So now you know the Why, what about the How? 

Leaving your favourite animal products behind can seem daunting. We all have our favourite foods and the vast majority of us are eating at least a couple of times a day.  The bad news is that we are creatures of habit who crave comfort and familiarity.  We may even have a sentimental attachment to some animal products. The good news is we are also very adaptable, and after all, habits are made to be broken.  Common concerns range from adequate nutritional intake to forsaking familiar, favourite tastes.  Fortunately, the health benefits of a plant based diet have been proven time and again (learn more here), and you’ll be surprised to discover the vast array of tasty, healthier plant-based alternatives out there in regular supermarkets.  Many items may have escaped your notice as they are often in areas of the store that you may have not visited regularly before: the vegetarian section, the health section, the gluten free shelves.  Some items are just inches away from your favourite products, with plant milks nestled alongside cows milk in the supermarket fridges or in the aisles nearby.

Of course, veganism has never been just a diet: it is an ethical stance against the unnecessary use of animals in all aspects of life.  Most of the changes will feel diet-related at first, but there’s many other areas of our lives in which we regularly purchase items or experiences that have caused unnecessary suffering for the other species we share this planet with.  A quick scan of the kitchen, wardrobe, bathroom and cosmetic products in the average household will attest to this.  It might seem overwhelming at first: some people prefer to focus on the food aspect first before looking at their other products.  Others transition to vegan products across the board straight away.  Others still use up what they have before replacing or donate products, clothes etc to a charity.  How you get there isn’t as important as keeping the goal in mind, being kind to yourself and continuing to learn and educate yourself about the ‘Why?’.   (You’re likely to find the ‘How?’ falls right into place when the ‘Why?’ switch truly flicks on)! 

Making errors along the way is a common part of transitioning to a way of living that seeks to avoid deliberate harm.  See these errors not as a failure, but as a chance to learn and develop your understanding further.  And again – be kind to yourself! 

For the best chance of success, a new habit benefits from a strong foundation, and it’s advantageous to equip yourself with as many resources as possible when making the transition to vegan living.  You’ll find going vegan isn’t a sacrifice, more of an adjustment, which becomes second nature in a shorter time than you think! 

For loads of information, support and meal planning please visit the following sites or contact us anytime at hello@veganrising.org.au

https://www.challenge22.com/
https://veganuary.com/
https://goveganworld.com/

Veganism is our moral imperative and is essential for our continued survival on this planet. It is never too late, but every minute we delay the more suffering and destruction we cause.

To recognise someone’s desire to live and live well, then take that from them anyway is the ultimate betrayal, is it not?

The Ultimate Betrayal is Vegan Risings feature campaign which aims to challenge the growing market of self-proclaimed “ethical producers”.

As people become more aware of the inherent horrors associated with using animals for food and the devastating environmental impacts, they often simultaneously start to reconnect with their true selves and forgo their social indoctrination. Their conditioning since birth that has led them to not only accept the unacceptable but to support and vehemently defend it starts to crack, bit by bit, piece by piece.

In that space things will often go one of two ways; they will acknowledge the truth that exists in their mind and their heart and make the transition to veganism or, they will desperately start searching for ways to continue on with the same behaviour in a form that simply allows them to feel better about it.

Enter so-called “ethical” “regenerative”, “pasture-raised”, “holistic”, “fair food” systems of animal cruelty and exploitation – buzz words used by (f)harmers and easily sold to the public without question because they are the exact words they want to hear.

This growing sector preys on heightened consumer awareness, hijacking terms one would normally associate with goodness, creating the illusion that somehow exploiting and killing animals who do not want to die is somehow a kind and wholesome way of life that displays respect, ethics and integrity.

You don’t have to go far to find a farmers market, restaurant, or high-end butcher touting their “happy and sustainably raised” flesh, egg or dairy products. Even the (f)harmers themselves are showcasing their “ethicurean” ways through farm tours, classes, on-site meatsmiths, curing rooms, private slaughterhouses and sometimes even successfully crowd-funding the set-up costs.

In Australia there are a growing number of events popping up showcasing animal parts and by-products and glorifying those who have bred, raised and ultimately sent the individuals to death. These events often feature the live dismembering of a recently tortured pig, in a completely disconnected display of violence and cruelty. The ‘makers’ take on a saviour like persona and romanticise the act whilst the chin stroking audience looks on.

Farm tours may be offered to meet the animals themselves, where they can be observed and celebrated. Children and adults are encouraged to admire how beautiful they are and to interact with them, at the same time as they rejoice in eating their dead bodies. You may be taught how to slit the throat of a chicken yourself, or take part in the choosing of which precious goat will be murdered for the butchering display. These experiences are sold as wholesome; a way of ‘connecting’ with the ‘food’ we eat whilst it is actually achieving the very opposite by reinforcing the disconnect and steering us further from our innate compassion. It is normalising the idea that you can respect and appreciate someone yet also exploit them, kill and butcher them – the fundamental debacle from which all others extend.

Even (but not particularly surprisingly) our own RSPCA is getting further in on the act with their ‘Choose Wisely’ campaign, promoting venues who serve animal products from the ‘RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme’ with apparent higher welfare standards. Australia’s largest animal welfare organisation are in bed with the industries who exploit and harm, and they receive a portion of the profits from the sale of the bodies of the very beings they are supposed to protect.

The ‘happy meat’ movement not only hijacks language that allows us to believe that the exploitation, abuse, and murder of sentient individuals can somehow be humane, it reinforces the position of animals as property and ultimately delays, or more commonly, prevents those who are opposed to animal cruelty from making the transition to veganism. It simply encourages people to continue on with the choice of creating immense cruelty and suffering whilst allowing them to feel better about it.

The astounding level of disconnect and disrespect that exists is made very clear in these images and commentary by (f)harmers who prop themselves up as leaders in “ethical” exploitation.

Vegan Rising’s The Ultimate Betrayal campaign directly challenges the rhetoric that is currently playing out as we further educate the public on the cruelties that are still inherent to breeding and rearing animals in these systems (including flesh, eggs and dairy), break apart the “one bad day” scenario, and drive home the message that all animal products ultimately involve the taking of life from someone who wants to live.

Please stay tuned for future actions and consider donating to our work to ensure we can run the most effective The Ultimate Betrayal campaign possible.

For information on the Ultimate Betrayal of RSPCA Approved and Small-Scale producers visit…
Chickens Used For Their Eggs
Small-Scale, Pasture-Raised Egg Systems
Chickens Used For Their Flesh
Is “regenerative-grazing” the new “clean-coal”?
PropAGanda – Killing it with kind milk
More to come…

“The so-called “ethicurean”, “happy meat”, “regenerative”, “pasture-raised”, “paddock-to-plate” movement will be the last bastion in our struggle for veganism. Its rapid growth demands we challenge it head on, expose its bloody and violent reality, reclaim its misleading terminology and dismantle its illusion of kindness and connectedness so that our evolution away from violence and exploitation may triumph.”  Kristin Leigh

CASHMERE

Cashmere is made from cashmere goats and is hair that is torn or shorn from their underbellies. These goats are often kept on farms where they are dehorned and castrated and have their ears notched without anaesthesia.  Goats with what the industry regards as “defects” in their coats are typically killed before the age of 2. Industry experts expect farmers to kill 50 to 80 percent of young goats whose coats do not meet standards.

Cashmere cruelty caught on video

MOHAIR

Mohair, the long, smooth fibre used in sweaters, hats and other fluffy accessories, comes from angora goats (not to be confused with angora wool, which comes from angora rabbits).  To obtain mohair, workers often tie the goats’ legs together, pin them to the floor, and use electric shears or large clippers to shear them.

Angora goats are killed well short of their natural 10-year life expectancy. As soon as they’re no longer useful to the industry due to their age impacting the quality of their hair, they will be sold for meat, or they may be slaughtered for their skins, which are then used to produce clothing, rugs and other items.

Since goats are prey animals, being restrained in this way is an horrific experience for them.  The shearers work fast, causing the same frequent injuries and gaping wounds, not unlike sheep shearing.

