Australian Rural & Regional News was approached by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) (PETA) with “a gripping and timely opinion piece from an undercover investigator who has firsthand experience of the live export industry. This person, who has captured footage of the slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs, would make the point that ending live animal export should not be limited to sheep” (PETA).
In the interests of open debate on a highly contentious issue with a deep impact on the Australian agricultural industry and people, particularly people living and working in rural and regional Australia, ARR.News is publishing this opinion piece in full, together with – as discussed and agreed with PETA – commentary from the Australian agricultural industry and possibly other expert or otherwise significant commentators, such as politicians. PETA will have an opportunity respond to this, as will the industry again. Such a debate may run for several interchanges and be quite robust. All parties must be prepared for this.
ARR.News intends to publish commentary in full, excluding only potentially defamatory or otherwise unlawful content. ARR.News does not intend to publish images of animals in distress. ARR.News does intend to ask some questions of PETA and the industry commentators.
Trevor Whittington, the CEO of WAFarmers and contributor to ARR.News, opened the discussion on the part of Australian agricultural industry with his response, below the PETA investigator’s piece. Trevor has seen the PETA footage.
The debate has developed, with further responses from both PETA and Trevor Whittington added below on 6 September 2024.
I’ve seen Australian cattle slaughtered abroad – and ending the export trade in live sheep isn’t enough
by an anonymous investigator, submitted to PETA
Being an undercover investigator inside an Indonesian abattoir – where cows and other animals sent from Australia aboard crowded, filthy live-export ships are killed – is anxiety-inducing, horrifying work. I’ve even been found out and beaten. And although my broken nose healed, the mental scars I carry from seeing what happened to those cows will always stay with me.
Last year, inside one of these mazes of death, I filmed as two cows with Australian ear tags kicked and thrashed on the kill floor after their throats were slashed. One of them gurgled as they were dragged by the legs across the filthy floor and hoisted. The other continued to struggle until a worker cut deeper into her throat. The atrocities I saw contradict the Australian government’s claim that live animals are no longer slaughtered without proper stunning.
What I documented was not new. In 2021, PETA Asia investigators entered seven randomly selected abattoirs – some of which were part of the Australian government’s Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System – and filmed animals from Australia being stunned ineffectively or not at all. One of them panicked and writhed in pain, his head dangling from his neck as a worker hacked at his throat.
What we find inside foreign slaughterhouses and aboard export ships never changes – and neither does the debate in Australia. Last month, the Australian government again tossed taxpayer dollars at a public inquiry into an industry that has repeatedly been exposed for its cruelty to animals, environmental destructiveness, and human rights violations, before finally ushering a bill to phase out the live export of sheep through the Senate to make it law.
This is undoubtedly welcome news for sheep and those of us who respect them as individuals, but as someone who’s seen inside this industry first-hand, I know how overdue the bill was – and how insufficient it remains, so long as it excludes other species. Labor’s law, which will phase out the live export of sheep by 2028, follows numerous inquiries, protests, petitions, and regulatory reviews. Given that the government’s election into power in 2022 was, in part, based on its promise to forge ahead with the ban, a phase-out over four years is far from ambitious. The vile truth about this industry has been clear ever since more than 40,000 sheep died aboard the Farid Fares ship that sank in 1980. Since then, more than 3 million animals have died on live-export ships, and hundreds of millions more have been butchered overseas in ways that would be illegal in Australia.
Additionally, human rights violations aboard these ships have led one of Australia’s most experienced and respected live-export veterinarians to describe the practice as “shipping’s modern slave trade”, with workers on-board exposed to dangerous levels of toxic gases as they work amid animal excrement. This effluent – along with animal corpses – is tipped straight into the ocean, compounding the live-export industry’s already considerable environmental impact. One study found that abolishing live export would be akin to removing around 320,000 cars from Australia’s roads. Even if human and animal suffering aren’t the death knell for this industry, Australia’s ostensible commitment to meeting targets to curtail the climate catastrophe should be.
