Three animal welfare peak bodies have released a report that attacks the Australian wool industry’s failure to end mulesing - which the report calls “live lamb cutting” - with WoolProducers Australia condemning the commentary.
The Australian Alliance for Animals, Four Paws and Humane Society International Australia have teamed up to launch a new report titled ‘The Broken Promise'.
According to the trio, the report calls on the government to step in, following “concerns raised by segments of wool growers themselves on the lack of leadership in changing times.”
In 2004, Australian wool industry leaders unanimously committed to phasing out mulesing by 2010. In 2009, the industry abandoned this promise.
According to the three peak bodies, Australia remains the only country still practising mulesing, noting that this is “tarnishing our international reputation and leaving wool producers vulnerable to market disruption as hundreds of fashion brands commit to no longer using wool from live lamb cut sheep.”
The trio estimate that 140 million lambs have experienced mulesing since 2010.
“Our report provides strong evidence as to how the wool industry’s peak bodies have clearly and consistently demonstrated their inability to lead a phase-out of this brutal practice. It’s vital government steps in to end live lamb cutting once and for all,” Four Paws head of animal welfare Jessica Medcalf said.
WoolProducers have retaliated against the report, specifically condemning the use of the term 'live lamb cutting', calling it a “sensationalised label” that is intended to replace the current and established terminology of mulesing.
“It’s an interesting approach from groups who are purporting to be serious animal welfare experts and who are seeking a seat at the table with government in animal welfare discussions, to start making up terms,” WoolProducers CEO Jo Hall said.
Hall highlighted the absurdity of the new terminology, suggesting that if imaginative language is to start being employed, supporters might as well refer to mulesing as 'lifetime lamb protection procedure.' The term 'live lamb cutting' has been described as a loaded phrase designed to attract attention and provoke strong emotional responses.
“The term itself is almost laughable and has clearly been workshopped to try and be as dramatic and misleading as possible. The use of the word ‘cutting’ implies a more extensive procedure than what mulesing actually is.”
According to the dictionary, mulesing is the process of removing folds of skin from the tail area of a sheep in order to reduce flystrike. The NSW Government Local Land Services defines flystrike as “a painful condition that can be fatal if left untreated. Flystrike is caused when a blowfly lays eggs on the skin of the animal and the emerging larvae create an open wound as they feed on the underlying skin tissue.
WoolProducers claim the report fails to provide the necessary context regarding the practice of mulesing, while also ignoring the widespread use of pain relief.
“The 2024 Annual Report of the Sheep Sustainability Framework states that while 57.7 per cent of producers mules their Merino ewe lambs, a massive 89.7 per cent of those producers use appropriate pain relief when conducting the practice.
“While pain relief for mulesing is mandatory in Victoria, which was recently joined by Tasmania in making this a requirement, a nearly 90 per cent voluntary uptake of any practice is impressive. This demonstrates that wool growers prioritise animal welfare.
“WoolProducers are urging other state jurisdictions to catch up to industry standards and legislate pain relief for mulesing.”
The wool industry peak body called the report misleading to the public and added that it undermines genuine discussion on animal welfare through neglecting to address the rationale behind mulesing.
“We encourage a rational and informed dialogue on animal welfare, one that is based on facts rather than sensationalism,” Hall said. “It is vital that discussions about animal practices remain grounded in reality, ensuring the well-being of livestock while addressing the concerns of the community.
“These groups have removed any credibility they may have by making up terms and repeating lies and demonstrate that they have no place in genuine discussions about Australia’s livestock industries.”
NSW wool grower Don Mudford, who manages the Parkdale Merino farm, said Australian wool industry peak bodies have failed to show leadership on the issue of mulesing.
“It is evident that they are inherently incapable of steering the industry away from this practice, primarily due to conflicts of interest,” Mudford said. “Additionally, they have squandered both wool grower and taxpayer funds in their attempts to find a solution to flystrike, despite the availability of a viable solution for over 20 years."
According to the report, some wool growers have been breeding flystrike-resistant sheep, avoiding the need to conduct mulesing.
“Millions of dollars in producer and taxpayer funds have already been wasted on failed alternatives, while the proven solution of breeding flystrike-resistant sheep has been overlooked,” Australian Alliance for Animals policy director Dr Jed Goodfellow said.
“The wool industry is failing both the Australian public and international consumers who expect better welfare standards for sheep.”
The report also indicated that over 330 brands globally are now sourcing at least a portion of their wool as non-mulesed or having made a time-bound commitment to do so. Almost 90 brands - including Adidas, Hugo Boss, Zara and Mango - have also publicly signed Four Paws 'Brand Letter of Intent' calling on the Australian wool industry to make the transition.
According to the three peak bodies, should these brands not be able to get non-mulesed supply from Australia, they will go elsewhere, with some reportedly already doing so.