Ethical Concerns and Meat Consumption in Australia

Question: Discuss about theEthical Concerns and Meat Consumption in Australia. Answer: Introduction The difference in beliefs about meat consumption has led to a complex meat paradox. While people find it palatable to consume meat, only a few take into consideration the pain animals endure. Loughnan, Haslam, and Bastian (2010) established that a stop in meat consumption is a negative phenomenon in the deeply rooted culture, especially in Australia. This essay finds the consumptions of meat an unethical practice because of moral concerns, the environmental impact, health issues, and poor meat quality, but also acknowledges the cultural concerns and the economic contributions. Moral Concerns Loughnan, Haslam, and Bastian (2010) argued that the consumption of meat had questionable moral concerns because of a violation of the animal rights. The cognitive dissonance theory helps in explaining how a change in attitude towards meat can foster humane care to animals. There have been images showing how people mishandle animals, especially during transportation. Live animal export is a major economic activity in Australia, and it accounts for almost 0.5% of the total exports from Australia (Kerkenezov 2014). However, the big concern is how these animals sadistically butchered alive in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Therefore, the moral obligation is to ensure that the receiving nations adhere to the animal welfare standards or the country must consider blocking live animal export. Probably, by stopping meat consumption, people can reason and understand the importance of animals to human survival. Singer (1975) also insisted that animals deserve care because they experience pain and harming them is immoral. Therefore, people should use their psychological thinking perspective to know that animals suffer when mishandled. Kerkenezov (2014) further raised concerns about live animal transport, which increases the level of stress because of the heat, susceptibility to unpreventable diseases, agonizing death, and exposure to unnecessary injuries. Environmental Impact The issue of food production and sustainability is a complex and multifactorial. The increase in human population is increasingly overpowering food production, which presents a complex challenge. However, in assessing the environmental impact of meat production Elferink, Nonhebel, and Moll (2008) reported that the effects are evident in the increased land use, greenhouse emission, soil erosion, and water depletion. Reports by Food and Agricultural Organization (2006) indicated that livestock keeping accounted for more than 70 per cent of arable land. Therefore, its expansion only affects other ecosystems because of deforestation to pave the way for grazing fields. The main concern is the inefficient use of land in meat production, which denies other vital activities a chance to use the land. It beats logic to grow cereals to feed animals for meat production rather than letting people consume the cereals directly (Garnett 2008). In Australia alone, land use for livestock keeping accou nts for 40 percent (Conant, Paustian, Elliott 2001) of the regions arable land, which makes it among regions to record the highest land disturbances. Modern farming practices, which advocate for the use of inorganic chemicals, have increased emission of nitrous oxide (Garnett 2008), which has increased the risk of global warming. The biggest argument in support of this statement is based on increased deforestation to pave the way for grazing fields and growth of feed crops. The whole meat industry chain is accountable for a substantial emission of greenhouse gas. For instance, slaughterhouses and packaging industries use chemicals to preserve and package the meat. Such wastes once emitted in the environment cause a great danger. Michaels and Knappenberger (1f996) made a recommendation to encourage people to reduce meat consumption to counter the increasing waste from the meat industry chain and minimize greenhouse effect. Livestock farming is among the largest consumers of water not only in Australia but also in the whole world. Therefore, such competition between animals and human beings for limited water leaves the government with little choices. The use of inorganic chemicals in animal farms often pollutes water bodies when the remnants get carried away during the rainy seasons. Therefore, fresh and clean water safe for consumption becomes a fairy tale. Therefore, it is unethical to eat meat if its chain contributes to all these environmental effects that have catastrophic ramifications Health Meat consumption contributes little to the nutrition grid. Most nutritionists recommend consumption of whole grains and cereals because they give a double amount of nutrients as compared to meat. Contemporary issues surrounding red meat seem to expose consumers to lifestyle diseases like cancer, obesity, cardiovascular complications, and diabetes among others. How many are willing to expose themselves to such fatal lifestyle diseases? Nobody. Even though there are recommendations that minimal consumption of meat and its products is good for the human health, the fact remains that it is a precursor for the said complications. Therefore, people should consider substituting their diets with cereals, green vegetables, and fruits, whose health benefits are multi-faceted. According to Hausen (2012), Australia ranks the highest in areas that recorded an increase in colorectal cancer since 1975 because of the beef-eating custom. Therefore, reduction in beef consumption is ethical because it saves people from deadly cancer and improves life expectancy. People should think beyond their customs and help the world in fighting the deadly lifestyle diseases that are simple to avoid, especially if other alternatives for food get special attention. Therefore, it is unethical to consume meat because the