Angora goats would once shed naturally. Now, due to genetic manipulations they are reliant on being shorn. Our interference with the natural processes of these gentle animals means their reliance on humans to shear them or help to maintain their thick coats, for the time being cannot be avoided, however, their harsh treatment and commodification can.

Shearing robs goats of their natural insulation, and unlike sheep, they don’t carry layers of body fat or lanolin.  For this reason, they are even more susceptible to cold stress and weather-induced death for around 14 days after shearing. Like those who profit from sheep, those who use goats for profits have no need to consider their suffering from cold. Their primary concern lies in making money from the lives of others.

GOAT HAIR IN THE BEAUTY AND ART INDUSTRY

Goat hair is used in make up brushes and hair brushes.  Something that the beauty industry thrives on, as with all industries that exploit animals, is deception.  Please be aware that there is no such thing as cruelty free when any animal products are being used.  Its an oxy moron just as free range, ethical and humane when used in conjunction with animal products.  You can purchase vegan, cruelty free synthetic make up, hair brushes and paint brushes, that are not only ethical but also a better quality product.

LEATHER

A goat’s skin is also torn from their bodies during the slaughter process and this is then sold as “leather”.  Animal skin is the most economically important co-product of the “meat” industry. Buying and wearing leather directly supports the inherent cruelty within the animal agriculture industry.

Many male kids and buckling’s from the dairy industry are viewed as mere waste products and are sent to slaughter anywhere from 3 months of age. Their flesh is sold as capretto and their skin is sold as either kid skin or goat suede.

TANNERY TOXINS

Tanning, the process of turning raw animal skin into leather involves the use of toxic chemicals that harm not only our environment as they wash into the waterways, but also our health. These chemicals have been linked to nervous system disorders, skin and respiratory infections, leukaemia and other types of cancer. Arsenic, a chemical commonly used in the tanning process, has long been associated with lung cancer in workers who are exposed to it on a regular basis.

Baby goats such as this little precious one who are lucky enough to be rescued from many different situations may get to live out their lives at a sanctuary such as Edgar’s Mission.  Sadly, they will not get to know the love of their maternal mothers and herd as many of them are saved from slaughter, neglect, and the many other situations that these little ones end up in, through no fault of their own.  However, they will get to know the love of many other goats, who have come from very similar situations.  They will know what it is like to run, bounce and play in peace and to grow up in a safe and loving environment until they are of old age.  They will receive the correct medical care and treatment if and when they require it.  They will never know what it’s like to be exploited in an industry that only sees value in their body parts or secretions.

DISBUDDING AND DEHORNING

Disbudding and dehorning are yet more cruel practices systemic to industries that use goats for their fur and skin along with other industries where goats are exploited.

Goat horns have many blood vessels within them that help the goats regulate their body temperature in the heat.  Without horns, the goats have to resort to panting to cool off.

Disbudding is a procedure that uses a hot iron to cauterise the horn buds to burn them off, prior to them attaching to the kid’s skull.  If the iron is held on the goat’s head for too long, brain damage can occur. If the iron isn’t held to the head long enough, scurs can form.  Scurs occur when the horn tissue isn’t properly burned off during disbudding, allowing the horns to continue to grow.  Scurs containing many blood vessels can start to grow back towards the goat’s head, which would harm the goat, forcing them to be severed.

Dehorning is the removal of horns once they have attached to the skull, typically buy using saws or shears.  These procedures are done without any anaesthetic. It is only “recommended” under Australian Industry Welfare Standards and Guidelines for goats, that a person performing such procedures must have the relevant experience, knowledge and skills, and must ensure that “appropriate” tools are used. Keep in mind, these are merely guidelines and not standardised regulation. The painful procedure can be viewed presented as a “do it yourself” tutorial.

Disbudding and dehorning are only done for the “safety” of the operators who handle the goats and seemingly for aesthetic reasons.

Several websites state things such as:

“Do you like the look of your goats with, or without horns”

“Is your goats behaviour that by leaving the goats horns intact will not be a problem”

“Do your goats live in an environment that will be more useful than not having them”

There is consensus among many vets that dehorning and disbudding is extremely invasive and painful for the animals.

CASTRATION

The methods listed below can be done without any official training.  There are available manuals, articles and YouTube videos online showing you how to carry out these procedures. It’s alarming that these procedures can be done by anyone other than a trained vet and a vet does not need to be present. Anesthesia is not required.

BURDIZZO METHOD

The Burdizzo is a castration device which employs a large clamp designed to break the blood vessels leading into the testicles. When the device is used, the operator crushes the spermatic cords one at a time, leaving a space in between to prevent an interruption of blood-flow to the scrotum.

ELASTRATOR METHOD

This method involves cutting off the blood supply to the testes with a heavy rubber band or ring. In 10 to 14 days, the scrotum and testes will slough off.

KNIFE METHOD

How to castrate a goat features in ‘Raising Goats for Dummies’, highlighting anyone can perform the procedure, having had no any experience or training. Again, no anesthetic is required and the Knife-Method is touted as the most reliable and least expensive method of castration.

It is insane to acknowledge the obvious, that animals are sentient, just like us, yet at the same time, not only legally but socially accept such brutal and violent treatment of these individuals. The point must always be considered that so long as anyone is viewed and used as a commodity, existing for the benefit of another, their wellbeing will never be a priority and their right to a full and long life well lived will never exist.

Author: Jaysherrie Terraqueos
Founder of Melbourne Goat Save

“RSPCA Australia does not believe that there is any justification for subjecting animals to this level of stress and potential for injury, when the event is carried out only for the purpose of human entertainment or sport.”

This statement forms the crux of the policy from Australia’s peak animal welfare body, the go to organisation of governments of all levels when formulating policy, and was written on May 2^nd 2016. Throughout this article I will refer to the RSPCA policy on rodeos not because I am a firm believer in their infallibility, but because an in depth examination of their stand on rodeos reveals that in this instance, they got it right. Indeed, they have focused solely on the animals’ perspective, where I will attempt to throw a looking glass over some of the arguments put forward by the “Pro” lobby. Where RSPCA excerpts appear, they will be in inverted commas

“Arguments put forward in support of the use of horses, bulls, steers and calves in rodeos tends to focus on the fact that these events have been part of country town life for many years, that they are good for the local community and that the animals are well treated and “enjoy” their work.”

Let’s examine the history. “Bushman’s Carnivals” originated in Northern NSW in the late 1920’s, but weren’t popularised in outback communities until the late 1930’s, when Queensland brought the American style of “Rodeo” to Australia. Featuring the bucking horse and bull riding, roping, and barrel events are all now a part of rodeo in Australia. QLD continues to be the state where these events are most popular, with events that other states, calf roping for instance, are still held despite all others banning it based on animal cruelty grounds. Calf roping is the practice of running down and lassoing from horseback a young calf around the neck then drastically halting the horse, usually resulting in the calf being jerked violently off his/her feet by the neck. The competitor then rushes to the downed calf, lifting the highly stressed animal into the air and slamming him/her into the ground and quickly tying the legs together, adding to the terror already being experienced by such a young animal. This is not a situation that a young animal could possibly have experienced in a normal paddock life situation.

If that were not bad enough, young children are encouraged to learn to rope by mimicking the actions of the adult competitors by roping a calf that has been tethered to a stake in the arena, thus perpetuating a new generation of animal abusers. Indeed, it could be argued that teaching them this, or taking children to these events, normalises violent behaviour and stereotypical violence between city and country residents, both in attitude and action.

Rodeo is not a historically significant part of Australia, but a recent import from the US.

To refer to RSPCA again: “Looking at the participation in rodeos from the animals’ perspective, there is little evidence that these animals “enjoy” the experience. Rodeo horses and bulls buck repeatedly as an instinctive reaction to the discomfort of being ridden and to the presence of flank straps which have been tightened around their underbelly. Horses and cattle are prey animals and their reaction to being ridden in this way is the same as being attacked by a predator, a situation where they are subject to increased stress, anxiety and panic. In many rodeos, horses and bulls will hurl themselves at solid objects in order to rid themselves of the rider. Only when the rider has been thrown and the flank straps loosened do they quieten down.”

