Posts

FSANZ Handling of Lab Grown Meat is a Concern

,

I asked questions about the progress of an application by Vow Food for lab-grown quail meat. This is a serious matter that will provide approval for an entirely new industry — an industry that is promoted as being environmentally friendly, while offering a high standard of food, when the truth is the complete opposite.

My questions were based on the timetable for approval published on Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) own website for this application. A timetable that appears to be out of date. It’s not acceptable that FSANZ would not keep the index page for this most important of applications up to date. I trust the answers provided, which extend the timetable 8 months, are truthful.

While FSANZ are apparently calling for submissions, there has been no attempt to promote the ability of the public and interested groups to do so. This suggests the submission will be curated to provide support for the application. Lab grown meat is a massive threat to public health and safety.

The product is grown in a bioreactor and develops a nutrition profile which is directly related to the fertilizer solution added to the growing medium. Fatal bacteria such as e-coli and salmonella must be controlled. The name of the game here is profit, taking food production away from family farms that produce a healthy natural product and moving it to city-based intensive production facilities owned by foreign corporations operating for profit. I have no confidence under this model that the main input — the nutrition slurry, and the anti-bacterial protections — will not be dialled down so as to dial profits up. I will return to this topic in May.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ve got a document that I’m going to try to table later. My questions are about the progress of the Vow company’s lab-grown quail meat. It appears your organisation has recommended that your board approve the lab-grown meat at its next meeting later this month. Is that correct?

Dr Cuthbert: No, that’s not correct. That process goes through two calls for submissions, so we’ve got two processes where we seek comments from any interested stakeholder.

Senator ROBERTS: Any Australian?

Dr Cuthbert: Any stakeholder. It just finished its first call for submissions on, I believe, 5 February. We received approximately 40 submissions on that first round. We’ll then be considering all of the submissions that we’ve received and go out for a second round of consultation once we’ve considered all of those submissions. There will be that second opportunity for people to comment. Only after that will we be putting it forward to the board for consideration.

CHAIR: I’m just going to provide advice on this document. I’m still seeking the source to table, but I’m happy for it to be distributed to witnesses to assist in answering questions. Then we’ll provide advice on tabling.

Senator ROBERTS: Why are there calls for comment?

Dr Cuthbert: Under the FSANZ Act there are models under which we can assess a product. The framework we utilise depends on the product’s complexity and other variables. For this one, because it’s a normal food and because of the complexity that was assessed, we determined that the process that it’s under will include two rounds of public consultation.

Senator ROBERTS: If the board approves a product, which—is that likely?

Dr Cuthbert: We’re still in the process of—

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s too early to say if it’s likely or not. When will you finish your process of consultation and listening, and make a recommendation to the board? When will the board sign off—if it signs off? I’m after rough timing.

Dr Cuthbert: I might seek input from Ms Jenny Hazelton, who’s managing the branch responsible for this piece of work.

Ms Hazelton: The normal process for applications—there are some statutory time frames for completion of that work. At this stage we’re anticipating it will be later this year when we will be putting this to the board. As Dr Cuthbert’s already indicated, we do have another round of public comment, and what comes forward in that second round of public comment will likely then determine when it will actually go to the board.

Senator ROBERTS: So it could go to the board sometime after July or maybe towards the end of the year?

Ms Hazelton: Closer to the end of the year, more likely.

Senator ROBERTS: How long will it take to be gazetted if the board approves it?

Ms Hazelton: The process from there would be that we would notify the Food Ministers Meeting of the outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s federal and state?

Dr Cuthbert: Yes. That’s the representation on the Food Ministers Meeting. They have 60 days to consider that and either ask for us to review that decision or accept, and it would then go on to a gazettal after that time.

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re part of the process of approving or rejecting?

Ms Hazelton: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How does that process work? Is it a unanimous vote, or is it just that each state signs up or doesn’t sign up?

Ms Hazelton: It operates through a consensus. Sorry—each state and territory and New Zealand has an opportunity to vote for whether they will accept the approval or whether they will ask for a review.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I referenced your document 273-23 ‘Consumer insights tracker’, which is one of these. There it is; 273-23. Are you familiar with that?

Dr Cuthbert: Our consumer insights tracker?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is a supporting document to consumer literature review application A1269.

Dr Cuthbert: Apologies. Yes; thank you very much.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s available on your website, which concludes, the best name to give this novel food is ‘cell cultured,’ which makes it sound better than ‘lab grown’ or ‘Frankenfood’. I note that your language on subsequent documents uses ‘cell cultured’ or ‘cultured’. Why are you using language that promotes adoption of this product?

Ms Hazelton: We did do a literature review in terms of looking at consumers understanding of what that type of language would be. We are only at the first stage of this process—we’ve just received submissions—so that’s what we have proposed to date. That may not necessarily be what is ultimately in the final approval.

Senator ROBERTS: Your document, which was in that pile there, A1269 hazard and risk assessment, that document references the food safety aspects of cell-based food from the United Nations and the World Health Organization—both organisations I have very little regard for, but nonetheless even they list 53 potential hazards from lab grown meat. That report concludes on page 118: ‘Risk assessment was only the first part of the process of approving lab grown meat for human consumption. What needs to follow are our regulatory authorities cooperating with each other to share information around these potential health risks, which can be pretty severe.’ Rather than doing that and asking for in-depth studies, is FSANZ intending on waving these products through?

Dr Cuthbert: We will continue to do our assessment, and that assessment is quite broad, to determine the safety that needs to be considered through the process.

Senator ROBERTS: Has Vow addressed all your concerns?

Ms Leemhuis: We have received a raft of information from the applicant, Vow, but in addition to that we do look globally at what other evidence is available to inform our assessment.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you take on notice—I won’t take up the committee’s time now because we’re behind schedule—the approval processes or the steps that you take to consider an application, please? Did you ask Vow for genotoxicity studies in rats, commonly used to ascertain the safety of the product on reproduction and on the growth of cancers or organ damage.

Ms Leemhuis: We regularly ask for toxicity studies for almost all applications that we receive. I’d have to take on notice the specific studies we received for this one, although they will be referenced in the A1269 report online.

Senator ROBERTS: Including genotoxicity?

Ms Leemhuis: Including genotoxicity, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: The approval process seems to be, ‘Well, we can’t find literature that says’—this is casting the net broadly about the approval process, not necessarily yours—’this novel food is dangerous, so we won’t do the work to fill that gap and make sure this product is safe.’ That sounds like malfeasance. Have you done much work with other agencies, including your own, on whether the process is rigorous?

Ms Leemhuis: We work internationally with all of our regulatory partners in this area. We are not alone in looking at these new products coming to market, so, yes, we have regular conversations with a number of agencies globally around this, and the evidence required to assess the safety of these products.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice to list those agencies for me, please?

Ms Leemhuis: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And would you characterise the exercise in some agencies overseas as just tick and flick, ‘Just approve it’, ‘Might as well do it’?

Ms Leemhuis: I’m not sure we could comment on other agencies processes, just our own.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How would you describe your process of assessment and approval? Rigorous?

Ms Leemhuis: Yes.

Dr Cuthbert: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: These products, these fake meats, are grown in a bioreactor that needs to force cell growth as fast as possible to make money in what is a chemical and energy intensive process. One outcome that many authors have warned about is how the forcing of cell division leads to cancerous cells growing and that people could, in fact, be eating a product that is cancer. I don’t even see that dealt with in your risk assessment. Why not?

Ms Leemhuis: We look at the toxicity of these products and all the evidence provided for that. So, not only do we look at the end product, but we also look at all the inputs into how that product is made. Our view is informed by that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. These products have all the nutrition in them that is introduced into the bioreactor. You talk about nutritional value, but it appears no ongoing monitoring will be imposed on Vow to ensure they keep shovelling these nutrients in there at the same rate as the samples they send you. Is that correct? Is there any ongoing monitoring?

Ms Leemhuis: Again, I’d note we’re not finalised with our process yet. In terms of management, that will be in the next call for submission.

