Stop the bull: Tourist complicity in animal cruelty

Thousands of tourists converge on Spain each year for the Running of the Bulls. Their participation gives the festival’s barbarity a stamp of approval, writes Susannah Waters.

Adrenaline propels him along the crowded street.

There is bedlam in the air: he can see it, feel it and smell it. He is trembling.

They menace him and scream from the sidelines. All around him, thousands of bodies are revelling in their dance with danger. Their roar stalks him along the cobbled path as others trample each other to dodge his mammoth frame. The white and red from their clothing blurs before his eyes. 

He keeps running.

Fiesta of ferocity

The streets have been hosed of rubbish, and businesses are now counting their cash bonanza. An exodus of thousands of tourists has poured out of the country. Many vow to return next year.

The media reports that at this year’s Running of the Bulls in Pamplona, Spain, 50 people were admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Some of these were life threatening, but there weren’t any fatalities. The last one occurred in 2009.

But casualties are absolutely instrumental to the fiesta; they are predestined. There must be deaths.

The spectacle of bulls tearing down narrow winding streets, sending hordes of hyped up and intoxicated people scrambling, is only one part of the picture. Those 48 bulls will not live beyond the pomp of the closing ceremony’s candlelight procession and fireworks display. They will die a protracted and torturous death in a stadium, with the shouts of a rowdy crowd baying for blood ringing in their ears.

And they will die at the behest of a festival which thrives on the participation of thousands of tourists to keep the annual event flourishing.

Blood on their hands

The Running of the Bulls has a very long history in Spain. But it is only in recent decades that the event has become a mecca for thousands of tourists from around the world.

Although the practice vastly predates its modern popularity with travellers, it is clear that the massive influx of tourists helps to keep the tradition alive. The injection of money into the local economy would be irresistible to Pamplona government authorities, presenting an immense challenge to those advocating for a ban of the event.

Tourist support of the Encierro helps to boost its image, and validates the concept of animal cruelty for the purposes of public voyeurism.

It also provides a formidable endorsement for bullfighting, an ethically void practice which has generated considerable debate within Spain in recent years. The large region of Catalonia banned bullfighting two years ago, owing in large part to significant public pressure. This provided hope that further bans were on the horizon, and demonstrated the viability of a phase-out of the practice.

It is clear that tourist participation in the Running of the Bulls equates to support of animal cruelty. 

In a recent article, British-Jamaican writer and poet Benjamin Zephaniah claimed that these tourists have blood on their hands. “Tourists who participate in the run or visit Pamplona simply to watch it, contribute to the carnage. Every shared tapa, every cerveza, every booked hotel room and balcony bolsters the killing. As long as the city makes money off the event, bulls will continue to suffer and die”, he wrote.

Zephaniah asserted that the tourists are “keen on their own enjoyment” but give “little thought to what the event actually means for the bulls.”

I have written before about how cheap tourist thrills can condemn animals to a life of misery. Tourist dollars can serve to trap animals in a cycle of abuse. Sadly, the value to the tourist can be trivial: the animal, often reduced to a photo prop, might feature on the tourist’s Facebook profile, where positive comments from friends help to condone their unethical choice. This holiday souvenir speaks volumes about the way in which we interact with and view animals.

It is true that travellers sometimes don’t question or recognise the exploitation of animals because the truth is often concealed from the public eye, as is the case with the phajaan ritual - the brutal training inflicted on elephants in preparation for work in tourism - in Thailand. Tourists are intentionally kept in the dark, as their ignorance is vital to the continued appropriation of elephants by the tourism industry.

However, the exploitation of bulls in Pamplona is not hidden from the public gaze. And it is not adequate to attribute it to “cultural context”. Cultural convention is never an excuse for the abuse of animals. Tourists should take responsibility to ensure that they don’t harm the local people, animals or environment in the visiting country.

There is nothing honourable, or brave, about supporting violence towards animals.

As the sun goes down

Finally, he stumbles through the gates of the stadium.

His fear is palpable; it is a demon coursing a path through his veins, pounding on his heart with no mercy, stealing his breath, and making him choke on the saliva which has formed in foam around his mouth. 

He hasn’t experienced any kindness in his life. His time snuggled against the warm body of his mother was brief - he was branded from birth, herded into line and his fate was sealed. Today will mark the felicitous culmination of a life lived in subservience to human will, to misguided and barbaric notions of entertainment.  

On this day, he will be attacked with a ruthless savagery. He will be speared repeatedly, he will be stabbed through the heart with a sword and he will fall – but he will keep trying to rise. He will fight hard for his miserable life to the very end.

He will draw his last breath.

Spectators will toss empty beer cans at him. And the stadium will erupt in celebration.  

--
Originally published July 2013 in Discordia online zine.

World Refugee Day: Asylum seeker policy in the election year

World Refugee Day is approaching (20 June), so I felt compelled to write a piece looking at the inhumanity of current Australian asylum seeker policy. As it is an election year, I also reveal what we can expect if Tony Abbott's Liberal government comes to power in September. 

My two interviewees for this article were Mark Goudkamp, a long-time refugee activist and member of the Refugee Action Coalition, and Mohsen Soltany, who spent four years in detention after arriving in Australia as a refugee from Iran. (I have previously written about Soltany in an article for The Scavenger, which looked at how detention dehumanises asylum seekers.)
--

“They’re not illegal. That’s a lie. You know it’s a lie”.

Mark Goudkamp wanted to set the record straight. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, fronting a press conference to unveil a billboard tallying so-called “illegal” boat arrivals under Labor, was fuelling the “illegals” myth during his theatrics for the assembled media.

Just prior to the Perth press conference, a nervous Abbott staffer had warned refugee activist Goudkamp to stay silent during proceedings. However, Abbott’s relentless rhetoric tipped Goudkamp over the edge, prompting an interjection which was widely reported in the media.

Following the conference, Goudkamp directly confronted Abbott over his asylum seeker policy, and an argument ensued. “He was clearly annoyed that we’d turned up, and disrupted what he thought would be an easy escalation of hostility towards asylum seekers who arrive by boat”, Goudkamp says.

It’s understandable that Goudkamp’s presence elicits anxiety from Abbott’s inner circle. He has been involved with the Refugee Action Coalition for 13 years, and his scope of knowledge around refugee issues is impressive.

Refugee activists have had to remain vigilant during Gillard’s tenure and Abbott’s opposition. Attacks on asylum seekers have been relentless; ranging from the restoration of offshore processing, an expansion of prison-like detention facilities, and a host of policies which serve to demonise refugees. Furthermore, the adversarial tactics of the Australian political scene have diligently manufactured a distorted and hostile view of asylum seekers.

Australians have been subject to propaganda which has successfully – and conveniently - diverted their attention away from other domestic issues.

We can naturally expect an intensification of political posturing around the refugee issue in the lead up to September’s Federal election.

Pawns in the system

Mandatory detention has long been the centrepiece of successive governments’ asylum seeker policies, despite condemnation for atrocious and punitive conditions, and the exorbitant costs of operation. But rather than the “deterrent” that the government claims it to be, mandatory detention is a political strategy.

Goudkamp agrees. “I think mandatory detention is more about creating an ‘us and them’ view in the minds of the wider Australian public”, he says. “Now, the perception in the minds of many Australians is that those incarcerated have somehow done something wrong, when clearly they haven’t”.

Activists from around Australia recently converged on the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre to hold a series of actions. The sight of the massive facility, which is 80 km from Perth and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build, stirred alarm among campaigners.

“Even seasoned campaigners were shocked to see the scale of this industrial monstrosity, used to incarcerate people who’ve committed no crime other than to seek protection in Australia”, says Goudkamp. He said that their presence gave heart to those inside the complex, and helped to strengthen the movement.

A Four Corners report recently uncovered the appalling living conditions endured by asylum seekers in the detention facilities on Manus Island and Nauru. The program spotlighted deteriorating mental health and rising incidents of self-harm among detainees.

Mohsen Soltany, who came to Australia as a refugee from Iran, knows the despair of detention all too well. His feet had barely touched Australian soil before he was whisked away to endure four desperate years in immigration detention centres.

It has now been ten years since Soltany languished behind the razor wire. To the outside observer, his post-detention life is blessed: he has good friends, a beautiful young daughter, has published an acclaimed book of poetry, and plays in a band. But four years of mental anguish didn’t magically dissipate upon his re-entry to the outside world. Wounds take time to heal, and Soltany is still tending to his.

He is angry that history is repeating itself.

“In Australia, we have never learned from history”, says Soltany, who was detained in the Howard era. “It’s sad that in Australia we’re not looking for any point of humanity. We didn’t learn from the past - what we are doing is destroying the human beings who ask for help”.

When September ends

Soltany says he isn’t sure whether asylum seeker policy can deteriorate further, even with the looming possibility of a Liberal Federal government come September. He feels that Gillard and Abbott have similarly bleak offerings.

Goudkamp, however, identifies a few areas where Liberal’s ruthlessness would trump Labor’s. “It says a lot about Gillard that there is so little difference between her policies and what Abbott has in mind. But, nonetheless, there are clear differences”, he claims.

Abbott intends to undo the tentative steps taken to review the circumstances of the 56 refugees with ASIO negative security assessments, who presently face a lifetime of detention. He also plans to turn back asylum boats bound for Australia from Indonesia, with navy assistance. This plan has garnered criticism from several corners, including the Indonesian government and staff within the Australian Navy.

The reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas is also back on the cards. “Even those found to be refugees would only receive temporary protection, without the right to apply for family reunion or to leave the country. TPVs were devastating for refugees during the Howard years, and actually led to more women and children getting onto boats”, Goudkamp says.  

Rekindling our humanity    

Soltany has seen Australian racism at its ugliest. “In Australian society, if you say you’re a refugee, people look at you very negatively - they see it as very ugly”, he says. “Unfortunately in Australia they are not looking at refugees as human. Because anywhere that you tell people that you are a refugee, they look down on you”.

Soltany is right: refugees have been dehumanised relentlessly. “We have to tell people where they [refugees] come from, that they are really human… they are the same as me and you, there’s no difference”, he declares.

Soltany is as human as it gets. His empathy for others runs deep; it cuts him to his core. He is moved to continue advocating for refugee rights, but it’s not an easy fight for him. It’s raw, and it’s personal. For him, the razor wire is physically gone, but its legacy has weaved tight chains.

It is clear that Soltany can’t truly celebrate, or even properly experience, his own freedom until all others are free from detention too. And until then, he has resolved to keep fighting for their rights.

Goudkamp admits that the campaign has changed his life. “Once you start forming friendships with refugees, you feel a personal attachment to the campaign”, he reveals. He says that the moral and emotional aspects of the campaign are compelling, precisely because of the current denial of basic human rights of real people with real lives.

For him, being active is not just about defending the rights of refugees. “It’s also an argument about what kind of society we want to be part of”. 
--

Originally published June 2013 in Discordia online zine.

Through the lens: The importance of documenting animal abuse

Originally published April 2013 in Discordia online zine.

So-called "ag-gag" bills being introduced in several US states threaten to suppress those uncovering gross abuses in the farming industry. The bills aim to deter whistle-blowers and animal advocacy groups from documenting animal abuse on farms.

In my latest article, Through the lens: The importance of documenting animal abuse, I challenge the rationale of ag-gag bill proponents, and look at why undercover surveillance in slaughterhouses and farming operations is fundamentally important. 

Ultimately, I urge readers to reflect on the role they play in the exploitation of animals, via their purchase and consumption of animal products.

---

The scenes are chilling.

Individuals being beaten and kicked, jabbed in the eyes, jolted with electric shocks, and rammed with machinery. And then, in a finale of ferocity, the terrified souls are thrust to their deaths.

This house of horrors once produced cow meat for human consumption. It was even tasked with supplying meat for children’s lunches under the National School Lunch Program in the US.

But clandestine footage recorded by The Humane Society revealed the now-bankrupt slaughterhouse brutalising “downed” (very ill) cows before butchering them for food, prompting the largest meat recall in US history. 

Despite the compelling public interest argument for these kinds of exposés, bills being introduced in several US states threaten to suppress those uncovering gross abuses in the farming industry. So-called “ag-gag” bills aim to deter whistle-blowers and animal advocacy groups from documenting animal abuse on farms.

It presents a backwards, “shoot the messenger” situation where those unearthing cruelty are painted as villains as their activities are criminalised, while the abusers can virtually act with impunity under inadequate industry regulation.

Catalogue of cruelty

In addition to animal protection, ag-gag laws have implications for issues of food safety, labour, free speech, and freedom of the press. The conditions of the bills vary, but apply uniformly to journalists, employees of farming facilities, and activists.

Some jurisdictions deem it illegal to take photographs or footage at a farming operation. Other provisions obligate prospective farm employees to disclose any links to animal advocacy groups. Several versions of the bill require individuals to turn any footage over to authorities within a short timeframe, or risk being found guilty of an infraction.  