In all, the government is skirting around the edges of an issue that’s deathly serious and affects not only sheep but also cows, goats, pigs, and humans. While the fact that the live export of sheep will soon be illegal is music to the ears of the 75 per cent of Aussies who condemn the practice, the ban merely scratches the surface. Sheep comprise just 2 per cent of the industry, meaning many other species will continue to suffer – and pausing the industry over the summer are all band-aid measures that fall short. The only solution is to end the live export of all animals now.
I have felt the blood of terrified animals splatter across my face as they were violently slaughtered. I have been thrown down into their excrement, which coats the floors of the hell in which they’re killed and dismembered. I can tell you firsthand that the death awaiting the animals who survive the nightmarish journeys from Australia to foreign abattoirs is violent and often inflicted in ways that fly in the face of the “rules” Australians are assured regulate the industry. Whether panicked shipmates trample them on rough seas or slaughterhouse workers slit their throats, these vulnerable animals die in atrocious ways in the live-export industry – and it’s high time it was shut down.
This piece was written by an undercover investigator who captured footage for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Asia inside an Indonesian slaughterhouse in 2023. Their identity remains anonymous for their safety.
The blind spot of animal activism: Why targeting Australia misses the bigger picture
by Trevor Whittington, CEO WAFarmers
Reading the recent impassioned account from an anonymous undercover investigator who witnessed horrific scenes in an Indonesian abattoir, one might be compelled to believe that ending Australia’s live export trade would somehow solve the world’s animal welfare problems.
The dramatic retelling of cows with Australian ear tags suffering on foreign kill floors certainly tugs at the heartstrings, but let’s pause and consider the broader context.
Animal rights activists often conflate the concepts of animal welfare and animal rights, creating a narrative that suggests the mere existence of live export is inherently cruel.
But this perspective ignores the essential difference between the two. Animal welfare is about ensuring that animals are treated humanely, whether on the farm, during transport, or in slaughterhouses. It’s a concept rooted in reality—recognising that while humans will continue to use animals for food, clothing, and other purposes, we have a moral responsibility to minimise suffering.
Animal rights, on the other hand, is an ideological stance that rejects any use of animals by humans, regardless of the circumstances. This viewpoint, while appealing in its simplicity, often leads to impractical solutions that ignore the complexities of global food production and the economic realities of developing nations.
It’s far easier to target a country like Australia, which, despite the sensationalised stories, has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Australian livestock exported overseas are subject to strict regulations under the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS), designed to ensure that animals are treated humanely throughout the supply chain. When issues arise, they are investigated, and corrective actions are taken. But let’s be honest—no system is perfect, especially when dealing with the varying standards of other countries. Yet, rather than focusing on how to improve these systems globally, activists invariably choose to demonise Australia, a country, in fact the only country, that actually tries to enforce world-class animal welfare practices beyond its borders.
What is consistently overlooked in these critiques is the reality of what’s happening across the developing world, where animal welfare standards are often minimal or non-existent. In many countries, the treatment of animals is far worse than anything documented in Australian-related incidents. Yet, these activists rarely target the root of the problem, or put time, energy and donors’ money into highlighting what’s happening across the world’s 150 developing countries.
Far more self-fulfilling is to target a developed nations live export industry using all the powers of social media which in turn generates the donations that are needed to keep the undercover investigators on their world tour. It’s an endless cycle of needing images to open the purse strings which funds the next investigation, but are they really making a difference?
No need to delve into complex arguments about who is actually on the ground making a difference or how it’s being funded.
It’s far easier to shame a country that is already trying to do the right thing, rather than confront the systemic issues in regions where change is most needed.
Without Australian oversight, there is no guarantee that the gap will be filled by local practices that meet even basic animal welfare standards. In fact, the guaranteed outcome is that animals from countries with far lower welfare standards will take their place, leading to even greater suffering.
The paradox here is that in seeking to protect the odd Australian animal out of the million exported, from the likes of what was filmed, activists will be condemning many millions more to the sort of unregulated outcomes our undercover agent is so keen for us to respond emotionally to via his vivid description.
Furthermore, the notion that banning live export will significantly impact global climate change or solve human rights issues is, at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, a distraction. There must be something in the psyche of the compansionista class that has convinced them that if they only add climate change and third world exploitation to the mix they can literally rest their case, argument won.
No need to consider inconvenient facts like, ending live export might save a few thousand tonnes of carbon from shipping but the Australian government is championing the alternative, which is airfreighting processed chilled carcasses as far away as New York.
Do the carbon miles on that equation. Or what about the fact that shutting down a seafarer’s job who comes from a developing country does not guarantee them another one, or the fact that if animals are not shipped they can’t be processed which generates much needed jobs and provides affordable protein, not to mention a use for 100 per cent of the animal? If the animal is processed in Australia, with its high labour costs, a portion of the animal will be wasted as it has no market.
And then there is the brutal economic reality that ending live exports will see many farmers simply swap out of sheep to growing grain which comes with all the carbon and environmental implications of the globe using more tonnes of agricultural chemicals and inorganic fertilisers.
This is not a zero sum game. But then maybe this animal activist is a supporter of the manufacturers in India and China of Glyphosate and Paraquat along with enjoying a superannuation fund that invests in global companies like Shell and John Deere.
Simplistic and emotional arguments against live exports overshadow the real work needed to address environmental and labor issues in the developing world.
In the end, the push to end live exports is more about making a moral statement than about achieving real, positive change for animals. It’s a stance made by those who can afford to worry about global problems, it allows activists to feel righteous without addressing the complex realities of global food production, animal welfare, or the economic needs of developing nations.
By targeting Australia, a country that is leading the way in animal welfare standards, these activists miss the bigger picture—that real change will only come when they are prepared to work alongside the likes of Australian live exporters to elevate standards globally, rather than demanding we end the trade, leaving a void that will be filled by such bastions of human and animal rights as live exporting powerhouses Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan.
Further responses are being added below.
The blind spot of those who profit from animal suffering:
How the industry overlooks the failures of its own backyard
by Mimi Bekhechi, campaigns advisor to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 3 September 2024
Readers should be aware that links in this item may lead to images of animals in distress on the PETA site.
Does PETA think – as WAFarmers CEO Trevor Whittington suggests – that ending Australia’s live-export trade would somehow “solve the world’s animal welfare problems”? Of course not. But it would make a world of difference (the kind of “real, positive change” Whittington claims to want to see) to the intelligent, feeling individuals currently waiting to depart in fetid vessels or – as documented (more than once) by investigators – being killed without the stunning ostensibly mandated by Australia’s clearly impotent laws.
After decades of animals drowning, being trampled by shipmates, dying of heat exhaustion and thirst, languishing in ports as ships fail to launch, and facing abuse abroad, there’s no need to exaggerate the animal welfare concerns in the live-export industry. Those making bank off the backs of exported animals downplay the horrors, but the fact remains: this industry is inherently, inescapably cruel. Moreover, were Australia’s welfare laws really so effective, there’d be no egregious acts for groups like PETA to document.
As it stands, in addition to documented cruelty, taxpayer dollars have funded no fewer than 10 government inquiries into the industry, and Animals Australia has lodged some 76 legal complaints – yet there’s still always something shocking to uncover. Are we to believe that’s somehow the fault of animal advocates, be they donors or investigators (who for the record, investigate in their home nations and are no more embarking on “world tours” than they are investing in Glyphosate)?
This investigator – who detailed real animals’ final moments – highlighted how ineffective the ESCAS regulations Whittington deems “strict” actually are. They were just as feeble in 2021 when PETA shared similarly gruesome footage and specifics of one ordeal in which workers shot a steer then broke his tail and jabbed him 64 times in the face and torso in an attempt to force him to stand back up so a worker could shoot him again.
