Segundo relato: El sentido social de la lectura

Australia is the largest exporter of beef and goat meat and the second largest exporter of sheep meat, in proportion to domestic consumption, in the world. The red meat industry employs 405,000 people either directly or indirectly, and it contributes AU$18 billion to Australian gross domestic product annually (Ernst & Young, 2017, pp. 5-6).

The industry is represented by an industry advocacy group, the Red Meat Advisory Council, which overarches producer organisations including the Australian Lot Feeders Association, Cattle Council of Australia, Goat Industry Council of Australia, and Sheep Producers Australia

46 and works in collaboration with other advocacy groups such as the National Farmers Federation.

Acting as a marketing, research and development service provider to the industry is Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (MLA, 2016). MLA is the largest and most prominent organisation servicing the red meat industry in Australia (Peace, 2011, p. 6). With its funding supported on a dollar for dollar basis by the Federal Government and farmer levies, it has an annual budget of AU$267.3 million. Of this, AU$35.9 million is spent on red meat promotion and communication programs for the domestic market, and AU$11.5 million is spent on improving ‘on-farm and off-farm sustainability’ (MLA, 2017a). While MLA is prohibited (via its statutory limitations) from taking official positions on government policy, it plays an active role in advising policy

decisions, promoting the red meat industry, and to ensure the longevity of red meat consumption and production in Australia: “Meat & Livestock Australia are very powerful, and they’re very powerful particularly when the Coalition is in government, because they're very good influencers on the National Party” (Nutrition-1).

This combination of organisations forms what is one of the most powerful lobby groups in Australia. It has not only the economic backing, but also the cultural support of a nation that places red meat at the centre of a meal. It also has the social backing of the rural Australian community who are either dependent on or tied to the continuity of red meat production and consumption.

Unlike the tobacco industry lobby, which is formed primarily of a small number of powerful foreign corporations (Fuchs, 2007, p. 53), the red meat industry is a conglomeration of over 75,000 businesses, with the majority being Australian based (Australian Taxation Office, 2016, p. 4). However, foreign companies do have a large stake in the processing side of the industry, with US based Cargill and Brazilian meat processor JBS representing at least 20% each (Ernst &

Young, 2017, p. 6). Cargill is one of the largest agribusinesses in the world, with annual revenues of US$133.9 billion (Sojamo & Archer Larson, 2012, p. 628). JBS is the world’s

47 largest meat processing company with an annual revenue of US$51.5 billion (JBS, 2018, p. 1).

This means any policy aimed at reducing consumption would be targeting Australian businesses directly, and would also face opposition from some of the world’s largest agribusinesses.

Social Marketing Tactics

Similar to the tobacco industry is the proactivity which the red meat industry displays in addressing potential forms of opposition, or attempts to decrease consumption of their product.

As described earlier, red meat consumption in Australia saw a significant decline at the end of the twentieth century. In reaction to this, the red meat industry, led by MLA, undertook an AU$43 million campaign aimed at halting the ongoing decline in consumption (MLA, 2009, p.

3). The result was the ‘Red Meat – Feel Good’ campaign of the early 2000s to address the perception of red meat as an unhealthy product by emphasising its nutritional benefits. The campaign employed ‘nutritionism’, whereby the nutritional profile of a food product is reduced to a few select nutrients in order to promote it as not only a healthy, but an essential food item (Scrinis, 2016, p. 17). In the case of red meat, these were iron, zinc, protein, omega 3s, and vitamin B12 (TCP & MLA, 2007, p. 14).

This campaign was soon followed by a larger advertising blitz, as MLA had found that their first attempt had not been sufficient to solidify the idea for Australian consumers that red meat was not only healthy, but essential for a good diet (TCP & MLA, 2007, p. 16). The follow up

campaign, ‘Red Meat – We Were Meant to Eat It’ (see Figure 2), utilised the (disputed) positive correlation between human evolution and red meat consumption, legitimised by citing select scientific evidence (Peace, 2008, p. 6) – a tactic not unlike that which was employed by the tobacco industry (Chapman, 2007, p. 32). The campaign, released in time for the mass viewership of the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games (Peace, 2008, p. 6), assisted in

converting the ‘resistors’ to the view that red meat was not only a healthy component of diet, but a natural one (TCP & MLA, 2007, p. 33).

48 Another campaign that has run through the late 1990s to the present day is the ‘We Love Our Lamb’ campaign. Featuring ex-footballer and Australian comedian Sam Kekovich, the campaign capitalises on the association between Australian national identity and red meat (see Figure 3) in order to maintain consumption (Ankeny, 2008, p. 21). Timed to coincide with Australia Day, the Kekovich advertisements evoked patriotism with the national anthem playing in the background of dialogue, whilst sitting Kekovich in front of an Australian flag. Certain sections of the script arguably border on xenophobic, with quotes such as “as mishaps spread throughout the land like bird flu through a Chinese chicken coop, what [are] we doing about it? […] it’s time to remind ourselves of what lies are the core of our national identity: lamb chops on a barbie” (Ankeny, 2008, p. 22). Later versions of the campaign have embraced a more multicultural message, attempting to appeal (with varying degrees of success) to an increasingly multicultural population with varying food traditions, adopting the slogan to ‘You Never Lamb Alone’

(Trigger, 2017).

These campaigns were a saving grace for the domestic red meat industry in Australia, causing beef consumption to rise to its highest point since 1990, and lamb its highest since 1985 (TCP &

MLA, 2007, pp. 31-32). Domestic spending on beef increased by AU$3 billion during the campaign (MLA, 2009, p. 3), though this has declined by AU$500 million since (MLA, 2017b, p. 1).

Support from Science

MLA funds a large majority of research into red meat production and consumption by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). There have been allegations in the past that the reliance on MLA’s funding for ongoing research has led to bias in the research outcomes, in particular regarding the benefits of red consumption for diet (Dixon, et al., 2004, p. 10).

49 An example of the dangers of this funding relationship is the controversy that surrounded the CSIRO’s Total Wellbeing Diet, a cookbook based on research conducted by CSIRO, and funded by MLA, which emphasised a high-protein, high in red meat, diet and was purchased by 1 in 10 Australian households (MLA, 2009, p. 5). Nutritionists criticised the research for not testing the benefits of a more plant-based diet and only considering animal-derived proteins (Stanton, et al., 2005, p. 37).

As with the tobacco industry, advertising and consumer communication strategies remain a powerful tool for the red meat industry to encourage consumption and to counter challenges such as concerns regarding health impacts of the product. Similar to tobacco, this is achieved both through the utilisation of select science in order to legitimise the message and build trust with consumers, and through a capitalisation upon the ideas and values associated with the product.