the big issue
ponds is used to produce electricity. Such
facilities are not widespread. In any event,
the methane they use (which is a potent
greenhouse gas) would not exist if consumers
utilised plant-based options rather than pig
meat.
Also, nitrous oxide emitted from manure,
along with any fugitive methane emissions
from the biogas process, would almost
certainly offset any reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions achieved by the farm
using self-generated electricity. The
respective global warming impacts of
nitrous oxide and methane are 268 and
86 times that of carbon dioxide when
measured over a 20-year time horizon. The
figures are 298 and 34 over a 100-year
time horizon.
The grossly and inherently inefficient
nature of animal-based nutrition is also a
major concern. It takes 5.7 kilograms of
plant-based protein to create one kilogram
of pig meat protein, with the result that far
more resources, including land, are used
than would otherwise be required. That
has major implications for forested areas
such as the Amazon and Cerrado regions of
South America, where most of the soybean
production that contributes to land clearing
is destined for pigs and other farm animals.
The clearing increases the likelihood of
tipping points being breached and runaway
climate change being triggered, over which
we will have virtually no control. The trade
in soybeans is global, with demand in any
one country contributing to the overall
extent of land clearing, including the
clearing in South America.
Relatively high water usage and massive
amounts of effluent (whether or not used in
biogas production) are other key issues for
pig meat establishments.
The “educational” booklet, Get Some
Pork on your Fork, points out (possibly with
despair) that 65 per cent of processed pig
meat sold in Australia “is made from frozen
boneless pork imported from places like
Denmark, Canada and the United States”.
It then tells the teachers and students
how to identify the Australian product.
That could be a strong example of the
possible promotional intent of APL’s
education kits.
In line with its major Get Some Pork on
your Fork advertising campaign, on one
page of the educational booklet’s teacher
notes, there are four references to getting
product from farm to fork. The line between
advertising, PR and “education” appears to
be extremely thin.
The booklet identifies a key activity in
the form of investigating concepts and
ideas about how food produced by pigs can
be prepared for healthy eating.
Contrary to that notion, World Cancer
Research Fund International (WCRF
International) published its Second Expert
Report in 2007, titled Food, Nutrition,
Physical Activity, and the Prevention of
Cancer: a Global Perspective. The report
was issued jointly with one of WCRF’s
network members, the American Institute
for Cancer Research.
The report contained recommendations
relating to red and processed meat
(Recommendation 5, Chapter 12). For the
purpose of the analysis, beef, pork, lamb,
and goat were all considered to be forms
of red meat. Processed meat consisted of
meat preserved by smoking, curing or
salting, or addition of chemical preservatives.
Such meat includes ham and bacon.
WCRF International stated (p. 382):
“The evidence that red meat is a cause
of colorectal cancer is convincing. The
evidence that processed meat is a cause
of colorectal cancer is also convincing”.
WCRF UK has stated: “The Panel of
Experts could find no amount of processed
meat that can be confidently shown not to
increase cancer risk. That is why WCRF
UK recommends people avoid processed
meat to reduce their bowel cancer risk.”
As part of WCRF International’s
Continuous Update Project, in 2010, a
research team at Imperial College London
produced an updated systematic literature
review of the evidence from 263 new
papers on food, nutrition and physical
activity. WCRF International’s Expert
Panel considered the updated evidence
and agreed that the findings confirmed or
strengthened the convincing and probable
conclusions of the Second Expert Report
for colorectal cancer.
One of WCRF’s key recommendations
is to eat mostly foods of plant origin.
Similar findings on red and processed
meat were reported in 2015 by the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World
Health Organisation (WHO). In reporting
the findings, Harvard University (WHO
report says eating processed meat is
carcinogenic: Understanding the findings,
undated) stated: “Consumption of processed
meat was classified as carcinogenic and
red meat as probably carcinogenic after the
IARC Working Group – comprised of 22
scientists from 10 countries – evaluated
over 800 studies. Conclusions were
primarily based on the evidence for
colorectal cancer. Data also showed
positive associations between processed
meat consumption and stomach cancer,
and between red meat consumption and
pancreatic and prostate cancer.”
APL is the owner and managing agent
of the Australian Pork Industry Quality
$VVXUDQFH3URJUDP $3,4¥ 7KHquestionable validity of this industry’s self
audit process was highlighted in the 2009
case of Oliver’s Piggery in Tasmania.
Just three months before visits by
animal activists and police, the piggery was
LQVSHFWHGE\DQ$3,4¥DXGLWRU$FFRUGLQJ
to presenter, Liam Bartlett, in a Channel 9
60 Minutes episode, The Hidden Truth, the
auditor gave the piggery “the all-clear”. He
said it was only a clerical error by Mr Oliver
that prevented the piggery from being
accredited by APL. A court convicted Mr
Oliver and the company that operated the
piggery with animal cruelty.
At the time, the activists recorded their
video, Mr Oliver was appearing in brochures
as one of Woolworth’s “fresh food people”.
The business had been supplying
Woolworths for 10 years, and was supplying
20 per cent of the fresh pork sold in its
Tasmanian supermarkets.
A shareholder and director of the
company operating the piggery was a
board member of APL.
Perhaps wisely, APL has included this
comment in a disclaimer within the
educational booklet: “...While APL has
no reason to believe that the information
contained in this publication is inaccurate,
APL is unable to guarantee the accuracy of
the information... The information contained
in this publication should not be relied upon
for any purpose...”
A similar disclaimer appeared in the
video, The APL Pigs in Schools Program -
A Teachers Perspective.
Parents and children place enormous
trust in educational institutions. To subject
children to biased promotional material in
support of a profit-oriented industry group
is an extremely questionable practice that
each state’s education and agriculture
departments need to address.RSLQLRQ
“So teachers may
depend entirely on
what an organisation,
established for the
purpose of supporting
and promoting the pig
meat industry, tells it.
Is that the sort of
education we want
in Australia?”