Your Questions Answered #2

I was asked the following questions on Twitter:

A few q's: If we implemented a drug-tracking system for horses, where would the funding come from? Gov or industry funded?

and if it were Gov funded, why should those who do not eat horse have to pay taxes so those that do eat it can?

To my knowledge, all proposals for systems of horse registration to date have required funding from horse owners through the charging of registration fees, as is the case for owners of dogs or even cars.

Estimates place the number of domesticated horses in Australia at about one million, but no-one knows for sure, because there is no registration system. As horses change owners more frequently than other companion animals, there would no doubt be fees required for transfer of ownership, as well as initial and perhaps yearly fees for simply registering a horse. A system keeping track of that many horses will require quite a number of government employees to maintain.

For a truly reliable system, all horses would need to be microchipped. Currently horses must be branded, however brands can be hard to read and difficult to trace. The requirement that horses be branded is not enforced, and as a result many horses remain unbranded.

To implant a microchip in a horse's neck requires a suitably qualified person, usually a vet. In my experience a standard visit from an equine vet costs more than $100, for travel, call out fee, examination of the horse, etc. The fee for implanting the microchip would be added to this. In the case of there being several horses on the property being seen at once, the basic charge for the visit may be spread between them, but if there is only one horse on a property, the "cost per horse" will clearly be higher.

The cost of microchipping would more than likely be covered by the horse owner, unless government funding could be secured.

It is very unlikely that the horse slaughter industry itself would provide any funding for such a system, seeing as they only bring in around $10 million a year from export.

As you can see there are many issues that need to be ironed out before a system could be implemented. Regarding taxpayers paying to regulate an industry they do not support... well I suppose that would be nothing new.

Horse drugs - They have safety standards though, right?

If you've read my summary of the two main points of concern regarding horse slaughter for human consumption, whether it be in WA, or at the two export abattoirs in SA and Qld, then you'll know that if there are prohibited horse drugs in the meat, it can be toxic to humans.

But surely the people who work in the horse slaughter trade know this, and there are safety measures in place, right? I mean... many products that are used on horses have a meat withholding period in the first place because the industry is regulated... right?

Sure, horse meat apparently comes under the National Residue Survey, so that for each horse slaughtered, apparently $5 must be contributed towards monitoring and assessing chemical residues in exported agricultural products.

Many consider the current system to be insufficient, and assert that a national system of horse registration is required to keep track of substances used on horses.

The problem can be illustrated thusly: Sandy has a one year old horse. The horse cuts his leg and it blows up like a balloon, so she calls the vet. The vet prescribes Ilium Dermapred ointment to be applied to the wound, and Phenylbutazone to help ease the inflammation.

Both of these drugs are very commonly used on horses, but "NOT TO BE USED on horses that may be slaughtered for human consumption" (says so right there on the label, with those exact capital letters.)

Sandy has no plans for her horse to be slaughtered, so it's not a problem.

The horse takes a little while to heal up, but because treatment was started straight away he heals up really well with no visible scar. Thank goodness for that!

So some time goes by, horsey is now three years old, so Sandy gets him "broken in" to saddle and starts riding him. He bucks, and Sandy falls off a couple of times. She decides that he's too much for her to handle and she needs to sell him. Sandy will be sad, but that's what happens with horses. She needs to make room in the paddock for a horse that she can ride.

So Gus buys him from Sandy. He's an experienced rider who wants to make him into a showjumper. Sandy thinks that'll be great, so the sale goes through.

At no point does it occur to Sandy to tell Gus that she gave the horse 2 restricted medications two years ago. Why would she? The horse healed up perfectly, there's no problem with the horse now. Gus would think her very strange indeed for even mentioning it.

What's more Sandy is under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to tell ANYONE what drugs she has given to her horse. The vet does not have to report it, no one has to say anything.

So the horse goes showjumping, but he can't jump high enough, so 6 months later he gets sold to a guy called Mark.

