Posts

Is there an mRNA Vaccine for Australian Cattle?

,

I have many constituents email me their concerns about mRNA vaccines for cattle.

In the recent Senate Estimates I shared their concerns with Meat and Livestock Australia, who are project managing the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle in Australia.

I asked them about the project and MLA responded saying that mRNA vaccines for cattle are in the early stages of development in Canada, but not Australia.

They do not know if they will work and if they can be used without altering the health or the genetics of the animal. These are the things the MLA are watching out for.

If an mRNA vaccine is developed, then the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority will have to put the vaccine through its own safety testing before approval.

I can also add that the stories on the internet about death of cattle after mRNA vaccines are wrong. The video being used is from other incidents, including the use of poison feed.

mRNA vaccines are not in use in cattle in Australia, and as far as I am aware, anywhere in the western world.

Although we don’t need to worry immediately about these gene shots in our cattle, we will keep an eye on how this unfolds overseas.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing tonight. I refer to questions on notice dated 28 February 2023.  Question SQ23-0002000 is going to be distributed. It is from February estimates regarding the development of mRNA vaccines. A copy will be coming. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time?

Mr Strong: This is a question to us and an answer we provided?

Senator Roberts: I’m not sure if you were in the room at the time. Maybe Mr Metcalfe took it.

Mr Metcalfe: Sorry, Senator. I wasn’t paying attention.

Senator Roberts: That’s alright. You undertook to take this question on notice for people who weren’t in the room. I think you did it for two or three groups last time.

Mr Strong: The highlighted piece that you are asking about on this first one?

Senator Roberts: Yes. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time? Has anything changed since then?

Chair: Which one are we on, Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: It is SQ23-000200.

Mr Metcalfe: I think MLA is being asked whether there is any update to the reference to 200, Jason. I think we are being asked about 128. Senator, I will undertake to see whether there is any update to 128. I don’t have the relevant staff here because they’ve all gone home. I am not sure whether MLA can assist you in relation to the question.

Mr Strong: Yes is the short answer, Senator. We would still agree with the answer that has been provided here. It is a research project that is still going through the research process now.

Senator Roberts: You are involved?

Mr Strong: Correct.

Senator Roberts: In supporting the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle? It’s under development at the moment, but it hasn’t been approved?

Mr Strong: So involved. I’m absolutely not trying to be cute. We are involved in the research to look at the potential use and development of mRNA vaccines. There is not the commercial use of an mRNA vaccine for a veterinary purpose at this stage.

Senator Roberts: That’s right.

Mr Strong: This research project is looking at that. Can it be done? Can it be done in a safe way? Can it be done in a way that produces a vaccine that provides a level of efficacy we need? Can it be done in a commercial way?

Senator Roberts: I think the third criteria you had was that it doesn’t contaminate the food.

Mr Strong: Of course. And it has to be commercial.

Senator Roberts: I want to unpick the whole third paragraph. Firstly, this answer indicates that a lumpy skin vaccine will undergo testing in Canada. Is it still being tested in Canada and not Australia?

Mr Strong: The research is being conducted in Canada to develop the mRNA type vaccine. For any vaccine to be approved here, it would have to go through an approval and testing process here. But the research is being done in Canada. We probably could have been clearer in the way that was written.

Senator Roberts: The TGA, which did not do live patient testing in this country, relied on the FDA. The FDA in turn did not do any testing; it relied on Pfizer. Unlike them, you will do thorough testing?

Mr Strong: We’re very confident of the standards in place and the requirements we have to comply with for veterinary medicines in Australia. We will absolutely comply with them. I think we all have a level of concern and confusion in this space from what we have seen and heard in the last few years. Luckily, in Australia, we have a very sound and detailed approval process. Absolutely we will make sure any research we do in this space is connected to that process.