If this is not enough to inflict upon them, extensive video evidence exists that shows horses and bulls subjected to electric shock on the testicles and in the anus, as well as tail twisting and slapping, prodding of the eyes and ears to rile them up to increase their fear response to make for a better show for the crowd. There is also video evidence where horses and bulls have straps that attach to the testicles, that tighten more as they buck and become more panicked, increasing their stress levels immensely.

The risk of significant injury to these animals is obviously extremely high, with a large number of broken limbs the most recorded injury by on and off site vets, usually requiring euthanasia. Most recently, at the PBR (Professional Bull Riders) event that toured Australia in December 2017, a bull suffered a horrendous break to a hind leg during the Adelaide show, resulting in his immediately being put down.

The point to this is that human beings have the choice to participate in high risk activities, these animals do not.

A recent rise in the popularity of “Bush Based Eventing”, such as the Denni Ute Muster, has seen an increase in an entirely Australian flavour of so-called “Redneck Culture”, where if you are a farmer or live in a rural town or affiliate with that lifestyle and dress to code, you are accepted as a “Bushie”, a legend, salt of the earth Aussie.  A true blue worker who keeps the country afloat for the latte sipping hated Greenies. You are someone to be feted and admired, the tough outback Aussie, never to be criticised- because that would be “Un-Australian”.

However, the rise in public awareness of animal cruelty issues has firmly placed the harsh spotlight on rodeos as a cruel and unnecessary form of entertainment, a form of animal abuse and consequently caused a national reflection that has begun to expose those in the bush counter culture who support it as out of touch, uneducated and living in a past that was never a part of Australian culture.

The view widely held by supporters is that that this perspective is solely that of “city folk”, and that they know nothing of animals or animal cruelty, and should, therefore, shut up and go away.

These polar opposite points of view are having a far deeper impact than merely pitting animal rights against rodeo supporters, with the farming/bush/pro community rapidly becoming extremely insular, isolating itself from mainstream society in a “counter culture” style that it ironically accuses the AR community of. This is fostering a siege mentality, with an underlying suspicion and almost a hatred of “outsiders”. This attitude, in and of itself, causes the same reaction from the anti side, leading to a view that the pro’s are unevolved, Neanderthal rednecks, uneducated dangerous thugs.

This “Us versus Them” divide has seen an escalation in violent incidents, with peaceful protestors physically assaulted by rodeo attendees. This gives rise to a question in 3 parts.

How to- a) Stop the assaults b) Repair the social divide c) Affect change

In addressing a) and b), it is my opinion they cannot be achieved without including c), putting forward a suite of holistic changes. First and foremost, the continuation of rodeos must cease, and be outlawed by legislative methods, nationally. There is no evidence to suggest that any perceived financial benefit cannot be achieved by some other non-violent celebration of community.

By an educative process that encourages empathy and compassion towards other animals and opening up a dialogue, (which it is acknowledged will take an extended period of time), it MAY be possible to bridge the perceived gap in culture between city and country, which will by nature lead to less or no assaults, certainly none at rodeos because none will be held.

In closing, Australians, regardless of their place of residence, have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to move forward as a combined society, one that eschews animal exploitation in all its forms. Indeed, I believe it is the only way we can move forward.

Author: Andy Meddick
Animal Justice Party MLC Western Victoria Region

Petting zoos normalise animals kept in captivity for children and the public, giving the impression that animals exist for them to be treated without regard for their wellbeing. What children learn when they see animals in petting zoos is that it is acceptable for animals to be frightened, to be kept in captivity, to be stressed and transported long distances for entertainment. Not only are these animals confined to a small area, they have countless people petting, hugging and poking at them.

Animals used in petting zoos for the entertainment of children suffer from boredom and disorientation. Separated from normal social groups and natural habitat, the stress of captivity is heightened by unusual noises.  There is also a lack of shelter where animals can escape to, to remove themselves from contact with humans if they choose. Many children and adults are unaware that many animals in petting zoos do not like to be handled.  The body language of animals is ignored. Along with ignoring the social and behavioural needs of the animals, their physical needs are often neglected – shelter from the weather, especially during the summer months, often limited access to fresh water, and the animal feed is often dependent on the children/public feeding the animals.

Petting zoo operators perpetually breed or purchase animals so that they will have an endless supply of “cute babies” to draw the crowds. These babies are prematurely removed from their mothers, denying the natural socialization process for normal development and then these babies, frighted, are driven from place to place for entertainment.

Animals in petting zoos are typically sold or disposed of when they reach a certain age, as they lose their “cuteness” and become too difficult to transport.  Some petting zoos also home slaughter the animals.  This is an unregulated industry and there are no standards that they are expected to adhere to.

WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING?

We should be teaching children about compassion, and to view animals as living, sentient beings whose lives matter to them and who do not exist for the purpose of our entertainment. This cannot be taught to them from within small glass and wire enclosures where the animals can be mauled and poked as children please.

The alternative is to visit a sanctuary. At sanctuary’s, the animals needs are put first, and they can interact with visitors if, and only if, they decide to, on their own terms and in their own surroundings.

Unlike a petting zoo, at a legitimate sanctuary, the animals have been rescued and you can be certain they will not be killed and replaced with younger animals once they get too big.

Visit an animal shelter to provide company to lonely animals.  You can even volunteer in these environments. Seeing animals in the wild by visiting nature reserves is also a great way to teach children about animals as they should be living.

Author: Jaysherrie Terraqueos
Founder of Melbourne Goat Save

In the most comprehensive observational study to be conducted into diet and disease, The China Study showed plant-based diets to be associated with decreased risks of developing cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and many other diseases.¹ Since the publication of The China Study in 2006, many other studies have shown vegan diets to prevent and treat many of the commonest diseases Australians are facing², as well as being associated with a lower all-cause mortality (ie. higher life expectancy)³. In 2013, experts recognized this and the Australian Dietary Guidelines were updated to include “vegan diets are healthy and nutritionally adequate… During all stages of the life cycle”, a statement that has remained in subsequent editions of the guidelines.⁴

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

“There are two types of cardiologists – vegans, and those who haven’t read the data”
Dr. Kim Williams, MD, president of the American College of Cardiology.

“A bowl of steel cut oats topped with nuts and berries will almost certainly reduce risk of heart disease compared to a breakfast centered on eggs,”
Dr Walter Willett, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. 

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) encompasses a large group of health conditions, including ischaemic heart disease (angina and heart attacks), cerebrovascular disease (strokes) and peripheral blood vessel diseases. It is the leading cause of death in Australia⁵, the second highest burden of disease⁶ and the consumer of more hospital dollars than any other group of conditions⁷.

Over the years there have been many medical advances in the treatment of CVD, from medications to surgical options. Similarly, our understanding of how our diet and lifestyle in general counterplays with our heart and blood vessel health has increased too.

Repeated studies have shown time and time again that vegan diets are associated with a lower risk of cholesterol, obesity, high blood pressure and CVD, including the Framingham study – the most famous epidemiological study into CVD to be conducted (and still going).⁸

Furthermore, the implementation of plant-based diets, along with other positive lifestyle change, has been shown to even reverse already established CVD up to 82-95%.^9-10

In a time where coronary artery bypass surgery is the alternative, imagine the economical benefits of simply following a plant-based diet and achieving even better results, not to mention the quality of life benefits to the patient of avoiding such a complex surgery.

In the US there are plant-based clinics that focus on using plant-based regimes to treat and cure CVD. One notable name who had success with this was Bill Clinton, who has publically stated that a vegan diet saved his life.

DIABETES

A plant-based diet has been shown to be more effective at reducing blood sugar levels in Type 2 Diabetics than the diet recommended by national dietary associations.
Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Green A, et al.

A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial.
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2009;89(5):1588s-96s.