An undercover activist working with Mercy for Animals argues that this time constraint can hinder thorough investigations, which are required to determine if abuse uncovered is systemic and who is involved. He reveals that ag-gag laws have stifled his work, as filming in states where ag-gag bills have been enacted is a “no-go”.

There is a concern that these laws could be duplicated around the world.

Covert investigations have long played a central role in exposing brutality within the farming industry, and in supplying valuable evidence leading to prosecution and closure of facilities.

In the UK, Animal Aid footage recently caught slaughterhouse workers viciously beating pigs and burning them with cigarettes, leading to the convictions of two of the thugs involved.

In Australia, a Victorian slaughterhouse lost its licence after Animals Australia footage showed animals being beaten to death with sledgehammers, and revealed breaches of stunning protocols. Unfortunately, charges against the owner were recently withdrawn.

In March, sickening footage recorded by Animal Liberation at a Sydney Ingham’s turkey slaughterhouse showed employees routinely beating, kicking, punching, stomping on, and committing other horrendous acts against turkeys. The footage, which shows workers celebrating the violence, was provided to police for investigation.

Clandestine footage led to the forced closure of a Sydney slaughterhouse last year, after it revealed pigs being belted and pummelled by staff with implements believed to be iron bars. Breaches of stunning rules and overzealous use of cattle prods were also recorded.  

Harrowing images emerged from Wally’s piggery near Canberra last year. Disgusting scenes filmed by Animal Liberation included pigs being beaten, attacked with sledgehammers and hacked at the throat by employees, pigs bleeding to death, dead piglets decomposing in stalls beside their mothers, and pig corpses abandoned for days and eaten by other pigs and stray cats. Inconceivably, this piggery continues to operate.  

Footage aired on Lateline in February showed the abominable treatment of baby dairy cows (“bobby calves”) in a VIC slaughterhouse. The video shows the frightened calves, who are separated from their mothers within hours of birth, being thrown and taunted by staff on their way to slaughter. These calves don’t serve any profitable purpose to the dairy industry, since the milk that is meant for them is stolen for human consumption. The doomed baby cows, deprived of their own mother’s milk, are treated like garbage.

This string of appalling incidents, spotlighted by secret footage, confirms that these are not merely “rogue” operators. Conversely, these are examples of the violence and control which inhabit the very core of the animal production industries.

These incidents can be viewed as structural elements, and inevitable side effects, of industries which forcefully transform the bodies and secretions of animals into consumer food products. Dominance and suffering are the essential fabric of this process.

This is why undercover footage is so valuable: it exposes the inherent violence characterising these industries.

Setting the agenda

Two of the main arguments from ag-gag bill proponents centre on issues of privacy and context. I believe these arguments are problematic for several reasons.

Animals incarcerated within the food production system are at the complete mercy of operators. The fact that they are considered as property, as mere commodities, places them at great vulnerability. Against this backdrop, how is it appropriate for the privacy of operators to supersede the scrutiny of their treatment of the sentient creatures under their “care”? How can it override the public’s right to know how their food is produced?

Farmers profess concern that common animal treatment practices could potentially be misunderstood or taken “out of context” by the public. This not only trivialises the public’s ability to decipher between acceptable and unacceptable treatment, but ignores the fact that the industries themselves – which have a vested interest in assuaging the public, and which often fight to reduce animal living standards in order to increase profits - frame the context. 

Industry practices should be analysed in a framework transcending industry interpretation. We must beware the illusion that “context” provides a stamp of legitimacy.

Horrendous “standard” practices should be analysed independently of industry spin; for example, debeaking, dehorning, mulesing, and tail docking – all without anaesthetic; the routine gassing or mincing alive of male chicks born into the egg industry; and the forced removal of hours-old calves from their mothers in the dairy industry.

It is obviously in any industry’s best interests to have full control over the message, and, correspondingly, the perception of the product. This allows deceptive marketing campaigns (i.e., images of egg-laying hens wandering sprawling pastures) and the use of euphemistic terms (“humane meat”, “happy cows”) to conveniently gloss over oppressive conditions within the farming system.

Additionally, high-level abuse of animals, and welfare regulation breaches, are often explained by industry within the context of an “anomaly”, or “rogue” behaviour. They don’t want us to know how common they actually are. (For example, eight out of nine slaughterhouses filmed by Animal Aid UK from 2009-2011 were breaking animal welfare laws.)

Exposing the violence

It’s plain to see why farming groups are intent on shrouding their business operations in a veil of secrecy. The objective is to safeguard profits, and this will always trump animal “welfare” concerns. 