Senator Roberts: I would like to get into that. The TGA admitted, in answering my questions at the last Senate estimates, that they did not do testing with live patients. They relied upon data from the FDA in America. The FDA also admitted that they didn’t do live testing. They relied upon data from Pfizer, the producers. Do our testing requirements require proper testing in this country?

Mr Strong: Yes, they do. I think there are some big differences between what we all experienced over that two or three-year period and what we are doing here. The main one is that we have more time and human lives aren’t at risk. If we don’t get positive results out of the tests with the research that is being done on these mRNA vaccines, we can stop. If there are different paths we have to take, we can do that. If we need to take more time, we can do that. I think the two examples are sufficiently different that we can have confidence that we will be able to stick to a very disciplined research and development and then testing, pre-approval and approval process for any potential new vaccine.

Senator Roberts: It is good to know that the mRNA technology is still new. It hasn’t been tested properly in humans at all. What makes you confident that your test will pick up any problems in cattle?

Mr Strong: Nothing is the short answer to start with. The follow-on from that is that it is exactly what you just said; it is new technology. A very important part of this research is to learn about that. If it has the utility that we think it should have and the ability to manufacture the type of vaccine which is actually safer for animals and easier to use and more effective, it provides a fantastic potential opportunity and we absolutely should explore that. But we absolutely have to do that in a way that protects the safety of the animals and the food chain and, obviously, the consumers.

Senator Roberts: Because the reputation of mRNA now has been tarnished well and truly. People will be wary about eating something that has mRNA in it and eating that meat.

Mr Strong: We will be very conscious of those consumer and community views in the space.

Senator Roberts: Will the meat be labelled?

Mr Strong: I don’t know the labelling requirements for what would happen with an animal that has been vaccinated. Like I said, that hasn’t existed previously. Labelling requirements is something that absolutely would be part of the approval process. Of course we would rely on the Australian authorities to make those rulings.

Mr Beckett: It is a bit early in the consideration. Those things will all be dressed.

Senator Roberts: What is that, Mr Beckett?

Mr Beckett: I said it is early in the consideration of the whole research. Those things will certainly be considered in the process.

Senator Roberts: Overseas experts with regard to the COVID injections for humans say this new technology should have had 15 years of testing, not 15 months or nine months, and not rely just on Pfizer itself. Now we are finding out that the efficacy is negative for these injections. It doesn’t stop transmission. The authorities have acknowledged that. It needs to be very well tested over an extended period with cattle to make sure there is efficacy and to make sure it is safe and it is safe for humans. The mRNA vaccine for foot and mouth is also being tested in Australia, though, isn’t it?

Mr Strong: No. Not yet.

Senator Roberts: No, sorry. It will be tested in Australia. The testing will be in Australia at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute located in the middle of a large dairy production area in Menangle. Is that right?

Mr Strong: No. Not necessarily. Before anything can come into Australia, it has to go through a very controlled and specific quarantine process. Nothing would actually be brought in and tested or released without appropriate controls.

Mr Metcalfe: Our department has to approve the import of such a virus. We would give extremely careful consideration to any application such as that for obvious reasons.

Senator Roberts: You would have to bring foot and mouth virus in?

Mr Metcalfe: Absolutely. We would probably need the chief veterinary officer and others to provide evidence to you about the management of that issue.

Senator Roberts: They are up next, I think.

Mr Metcalfe: No. I am only here because I am supporting the minister. The department is formally no longer here.

Senator Roberts: Will you be involved in that test, MLA?

Mr Strong: It’s too early to say. The research that we’re investing in is whether it is possible to produce vaccines using mRNA technology that would allow the treatment of diseases such as lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. That is the research.

Senator Roberts: So it’s very early days?

Mr Strong: Very early days, absolutely, yes.

Senator Roberts: Are you aware that the testing on mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease includes ensuring that the vaccine does not alter the DNA of the animal, thereby destroying generations of genetics? Australian farmers, whether dairy or beef, should be very proud of the genetics they’ve developed over the years. We don’t want the genes altered.