government ends up spending much money on medical services. The increase in cases of lifestyle diseases is straining most health care providers, who are incapacitated with the high number of patients. The health insurance service providers have increased the premiums because of uncertainties posed by the diseases. Quality Bindon and Jones (2001) reported that some consumers were unsatisfied with the quality of Australian beef regarding tenderness and flavor. The rearing practices or packaging designs may have an influence on the reduced quality. It is unethical to consume meat that does not adhere to set standards because it is poisonous to the human body. Consumers are left to ask themselves about beef freshness, the health records of the slaughtered animals. Large scale ranches leave the animals in the open and even let them roam in forests for a long time before coming to re-group them. Random roaming of animals opens room for diseases, which may not be realized because of the herds size. In some instances, Australians are consuming low-quality meat, and it is their choice to stop such exploitation. Economic Block However, there are other schools of thought that consider beef consumption ethical because it is an economic block. The increase in demand for beef products comes as a gift to farmers who get a guaranteed market for their products. Livestock keeping is a major activity in Australia, and most people see it as an ancient culture that must be preserved. However, they should note that the worlds beef consumption capacity is reducing as people direct their attention towards white meat, which they consider to have health benefits. The rigid prices for most products are discouraging people from purchasing as they go for substitutes, which serve the same purpose. The assumption that the beef industry chain is a sustainable economic block for Australia must change before reservists find themselves with products that lack customers. Cultural Concerns Even though there is tangible evidence that links beef to good nutrition, over consumption opens up for complications rather than sustaining good health. Lea and Worsley (2001) found that people who consume beef products lack knowledge about vegetarian eating. Alternatively, they perceive vegetarian eating as a habit of the poor. Being a cultural behavior, most Australians do not know how to prepare meat-free meals, which keeps them glued recipes they know best. The risks of sticking to such recipes are evident as discussed above, especially on health matters. Considered an ancient practice, most Australians have lived to associate and know the taste of meet more than any other food. Others claim that the land is not fit for arable agriculture and thus livestock keeping is the most favorable activity. Conclusion From the discussion above, it is evident that consumption of beef and its products is unethical. Even though the degree of severity differs among people, the most evident and constant global issues are explained. Therefore, it is unethical to support meat production if the processes of slaughtering and taking care of animals are questionable. There have been moral concerns especially in live animal transport, where much livestock have died on board because of heat stress and susceptibility to diseases. Sadistic Butchering especially in the Middle East has raised concerns about animal welfare and why Australia has to export animals to such countries. Other notable unethical issues include environmental pollution. The impact of greenhouse emission affects everyone, and as discussed, the meat industry accounts for a substantial amount of pollution along its chain. Health issues have become the most notable issues arising from meat consumption. Even though people have deeply rooted cultu ral beliefs in the benefits of meat and the economic contribution, they cannot outweigh the health problems. Escalation of the problem is affecting Australias population and life expectancy. For these reasons, meat consumption needs to stop to save the world from the growing problems. References Bindon, B. M. Jones, N. M. 2001, Cattle supply, production systems and markets for Australian beef, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 41, pp. 861-877. Conant, R.T., Paustian, K. and Elliott, E.T. 2001, Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon, Ecological Applications, vol.11, no.2, pp.343-355. Elferink, E.V., Nonhebel, S. and Moll, H.C. 2008, Feeding livestock food residue and the consequences for the environmental impact of meat, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 16, no. 12, pp.1227-1233. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (2006). World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050, FAO, Rome, viewed 13 October 2016 https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/esag/docs/Interim_report_AT2050web.pdf. Garnett, T. 2008. Cooking Up A Storm Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our changing climate, Food Climate Research Network, viewed 13 October 2016 https://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/CuaS_web.pdf. Hausen, H. 2012, Red meat consumption and cancer: Reason to suspect involvement of bovine infectious factors in colorectal cancer, International Journal of Cancer, vol. 130, pp. 2475-2483. Kerkenezov, P. 2014, Live animal export is unethical, CVE Control Therapy Series, vol. 275, pp. 51-56. Lea, E. Worsley, A. 2001, Influence on meat consumption in Australia, Appetite, vol. 36, pp. 127-136. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N. Bastian, B. 2010, The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals, Appetite, vol. 55, pp. 156-159. Michaels, P.J. and Knappenberger, P.C. 1996, The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the scientific consensus on global warming, Energy Environment, vol.7, no.4, pp.333-348. Singer, P. 1975, Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. Random House: New York.