-
Wool industry must phase out mulesing: animal welfare advocates
September 21, 2024
PRESS RELEASE
đź”—âž” Read online now: how pets are being used as pawns in family law disputesÂ
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Australian wool industry’s commitment to phase out mulesing, but animal welfare advocates, led by RSPCA Australia, are expressing frustration at the lack of meaningful progress.
Animal advocates described mulesing as a painful procedure where sections of skin are removed from lambs to prevent flystrik. The practice has long been controversial in the wool industry.
Despite a pledge made in 2004 to end the practice by 2010, the wool industry has continued to rely on mulesing, leaving animal welfare organisations questioning its commitment to change.
In 2004, the industry responded to growing public concern and international pressure by setting a deadline to phase out mulesing, but the goal was abandoned in 2009.
According to Dr Natalie Roadknight, Senior Scientific Officer at RSPCA Australia, only around 20% of wool sold at auction today is certified as mulesing-free.
“Australia is the only country still using this outdated practice,” she says.
Dr Roadknight says the suffering endured by lambs lasts for days or even weeks after the procedure.
“We simply can’t afford another twenty years of stalled progress—not when there is a viable, humane alternative already available, which is to breed flystrike-resistant sheep,” Dr. Roadknight stresses.
This view is shared by many animal welfare advocates who believe that the wool industry has failed to prioritise animal welfare.
What is flystrike and how does mulesing prevent it?
The debate over mulesing centres on the prevention of flystrike, a condition caused by blowflies laying eggs in the moist folds of a sheep’s skin.
The larvae feed on the sheep’s flesh, causing severe pain and, if untreated, death.
Mulesing was introduced as a way to create smoother skin that is less prone to moisture accumulation, thereby reducing the risk of flystrike.
However, it has been criticised for the extreme pain it causes lambs. Even the application of pain relief—used by about 90% of producers—does not eliminate the trauma of the procedure.
The RSPCA says mulesing is outdated and cruel (infographic: RSPCA)
RSPCA Australia is calling for a nationwide ban on mulesing, echoing recommendations from their recently released The Broken Promise report.
The report supports “a transition away from mulesing and an end date, with support for wool growers to breed flystrike-resistant sheep, mandatory pain relief during the transition period, and a review of the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Sheep.”
Dr Roadknight say Australia risks falling behind global standards:
“As one of the world’s largest wool producers, our animal welfare standards should be high.
“By allowing mulesing to continue, we are failing to meet not just community expectations, but also the expectations of over 300 international brands committed to sourcing non-mulesed wool, who will turn elsewhere for their supply if Australia fails to move with the times.”
Wool industry leaders, under pressure from international fashion brands such as Adidas, H&M, and Zara—many of whom have pledged to stop sourcing wool from mulesed sheep—are being urged to take stronger action.
“It’s time the wool industry put animal welfare first, because the sheep that the industry depends on deserve better,” Dr Roadknight adds.
Despite these calls for action, the wool industry defends mulesing, arguing that pain relief is widely used and that the practice is necessary for flystrike prevention.
However, critics argue that the industry has been slow to adopt genetic solutions that would make mulesing obsolete. They also say as countries like New Zealand having already phased out the practice, Australia’s failure to act threatens its international reputation and market standing.
🔗➔Visit RSPCA’s website for more information about mulesing and other animal welfare campaigns.
Read more Animal News!
Animal welfare in fashion: study shows lack of ethical practices
