CAN the red meat industry effectively defend against a growing perception among some consumers that eating less meat protein is one way to save the planet from environmental disaster?
This was one of a difficult suite of questions Meat and Livestock Australia managing director David Palmer was asked to address while speaking at a Rural Press Club breakfast at Brisbane Show yesterday. He outlined how environmental issues had now become greatly elevated as a key emphasis within MLA's activities.
This year's MLA operating budget includes a $2 million funding allocation - more than double what has been seen previously - towards community affairs.
To manage the issues, senior MLA manager Samantha Jamieson, who has led the company's Japan region operations for the past six years, will return to Sydney head office to drive a new community communications division focused primarily on environment and animal welfare issues management.
"Much of this work is about the industry better adapting to society's views. As an industry we have to engage ourselves in the debate more meaningfully and constructively," Mr Palmer said.
How the broader community perceived the beef industry was an interesting subject for study in itself.
"I'm fearful that there is a considerable element within the Australian community that sees the Australian livestock owner as a somewhat self-indulged lifestyle seeker, who sees livestock ownership as some form of status symbol," he said.
"We need to much more aggressively portray ourselves, more accurately, as passionate food producers who are proud and honoured to bring that service to the Australian community."
MLA's recent major communications campaign focused on World Environment Day was an example of that process gaining momentum. A nationwide campaign included newspaper and online advertising promoting the environmental credentials of the livestock industry.
Using the tagline 'Where we live, every day is environment day', the ads ran in major metropolitan newspapers across the nation.
The campaign was designed to promote the significant environmental achievements of livestock producers to those living in metropolitan areas.
Mr Palmer said addressing the issues was a process of small incremental steps, and no single farm organisation would achieve an outcome on its own - it needed to be a coalition of ideas with a common purpose.
He suggested that food producers in this country were probably handicapped because Australia was arguably the only continent in the world that had never been stricken by a food shortage.
Europe and north Asia had suffered serious food deficits as a result of the two World Wars, as had Africa, and even the US, during its early settlement.
"Thanksgiving holiday in the US is all about giving thanks for the food on the table," he said.
Australians, in contrast, tended to take food security for granted, and this was probably reflected in current attitudes towards food production generally.
To counter this, the beef industry needed to effectively tell its story - the need for a balanced diet and nutritional issues; beef's taste and deliciousness; and its integrity and safety.
"But also, I accept the fact that the industry has not done enough to talk about its role in managing the environment. Livestock are, in effect, carbon managers, and a well-managed pasture sequests 7pc more carbon than what occurs in the soils beneath a forestry plantation, for example. A well-managed pasture that is eaten by livestock and returned through fertiliser is a carbon management program that only livestock can affect."
In Australia, 43pc of the landmass was occupied by cattle - most of which was not suitable for any other form of food production. In the current age of worldwide food security concern, it could be argued that it was irresponsible not to make use of this land for food production. Mr Palmer said in engaging with the community, it was important to use a factual, science-based approach to tell a compelling story.
"The industry will always attract its critics. Firstly, we have to accept that they are there and are unlikely to go away entirely. Rather than condemn them, we need to better develop arguments to negate them."
He used earlier statements about water usage involved in beef production as an example.
"The critics' use of figures such as 100,000 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef relied on factoring ? in all rainfall on an area of land, and assigning that figure to the beef produced off that land. That's an outrageous connection to make, given natural run-off into streams, infiltration into the soil, and tree and plant growth which would occur regardless of beef production."
Email a friend