Diabetes is a disease in which your body cannot move the sugar from your blood into your cells, and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease as well as kidney disease, nerve damage and vision loss.

While carbohydrates are generally considered the devil of diabetes, it has now been firmly established in the literature than plant-based diets are associated with the lowest risk of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) compared to diets low in carbohydrates but high in fat.¹¹

Even more exciting, T2DM has been shown to treatable with a plant-based diet – with patients often ceasing to require insulin or other medications altogether.^12-14

For a disease otherwise considered to be incurable, these are phenomenal results! 

CANCER

Cancer contributes the highest burden of disease in Australia, with bowel, breast and prostate cancer amongst the most common types.¹⁵

In 2015, the World Health Organisation classified processed meat as a class I carcinogen (definite carcinogen) and red meat as a probable carcinogen, most notably for bowel cancer¹⁶.

“When 3% of energy for plant-protein is substituted for an equivalent amount of egg-protein the risk of dying from cancer decreases by 21%.”
Song M, Fung TT, Hu FB, Willett WC, Longo V, Chan AT, et al.

Animal and plant protein intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: results from two prospective US cohort studies. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(10):1453-1463

There are also numerous studies to suggest dairy products increase the risk of hormone-related cancers such as prostate cancer, breast and ovarian cancer, with an increased risk noted with as little as 0.5 servings per day, though more research is needed to determine the details of this association.¹⁷

Excitingly, foods generally consumed in large amounts in a plant-based diet (fruits, vegetables and legumes) have shown to be protective against these cancers, especially when combined with other healthful behaviours such as exercise, low alcohol intake and not smoking.¹⁸

BONES

With the much-famed aging population, we are seeing the rise of certain diseases over others in our population. One of these is osteoporosis, a disease that makes your bones brittle and significantly increases your risk of fractures. Unfortunately, in the elderly population this disease occurs in, a hip fracture and subsequent stay in hospital could be a death sentence.

We know now that laying down bone at every stage of life is important for preventing osteoporosis, and the best ways of doing this is by making sure we have enough calcium, vitamin D and exercise.

“Calcium is important. But milk isn’t the only, or even best, source.”
Calcium and Milk. Harvard School of Public Health. 

Despite common myths, the higher the intake of calcium does not equal less fractures later in life. In one of the largest observational studies to be conducted, the Harvard Nurses Study, which followed over 70,000 women for 18 years, those who consumed the most dairy also had the most number of bone fractures. In fact, what this study suggested is that there is little benefit to consuming more than 600mg of calcium per day in regard to bone health, about half of current dietary recommendations, and an amount easily attainable through plant-based dietary sources.¹⁹ This is further supported by studies which show that countries that have the highest rates of dairy consumption have the highest rates of osteoporosis.²⁰

Instead of promoting the consumption of dairy and calcium, we should be encouraging plant-based sources of calcium as these foods have other vitamins and minerals important for healthy bone turnover.¹⁸ Adequate sunlight exposure, vitamin-D fortified foods (there are few dietary sources of vitamin D) and exercise are all also extremely important, and perhaps even more so than the calcium myth would have us believe.¹⁷

OTHER

Other diseases of aging include those of cognitive decline such as dementia and Parkinson’s disease, and are set to become our society’s next health crisis. There has been some evidence to suggest plant-based diets prevent these neurocognitive diseases, which are currently incurable.^21-22

Autoimmune diseases are on the rise in our population, and can be very debilitating for those who suffer from them. Autoimmune diseases have a foundation in abnormal inflammatory reactions in the body, and recent research suggests that anti-inflammatory effects of plant-based diets can help prevent or ease symptoms of certain autoimmune diseases. These include rheumatoid arthritis²³, hypothyroidism²⁴, hyperthyroidism²⁵ and multiple sclerosis²⁶.

In the era of antibiotic resistance, more antibiotics are used non-therapeutically in agricultural animals than therapeutically in humans.
Antibiotic resistance in animals. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.

The kidneys are responsible for filtering the blood, and plant-based diets tend to put less stress on the kidneys due to the components they are made up of. Low-protein diets are a safe and established method of slowing the progression of chronic kidney disease, where the debilitating alternative would be starting dialysis.²⁷

Author: Dr Mehr Gupta
Co-founder and Campaign Director Animal Liberation Tasmania

References

1. Campbell TC, Campbell TM. The China Study. USA: BenBella Books; 2006. 439 p.
2. Le LT, Sabate J. Beyond meatless, the health effects of vegan diets: findings from the Adventist cohorts. Nutrients. 2014;6(6):2131-47.
3. Bamia C, Trichopoulos D, Ferrari P, Overvad K, Bjerregaard L, Tjonneland A, et al. Dietary patterns and survival of older Europeans: the EPIC-Elderly Study (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition). Public health nutrition. 2007;10(6):590-8.
4. Australian Dietary Guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council. 2013.
5. Causes of Death, Australia 2016. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2017;3303.0.
6. Australian Burden of Disease Study: Impact and causes of illness and death in Australian 2011. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2016;3:4.
7. Australian Health Expenditure – demographics and diseases: hospital admitted patient expenditure2004-05 to 2012-13. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2017;69(59).
8. Craig WJ, Mangels AR. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;10(9):1266-1282.
9. Ornish D, Brown SE, Billings JH, Scherwitz LW, Armstrong WT, Ports TA, et al. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease?: The Lifestyle Heart Trial. The Lancet. 1990;336(8708):129-33.
10. Esselstyn Jr MD. Updating a 12-year Experience with Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease. American journal of Cardiology. 1999;84:339-41.
11. Tonstad S, Butler T, Yan R, Fraser GE. Type of vegetarian diet, body weight, and prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes care. 2009;32(5):791-6.
12. Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Green A, et al. A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2009;89(5):1588s-96s.
13. Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster B, et al. A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes care. 2006;29(8):1777-83.
14. Kahleova H, Tura A, Hill M, Holubkov R, Barnard ND. A plant-based dietary intervention improves beta-cell function and insulin resistance in overweight adults. A 16-week randomized clinical trial. Nutrients. 2018;10:E189.
15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2017;4364.0.55.002.
16. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology. 2015.
17. Health Concerns About Dairy. Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine.
18. Craig WJ. Health effects of vegan diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(5):1627S-1633S.
19. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Colditz GA. Calcium, vitamin D, milk consumption, and hip fractures: a prospective study among postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77(2):504–511.
20. Frassetto LA . Worldwide incidence of hip fracture in elderly women: relation to consumption of animal and vegetable foods. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Oct;55(10):M585-92.
21. Bernard ND, Bush AI, Ceccarelli A, Cooper J, de Jager CA, Erickson KI. Dietary and lifestyle guidelines for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging. 2014;35(2):S74-8.
22. Shah SP, Duda JE. Dietary modifications in Parkinson’s disease: A neuroprotective intervention? Medical hypotheses. 2015;85(6):1002-5.
23. Foods and Arthritis. Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine.
24. Tonstad S, Nathan E, Oda K, Fraser G. Vegan diets and hypothyroidism. Nutrients. 2013;5(11):4642-52.
25. Tonstad S, Nathan E, Oda K, Fraser GE. Prevalence of hyperthyroidism according to type of vegetarian diet. Public health nutrition. 2015;18(8):1482-7.
26. Yadav V, Marracci G, Kim E, Spain R, Cameron M, Overs S, et al. Low-fat, plant-based diet in multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;9:80-90.
27. Rhee CM, Ahmadi SF, Kovesdy CP, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Low-protein diet for conservative management of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2018;9(2):235-245.

INTRODUCTION

Producing animal-based food products affects the environment in dramatic ways.

The impacts arise from many inter-related factors, such as the inherent inefficiency of animals as a food source; the massive scale of the farmed animal sector; land clearing far beyond what would otherwise be required; greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; and other global warming agents such as tropospheric ozone and black carbon.