Senator ROBERTS: Forget about Vow for a minute. If you authorise or approve this fake meat from some company, then do you monitor the consequences of that in succeeding years?

Ms Leemhuis: FSANZ has an ongoing role in monitoring the food supplies, so, yes. But as part of our assessment process we can also impose conditions that do look to monitor these products if they are of concern or concerns are raised through the assessment that we want to continue to look at into the future.

Senator ROBERTS: I guess there’s a difference between monitoring something in closed conditions and letting it go through a manufacturing process that may or may not be sloppy—who knows what will happen in there? Listeria has been identified as a medium- to high-risk foodborne pathogen that can enter during the final stage of cell growth, meaning it gets into the bioreactor. You have identified potential risks from salmonella and E. coli. Vow have made the claim that lab meats help antimicrobial resistance by using fewer antimicrobial products in production, cleaning and sanitising their factory than natural meat. How accurate is that statement?

Ms Leemhuis: Sorry; I’m not quite sure what statement you’re referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: Vow has made the claim that lab meats help antimicrobial resistance by using fewer antimicrobial products in production, cleaning and sanitising than is the case in natural meat. Is that correct?

Dr Cuthbert: I don’t know that it’s necessary for us to comment on the accuracy of a claim that a company is making. Our job is to ensure that we’re evaluating the safety of the product that’s before us to determine if it’s suitable and safe to be circulated for consumption. Whether it’s more or less than another process is not part of the process.

Senator ROBERTS: So I guess you’ll do that assessment as part of your approval process?

Mr Comley: What’s an absolute assessment?

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Mr Comley?

Mr Comley: Sorry; I should leave it to the food authority. I was just saying I think what Dr Cuthbert was saying is it’s an absolute assessment rather than relative assessment against other products that are on the market at the moment.

Dr Cuthbert: Exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Your documentation, some could say, dresses up this decision as some kind of saviour for the environment. I have circulated an Oxford University article and a peer reviewed paper that finds that very energy intensive bioreactors could have worse long-term environmental consequences than livestock farming in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions—CO2e. Now I don’t think the carbon dioxide production is at all a threat to humanity but, for those who do, recent calculations show that if we wanted to meet the additional demand for meat by 2030 exclusively with cultured meat we would have to build 150,000 bioreactors, which would produce 352 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent as against 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for natural livestock farming. Why shouldn’t people conclude that approving this lab meat is a terrible mistake?

Ms Leemhuis: Just in terms of our roles and responsibilities, it really is about the safety of this product. That’s the act. It says that our role is to assess the safety of the product for human consumption, which is the role we have taken in looking at this application—

Senator ROBERTS: And not just in the lab, but in practical terms.

Ms Leemhuis: rather than the carbon emissions. That’s not within our scope to consider; it’s the safety of the product.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you very much.

/by

Globalist bug plans hidden in government livestock agenda

Meat and Livestock Australia is meant to fight for cattle producers in Australia, making sure there’s plenty of cheap red meat available for Australians and the world. Instead, they are “aligning” themselves with the “sustainable development” goals of the United Nations. This is the same United Nations whose goals will result in less cattle, less meat and more bugs being eaten. You have to ask why the industry body for livestock isn’t standing against organisations that want to see livestock reduced.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for attending today. Can I start by confirming, Mr Strong, that the sustainability update 2021, this document, is designed to provide an update on the progress of the carbon neutral by 2030 road map?

Mr Stron g : Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. That was quick. I note the new document reproduces the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. So we’re all the way with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Is Meat & Livestock Australia endorsing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals relevant to the meat and livestock association, which I believe is eight of the goals? Is that correct?

Mr Strong : No, it’s not our position to endorse those goals. We’re just referencing them in the program so if people are aware of those broader commitments that have been made by the UN, for example, they can see where the activities in CN30 line up with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that driving you in any way? Guiding you?

Mr Strong : Like I said, it’s just a reference.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got here, in prime position on page 5, ‘Sustainability—Australian red meat and livestock industry alignment with global goals’.

Mr Strong : It’s referencing those goals.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re aligned with it.