Mark has the horse for a while, but then the horse injures himself in the paddock. The injury means the horse can no longer be ridden. Mark isn't going to keep a horse that can't be ridden, so he calls the phone number in the paper for "that guy who buys unwanted horses."

So the horse ends up with the local horse dealer who buys any horse, no matter what's wrong with it. Because the horse is injured he ends up being sold to the abattoir. While the abattoir may ask the person selling them the horse if the horse has had any prohibited medications, there is no way the horse dealer, or even Mark, would know what previous owners have given the horse.

In the absence of any system of registering and microchipping horses to track the medications they are given, each horse needs to be tested for prohibited substances to be sure that there is no health risk to those consuming the meat.

But is testing each horse financially viable?

Of course not. You can't drug test every horse for $5 a head... And this is why I have grave concerns about our export industry.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I'm a "horse person", and you can argue bias all you like, but I would find this part just as much of a concern as if Australia were exporting contaminated tofu...

Edit: Sorry, nearly forgot to mention what happened in WA!

Apparently the WA Health Department "screened" each of the horses slaughtered for Vince Garreffa to make sure they were safe for human consumption. So far my simple question "What did the screening process actually involve?" has gone unanswered. If they had to do a background check or scientific test on each horse, then surely that's an unsustainable method if horse meat is to find a market here? Is the government going to run around doing this extra work for a meat market that is, in Vince Garrefa's own words, "small potatoes"?

Wow, an Interview with Someone who isn't a Butcher...

Amongst the sensational media coverage of the Western Australian horse meat "scandal", I've finally found a half decent interview where the journo has spoken with someone opposed to horse slaughter in Australia.

Click here to listen or here to read the transcript of an ABC news interview, first with butcher Vince Gareffa, then with Glenys Oogjes from Animals Australia.

One of the excellent points that Glenys raises is that those who are concerned about this should be looking to the source - the overbreeding of horses, particularly by the thoroughbred and standardbred racing industries who breed twenty to thirty thousand foals each year with only a fraction even making it to the track. This is known as "wastage", and you can read more about the problem in the article "What is horse 'wastage' in the racehorse industry?" on the RSPCA knowledgebase website.

In the interview, Ms Oogjes tells of how she has personally been to the abattoir in South Australia (Peterborough) where horses are slaughtered for export. She then goes on to say that Animals Australia is opposed to adding any more animal species to our plates.

Unfortunately she does not cover the specifics of the two key issues that I believe need to be addressed by the export industry and the WA State Government. Perhaps they are just too complex to get across in a brief interview? Perhaps we still need the media to interview someone who is aware of the specific issues relating to horses...

On a different note, in this interview the point is raised that Mr Garreffa will only have about 20 horses slaughtered each year. "Small potatoes" indeed when compared to the tens of thousands slaughtered for export, but surely he won't be allowed to hold such a monopoly on the horse meat market if it becomes established? If the sale of horse meat becomes a normal everyday thing in WA, surely there will be other butchers in all states who will also wish to follow suit, resulting in many more healthy young Aussie horses being slaughtered.

Clearly this issue is of national concern, and those who are opposed to it cannot afford to become apathetic.

Regarding Mr Vince Garreffa, "Celebrity Butcher"

If anyone can spot a "media tart" when they see one, it's me. I lived in Brisbane when Peter Beattie was premier. Enough said.

One thing is clear, the media LOVE this guy. At this point Mr Vince Garreffa has done many interviews with various media outlets. In many of which his opinion is the only one put forward, such as this lovely interview from ABC online.

Don't get me wrong, he raises some good points and has done a lot for bringing the issue of horse slaughter to the mainstream media. However, it is frustrating that a "celebrity butcher" is dominating the conversation, and many of his claims are not exactly accurate. (I will be addressing some of the points he has raised in future posts.) Call me a hopeless optimist if you will, but I'm going to put a little faith in the media, that we will soon see a sensible journalist out there get in contact with someone with an opposing viewpoint. Such as Second Chance Horse Rescue from Western Australia (their media release on the WA horse meat issue is covered in this blog post).