FARMED ANIMALS’ CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ARE GENERALLY UNDERSTATED

The adverse climate change impact of farmed animal production is generally understated in official figures, because relevant data is either omitted, classified under non-livestock headings, or included on the basis of conservative calculations.

Allowing for the relevant factors, the 2014 Land Use, Agriculture and Forestry discussion paper prepared by Australian climate change advocacy group, Beyond Zero Emissions in conjunction with Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (University of Melbourne), indicated that animal agriculture was responsible for around 50 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. [1] That compares to the official figure of around 10 per cent. The findings were reinforced in a subsequent peer-reviewed journal article, which had two co-authors in common with the BZE paper. [2] [Footnote 1]

The researchers used a 20-year time horizon for determining the “global warming potential” (GWP) of the various greenhouse gases. The 20-year time horizon is critical in terms of potential climate change tipping points, with potentially catastrophic and irreversible consequences. [See Footnote 2.]

Using that approach, methane from farmed animal production in Australia generates more global warming than all our coal-fired power stations combined. [3] That’s in a country with amongst the highest per capita emissions in the world due to our heavy reliance on coal.

Figures 1(a) and (b) provide examples of greenhouse gas emissions intensity figures for individual products, based on findings of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, adapted to include 20-year GWP figures: [4, 5, 6, 7]

Figure 1(a): Emissions intensity (kg CO2-e/kg protein) for beef, sheep meat and cow’s milk

Figure 1(b): Emissions intensity (kg CO2-e/kg protein) for other products

The figures for beef are conservative, as they include the dairy herd, for which a large portion of emissions are attributed to dairy products, rather than beef.

The figures vary significantly by location and production system, but the emissions intensity of animal-based foods is invariably a multiple of the plant-based alternative.

SOME KEY CLIMATE CHANGE CONTRIBUTORS OF ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

Although methane from ruminant animals is a critical problem, so are farmed animal-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, resulting from the clearing of forest and other vegetation. The clearing causes the carbon that had been locked within the vegetation to be released as CO2. The problem is compounded by the fact that, once the vegetation has been removed, we no longer have the benefit of its ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.

In Australia, nearly a third of our non-arid and semi-arid land has been cleared for farmed animal production. [8] A large portion of the remainder has been severely degraded by grazing, with significant loss of soil carbon.

According to the World Resources Institute, overgrazing is the largest single cause of land degradation globally. [9]

Figure 2 demonstrates the extent of farmed animal grazing across Australia, the planet’s sixth largest country by land area. [10]

Figure 2: Australian Land Use 2010-11

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is also emitted in great quantities from animal manure and fertiliser used on animal feedcrops, along with farmed animal-related savanna burning. It is nearly 300 times as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Two short-lived climate pollutants generally omitted from official figures, and prominent in animal agriculture, are tropospheric ozone and black carbon. Although they remain in the atmosphere for a short period, they have a significant impact.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON EGGS, DAIRY, CHICKEN MEAT AND PIG MEAT

Chickens and pigs are not ruminant animals belching significant amounts of methane (although methane and nitrous oxide are emitted from their excrement). However, we are sitting on a climate change precipice with no buffer for avoiding disaster, while continuing to destroy the Amazon rainforest (currently a carbon sink but rapidly becoming a carbon source) and occupy previously cleared land in order to grow soy beans (and graze cattle). 

Although soybean meal for farmed animal feed was once considered a by-product of soybean oil production, it is the requirement for farmed animal feed that now drives the international soybean trade. [11] The product is fed to billions of chickens, pigs and dairy cattle in a grossly and inherently inefficient and unsustainable process. Other forms of farmed animal feed contribute to the same problem elsewhere.

As a result, land clearing for egg, dairy, chicken meat and pig meat production is contributing to us passing critical climate change tipping points or thresholds with the potential to lead to runaway climate change. Such potential is not fully accounted for in the products’ emissions intensity figures, which (as demonstrated in Figure 1) are already multiples of those from non-animal products.

IMPACTS OF USING SEA ANIMALS AS FOOD

Like chickens and pigs, fish and other sea creatures do not belch methane, and they do not require us to destroy massive areas of rainforest for grazing (although they are fed soy meal in fish farms, with critical problems as referred to in the previous section).

The oceans cover 71 per cent of our planet’s surface. [12] They are home to complex ecosystems that are being disturbed by industrial and non-industrial (including recreational) fishing in ways that may profoundly affect our climate system.

A 2015 paper in Nature Climate Change has helped to highlight some of impact. [13] The problem arises largely from the fact that fishing disturbs food webs, changing the way ecosystems function, and altering the ecological balance of the oceans in dangerous ways. The paper focused on the phenomenon of “trophic downgrading”, the disproportionate loss of species high in the food chain, and its impact on vegetated coastal habitats consisting of seagrass meadows, mangroves and salt marshes.

The loss of predators such as large carnivorous fish, sharks, crabs, lobsters, seals and sea lions, and the corresponding population increase of herbivores and bioturbators (creatures who disturb ocean sediment, including certain crabs) causes loss of carbon from the vegetation and sediment.

Those habitats are estimated to store up to 25 billion tonnes of carbon, making them the most carbon-rich ecosystems in the world. They sequester carbon 40 times faster than tropical rainforests and contribute 50 per cent of the total carbon buried in ocean sediment.

Estimates of the areas affected are unavailable, but if only 1 per cent of vegetated coastal habitats were affected to a depth of 1 metre in a year, around 460 million tonnes of CO2 could be released. That is around the level of emissions from all motor vehicles in Britain, France and Spain combined, or a little under Australia’s current annual emissions. [14, 15]

Loss of ongoing carbon sequestration is the other problem. If sequestration capability was reduced by 20 per cent in only 10 per cent of vegetated coastal habitats, it would equate to a loss of forested area the size of Belgium.

These impacts only relate to vegetated coastal habitats, and do not allow for loss of predators on kelp forests, coral reefs or open oceans, or the direct impact on habitat of destructive fishing techniques such as trawling.

CORAL REEFS

In terms of coral loss, environmental groups almost invariably focus on the impact of bleaching caused by rising seawater temperatures and increasing acidity, associated with global warming and climate change. However, on the Great Barrier Reef (by far the world’s largest coral reef), more than half of the coral loss had already occurred by 1985, fifteen years before the first major bleaching event, as demonstrated by Figure 3.

Figure 3: Great Barrier Reef coral cover

Dr Jon Brodie of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University has reported that Crown-of-Thorns starfish (COTS) were probably the major cause of coral mortality in the period from 1960 to 1985. [16]

According to Brodie, it is now well established that the major COTS outbreaks since 1962 were most likely caused by nutrient enrichment associated with increased discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous from the land due to soil erosion and large scale fertiliser use. The nutrients promote phytoplankton growth suitable to COTS larvae.

Dr Glenn De’ath and fellow researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the University of Wollongong have estimated that COTS were responsible for 42 per cent of coral loss from 1985 to 2012, with the other causes being cyclones at 48 per cent and bleaching at 10 per cent. [17]

The Queensland Government’s 2013 and 2017 Scientific Consensus Statements and the related 2017 FAQs have confirmed that grazing lands have been major contributors to sediment and nutrient discharge. [18, 19, 20]

Sediment blocks the sun, smothers coral and promotes the excessive development of algae, making the coral less resilient than it would otherwise have been to the impacts of other stressors, such as warming and more acidic waters. Allowing for gully and hillslope erosion directly attributed to farmed animal grazing, along with the activity’s share of streambank erosion, grazing’s overall contribution to fine sediment in the reef’s waters appears to be around 70 per cent.

It is the dominant source of particulate nutrients, which are mostly deposited near river mouths. From there they can be broken down for years by bacteria into the most damaging form, dissolved inorganic nutrients. 

Figure 4 provides an example of gully erosion in northern Australia, initiated by cattle grazing and a major contributor to sediment loads.

Figure 4: Gully erosion on cattle property in northern Queensland

The Queensland government issues report cards which measure progress towards the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan’s goal and targets. The most recent report card, issued in October 2017 and showing the status as at June 2016, rated overall grazing management as “D”, indicating “poor”. [21] That result reflected 36 per cent of grazing lands being subject to best management practice systems.

