The Representation of Live Animal Export
How is the Australian live export industry represented by organisations and institutions?
The issue of live animal export has been prominent in Australian society for some time, however in recent years it has received more media coverage due to the increase in graphic and disturbing photos and footage which reveal the truth behind this industry. There have been many texts created to represent this particular problem, with the text creators either supporting the trade or positioning the reader against it. The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) produced a short video titled ‘A chilled approach: better than live export’ in 2012 which describes the issues with the live export trade and also suggests possible solutions to this issue through the use of facts. Whilst the Australian Government: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) also uses statistics to emphasise the need for a live export trade in order to maintain Australia’s economy.
The video created by the WSPA portrays the practice of live export as cruel and unnecessary and promotes a different method of meat trading. The video has no real footage or photos which is uncommon for a video promoting animal welfare, this would have been done to reach a wider audience and offend fewer people. The video shows a number of computer-generated images of cows on ships, the first being quite dramatic with blood dripping down the ship. This immediately makes the viewer think of death and positions the reader against live animal export. The video then goes on to make several statements about poor animal welfare and then shows a cow falling down in a cage and turning to a skeleton, again emphasising the high mortality rates on-board live export ships and aeroplanes. After this introduction the video becomes more positive, stating that a chilled-meat trade would improve animal welfare whilst still supplying farmers with money and people with jobs, which is the key reason why the government will not ban live export. The WSPA states that “A northern processing facility for cattle could mean $200 million to the regional economy, create 1300 jobs and could increase a northern beef farmer’s income by 245%”. These statistics are quite impressive and make the viewer consider why Australia hasn’t moved to a chilled meat trade as of yet. The WSPA is one of many organisations that produce videos such as the one discussed above and are key in making sure that the public are informed and able to create their own opinion.
The documents published by the DAFF promote the live export trade in Australia through the use of statistics. The site states that “In 2009, the live export sector earned $996.5 million and underpinned the employment of around 10,000 people in rural and regional Australia.” This makes the reader believe that live export is necessary to the Australian economy as it brings in a vast quantity of money. This website also says that:
“Australia leads the world in animal welfare practices…The government and the livestock export industry are working cooperatively with our trading partners to address the post-arrival welfare concerns and to improve the transportation, handling and slaughter practices of livestock in overseas markets.”
Whilst this statement is attempting to be positive it does acknowledge that there is a problem with animal welfare. For some readers this may cause them to question what the Government is telling them and do further research, especially in regards to voting at election times.
The representation of the live export industry varies greatly depending on who the text creators are. The WSPA and other animal welfare organisations reveal the harsh truth behind this trade through the use of statistics and usually graphic and disturbing photos and footage. Whilst the Government promotes the industry as an “Important part of Australia’s vibrant and growing livestock industry.” In order to decide ones’ own position on this particular issue it is crucial to examine a number of texts from a range of sources in order to avoid bias.
References:
The Australian ‘Separate polls reach different conclusions on live export trade’ August 15 2013 [ONLINE] Available from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/separate-polls-reach-different-conclusions-on-live-export-trade/story-fn59niix-1226697894882 [Accessed 6/9/13]
WSPA, ‘Learn about live export: watch our videos’ [ONLINE] Available from: http://www.wspaliveexport.org.au/learn-about-live-export/watch-our-videos [Accessed 12/9/13]
Australian Government: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ‘Live Animal Export Trade’ [ONLINE] Available from: http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/export-trade [Accessed 12/9/13]
Australian Government: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ‘AQIS Mortality Investigations’ [ONLINE] Available from: http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/aqis-mortality-investigations [Accessed 12/9/13]
This article addresses an important ethical and economic issue currently faced by the Australian government and how it has been represented in the media. I value compassion and believe in the ethical treatment of livestock and the information Isobel has presented has reinforced my belief in those values. While these values are of high importance to me, my parents own a small business and I also understand how important it is for Australia to have a strong economy. In Isobel’s article, she mentions how the DAFF has published documents stating “In 2009, the live export sector earned $996.5 million and underpinned the employment of around 10,000 people in rural and regional Australia.” Isobel has followed through by saying “This makes the reader believe that live export is necessary to the Australian economy as it brings in a vast quantity of money.” In saying this Isobel has taken a negative stance to this statement but fails to give any evidence that the statement made by the DAFF is untrue. While I feel that the live export trade is unethical and should be replaced with a more humane option, this article has led me to believe that it may be important for the Australian economy and is not simply a black and white issue.
The issue of live animal export versus economic gains is explored in this blog post, and discusses it through the analysis of multiple texts. I understand that the Australian economy relies in part on live exportation, however I do not believe that the benefit of the economy should come at the cost of the inhumane treatment of animals- and that a compromise should be reached. The blog post emphasizes the possible solutions available to solve this problem- such as chilled-meat trade and makes me question why action has not been taken sooner to prevent the unnecessary harm of animals in live export. I accept that live animal export will most likely continue to be a part of the Australian economy, earning around $996.5 million dollars in 2009, as seen in the article. Also, I value the distribution of articles and discussion such as in the blog post above, so that public opinion and knowledge on the issue is decided based on personal attitude.
The contrasting texts create a complex image of live animal trade by promoting positive and negative effects of its continuation. In doing so, they reveal how the view of these effects as predominantly positive has been introduced and popularized by organisations that profit from live exports. The texts, and your discussion of them, have reinforced my view that much of the perceived negative impact of ceasing live trade has been exaggerated by corporations and the media, reducing public understanding of the issue and thus reducing their ability to make educated voting decisions based on the matter. The DAFF article uses multiple statistics to highlight the economic benefits of the trade, making it seem an important part of Australia’s economy. The WSPA video, however, reveals by presenting other statistics that while the income generated by exporting livestock is large, it is not irreplaceable, and that there are alternatives to the trade that could produce similar or greater revenue. By exposing possible illegitimacies of claims that live exports are essential to Australia, the WSPA video shows how facts may have been manipulated to influence public opinion and decisions. These manipulations are concerning as they contravene key aspects of our society’s democratic systems. The video also uses emotive images of animal suffering to highlight the fact that such suffering should be stopped regardless of any reduction of revenue. I agree with this sentiment as I think all creatures deserve fair treatment, making the constructed case for the continuation of animal trading seem worse as it seeks to influence the public to support an unfair practice.