Mr Strong: Absolutely we don’t. Again, it’s too early in the process. I am sure those things will be part of the consideration if there’s any potential risk from that.

Senator Roberts: The answer to question SQ23-000128 precludes the precautionary use of an mRNA vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease as it would remove our status as being disease free. Can you reassure the committee that this is still the position of Meat and Livestock Australia?

Mr Strong: I don’t think that was our position in that question. Wasn’t that a department question? Isn’t that what you were saying?

Mr Metcalfe: That was actually advice from the department to you, Senator. I have indicated that we’re happy to update. If there are any changes, we’re happy to update it. It was only provided a couple of months ago. I would be surprised if there is anything to update.

Senator Roberts: If you could just let us know.

Mr Metcalfe: We’ve taken that on notice already.

Senator Roberts: Let us know if it remains constant or if it has changed.

Mr Metcalfe: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you very much.

/24 Comments/by

Demonisation of beef doesn’t have a leg to stand on

Government wants to cut red meat production so you’ll have to “eat zee bugs”. Like lots of globalist claims however, demonizing red meat falls over as soon as you look at the facts.

Why on earth does the government want to tax cow farts?

Transcript

Australian beef and, best of all, Queensland beef are here to stay as Australia’s main source of protein. A recent CSIRO paper published in the journal Animal, found that pasture fed beef returned 1,597 times more human edible protein than it consumed. What a wonderful way to produce natural, nutritious and affordable protein to feed our world.

The CSIRO, though, couldn’t help themselves of course and went on to denigrate the cattle industry for its methane production. This fearmongering fails on the most basic of tests: the biogenic carbon cycle. Methane in the atmosphere combines with oxygen to produce water and carbon dioxide which are then reabsorbed into pastures through photosynthesis, encouraging plant growth. For those who swallow the United Nations’ climate rubbish and think that nature’s trace atmospheric gas, essential to life on earth, needs to be sequestered: it is being sequestered!

There’s no environmental harm from cattle methane production. Cattle can be raised in a sustainable manner that not only protects but improves soil health. The war on red meat doesn’t have a leg to stand on! I call on Meat & Livestock Australia to dump its Red Meat 2030 plan—a plan designed to create a false scarcity of red meat in order to double meat prices and increase profits for a lucky few large beef producers. Red Meat 2030 will end grazing in lower rainfall areas, which will then be returned to nature in a process called ‘rewilding’. This land is where affordable meat is grown. Meat will become an elitist food; everyday Australians will be forced to source protein from food-like substances grown in labs or concocted on a process line from bugs, nuts and chemicals—lots of chemicals! Pick up a pack of fake meat and check the ingredients.

Meat & Livestock Australia must stop pandering to the climate change fraud and globalist elites. We are one community, we are one nation and climate change delusion is a danger to people’s cost of living and to our very food supply and security.

/23 Comments/by

PFAS is a toxic problem for Australia and the Beef Industry

Available on these platforms:

PFAS is part of a group of man-made chemicals sometimes called “forever chemicals”, because they break down so slowly.

These chemicals, used in firefighting foams from 1965 until 2005, have left a legacy of contaminated sites all over Australia.  There are 900 contaminated sites including defence force bases and major airports.  And because they break down so slowly it will take generations to remove the contamination.

PFAS has found its way to our homes into everyday products such as teflon coatings in our cookware and Scotchgard waterproofing.

There is a global treaty to eliminate PFAS and 5 other chemicals from the environment due to their harm to humans and wildlife.  It is called the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants and Australia is a signatory.

The European Commission has set a safe intake level for PFAS of 4.9 nanograms per kg of body weight because of the ill-effects on health. (A nanogram is one part per billion.)

The Morrison Government refuses to accept that the PFAS chemical has caused any harm.  The government is refusing to offer compensation and to relocate residents in these contaminated red zones around Defence bases, where a PFAS plume is spreading under their homes right now.

