People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has really stirred up rural and regional Australia (for example, "Wool 'too slow' against PETA", The Land, pg 8, March 3). However, I consider PETA less offensive than many of the more mainstream environmental groups because PETA are at least straight forward and upfront about their intentions.
PETA is now running a campaign against mulesing on the basis it is cruel to sheep.
But the animal rights organisation's website and various media statements makes it very clear they are against the use of animals for food and fibre. Period.
In contrast, groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) pretend that they are the friend of farmers and do deals with the National Farmers Federation, yet all the while they are campaigning for more and more regulations and restrictions that will slowly kill innovation and the long term competitiveness of our primary industries.
Take the three big recent campaigns: the campaign against genetically modified (GM) foods, the campaign to save the Murray River and the campaign against broad-scale tree clearing.
Each campaign was dishonest.
The campaign against GM food suggested that GM canola was a first, ignoring GM cotton as an important existing source of vegetable oil.
The campaign against the Murray River claimed deteriorating water quality and increasing salt levels when there has been clear improvement over the last 20 years.
The campaign to ban broad-scale tree clearing claimed we have declining forest cover when there has actually been a net increase in forest cover -- even in Queensland during the 1990s at the height of land clearing.
Unlike PETA, organisations like the ACF appeal to science and a scientific consensus to support their mantra. They pretend their position is science-based.
But this is misrepresentation. Like PETA, they are really just about promoting a different value and belief system.
PETA is much more upfront. It actively promotes a vegetarian lifestyle and also synthetic alternatives to wool.
Its website states that "choosing to buy nonwool products (polyester fleece, synthetic shearling, and other cruelty-free fibres) not only helps the animals, but can also reduce or eliminate many of the consumer problems and inconveniences that go along with wearing or using wool".
PETA is clearly promoting a different Australia: one which might arguably be more humane.
If we were all vegetarian then no animals would need to be slaughtered.
In fact, we could do away with the Australia's pastoral industry altogether, though we might still sing "Waltzing Matilda" in remembrance of the then-extinct Australian merino, saved from mulesing.
Whether metropolitan Australia buys the PETA argument or not, PETA hasn't really misrepresented their intensions or position.
Groups like Greenpeace (who work through the Network of Concerned Farmers) and the ACF also represent a different value and belief system and are essentially against modern high yielding agriculture, but because these groups are more devious in their tactics, rural industries are slower to respond.
In fact, there are industry groups that actively fund environment groups whose long term objective is the demise of the same industry.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment