Numbing the pain or diffusing the pressure? The co‐optation of PETA's “naming and shaming” campaign against mulesing

• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Author: Lev Bromberg
• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12172

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Numbing the pain or diffusing the pressure?

The co-optation of PETA’s“naming and shaming”

campaign against mulesing

Lev Bromberg

Melbourne Law School, University of

Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence

Lev Bromberg, Melbourne Law School,

University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.

Email: brombergl@student.unimelb.edu.au

Funding information

Australian Government, Grant/Award

Number: Research Training Program

Scholarship; University of Melbourne, Grant/

Award Number: Melbourne Research

Scholarship

Abstract

This article examines a high-profile “naming and sham-

ing”campaign launched by the activist group People

for the Ethical Treatment of Animals targeting the con-

troversial sheep husbandry practice of mulesing. This

campaign led to important changes to the “rules of the

game”governing global merino wool production. This

article suggests that contests between activists and other

stakeholders over the framing of the policy problem

and activists’choice of strategy can result in co-optation

of activist ideas by corporate actors. The possibility of

co-optation of ostensibly successful social movement

campaigns highlights the importance of considering

such campaigns in light of movements’values and

longer-term goals.

1|INTRODUCTION

As public sentiment toward animals evolves, animal welfare regulation is becoming an increas-

ingly contested space. Advocacy organizations and activists seek to problematize existing prac-

tices in order to exert influence over the law, practices, and norms. The events that are the focus

of this article were set in motion in 2004 by a major campaign by the US-based activist group

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) targeting the Australian wool industry.

PETA, which characterizes itself as the “largest animal rights organization in the world”

(PETA, n.d.b.), threatened to “name and shame”retailers and brands that failed to respond to

its calls to boycott Australian wool because of the “cruel”agricultural practice of mulesing and

welfare concerns relating to the Australian live export industry. Mulesing—a painful routine

husbandry procedure performed on sheep in Australia to reduce their susceptibility to the seri-

ous (and potentially deadly) condition of flystrike—is rarely performed, and is illegal, elsewhere

(Neales, 2018; Phillips, 2009, p. 113). Although various painful procedures are performed on

sheep worldwide (including castration, tail docking, and ear tagging) (Stafford, 2017, p. 212),

DOI: 10.1111/lapo.12172

©2021 University of Denver and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Law & Policy. 2021;43:285–313. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lapo 285

the pain caused by mulesing has made it the most contentious ethical issue affecting the wool

industry. PETA’s campaign involved a series of staged public protests and appeals from inter-

national celebrities and public figures, all of which generated extensive media coverage. The

campaign prompted significant upheaval in the Australian wool industry, sparked public out-

rage internationally, and prompted a number of major brands to boycott Australian wool.

This article presents the conflict between PETA and the Australian wool industry as a con-

testation of values. It presents these events as a contest between animal activists and sheep

farmers, which also drew in a range of other players, including scientists, businesses, and politi-

cians. The article contends that this contest culminated in important changes to industry prac-

tices, markets, and regulation. However, the article also argues that the campaign was

eventually “corporatized”(King & Busa, 2017) by corporate and industry actors seeking to cap-

italize on public concerns about animal welfare while legitimating prevailing industry practices.

Section 2 of the article sets out the conceptual framework. This article seeks to contribute to

debates around animal welfare regulation as well as social movement activism more broadly.

Firstly, this article provides an evocative illustration of the contested nature of animal welfare regu-

lation. Secondly, the article argues that social movements influence (and are influenced by) industry

practices, markets, and regulation through the process of corporatization (King & Busa, 2017). The

article suggests that activists’tactics and strategies (their “repertoires of contention”)(see

Martin, 2015, pp. 45–49)—including the framing (Snow et al., 1986) of policy problems in ways

that allow for corporate buy-in—can make corporatization more likely. Corporatization can be piv-

otal in securing incremental regulatory reform; however, because corporatization does not challenge

the fundamental assumptions underpinning production systems and regulation, corporatized solu-

tions may not accord with activists’values. Thus, rather than making an argument for or against

corporatization in general, this article stresses the importance of considering whether corporatiza-

tion is in line with activists’values and movement’s long-term goals in each particular case.

Section 3 provides background for the case study. It also describes the case study methodol-

ogy and presents a timeline of key events.

Sections 4–7 present the findings of the case study, analyzing PETA’s campaign against

mulesing, the contestation engendered by the campaign, and the institutional settlement that

emerged. Section 4 analyzes how the framing (Snow et al., 1986) of the “policy problem”of mulesing

was constructed and contested by stakeholders, including activists. The episode of contention stem-

med from efforts by activists to exploit what they perceived to be inadequate regulation in Australia.

An important feature of animal welfare laws in Australia and elsewhere is that they forbid animal

cruelty but allow “necessary suffering.”As this article will illustrate, views on what constitutes “neces-

sary suffering”vary between stakeholders, leading to conflict. The article argues that the animal pro-

tection movement created scope for corporatization by framing the policy problem in a narrow way.

Thecampaignwasfocusedonproblematizingmulesingbyarguingthatthepracticecaused“unnec-

essary suffering”to sheep, rather than pushing an animal rights agenda, seeking radical reforms, or

posing fundamental questions about the commodification of animal bodies.

PETA’s novel repertoire of contention also played a pivotal role in this case, as discussed in

Section 5. PETA’s“naming and shaming”strategy was a key reason why the international

campaign—following two decades of campaigning for law reform by the Australian animal

protection movement—succeeded in placing mulesing on the agenda. The conflict initiated by

PETA inspired a period of contestation and a series of stakeholder dialogues—between activ-

ists, scientists, businesses, and agricultural representatives—that have subsequently shaped mar-

kets and industry practices, largely in the absence of state regulation.

This article argues that activists’framing of the policy problem—and PETA’s novel reper-

toire of contention—paved the way for incremental reform and corporatization. In this case, as

discussed in Section 6, corporatization involved the development of “technological fixes”to the

problem, most notably pain relief. Corporatization also transformed mulesing—framed by

286