Can eating Kangaroo turn you green?


It seems, given climate change, drought and the growing market of “conscious consumers,” the roo is under the pump. Or perhaps hammer is more accurate. The hammer of rifles which belong to a breed of farmer not so affected by the drought – kangaroo farmers. In Australia vast numbers of kangaroos are permitted to be harvested for their meat and skin. And recently we have been hearing a little bit more about this business than usual.

One of our country’s national emblems stands in the centre of an increasingly noticeable side-show to the climate change debate. In fact this side-show recently played front and centre when Greenpeace entered the fray, offering advice on our eating preferences. Their argument went a little like this: “if you have to eat meat, think sensibly about the impact you are having and chose a sustainable burger option such as roo.” Indeed, they have a solid point. According to the World Water Council, the water consumption needed to manufacture one kilo of beef is a staggering 13,000 litres (compared to a kilo of spuds which is around 100 litres).
 
 
 
 
In Australia our native sources of meat use an amount of water consistent with native supplies of water – i.e. they grow “sustainably,” and in harmony with the environment rather then requiring significant human assistance to reach maturity. In the street, this idea is beginning to grab people’s attention.
 
June, 28, of Melbourne, is proud of her choice to “eat native”. She told me her conviction was underpinned by a belief, amongst others, that “kangaroo is the most sustainable source of meat in Australia”. Jane admits that her occasional flirtation with vegetarianism and overall meagre consumption of meat has “always been environmentally motivated rather than animal welfare orientated”. This argument adds weight to the idea that the modern realities of the drought and climate change in Australia are creating socially conscious eating preferences amongst consumers in a similar way to which Peter Singeresque notions of vegetarianism were found two generations earlier. Has this created a ‘safe’, ‘green’ middle ground for left-leaning folk to stand in as the debate over Australia’s environmental situation plays out around them?
 
But take for a moment, a wider lens on the issue. It might seem a little out of place for well respected environmental advocates to be advising the consumption of a particular variety of animal to help solve severe global challenges. This suggestion would seem to alienate them from their traditionally vegetarian ‘green’ support base for one. However, the scene overall is such that this unique Australian proposal – to consume en masse one of the creatures which adorns our national coat of arms as part of the solution to climate change – has created a situation where eating choices might not so easily identify the ‘greenies’ from those happy to masticate away on their sirloin without caring a jot for their role in things.
 
 
Whilst June, backed by seriously significant players in the environmental field such as Greenpeace (and Tim Flannery), might see more kangaroo on the menu as holding part of the answer to the climate change problem, other well respected community voices have grave concerns for this approach. The Australian Wildlife Protection Council is fundamentally opposed to the “commercial kangaroo killing industry”, as they call it.  
 
The AWPC claims, the use of kangaroos for meat is a “barbaric” and “inhumane” practice, adding,
“each night thousands of animals are butchered, many are maimed...Any reasonable person would not wish to be a party to this slaughter by purchasing kangaroo products”.  
 
The biggest concern for the AWPC is the method used to kill kangaroos. Farmers use shotguns and usually fire at the Kangaroo’s head. The AWPC argue that this isn’t foolproof and sometimes the shot fails to kill but rather severely injures the animal, and they later die slowly from these wounds or through associated problems such as starvation.
 
In addition they cite the use of metal bars to club the joeys of adult kangaroos as particularly deplorable. Furthermore, The AWPC claims the kangaroo harvesting industry is inappropriately and inadequately regulated, compounding the problems they see with the serious issues of the neglect of the animals’ welfare. The AWPC is not alone in their concerns. Former Senators, respected veterinarians, celebrities and activists all offer plausibly grounded reasons why the kangaroo trade is actually anything but an appropriate solution to Australia’s battle with climate change. 
 
No doubt this debate will rage on, if only for the novelty factor of national emblems on dinner plates. But in the background we shouldn’t forget that climate change is altering more than the weather. Indeed on top of confusing would-be government ministers it is asking serious questions of Australia’s environmentally conscious consumers and, for better or worse, reconfiguring the notion of what it is to be ‘green’ in this ever browning land. 

 

 

Digg This Del.icio.us Furl reddit Stumble it!