This situation illustrates a huge part of the problem with horse welfare in Australia, and the reason why so many have been unaware of the scale of horse slaughter up until now. While there are horse rescue and welfare groups out there made up of hardworking volunteers, they are spread far and wide, and are clearly not as well equipped to deal with the mainstream media as Mr Garreffa, who has established media contacts from his many appearances.

I had not been aware of Mr Garreffa until now, but he clearly loves the spotlight. For those who are also new to this guy, a quick google shows that he makes regular appearances on 6PR882, The West, ABC Esperance, Spice Magazine, SBS, Scoop Online, 3AW and the Today show.

On Perth ABC Radio 720ABC he is apparently "Afternoon's very own butcher" (hate to tell you Gillian O'Shaughnessy, pretty sure he's not your "very own"!)

Mr Garreffa obviously knew that there would be a backlash against him for this, and he's had plenty of time to prepare his media strategy. Welfare groups and horse lovers found out about this after the Agriculture minister Terry Redman had already given the green light, and have been scrambling to catch up ever since.

So a request to the media... please do some research on this, and don't let your loyalty to a popular media figure cloud your judgement. This is not a case of "lovable Perth man vs crazy animal rights activists", there are serious issues that need to be investigated. (Click here for a basic overview of the rational argument against the consumption of Australian horses.)

Horse meat is not even meat?

Just had my attention drawn to a tweet from a student of nutrition...

@triplejHack According to Food Standards (see pg.6)http://j.mp/9vAJtT - horse is not even considered "meat" by definition in Australia!

So what standards are they using to ensure the horse meat being served in WA is safe for human consumption? Food safety policy is not something you can make up as you go along...

Your Questions Answered #1

I'd like to share a twitter conversation I had this evening with a curious member of the twittersphere. I'm sure the questions asked may be of interest to others. I've removed the name because it seemed like the polite thing to do :)

1. 
   @DontEatAusHorse If said horses were humanely slaughtered (eg correctly stunned) and regulated for health standards, would you eat them?
   @personontwitter Not personally, no. Ignoring the fact that it's an unrealistic hypothetical, I wouldn't be campaigning against it as I am now :)
   @DontEatAusHorse Why's it unrealistic? (genuinely interested, not just being contrary)
2. @personontwitter Pt1- Need to implement registration system for tracking drugs given to horses = $$ blocked by industry every time it's brought up
   @personontwitter Pt2 - USA has recently banned slaughter for human consumption because no suitably humane slaughter technique could be found

Further details

- A registration system has been put forward recently by Charlie's Angels Horse Rescue. See link here for more information. I hope it is seriously considered, because it would also be hugely beneficial for reasons other than those relating to the consumption of horse meat, but I am not holding my breath that it will be taken up. Various industry groups block it every time, which is incredibly frustrating.

- Horse slaughter for human consumption was banned in the USA in 2006 because they could not find a slaughter method that did not contravene their Humane Slaughter Act. The unpleasant details are here if you feel like you can handle them. The problem involves the necessity for blood to be drained from the animal so that the meat will be fit for human consumption. There is no suitable method of stunning a horse so that the blood can be drained, due to the shape of their skull and the naturally flighty natures of horses. A horse in a stressful situation, such as being in the kill box at an abattoir, is very difficult to keep still so the slaughter-person can get a clean shot.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! I promise I am rational and friendly. Just trying to share information that I feel is pretty important. Send me a tweet @DontEatAusHorse or comment on any post if you'd like to join the discussion :)

Article in The West does not address the real issues

The West published an article on their website this morning about the anti horse meat backlash... unfortunately they've focussed on animal rights activists instead of the real concerns of those of us willing to engage in reasonable debate about this!

Human health risks? No mention... Animal welfare concerns in the slaughter process? No mention... Someone ringing up and mentioning "Underbelly"? Well of course that got in there...

Who would expect such a thing from a newspaper... Hmmm... Oh dear, so easy to be cynical...

Link to the story: "Threats over horse meat sales"