But independent evidence-gathering is vitally important, and especially so when documenting industries where the vulnerable cannot speak out for themselves.

For most people, acquiring animal products generally amounts only to a supermarket transaction. This allows them to maintain a separation and a disconnect from any role in the production process. Therefore, it is crucial for people to observe, understand, and accept responsibility for what their money is sanctioning.

There will always be violence, abuse and misery in a system where animals have the status only as commodities, rather than recognised as sentient beings with the capacity to suffer profoundly. Violence simply cannot be extricated from such a system.

Undercover footage and images pose the question to all consumers: how can this system’s continued existence be justified? Examine your conscience. 
--

Originally published April 2013 in Discordia online zine.

Killing our cousins: The plight of the orangutan

I have been obsessed with primates for as long as I can remember. My infatuation led me to travel to Borneo in 2002 to visit the Sepilok Orangutan sanctuary, and subsequently inspired me to volunteer at the Gibbon Rehabilitation Project (GRP) in Phuket, Thailand, several times. My experiences with the gibbons at the GRP were intense and life changing. The gibbons at the project are victims of the illegal wildlife trade - most have formerly been abused as pets and tourist attractions. I gained an intimate understanding of the complexities of rehabilitation and re-release, within the context of the fractured lives and exploitation the gibbons had experienced.

I wrote about the gibbons in a 2011 article for The Scavenger, where I outlined the link between the wildlife trade and the tourism industry in Thailand. I have also written about the torture and total subjugation of chimpanzees in medical laboratories and testing facilities. And another piece I wrote in 2011 spotlighted the impact of Indonesia's staggering rate of deforestation and proliferation of palm oil plantations on orangutans and other forest species.

My latest article for Discordia, Killing our cousins: The plight of the orangutan, revisits the issue of palm oil, and the alarming violence being inflicted on orangutans to keep the wheels of industry - and its huge profits - turning. I also reflect on my time in Borneo, and an intense encounter with two orangutans.

I suspect that this won't be the last time that I am compelled to write about primates!
-------------

Killing our cousins: The plight of the orangutan

A baby’s cries penetrate the air as the mob surges forward to continue its attack. The focus of attention is the baby’s mother, an adult orangutan, whose lifeless body the infant is desperately clutching.

Earlier, the mother orangutan had fought bravely to protect her infant while sustaining savage beatings with sticks and rocks, despite the tight ropes encircling her limbs. Finally, she was thrust head-down into a pool of water, to be wrenched out only after losing consciousness.

Now thrown into a makeshift pen, the mother slumps forward as her baby grasps her rust-coloured fur and cries out in panic.

Many local residents were incensed that the mother orangutan had entered the village to scavenge for fruit. But like increasing numbers of her fellow species, her ever-shrinking habitat had presented little other choice. 

Shockingly this brutal event in Borneo, culminating in the courageous mother’s death, is not an isolated incident.

In the line of fire

Approximately 5,000 orangutans perish each year as a consequence of forest destruction, hunting, and the illegal pet trade. A mere decade could see one of our closest living relatives wiped off the face of the Earth.  

In Indonesia and Malaysia, the expansion of the palm oil trade and prevalence of legal and illegal logging have eroded enormous forested areas, leaving orangutans residing within fragmented and shrinking pockets of vulnerable rainforest.

78% of forests inhabited by orangutans in Borneo are unprotected, with a large proportion made up of logging concessions or slated for conversion to palm oil and timber plantations. The insatiable economic interests of these industries and the livelihoods of wildlife such as the orangutan are intrinsically incompatible.

Escalating encroachment onto orangutan habitat is not only having a devastating impact on the species, but has seen an unprecedented level of violence perpetrated against individual orangutans.

The palm oil industry considers the endangered primates a hindrance to production, and some companies have employed ruthless measures to destroy them - even going to the extent of bankrolling their extermination. 

Disturbingly, monetary incentives have been offered to bounty hunters to seek out and kill orangutans. Last year it was reported that a Malaysian company was paying their workers one million Indonesian rupiah ($100 AUD) per dead orangutan. Mass graves of orangutans have also been discovered on palm oil plantation sites.

Captured orangutans are often viciously attacked and tortured to death.

Uncontrolled burning is also regularly employed by palm oil companies to rapidly clear land, placing orangutans in the line of fire. Burning of forest has a comprehensively damaging effect on the species: it shrinks their habitat, destroys their food sources, and often kills them directly.

An encounter

Eleven years ago I travelled to Malaysian Borneo to visit the Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Centre and Labuk Bay Proboscis Monkey Sanctuary to indulge my fascination with primates.

The Sepilok centre aims to rehabilitate orphaned orangutans, and provides supplementary feeding to recently released orangutans within the forested reserve. At Labuk Bay, the quirky looking proboscis monkeys living in the vicinity are given supplementary provisions to strengthen their community in the face of dwindling wild food options.

In Borneo, the reality on the ground was confronting.

Peering out of the window during car trips on the island, I’d often perceive a sudden change in landscape. The view would come to be dominated by derelict tracts of land; what our guide explained were palm oil concessions.

My stomach would tighten as my eyes focused on desolate wastelands which formerly hosted lush and vibrant rainforest. The situation was more desperate than I could have imagined.

One day at Sepilok, I slowly proceeded towards the viewing platform where the orangutans were fed. As I meandered along the wooden walkway through the forest, absorbed in the bird songs and jungle chatter, my eye caught a bright spot of colour. I lifted my head up to focus on it.

I froze. In front of me, perched on the wooden handrail, was a mother orangutan. In her protective arms an infant was snuggled to her breast. The mother sat still as we quietly contemplated each other. She seemed unruffled by my presence; her calm manner surprised me. But what happened next surprised me even more.

The adult female grabbed her baby under the arms, and swivelled the infant around to face me. She held her baby up, in what I interpreted as a proud mother showing off her gorgeous child. They then both sat, unmoving, observing me in the shadows of the buzzing forest canopy. We remained like this for several minutes, eyeing each other with peaceful curiosity.

And then they scampered off, up towards the trees which would afford them distance from prying human eyes.

I will never forget that spine-tingling encounter. But I now sometimes wonder: did this mother ever have to flee from the sinister hands of humans? Or risk her life to protect her baby?

Did they, like many of their species, become virtual exiles in their own land?

While certain industries view their interests as in conflict with orangutans and other forest species, we need to reject this mentality. The reality is our interests are in harmony with these species.

Their habitat, which is being so recklessly destroyed, is also our precious environment. Apathy towards the fate of their children is indifference towards our own children.

And ultimately, violence against our fellow primates is an act of violence against us.

***With Easter around the corner, keep in mind that palm oil is a common ingredient in chocolate and can sometimes even be found in hot cross buns. See The Orangutan Project’s website for more information about the current threats to orangutans.

Clean Up Australia Day & McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance

I was quite stunned recently when I discovered that McDonald's has been a long-time sponsor and partner of Clean Up Australia Day. This is an annual event which encourages people to clean up general waste in their local area and waterways. 

I was struck by the incongruity of Clean Up's association with a corporation such as McDonald's, which generates large volumes of waste and which is a key contributor to Australia's rubbish problem. My latest article for Discordia, Clean Up Australia Day and McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance, looks at this issue. 
----------------

Clean Up Australia Day and McDonald's: An unpalatable alliance

March 2013

The man on screen flashed a cheerful smile, and implored fellow Australians to join him in the environmental campaign. Clean Up Australia Day was approaching, and a year’s worth of refuse clogging the streets and waterways was awaiting an army of eager volunteers.

His manner was friendly, his work was admirable… and his shirt was adorned with the unmistakable golden arches logo.

Recovering from my initial shock, I decided the ad was a spoof. What a great satirical clip, I thought. McDonald’s partnering with Clean Up Australia Day – now wouldn’t that be a laugh?!

But then the ad rolled to a finish, with no disclaimer in sight.

After some searching on the Clean Up website, I discovered that McDonald’s has been a sponsor, a “founding partner”, of Clean Up Australia Day since 1989.

Who knew? I certainly didn’t, and thinking myself a bit ignorant, I quizzed a bunch of friends. None of them had known either.

Rubbish

I haven’t frequented a McDonald’s store since resigning as a grossly underpaid teenage “crew member” of the food giant in the mid-90s. As an employee, I was privy – and party to - the sickening scale of food wastage generated by McDonald’s each day. Much of the food that was cooked was destined for the bin from its inception. 

As food such as burgers were generally not made to order, but rather cooked en masse and allotted into a timer system, those which exceeded their (brief) use-by-date in the absence of a purchase were tossed into large bins. I recall carrying out the nightly back-breaking task of emptying the bins - absolutely brimming with wrapped, untouched burgers - into one massive disposal unit.