PETA understands the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, but no one watching this footage could claim anything close to either. As long as the use of force to hold a conscious animal still while slashing their jugular is allowed under ESCAS, without stunning, Australia will never be a bastion of “world-class animal welfare”. While PETA entities the world over work tirelessly to free animals from all forms of abuse, PETA Australia holds the Australian government accountable, not because it’s an “easier” target but because foreign abattoirs are littered with violently butchered Australian cattle.
It’s xenophobic to point the finger only at the cruelty of receiving nations while ignoring that the victims were born and raised in our own backyard and that it’s our industry profiting and allowing the abuse to continue.
If we’re to talk about distractions, debating welfare in the live-export industry is exactly that. While how we slaughter animals is undeniably grim, the real issue is that we use them at all. It’s regressive (and dystopian) to define the exploitation of animals as an “inescapable reality” and suggest that treating them slightly less cruelly is the best we can do. Cow flesh and other animal-derived products aren’t essential and can be replaced with products made from plants and home-grown cell-based innovations that harm no one, provide job opportunities, and are better for the planet – all without sending a single beef-packed plane to New York. To the sheep farmers concerned about “all the carbon and environmental implications” of switching to grain growing, fear not: producing 1 kilogram of wheat generates 0.41 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), compared to 17.86 kilograms CO2e per kilogram of lamb flesh.
Funding the next investigation is far from the goal of those raising awareness of the atrocities of live export. Unfortunately, for as long as animals are viewed as commodities and their inherent rights are ignored in favour of endless promises to make exploiting them more “comfortable” and slaughtering them “less” horrific, we will have to. While we work towards relegating the myth of human supremacy to the history books, those reliant on live export should consider Labor’s ban on shipping sheep a wake-up call and demand that the government help them transition to sustainable, future-proof industries that don’t involve exploiting animals. It’s true that no system is perfect. But some – like the live-export trade – are so unequivocally wrong they must urgently be put out to pasture.
Australian Rural & Regional News has asked PETA what standards the Australian live export industry would need to meet to not meet their opposition.
PETA seeks perfection at the cost of protection
by Trevor Whittington, CEO WAFarmers, 6 September 2024
“Does PETA believe, as WAFarmers CEO Trevor Whittington suggests, that ending Australia’s live-export trade would somehow “solve the world’s animal welfare problems”? Of course not. However, it would make a significant difference (the kind of “real, positive change” Whittington claims to want) to the intelligent, sentient animals currently awaiting departure in fetid vessels or— as has been documented multiple times by investigators— being slaughtered without the stunning that Australia’s impotent laws ostensibly mandate.” (Mimi Bekhechi, PETA)
Mimi Bekhechi, PETAs global campaign advisor’s, powerful opening statement, marks the latest round of debate between the Western Australia Farmers Federation (WAFarmers) and the global animal rights juggernaut, which has taken a top-down approach to addressing the global issue of ending all use of animals by humans.
Yet, as strong as her statement is, it defies common sense that a $100 million-a-year organisation would focus its considerable resources on stopping the one nation in the world that is actively involved in the live export of livestock from continuing with its government sanctioned system that gives our vets and stock handlers access to the livestock handling facilities in countries as far afield as Saudi Arabia and Vietnam.
For every Australian sheep and cow that is handled in these countries there are hundreds of others that follow the same supply chain that are bred locally or imported from other developing countries.
Every worker that Australia trains will handle tens of thousands of animals over their lifetime. Take the Australian livestock out of the system and the host governments will end the access that is granted to Australian trainers and compliance monitors to processing plants along with the funding that supports them.
Annabelle Broun embraces live sheep export industry – https://www.farmweekly.com.au/story/8368355/annabelle-sets-sail-into-live-export-career
Live export ships aren’t known for glamour, but there’s an exception, Landline, ABC – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ3JAyfzLMs
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out what that means for animal welfare, but this glaringly obvious reality is an uncomfortable truth that Mimi refuses to address.
PETA consistently points to the small number of incidents it has uncovered of livestock mistreatment, while ignoring the fact that shutting down Australia’s trade would result in worse outcomes not better. This is not a zero sum game. Their win will result in more suffering as Australian livestock are replaced by those from countries with few, if any, standards or compliance measures—a reality that Bekhechi and her fellow travellers should be honest and publicly acknowledge.
This is the classic mistake of the global progressive elite, those who live in the comfortable west who seek symbolic victories to signal their virtue, while ignoring the reality of the consequences of their actions in the real world.
What drives change is not grand ideals but the hard work of incremental change at the coal face, where people live under governments that need to be coached and encouraged to make change.
PETA debates with me but nobody in the developing world is listening to us. As PETA campaigns on the back of their win they will quickly lose interest in live exports as they know their cameras and footage will fall on deaf ears when there is no developed country with their government susceptible to emotive campaigns to target.
PETA won’t be there to point to ten inquiries into the Somalia or Sudanese live export trade because those governments aren’t interested in animal welfare and unlike Australia don’t undertake enquiries into how animals are handled.
While PETA demands perfection from Australia, it asks nothing and invests nothing in those countries welfare systems, where the vast majority of live-exported animals will be sourced once Australia exits the trade.
Australia stands open and accountable for its standards, but PETA prefers ideals over outcomes. It’s a win-win for PETA to shut down Australia’s live trade but a lose-lose for the millions of animals that will pass through the supply chains Australia once oversaw.
It’s the same mad logic as the Defund the Police campaign in the US following the George Floyd murder, a campaign that directly resulted in more crime and violence against the very people the elites claimed they were advocating for.
No police means no protection. No Australia means no protection. According to PETA, Australia’s Export Supply Chain Accreditation System (ESCAS), is feeble, as it has not prevented the few isolated incidents it has uncovered. Their solution is to give up.
Under this logic, we might as well dismiss Australia’s peacekeepers, who have been sent to over 50 nations since 1947, as no doubt in every case incidents occurred where civilians under the watch of Australian soldiers weren’t fully protected. Would PETA describe their efforts as feeble and demand the Australian government promise perfection or offer no protection?
Since we can’t deliver it, their solution is to shut down the best and ignore the rest. Their logic simply doesn’t pass the pub test.
And that brings us to the heart of the debate. Which is not really about live exports, it’s about ideals.
“While how we slaughter animals is undeniably grim, the real issue is that we use them at all. Cow flesh and other animal-derived products aren’t essential and can be replaced with plant-based alternatives and home-grown cell-based innovations that harm no one, create jobs, and are better for the planet.” (Mimi Bekhechi, PETA)
A review of PETA’s campaign literature tells us all we need to know. PETA is an extreme animal rights organisation—it’s all or nothing. Perfection in animal rights and welfare or no human interaction with animals at all.
This is fine, be as idealistic as you like, except for the hypocrisy of its approach to its legion of donors, many of whom keep pets for their own companionship and amusement. PETA conveniently avoids rallying against the global pet industry, because, as the saying goes, never bite the hand that feeds you.
If Mimi truly believes that the “myth of human supremacy should be consigned to history” (her words), she should map out what a world without livestock or pets really looks like—and start the campaign for perfection now, then see how much money flows into PETA’s coffers.
In the meantime, in the four years left before the Australian live sheep trade ends our vets and stockies will be out there on the ground in developing countries making a difference to animal welfare.
Australian Rural & Regional News has asked Trevor for more information about the processes when a facility breaches Australian standards in Australia’s Export Supply Chain Accreditation System (ESCAS), and whether Australia is still working to have Australian standards accepted and implemented in countries that have not yet agreed to them.