A recent Federal Court case awarded some residents compensation that averaged $150,000 after legal fees.  It was $212m in total. This is a tiny part of what these people have lost, and of course, they are still trapped in the red zone in homes they can’t sell. They are still being infected today. This is negligent and dishonest.

Currently Australia does not have a designated safe level for PFAS. Contaminated cattle in the PFAS red zones are routinely returning contamination levels of 400 parts per billion, which is 80 times the European safe level of 4.6 parts per billion.

Food Standards Australia and New Zealand are currently conducting a review and we do expect FSANZ to set a level, which we hope matches the European standard.

The graziers still need to be relocated to a like for like property so they can get on with raising clean, heathy cattle to feed Australia and the world.

The health impacts of PFAS are not going away.  These are forever chemicals. Contamination is getting worse because remediation has been limited and based on a refusal to accept the pervasive nature of the problem and the serious health impacts it causes.

We cannot have residents living in the middle of these highly contaminated red zones, abandoned and unable to move out. The Government must offer them like for like relocation.

FSANZ must introduce a national standard for PFAS in food.

Meat and Livestock Australia must get involved and lead a whole of industry response to removing PFAS from the meat food chain.

The government should now honestly settle with these people and then go and get compensation from Dupont, as they have already done in US.  Dupont put aside billions of dollars for settlement.

/by

Meat and Livestock – PFAS

, ,

Growers on PFAS affected land are concerned that our huge beef export market could be under threat if PFAS is detected in Australian beef. Their concerns are completely valid even though officials from Meat and Livestock Australia. who are meant to work for the long-term prosperity of the meat industry, didn’t seem that concerned.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you chair, thank you for being here today. My questions are to do with the PFAS contamination of our food chain. Your Meat and Livestock Australia function is to foster the long-term prosperity of the Australian red meat industry. Is that correct?

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. One of the significant challenges to this industry is the increasing presence of PFAS in the red meat supply chain. Does Meat and Livestock Australia have an advisory on PFAS contamination of cattle?

Senator, with respect, I think it’s a very limited threat. And I think the publicity and push of that issue from a very small number of producers doesn’t accurately represent the threat. I think our industry is incredibly, incredibly conscious of not just our bio security reputation, but our responsibility to ensure that we provide a safe and wholesome product to all of our customers globally, which go to a hundred markets globally. This issue is something which has been extensively, extensively evaluated by the authorities responsible. And while we are aware of it, it’s certainly an issue that is being monitored on an ongoing basis.

[Malcolm Roberts] Who are those authorities who are responsible?

So, as far as the level or potential contamination, the responsibility for making decisions about potential contamination would sit with groups like SAFEMEAT. And the FSANZ would actually set the requirements or the levels that would have to be triggered for it to be a challenge.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s the Food Standards Australia New Zealand

Food Standards, Australia New Zealand Food Standards, that’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, we’ll come back to them. I would disagree with you because from, I’m not talking about FSANZ, but other authorities supposed to be overseeing this PFAS issue and not doing their job. That’s quite clear from the questions we’ve asked. So, next question: Are you aware the Food Standards Australia has PFAS regulations under review and, later this year, there may be maximum PFAS levels specified that your breeders will need to act on? I think it’s timetabled, at the moment, to come out early September, 2021. But given that, I think, the early ones are behind, it probably be late later this year.

No, Senator, that’s something that’s their responsibility. And if there’s need to support them in providing information or technical support for that, I’m sure they’ll contact us.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m very aware, I’m very concerned, about the threats to our export industry. The Australian beef industry is worth 28 billion a year. And the export portion of that is 17.2 billion, which makes it one hell of a big industry. So are you aware that the European Union have now enacted a recommendation of six micrograms of PFAS per kilogramme of body weight as a recommended maximum daily intake? A figure that mandates the effective elimination of PFAS from meat.

No, Senator. The setting of MRLs is not something that comes under our responsibility.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not aware of it?