I still often encounter the junk food corporation’s trash, in the form of its branded packaging, strewn carelessly along streets and gutters. According to a Keep Australia Beautiful study, 10 per cent of all litter in Australia originates from McDonald's. When communities lodge opposition to a proposed McDonald’s store in their area, concern over rubbish is usually a chief point of contention. 

This is despite McDonald’s Australia’s Clean Streets program, where lucky crew members supposedly do regular trash-duty around a store’s surrounding streets. 

Conscious or culpable?

The ubiquitous fast food chain does not enjoy a healthy environmental track record. McDonald’s uses an inordinate amount of packaging, the majority of which is used only fleetingly before being discarded. Also, its ardent agenda to lure children in-store means that plastic “Happy Meal” toys and their accompanying packaging are perpetually on the menu.

Even more alarming are some of the less visible aspects of its operations, such as the impact of the company’s transportation and food refrigeration, and the steep carbon and ecological footprint of their sale of resource-intensive meat and dairy products. 30% of the Earth’s entire land area and 70% of all agricultural land are appropriated for animal agriculture. Animal husbandry is also a primary driver of soil erosion and sedimentation, high levels of pesticide use and freshwater pollution.

It is almost impossible to find reliable figures of annual food wastage generated in Australia by McDonald’s. I’ve been told by a recent Australian customer that McDonald’s now makes a range of its products directly to order, but I’m aware that the timer system is still used for various items, and I can’t comment on the company’s practices overseas. 

However, try as they might, it would be difficult for Clean Up to deny that McDonald’s is synonymous with immense waste, environmental degradation, and a throw-away culture. Yet, Clean Up has counted McDonald’s as a sponsor for more than two decades, and McDonald’s proudly cites its yearly support of the Clean Up Australia Day program.

The chain’s Australian operations also proudly claim to participate in the Sydney Water Every Drop Counts initiative, but it could be argued that this is a convenient diversion from the exorbitant water usage of the animal agriculture industries on which McDonald’s so heavily relies.

Through its association with these “green” initiatives and programs, and its much-publicised (but arguably, inadequate) recycling and packaging changes across some markets, McDonald’s has cunningly cultivated an image as a “green leader”. Its relentless PR machine ensures a wealth of media releases and column inches are devoted to reporting on the company’s latest “eco-friendly” innovations.

But McDonald’s, which serves 69 million customers a day, is NOT an environmental organisation, or a company producing “eco-friendly” products. It is a corporation driven by an insatiable profit motive, which peddles junk food with a colossal environmental, health and ethical toll.

An odd partnership = a confused message

Many undoubtedly believe that the food giant’s involvement in Clean Up Australia Day should be applauded. That at least McDonald’s is taking some steps to clean up the country’s rubbish, of which it’s a significant contributor. But let’s be real here - the motives are not philanthropic.

McDonald’s benefits from the association in more ways than one: it portrays an image of environmental concern and vigilance, while increasing its advertising reach. The arrangement is mutually beneficial, as the sheer monetary power of McDonald’s would equate to healthy sponsorship funds and unparalleled promotion for Clean Up Australia Day.

Maybe Clean Up could not achieve this level of exposure without the backing of such a high profile company. BUT – what is the campaign’s long term message? Shouldn’t it be to reduce waste, the production of unnecessary items, and littering in the first place? Clean Up Australia Day is, after all, a campaign which is ultimately a band-aid measure in the context of the wider problem of over-production, consumerism, and an unsustainable use of resources.

I would like to see Clean Up partner with companies which promote sustainability and environmental protection along their entire supply chain. Clean Up’s association with McDonald’s promotes a message that tokenistic gestures are adequate, thus undermining their credibility as an environmental campaign.

I do believe that Clean Up’s work is commendable. 16,000 tonnes of rubbish was collected during the 2012 event. But the message of reducing and taking responsibility for waste is fundamentally incompatible with the business operations of a company such as McDonald’s. 

The junk food chain may have undertaken some tweaking and tinkering of their operations, but there’s no escaping the fact that they are far from the benchmark of an environmentally-friendly business.

Let’s recognise this partnership for what it is: just another attempt at greenwashing.

Postscript: Obtaining accurate figures about McDonald’s and its waste production proved difficult. Furthermore, many of the web search terms related to the topic led directly back to McDonald’s and its PR apparatus.