It is estimated that expenditure ranging from $5.3 billion to $18.4 billion (most likely $7.8 billion) would be required to reduce sediment flow by 50 per cent, which is a target established under the Australian and Queensland governments’ Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan. [22] 

In a rehabilitation pilot study by researchers from Griffith University, it was found that sediment run-off could be reduced by 75 per cent in two years. [23] The researchers have stated:

“. . . what is clear from these existing trials is that, given the scale of the alluvial gully sources in particular, the scope of this problem has grown way beyond being managed by individual farmers and graziers. These are a legacy of the past 100-150 years of land use . . . The benefits that will flow from the intensive, precisely targeted management of alluvial gullies are largely a public benefit for the downstream ecosystems and ultimately the Great Barrier Reef. In other words, this is a problem we have to tackle collectively . . .”

Much of the damage has already been done, but remediation efforts remain an essential aspect of strategies to limit further coral loss. As an example of such efforts, in 2016 the Queensland government purchased the 56,000 hectare Springvale cattle station on Cape York, with the intention of removing the cattle and rehabilitating the station’s stream and river banks and gullies. [24]

WATER USE

Professor Wayne Meyer is Professor of Natural Resource Science at the University of Adelaide and former Deputy Chief and Business Director for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Land and Water. He has received the CSIRO Medal for Research Achievement for his research in irrigation water management.

Prof. Meyer has estimated that, to produce 1 kilogram of product, it takes between 50,000 and 100,000 litres of water for beef compared to between 715 and 750 litres for wheat and between 1,550 and 2,000 litres for rice. [25]

David and Marcia Pimentel of Cornell University have reported that producing 1 kilogram of animal protein requires about 100 times more water than producing 1 kilogram of grain protein. Their estimates for 1 kilogram of beef range from 100,000 litres (relating to grain and hay for production systems that include intensive feedlots) to more than 200,000 litres (relating to forage production on rangelands). [26]

Elsewhere, David Pimentel and co-authors have cited figures of 43,000 litres for intensive production including feedlots and 120,000 – 200,000 litres for open rangeland production. [27]

Professor Meyer’s figures were originally derived for intensive production using irrigated pastures. Seemingly consistent with the findings of David and Marcia Pimentel, he has subsequently suggested that if the same exercise were conducted on rain fed, extensive meat production, there may be even more water involved. The reason is that feed conversion is likely to be lower, energy expended in gathering dry matter (including grass) would be greater and soil evaporation losses may even be higher than in a system involving irrigated pasture. [28]

It then becomes a question of the optimum use of the water, taking into account potential alternative uses.

Prof. Meyer has pointed out that water used for irrigation has many alternative uses, including keeping it in the river systems, keeping riverine and wetland ecosystems healthy and providing water for urban and industrial uses. He has noted that alternatives for rain fed areas are more restricted, but could include provision of run-off in catchment areas, growing native vegetation for conservation purposes and or for groundwater recharge. He has said:

“Using this logic there is little value in arguing that meat production does not embody a lot of water. More rationally the discussion can be about the value we place on the genuine alternatives for the use of this water.”

In areas where crops for human consumption can be grown, there are high opportunity costs in meat production, with the water requirement of animal-based foods being many times that of non-animal options for any given level of nutritional output.

In non-cropping areas, the choice can be as simple as steak dinners versus natural ecosystems. Alternatives are available for steak dinners but not for natural ecosystems.

Prof. Arjen Hoekstra of the University of Twente in the Netherlands and Prof. Ashok Chapagain of the University of Free State, South Africa, have estimated that, in Australia, 17,112 litres of water are required to produce 1 kilogram of beef. [18] Although lower than other estimates referred to in this article, their estimate is still many times higher than estimates for vegetables and grains. [29]

Their figures for soy beans are 2,106 litres (Australia) and 1,789 (global average), and for paddy rice 1,022 litres (Australia) and 2,291 litres (global average).

Hoekstra and Chapagain are on the supervisory board of the Water Footprint Network, which is a non-profit foundation under Dutch law. The founding partners were: University of Twente, World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, the Water Neutral Foundation, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the International Finance Corporation (part of the World Bank Group) and the Netherlands Water Partnership. [30]

In responding to queries regarding the differences between his figures and those of Prof. Meyer and Dr Pimentel, Prof Hoekstra has noted: [31]

“. . . all authors agree the water footprint of beef is larger than the water footprint of pork or chicken and much larger than the water footprint of grains”.

His global average figures for chicken meat and pig meat are more than double those of soy beans, while the multiple for beef is more than eight.

CONCLUSION

We will have no chance of overcoming critical environmental problems, including the existential threat of climate change, without a general transition away from animal-based foods. Essential efforts focusing on other contributing factors will be futile unless that issue is addressed. 

In view of animal-based food production’s tragic environmental consequences, why is the livestock sector effectively ignored by most prominent campaign groups?

Author: Paul Mahony

Paul Mahony is an environmental and animal rights campaigner based in Melbourne, Australia. He has presented to The Greens, Sustainable Living Festival, Australian Climate Action Summit, and numerous university, Rotary and Probus groups. His articles have also appeared on national and international websites, and his campaigning efforts were featured in the book “Guarding Eden” by Deborah Hart. His website is planetaryvegan.net.

Footnotes

1. For more on the subject of percentage contributions, see the article “Livestock and climate: Do percentages matter?“.
2. Even in the absence of clear tipping points, climate feedback mechanisms create accelerating, non-linear changes, which are potentially irreversible.

References

[1] Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, “Zero Carbon Australia – Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry – Discussion Paper”, October, 2014, http://bze.org.au/landuse

[2] Wedderburn-Bisshop, G., Longmire, A., Rickards, L., “Neglected Transformational Responses: Implications of Excluding Short Lived Emissions and Near Term Projections in Greenhouse Gas Accounting”, International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2015, pp.11-27. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Published Online: August 17, 2015, http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.269

[3] Mahony, P. “The low emissions diet: Eating for a safe climate” (2016), p. 8, utilising: Australian Government, Dept of the Environment, “National Inventory Report 2012 Volume 1”, Table 6.1 Agriculture sector CO2-e emissions, 2012, p. 257, http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6b894230-f15f-4a69-a50c-5577fecc8bc2/files/national-inventory-report-2012-vol1.pdf; George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003, Volume 1, Table 5.2, p. 83; and Australian Government, Dept of the Environment, “National Inventory Report 2012 Volume 1”, Table 3.1 Energy sector CO2-e emissions 2012, Item 1A.1, p. 48.

[4] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) – Results, http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/

[5] USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ via Nutrition Data at http://www.nutritiondata.com

[6] Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1

[7] Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” , Table 8.7, p. 714 [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[8] Russell, G., “Bulbs, bags, and Kelly’s bush: defining ‘green’ in Australia”, 19 Mar 2010 (p. 10) (http://hec-forum.anu.edu.au/archive/presentations_archive/2010/geoffrussell-hec-talk.pdf), which utilised: Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, State of the Environment Report 2006, Indicator: LD-01 The proportion and area of native vegetation and changes over time, March 2009; and ABS, 4613.0 “Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends”, Jan 2010; and ABS 1301.0 Australian Year Book 2008, since updated for 2009-10, 16.13 Area of crops

[9] Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Themes – Environment, Land and Soil, Agriculture”, citing World Resources Institute, World Resources, 1998-99: A Guide to the Global Environment, Washington, DC, 1998, p. 157, cited in “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Singer, P & Mason, J, Text Publishing Company, p. 216

[10] Australian Government, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, ABARES, National scale land use (based on Land Use of Australia 2010-11, Version 5, ABARES 2016), Last reviewed 5th March 2018, http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/aclump/land-use

[11] McFarlane, I. and O’Connor, E.A., “World soybean trade: growth and sustainability”, Modern Economy, 2014, 5, 580-588, Published Online May 2014 in SciRes, Table 1, p. 582, http://www.scirp.org/journal/me, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/me.2014.55054