Mr Strong : It’s a reference. The goal is to be CN30 as an industry. The important part of that document is what’s on the very front page; the statement that says something like, ‘The drivers’—you might even want to read it out.

Senator ROBERTS: This is quoting you:

Our industry is driven to be productive and profitable, inter-generationally sustainable and leaving the environment in better shape.

Then you go on to feature the UN sustainability goals.

Mr Strong : The reason we put that comment up front is that that’s the most important part of it. The efforts that we have—

Senator ROBERTS: Well, let’s continue—

Mr Strong : The efforts we have in this place and the focus we have in this space are very much driven by the profitability and production of our producers and industry.

Senator ROBERTS: Which of the UN sustainability goals does red meat fit into?

Mr Strong : I don’t have that in front of me. As I mentioned, it’s just a reference. The more important piece are the things that we’re investing in is a research and development corporation to support our producers and the industry to be more sustainable while they can still productive and profitable. That’s the focus.

Senator ROBERTS: You said while they can still be profitable? Sustainability, surely, if it’s genuine sustainability, they would be supported by that. It wouldn’t be opposite. It’s not productivity versus sustainability. If there’s genuine sustainability, that would help profitability. Your language betrays the UN. The UN sustainability goals are not possible without subsidies. So the UN really is about profit or sustainability. Now, what is it?

Mr Beckett : We think it’s both.

Mr Strong : I don’t have a position on the UN’s role. But our view is that you can actually be profitable, productive and sustainable.

Senator ROBERTS: There are eight sustainable development goals, which are not yours, that the MLA have targeted in this document and to which each RDC contributes. They are: zero hunger; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life on the land; and peace, justice and strong institutions. Have you got KPIs for each of those eight?

Mr Strong : As I mentioned at the start, that’s a reference to those goals. They’re not goals that we would set.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get on to the nuts and bolts then. What’s the average weekly adult consumption of red meat and red meat products in Australia?

Mr Strong : It depends how it’s measured. Red meat and red meat products, did you say?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes—red meat products being sausages, mince—

Mr Strong : Across all species, I’m not exactly sure. The total protein consumption is nearly 90 kilos, and red meat’s the largest contributor to that. The beef consumption that comes out of the ABS figures—which is as sold—is just over 19 kilos, which is the actual consumed product.

Senator ROBERTS: Over what period?

Mr Strong : That’s annually.

Senator ROBERTS: The United Nations is pushing for a 30 per cent reduction in methane production by 2030. How will that affect Australian red meat production?

Mr Strong : I’m not sure the two things are as closely connected as where you’re heading. The commitments that the red meat sector have, particularly the CN30 commitment, which was made in 2017, are about a path to being carbon neutral, as far as a total contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory is concerned, and about doing that in a way whereby the industry increases its production and profitability at the same time.

Senator ROBERTS: We need to get down to nuts and bolts, because it’s systems that drive behaviour, including farmers’ behaviour. The 2021 update says:

The red meat sector has reduced CO2 emissions by 53.22% since 2005 baseline.

What does that mean?

Mr Strong : The current number is actually 59 per cent, and that’s a number which has been calculated by the CSIRO using the national greenhouse gas emissions—

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO—what does it mean?

Mr Strong : The CSIRO?

Senator ROBERTS: No. What does that statement mean? It’s in your booklet.

Mr Strong : It’s the reduction across the industry of the contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on 2005?

Mr Strong : Since the baseline of 2005.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s going below 2005.

Mr Strong : In 2005, the contribution that the red meat sector made to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory was just over 20 per cent, and it’s now just over 10 per cent. That’s what it means.

Senator CANAVAN: Can I ask a follow-up question?

Senator ROBERTS: Can I keep going through these—unless I get the time?

Senator CANAVAN: I’ll ask after you.

Senator ROBERTS: There are only eight years left. Where are we now, and what measures will be needed to get to 100 per cent?

