that country.
Critics of the new recommendations claim that if Australian livestock exporters had continued to refuse to supply their animals unless stunning was used prior to slaughter the practice would be likely to be adopted in more countries.
The chief executive of RSPCA Australia, Heather Neil, has argued, 'The fact that the number of Australian cattle that will be stunned in Indonesia is expected to grow from 8 per cent to around 90 per cent in just six months shows that it's entirely possible to overcome any perceived barriers when the incentive is there and that markets can respond quickly if the supply of Australian animals depends on it.'
3. The recommendations do not recognise the conflict of interest in having supervising vets employed by livestock exporters
It has been claimed that the new regulatory system is faulted because it is to be implemented by veterinarians would are employed by the livestock exporters. This is also the current situation and there have been reports of vets who lodge unfavourable reports being intimidated.
Critics claim that while the veterinarians are employed by livestock exporters many of them will be afraid to give a fair and unbiased assessment of the animal-handling practices they are supposed to be monitoring.
Animals Australia said the review had failed to address the conflict of interest faced by veterinarians on board live export vessels, despite hearing evidence of exporters bullying of vets who report negative findings.
The executive director of Animals Australia, Glenys Oogies, has stated, 'That this obvious failure in the system was not addressed is totally unacceptable and will continue to result in inaccurate reporting.'
There has also been criticism that the recommendations do not require that all vessels transporting livestock have a vet onboard.
The president of the Australian Veterinary Association, Dr Barry Smyth, has stated. 'It appears that there hasn't been a change to the current practice of short voyages not having veterinarians ... But we think that there should be a veterinarian on all voyages no matter how long they are. This is to ensure that animals are examined properly on a daily basis; that any abnormalities are detected early and any appropriate treatments delivered promptly.'
4. The recommendations could put the Australian live animal export trade at a competitive disadvantage
There are those who believe that the recommendations go too far and that having to meet the new requirements will make it more difficult and expensive to import Australian livestock. Critics claim that this will put Australian exporters at a competitive disadvantage compared to those livestock exporters that do not have to abide by such rigorous regulations.
The executive director of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, Mr Luke Bowen, has expressed concern that the changes could place Australia at a disadvantage in relation to rival exporting nations. Mr Bowen has stated, 'There is a cost to industry to put a detailed, comprehensive regulatory process in place. We're certainly hoping that you know we're ... going to see competition from other countries that don't have to meet these standards...'
Luke Bowen has further suggested that if the loss of competitiveness were too great this could discourage exporters in other countries from adopting similar standards of animal welfare. It is also likely that if Australia lost its position in these overseas markets through too high a price structure, this would remove Australia's capacity to influence livestock-handling practices in these markets.
Mr Bowen has stated, 'Let's hope it doesn't disadvantage just in pure economics terms; let's hope it doesn't disadvantage Australians and then see the animal welfare improvements not happening in other countries because we're not in those markets.'
5. The recommendations will reduce the profitability of the Australian livestock export industry
It has also been claimed that much of the cost of the new regulations will have to be absorbed by the exporters and that this will reduce the profitability of the Australian livestock export industry.
It has further been claimed that in times of financial duress such as that which results from the long periods of drought which Australian sheep and cattle farmers have had to face, this reduction in profits could make the difference between survival and bankruptcy.
Ron Cullen, the chief executive officer of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, has stated, 'It will knock a few dollars a head or whatever the amount will be and our members will be expected to absorb some of those costs - just how much I don't have a handle on because there is still a lot of work to be done.
Luke Bowen, the executive director of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association has also stated, 'There is a cost, and ultimately the producers end up paying the cost.'