[12] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Ocean”, http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html

[13] Atwood, T.B., Connolly, R.M., Ritchie, E.G., Lovelock, C.E., Heithaus, M.R., Hays, G.C., Fourqurean, J.W., Macreadie, P.I., “Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems”, published online 28 September 2015, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2763.html

[14] World Health Organization, “Number of registered vehicles. Data by country”, http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A995

[15] Australian Government, Department of the Environment, “National Inventory Report 2013, Volume 1”, Table ES.01, p. x, https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-measurement/publications/national-inventory-report-2013

[16] Brodie, J., “Great Barrier Reef dying beneath its crown of thorns”, The Conversation, 16th April, 2012, http://theconversation.com/great-barrier-reef-dying-beneath-its-crown-of-thorns-6383

[17] De’ath, G., Katharina Fabricius, K.E., Sweatman, H., Puotinen, M., “The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes”, PNAS 2012 109 (44) 17995-17999; published ahead of print October 1, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1208909109, http://www.pnas.org/citmgr?gca=pnas%3B109%2F44%2F17995

[18] Kroon, F., Turner, R., Smith, R., Warne, M., Hunter, H., Bartley, R., Wilkinson, S., Lewis, S., Waters, D., Caroll, C., 2013 “Scientific Consensus Statement: Sources of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment”, Ch. 4, p. 12, The State of Queensland, Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, July, 2013, http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/scientific-consensus-statement/sources-of-pollutants.aspx

[19] Bartley, R., Waters, D., Turner, R., Kroon, F., Wilkinson, S., Garzon-Garcia, A., Kuhnert, P., Lewis, S., Smith, R., Bainbridge, Z., Olley, J., Brooks, A., Burton, J., Brodie, J., Waterhouse, J., 2017. Scientific Consensus Statement 2017: A synthesis of the science of land-based water quality impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, Chapter 2: Sources of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants to the Great Barrier Reef. State of Queensland, 2017, https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/reef-science/scientific-consensus-statement/

[20] Frequently Asked Questions: Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan and 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement, State of Queensland, pp. 7 – 8, https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/assets/faqs-reef-2050wqip-2017scs.pdf

[21] Queensland Government, Reef 2050 Reef Water Quality Improvement Plan, Report Card 2016 – Management Practices, https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/2016/management-practices/

[22] Australian Government, Department of Environment and Energy, Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan – Progress on Implementation Review by Great Barrier Reef Independent Review Group, February 2017, p. 50

[23] Brooks, A. and Olley, J., “Solution at hand for saving Great Barrier Reef”, Griffith News, 23 Nov 2015, https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/news/2015/11/23/tackling-giant-alluvial-gullies-key-to-saving-the-great-barrier-reef/

[24] Willacy, M., ABC News, “Great Barrier Reef: Queensland Government buys $7m cattle station in ‘unprecedented’ protection bid”, 28th June 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-22/great-barrier-reef-government-buys-cattle-station-protection-bid/7533216

[25] Meyer, W. 1997 “Water for Food – The Continuing Debate”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269396797_Water_for_Food_-_the_continuing_debate

[26] Pimentel, D & Pimentel, M, “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2003; 78 (suppl): 660S-3S, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/660S

[27] Pimentel D, Berger B, Filiberto D, Newton M, Wolfe B, Karabinakis E, Clark S, Poon E, Abbett E, Nandaopal S. 2004. Water Resources, Agriculture, and the Environment. Ithaca (NY): New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. Environmental Biology Report 04-1

[28] Meyer, W, “Water and meat producers”, Nov 2007 and updated Dec 2007 and Jun 2008

[29] Hoekstra, A.Y. & Chapagain, A.K. “Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern”, Water Resource Management, 2006, DO1 10.1007/s11269-006-9039-x (Tables 1 & 2), http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra_and_Chapagain_2006.pdf

[30] The Water Footprint Network, http://waterfootprint.org/en/

[31] Hoekstra, A, Email correspondence 9 Sep, 2009

Images

Adwo, “Free range Australian bull”, ID: 1043628112, Shutterstock

Brian Kinney, “Wonderful and beautiful underwater world with corals and tropical fish”, ID: 260385482, Shutterstock

Andrew Brooks, Griffith University, Gully erosion at Springvale Station, originally from “Research leads to Great Barrier Reef Rescue Purchase”, Griffith News, 23 June 2016 (Used with permission)

Love Bree Photography, Photo of the article’s author

Dan Gold – Unsplash, Article Cover Image

Editors Note: The wool and the sheep flesh industries are so intertwined it is difficult to write about them separately. For this reason, we have incorporated these pages together. It is common for people to think wool is not cruel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The wool industry, like the meat industry, is one of immense suffering for the sheep involved. VR.

Sheep are used for their flesh and their wool throughout Australia. Sheep who are specifically bred for their flesh will be killed as babies of only 6-8 months old. Sheep used for their wool will also eventually be killed for their flesh once their wool growth slows, sold as cheap flesh for human consumption or dog food. The following information is standard practice across all sheep farms in Australia.

LAMBING FOR FLESH AND WOOL

 In Australia, lambing is usually timed to occur in mid-winter so that once the lambs are weaned the spring grass will be growing and the expense incurred by the farmers for feed will be reduced. The industry-driven demand for “Spring Lamb” is also to benefit from this artificial timing. Lambs are born into freezing conditions, often at night, resulting in the death of many. Sheep are selectively bred to have a greater number of lambs. When a sheep has 3 lambs the 3rd can be rejected by the mother who is sometimes unable to care for 3. 

There is very often no shelter for the newborn lambs even in the middle of winter. One of the reasons given for winter shearing is to encourage the ewes to seek shelter for their lambs even if there is none. Lambs are often born during the night so on many occasions, the lambs who are sick or abandoned are not discovered until early morning after they have died or when it is too late to save them. If orphaned or sick lambs are discovered alive, the majority of farmers are unwilling to spend the time or money on vet visits and hand raising them. They are killed, often with a blow to the head with a blunt object. This is perfectly legal with the method being recommended by Agriculture Victoria in their guidelines on sheep welfare.

In the first 48 hours of life 10 to 15 million lambs will lose their lives due to malnutrition and/or hypothermia. Approximately 22 million lambs were sent to slaughter in 2017. This total of 37 million lives per annum does not account for any of those lost between the first 48 hours and slaughter age (approximately 6-8 months of age).

It is not only the lambs who suffer and die but also the ewes. Ewes who have birthing difficulties are usually not monitored or given vet treatment. Many die without anyone being aware that they are in trouble. 

Rescued hypothermic lamb forced into the world in the freeze of winter to increase farmer profits
Credit: Lamb Care A

Male lambs, unless marked for slaughter prior to puberty, will usually be castrated. Acceptable methods of castrating male lambs without anaesthesia are by cutting with a knife or having rubber rings applied.

TAIL DOCKING

According to the Code of Accepted Farming Practice for the Welfare of Sheep (Agriculture Victoria) tail docking should be performed on lambs as early as management practices will allow, preferably between 2 and 12 weeks. Disregarding any pain they may feel, the acceptable methods of tail docking, without anaesthesia, are: cutting with a sharp knife, applying rubber rings or using a gas flame heated scarring iron.

Tail docking is a standard practice on farms. The reason given for this is to help reduce the incidence of fly strike (as described in Mulesing). As in the case of Museling, this is an unnecessary mutilation of the lambs with sheep being able to live a perfectly healthy life with their tails intact.

MULESING

Although mulesing is less commonly practised than it once was it is still a practice that occurs in Australia. Mulesing involves cutting a crescent-shaped slice of skin from each side of the buttock area; the usual cut on each side is 5 – 7cm in width and extends slightly less than halfway from the anus to the hock of the back leg in length. Skin is also stripped from the sides and the end of the tail stump. This surgical procedure is usually done without any anaesthetic. The large scars left after mulesing take several weeks to heal and are susceptible to infection and flystrike.