Mr Strong : Where we are now is that, as you mentioned, there are eight years left on that goal that the industry set in 2017, so we’ve more than halved the contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and we’ve got, as you mentioned, the roadmap that lays out the things that we’ll invest in and develop over the next eight years to take us the rest of that journey.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand a bit more. Genetics, feed management, feedlot, and fattening as opposed to grass finishing—that all helps. Right?

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: But they’re already doing these things close to saturation, as I understand it. So what else have you got?

Mr Strong : They’re not close to saturation. There’s a long list of things. To date, we’ve invested between $140 million and $150 million in research and development, and there’s a runway roadmap for about the same level of investment over the next few years to head us towards that goal.

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it the case that what you’ve really got to do in order to reach a 100 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 is cut production?

Mr Strong : No, not at all—absolutely not.

Senator ROBERTS: As I see it, this could be another major industry being derailed.

Mr Strong : No, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: The UN has put goals out with regard to food, and they’re basically wanting to cut food; they’ve stated that. The UN has put out goals regarding different energy, by which they really mean no energy. The UN has put out different cars, electric vehicles, they really mean no cars for the masses. This is what they’ve said: the UN calls for initially 500g per week of red meat, which is 70g per day. They failed to get an endorsement for much, much lower. That’s what the UN’s stated.

Mr Strong : I’m managing director of Meat and Livestock Australia. We’re a service organisation for the Australian red meat sector.

Senator ROBERTS: Who are you serving?

Mr Strong : We’re committed to the productivity and profitability of the red meat sector, intergenerational sustainability of the sector and leaving the environment in better shape. We are not aligned to the UN goals; we’re not driven by UN goals. We understand individuals concerned with those things; they are not the things driving our decisions or investments, which we make on behalf of the industry and with the industry. Our absolute focus is on the profitability, productivity and intergenerational sustainability of our sector.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: I understand some of these documents have gone from being fairly prominent on MLA’s website to being obscure.

Mr Strong : No, not at all. I’m more than happy to provide hard copies, soft copies—

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got them.

Mr Strong : links to, arrows to, extra versions.

Senator ROBERTS: A way to increase profitability for a few is to cut the number and dramatically increase meat prices.

Mr Strong : No. I’m aware of the comments that you made in the Senate about that. It’s absolutely not the truth. The commitment of MLA is about long-term profitability and productivity of the sector and supporting red meat production across the country.

Senator ROBERTS: We won’t have farmers scratching around, sitting in a town, relying on carbon dioxide credits while the others make money?

CHAIR: I will have to remind you of the time, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks Chair.

/15 Comments/by

Eat the bugs or have your credit score docked – the Trusted Digital Identity Bill

,

Remember the plan to restrict you to eating less than one bite of red meat per day? That’s only possible if the Government can track your every move with the Digital Identity Bill.

Transcript

The United Nations has a problem. How can they control the carbon footprint of the world’s citizens? Not the whole world of course, just the West, the United Nations Conference of Parties 26. Gave us an insight into the UN’s menu-plan, where Scott Morrison watched without criticising their demand to reduce the carbon footprint of our food supply, instead of counting calories,

Australians will soon have their culinary delights and choices dictated to us by an unelected socialist bureaucracy, very soon government will tell our farmers what they can grow and punish Australian consumers if they buy the wrong things. This has already started with frightening reform schedule for Australian agriculture. The dream of micromanaging individual carbon emissions hinges on the soon to be passed, so-called Trusted Digital Identity Bill.

If Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce want to achieve their Net Zero 2050 dream, freedoms must be slashed, removed, it is only through the relentless digital stalking of citizens that the Liberal National’s government can micromanage purchasing choices. Businesses are punished with tax, while consumers get their credit score docked. This already happens in China, where a person’s shopping list lowers their social credit score until they cannot travel.

In Australia, it may be as simple as denying banking services because you dare to drive a four wheel drive to work. Australian banks have already shown a keen interest in the Trusted Digital Identity Bill saying it will quote, “allow them to create a rich view of their customers”. These are the same banks that already list climate risk as a means to deny loans. When the Liberals tell you that digital identity will make your life easier, remember there is no such thing as a free lunch.

/4 Comments/by