No.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Does Meat and Livestock Australia consider that our $28 billion a year meat industry might be headed for a substantial disruption caused by these new PFAS limits in Australia and in our major export markets?

No, Senator, I don’t. I think it’s important for context, so this can sound quite significant but I think it’s important that these are very, very isolated potential incidents. So no is the answer to your question.

[Malcolm Roberts] Have you considered what a PFAS scare may do to our livestock industry? Have you done any modelling or risk assessment at all?

So, we’re certainly aware of the potential of what those scares could do. And of course, as a result of that, we’re conscious of, we’re aware of, I’m assuming you’re talking about this specific issue, which keeps coming up regardless of the support that gets provided to that producer. So yes, we are aware of what the potential of those scares can do. And it is disappointing that an individual, regardless of the disproportionate support they get from any sectors of the industry, continue down this path.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I’ve got letters in front of me from the Charolais Society of Australia, the Australian Brahman Breeders’ Association, and the Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association. They’ve all called on the government to relocate the graziers from affected properties to remove PFAS from the food chain. They’re worried about what’ll happen if that is detected in the food chain. The Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association agree and added that failure to fix this problem can only lead to a disaster for the Australian meat industry. Why has Meat and Livestock Australia ignored your own breeders recommendations?

All due respect, Senator, those letters haven’t, I don’t think those letters have come to us. But also, Breed Societies, whose primary responsibility is the recordkeeping of pure-bed livestock, are not the people we should be relying on for information around chemical…

[Malcolm Roberts] What about the other two?

They all are, all three of them are. Breed Societies, the Registered Cattle Breeders are the peak organisation for the Breed Societies.

I accept that. Aren’t they, though, concerned about the future of their industry?

Your industry?

I’m sure they could be made concerned, Minister. If they were, if they received the representations that we have received from the producer, that I assume we’re still talking about the same one, I can imagine they would be concerned.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m aware of several producers.

There’s a main producer that’s raised this a number of times and have said they would take this further.

[Malcolm Roberts] I wouldn’t dismiss it because you’re counting one, there are several. And they’re deeply concerned not only about their own livelihoods, they’re concerned about the whole industry. It’s palpable, you can see it in them.

Sorry, sorry, Senator, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive. We’re not being dismissive at all. I think what the point I’m obviously not making well is it’s very important that we appreciate from a bio-security and food safety point of view. In our industry, we have incredibly good systems in place, and we have the authorities like FSANZ and SAFEMEAT who have responsibility for this. And we lean very heavily on their authority and expertise to manage this issue. And if it becomes more of a policy issue, then that’s a representative organisation responsibility. We absolutely will support any of those, if there’s more technical information required. And we do take on board these issues every time they are raised. But we all have a responsibility to rely on the authorities who have the expertise and responsibility for this, which is what we’re trying to do.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’ve been through various types of diet in my years on the planet. in the last few years, I’ve become completely meat-eater, that’s all I eat. So it’s very important to me personally, to my family, but especially more so in my responsibilities as a Senator representing constituents. And I’m not just talking about people who have got PFAS problems themselves, but people in the beef industry because it’s a very important industry to our whole state and our country. And I’m deeply concerned what would happen if this gets out of hand, if we don’t hit it off. So has Meat and Livestock Australia considered that, of all the stakeholders in this industry, you are the best situated to lead a whole of industry response to the PFAS issue? That solution being to relocate farmers from land destroyed by PFAS pollution from defence bases, and in so doing removing the source of PFAS contamination from our food chain, and removing the risk to this core meat and food industry?

Sorry, Senator, none of those things are actually our responsibility. None of those things actually fit.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is your role?

Marketing and research and development, Senator. Those are our responsibilities. And if there’s technical issues that we can support any of the participants in this, as far as understanding what contributes to it or what can be done, that’s absolutely the sort of thing we should be considering. But the relocation and compensation is absolutely not something.