The idea behind mulesing is to reduce flystrike which is when blowfly eggs laid on the skin of the sheep hatch into larvae which then feed on the sheep’s tissue. Sheep are now bred to have more wrinkly skin to increase the amount of wool which creates a much higher chance of flystrike. Whilst flystrike can be a risk to sheep it is a treatable condition. In flocks of hundreds of sheep, however, flystrike can be harder to detect and farmers are reluctant to spend the huge amount of time required monitoring the occurrence or treating any cases. If sheep were not bred in such large numbers as they are for the animal flesh and wool industry flystrike could be easily monitored and treated if it did occur.

SHEARING

Sheep were originally self-shedding so kept enough wool to protect themselves from temperature extremes. The fleece provides effective insulation against both cold and heat. Due to breeding and genetic manipulation, however, sheep raised by the wool industry produce excessive amounts of wool so now have to be shorn. Shearers are usually paid by volume, not by the hour, which encourages fast work without regard for the welfare of the sheep. This often results in horrendous injuries to the sheep with open wounds being sewn up without anaesthetic. Sheep are known to be beaten into submission should they not stay still and drug use has been proven to be prevalent in the shearing industry. Despite the fact that shearing causes sheep a high degree of stress, they are usually shorn twice a year with one of those times being late autumn – a time when they are leading into when they are most in need of their fleece to protect them from the cold. This is to enable farmers to make a greater amount of profit from their wool.

SHELTER

There is no legal requirement to provide any form of shelter at farms, saleyards, feedlots or slaughterhouses, even from severe weather extremes. This includes the most basic form of shade. Sheep can be seen on days in the high 30s or even low 40s huddled together under one tree or with no choice but to be out in full sun for the whole day. Australia’s weather extremes are brutal and millions of sheep and newborn lambs are at its mercy with no regard shown by those who profit from their lives and deaths.

SALEYARDS

Thousands of sheep pass through Australian saleyards every week. Most are waiting to be purchased for slaughter. Pens are crammed full of sheep who are commonly injured or sick. It is illegal to transport pregnant ewes yet it is not uncommon for lambs to be born at saleyards. There is no legal requirement for any sort of shelter at saleyards so sheep are often exposed to the extremes of weather conditions experienced in Australia.

TRANSPORT

When sheep are transported in trucks they are crammed in to stop them from falling over. Although this does help to stabilize them it is common for trucks to contain downed sheep who are unable to get up and who are being trampled by others. It is illegal to transport pregnant ewes but it is not uncommon for lambs to be born on trucks. A common sight on busy freeways is for a transport truck to be seen with the head or limbs of sheep protruding from the side of the truck. It is illegal to drive with any part of a sheep protruding from a truck. It is very difficult, however, for a driver to stop and rectify the situation during the journey without unloading all the sheep. This law is in place more for appearance than for practicality. Accidents involving sheep on trucks are becoming increasingly common resulting in horrific injuries and deaths of these animals.

SLAUGHTER

Meat and Livestock Australia estimated that 22 million lambs would be sent to slaughter in Australia in 2017. Despite the industry wanting us to believe in a “humane” slaughter method this is far from the truth. The animals suffer and die a terrible death. Although stunning is a requirement for lambs and sheep slaughtered in Australian slaughterhouses (with the exception of Kosher killing) the stunning process is often not effective and the animals have their throats slit and are left hanging upside down to bleed out while close to or fully conscious. Recent footage captured and leaked from CCTV cameras shows the reality of what takes place for sheep behind the walls of the slaughterhouse.

Sheep and lambs are no different to the domestic cat and dog in that they each have their individual personalities. They are affectionate and loving, just like most domestic cats and dogs and also feel fear, joy, and pain just like any other living being. Yet so many people deem it acceptable to treat them in a way the majority of us would never dream of treating our animal friends. People need to realize just how individual and sensitive these animals are and that they no sooner want live the life of abuse, loss and slaughter than any other living being wishes to live. If people could allow themselves to see the truth about these animals they would no longer be able to contribute to their suffering and death.

Although in recent times many fashion designers and retailers have opted to ditch fur, an estimated 100 million animals are still farmed and killed annually for their pelts, most commonly rabbits, minks, foxes and raccoon dogs. Another 10 million wild animals are thought to be trapped and killed for their fur annually including possums, beavers, lynxes, coyotes, seals, dogs, cats, otters, bears, squirrels, badgers, wallabies, chinchillas, martens and bobcats. Fur is used for coats, clothing trims and trinkets. Fur farms are most commonly found in China, parts of Europe, USA, Russia and Canada.

MINK

Naturally, mink are solitary, semi-aquatic animals who cover a wide range of ground.  They spend the majority of their time in the water swimming and hunting. Mink will only seek out other mink to mate and will aggressively defend their territory in the wild.  In typical fur farms, these animals are confined to a small wire cage with little to no bedding and no stimulation.  They are usually crammed in with several other mink.  They are unable to exhibit their natural behaviours due to the cramped conditions and will become deeply stressed and display stereotypies such as pacing, head nodding, gnawing of bars, repetitive circling and pelt chewing. Leg wounds, eye infections, and cannibalism are common.

FOXES

Foxes are active animals whose territories can cover tens of square kilometres.  They partner and form strong family bonds.  They dig large dens for breeding and will create a series of smaller dens around their territory to store food and emergency shelter.  They hunt, forage and have complex body and vocal language systems. When confined in the typical solitary wire mesh cage on intensive fur farms, foxes are unable to exhibit any of these instinctual behaviours and like mink will become distressed and engage in pacing and self-mutilation.

RABBITS

Most of the fur imported to Australia is rabbit fur from China. Like mink, rabbits are confined with several other animals to small bare wire cages, unable to move or display natural behaviours such as hopping, digging and grooming.  This results in painful health problems such as foot abscesses and veterbral column deformations.  Being a prey animal, rabbits are easily frightened and prone to stress.  Stereotypies such as head bobbing and circling, bar biting and being “frozen” in fear are commonplace.

PROCESS OF TAKING THEIR FUR

Routine ways of killing farmed fur-bearing animals are anal or vaginal electrocution, drowning, clubbing, beating, poisoning, gassing and neck-breaking. Alarmingly, some are even skinned alive. This ensures no blood will destroy the quality of the pelt.

Garments made of the more “high-end” angora rabbit wool are created from fur which is manually ripped off the skin of fully conscious animals without any pain relief.  The rabbits are tied up and stretched out to restrict their movement during this process. Recent investigations have shown rabbits screaming in agony while bleeding from open wounds, after which they are returned to their cages and subjected to the same horrific process every couple of months for their short, miserable lives. Farmers prefer this method as it is quick and yields longer hair deeming it more profitable.

Although deemed “inhumane” and banned in many countries and states of the U.S, the most common form of trapping of wild animals for fur is leg-hold trapping in which a steel-jaw violently clamps down on the animal’s leg causing severe injury and pain.  If the animal doesn’t chew his own leg off first, he is often left suffering for days at a time without access to food or water, deeming him susceptible to predatory attacks and dangerous weather conditions. The animal is then usually suffocated or clubbed to death, again to preserve the pelt.  These traps are indiscriminate and will often slowly and painfully kill other unwanted animals, who will be discarded as “waste”.

It is illegal to import dog and cat fur to Australia, however these products are often mislabeled as rabbit, fox or mink. Annually, approximately two million farmed, stray and domesticated dogs and cats suffer unimaginable cruelty and death at the hands of fur farmers- often beaten, electrocuted and skinned alive. Many of these animals are beloved pets taken from the streets.

As awareness and outrage about this horrendously cruel trade becomes more widespread, people are looking for faux alternatives. Disturbingly however, some clothing trims advertised as faux fur have been found to contain real animal hair.  Use this guide to determine whether the garment contains real animal fur, and if you are in any doubt, don’t buy it. The below table shows how to differentiate between real and fake fur (Credit: Animals Australia)

Author: Kathryn Stone
Vice President Vegan Rising