| First Published: | Wednesday 6 November 1996 Address to Blacktown City Council |
Thank you for permitting
me to express an opinion on this subject, derived from my 24 years as a practising
veterinary surgeon and five years as a researcher. The points I wish to raise
will be familiar to you all as a result of my attendance at Blacktown City Council
committee meetings, correspondence with Council and numerous reports in the
print and electronic media. I consider the need to reiterate these points stems
from a long history of inaction on the part of those whose responsibility it
is to safeguard the public interest and now the active facilitation of artificial
pet food industry interests by instrumentalities whose role it is to safeguard
the public interest.
The specific issue before Council is the proposal to assist the Australian Veterinary
Association (AVA) and the Petcare Information and Advisory Service (PIAS) in
the distribution of their PetPEP Program in Blacktown primary schools. This
matter cannot be dealt with in isolation and needs to be seen in the broader
context. It should be borne in mind that the AVA has pet food industry consultants
on its board of directors and is in receipt of sponsorship funds from the industry.
(The equivalent of junk food industry professionals sitting on the board of
the Australian Medical Association). PIAS you will know to be a division of
the Mars Corporation, makers of Mars confectionery products, Pal and Whiskas.
PIAS was established in 1966 as the 'educational' arm of the pet food company,
whilst simultaneously the manufacturing arm of the company Uncle Bens of Australia
was establishing its factory at Albury-Wodonga.
PIAS is active in Australian primary schools in its own right and now acts in
conjunction with the AVA. The PetPEP Program contains modules for each of the
years K to 6. It contains many subtle and not so subtle inducements to children
to buy processed pet food. There are specific references to PIAS and inducements
to obtain PIAS material. PIAS material contains many subtle and not so subtle
inducements to buy the products of UBA such as Pal and Whiskas. Teachers in
our government schools use the PetPEP resource material in the classroom and
therefore impart a sense of authority and integrity to the program. Animal Control
Officers Australia wide, and now in Blacktown, are being recruited to convey
the program to teachers in schools. In all areas the program appears to carry
the stamp of official approval.
This recruitment of officials in the service of commercial organisations, should
in my opinion, give rise to serious misgivings even if the products of those
organisations were of decided benefit to the community. In the case of the products
of
the artificial pet food industry and the Mars Corporation in particular I can
say that I and my colleagues have extensive experience of damaging consequences.
We have documentary evidence and video footage of ill animals whose owners inform
us that they have fed their animals predominantly on these products and have
followed the advice on the labels. The definition of poison according to The
Concise Oxford Dictionary is: 'Substance that when introduced into or absorbed
by a living organism destroys life or injures health.' We believe that artificial
pet foods fall into this category of substances when they form the basis of
a diet for small domestic carnivores.
It is my opinion that as a direct result of the now widespread practice of feeding
artificial foodstuffs there is widespread ill health and suffering. Animals
tend to suffer in silence but even so a considerable number receive treatment
for diet induced disease. This represents considerable economic loss especially
to elderly people who often depend on elderly and diet affected animals for
companionship. By far the largest unnecessary financial loss arises from the
cost of the artificial product. The Channel 9 Money programme, 26 June 1996,
reported its well researched findings. Their estimate was that a family with
one large dog and two cats could save $1000 per year by feeding natural, locally
produced food. I estimate that this equates to an annual saving for Blacktown
pet owners of about twenty million dollars.
The environmental costs of artificial pet foods are very high. The excrement
of artificially fed animals is three times the volume of the naturally fed animals.
Cans and wrappers find their way into the tip and because people are encouraged
not to feed table scraps these find their way into the tip also.
Social awareness programmes for primary school children usually start with an
injunction as to what not to do. Life education programmes encourage children
to, 'Say no to drugs', young children are warned about 'Stranger danger'. This,
in my opinion, is not the case for the PetPEP Program. In due course when those
children mature they may consider that they have been misled and exploited by
the Council. They may consider taking action in much the same way as certain
victims of the Christian Brothers are now doing. Defence of those actions and
any compensation payments will have to be met by the ratepayers. (Council has
been provided with, and should have on file, legal opinion in relation to the
implications of the recommending of artificial pet foods).
In summation it would appear that in pursuing its own limited objectives Blacktown
City Council is prepared to impose a huge burden of costs on the pets, children,
ratepayers and environment of the City.
From my reading of a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday 28 October
it appears that the multinational pet food industry may be costing the citizens
of this country much more than was previously considered. Under the headline,
"Billions in tax being lost to multinationals" it was reported, "Mr
Jim Killaly said that in
1993-4, 60% of foreign owned and Australian multinationals claimed to be in
loss and paid no tax, while the "great bulk" of the remaining 40%
claimed to be marginally profitable and paid only a small amount of tax."
In the case of the Mars Group of Companies in Australia it is not possible to
discover the tax position for unlike most multinationals which are public companies
the Mars Group are all proprietary companies and thus do not need to publish
annual financial statements. Similarly it is not possible to discover the extent,
if any, of political or other payments.
It is known that the Mars Corporation claims to feed one third of the world's
pets and controls between 60 and 70% of the Australian artificial pet food market
worth in the order of 700 million dollars annually. In my opinion this represents
monopoly control of the market with the likelihood of monopoly profits for the
proprietors and consequent losses for the consumers. It is also known that companies
in or divisions of the Mars Group of Companies enter into promotional arrangements
with other organisations and charities. The Western Plains Zoo at Dubbo promotes
Uncle Bens products and the World Wide Fund for Nature lends its name in return
for a levy on sales.
It is my considered opinion and that of my colleagues here listed that Blacktown
City Council should under no circumstances enter into an arrangement with the
Petcare Information and Advisory Service or any other component of the artificial
pet food industry. We would go further and renew our call for a full federal
government commission of enquiry into the activities of the artificial pet food
industry. We believe that Blacktown City Council could play an important role
as facilitator.
| Dr Tom Lonsdale, Riverstone, NSW | Tel. 02 9627 4011 E-mail: tom@rawmeatybones.com Internet :www.rawmeatybones.com |
| Dr Alan Bennet, Bligh Park, NSW | Tel. 045 87 7177 |
| Dr Ian Billinghurst, Lithgow, NSW | Tel. 063 522 822 |
| Dr Breck Muir, Long Jetty, NSW | Tel. 043 32 6026 |