[Malcolm Roberts] No, no, I’m not arguing that you should take responsibility for that. But I’m arguing that your function, as we agreed in the first question, is to foster the longterm prosperity of the Australian meat industry, Australian red meat industry. You agreed with that. I’m saying that this is a serious threat.

And that our contribution, given that function, would be to ensure that, if there’s a technical information that’s required that can be developed through research and development to support these activities, then absolutely. We would be prepared to support that. But as far as the examples you were using before around relocation and rectification.

[Malcolm Roberts] No I’m saying bring your pressure to bear, because…

No. Sorry, Senator. We absolutely could not do that, ’cause that’s not, that’s absolutely not in our responsibility. We can’t be putting pressure.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’re just watching this?

No, no, Senator. That’s not at all, that’s not at all right. You asked me, can we put pressure to bear on the people who are responsible to do this. And no, we are not, we can’t be taking action like that. The representative organisations…

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m terrified that Europe could get one contaminated sample. And given the way that the UN and the EU are now focusing on decreasing meat consumption, that one contaminated sample could destroy the imports of beef, huge industry in our state and our country, into Europe. And then we’ve also got the Greens with the potential to use this issue to stop the meat industry altogether. So, surely there must be something to head this off. I love my lamb and beef.

Which is an excellent, Senator. And I’d love to give you as much confidence as possible. And all I can say, I think, is where the issue sits is a very long, long, long away from what you just described. And if we can help in providing technical information to support that, then we’re certainly happy to do that.

Senator, Senator Roberts, probably one of the places that you might be able to prosecute this with more success might be next week in health, because FSANZ are very much at the forefront of making sure that this issue is dealt with. So that, that might be a good place to go.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Thank you both. Thank you chair.

Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

/by

Urgent PFAS Compensation Needed For Farmers

,

This week I visited farmers in and around Oakey who have had their lives and livelihoods destroy by PFAS contamination from the nearby Army Aviation Centre in Oakey. One Nation is calling for affected resident to receive like-for-like compensation as soon as possible so they can get on with their lives. PFAS FACT SHEET https://tinyurl.com/ya877sqy

Transcript

Hi, I’m Malcolm Roberts and I’m a senator for Queensland, and I’m near the Oakey Army Base here in just west of Toowoomba. We’re going to show you a clip of some water flowing overland and it’s going through this water course here, and it shows PFAS contamination.

And what annoys me is that governments in this country, both liberal, national and labor, just ignore the damn data. They just completely ignore it. Now, I happen to have worked in an industry where if you ignore data, people die, so I’ve become very conditioned to data and I understand its power.

Now, the European Union has set a new limit for PFAS contamination in beef. It’s eight nanograms per kilogram of body weight, it’s much, much lower than in Australia. And, in fact, the Department of Defence and some other departments in this country don’t even recognise any damn level at all is significant.

So what happens if we continue to ignore this data, we continue to ignore the plight of people? What will happen if someone in the EU is inspecting our meat and they come across highly contaminated PFAS? The whole of our beef industry will be shut down, that’s what’s at stake.

So we need the government to come clean, look at the data and admit what they’ve been doing for 40 years knowingly in this country. I’m so sick and tired of this, and we need people here who in this country, who have been belted and smashed, livelihoods, future for their retirement completely destroyed, and the Department of Defence has known about it.

We need like for like compensation, we need those people to be relocated and we need those properties to be declared unsafe. That’s all we want, but we want people to abide by the data. For goodness sake, these are people’s livelihoods at stake, whole lives at stake.

And it’s not only the people involved in the PFAS contamination zones like this one, this is where overland flows are contaminated, overland flows are coming from the base, but it’s also mums and dads because they are not being told that some of the beef is contaminated and they’re feeding contaminated beef to kids.

It’s all over Australia, that’s what we want fixed. The people in this land, in this land here, are taking responsibility, but they need to be compensated for that, like for like compensation, and we need to have healthy, safe food levels for production in this country.

/by