There is an application being looked at right now for humans to be sold laboratory grown meat.
I want to know, if all of these plant meat, lab meat, beyond meat products are so good, why do they want to be called “meat”?
Unfortunately, the Senate voted down my motion to have this issue referred to an inquiry.
Transcript
As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our One Queensland community, I move:
That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September2023:
(a) the suitability for human consumption of in vitro protein, also known as lab-grown meat; and
(b) any other related matters.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand are processing an application right now to approve laboratory grown meat, known in Australia as in-vitro meat. It’s called cultured meat, although I can see nothing cultured about it; it’s slop. I’m horrified that bureaucrats, university academics and representatives of the business sector that will make bank out of this move could decide this once-in-a-century shift in agricultural production—conflicts of interest!
Today One Nation is moving to refer in-vitro meat to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry. This reflects that FSANZ, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, reports to the minister for agriculture.
There are 450,000 people employed in the red meat industry in Australia, working in 63,000 businesses, who collectively are the lifeblood of the bush, the lifeblood of our country. This does not include the poultry industry, which is the subject of this first fake meat application. The poultry industry produces 1.3 million tonnes annually of high-quality, affordable meat—white meat. This contributes $7.9 billion to our economy, employing another 58,000 Australians.
Seafood is another industry where in-vitro technology is being concocted. Seafood contributes $3.1 billion to the Australian economy, employing another 17,000 people. Australia exports beautiful natural produce which is in strong demand worldwide because of its high quality and reasonable price. The livelihoods of half a million Australians, and their families, rest on the outcome of this inquiry. The economic welfare of rural Australia rests on the outcome of this inquiry.
In-vitro meat has many issues that do need an inquiry. The cells that are cultured—yes, cultured—in an intensive near-urban-area industrial production facility are obtained using a painful muscle biopsy on a live animal. Every year, thousands of biopsies will be required to get the muscle cells needed to grow enough fake meat for projected production. At the same time, the Red Meat 2030 plan provides for a doubling of the price of red meat, pricing natural meat out of the reach of everyday Australians. This is an attempt to force the consumption of fake meat, like it or not.
In-vitro meat is a seismic shift in health, nutrition and culture. We don’t know what issues will arise on the production line for these products, or what diseases, what fungi or what bacteria will creep into a facility like this. Most likely, meat will still need antibiotics and chemicals to control such contamination. With in-vitro meat, the cancer risk is high, as cells are replicated over and over, increasing the chances of a cancerous mutation being packaged for sale. Real animals have a self-healing system, though, that hunts down and kills cancerous and precancerous cells every minute of every day. In-vitro cells do not.
An alternative technique to in-vitro replication of muscle cells is to use a bioreactor to use cornstarch, plant skeletons, fungi and gelatine to engineer fake meat in an immortal cell line. What a name—an immortal cell line. The final product has all the nutrition contained in whatever nutrient supplements or additives can be added to this slop before it is formed into fake meat. It is slop with nutrients.
The environmental credentials of in-vitro meat are suspect. In-vitro meat still needs food, hormones and growth factors to grow. The equation is still ‘energy in, stored energy out’. The faster the growth, the more profit is generated. And there will be a lot of profit. The billionaires who are lining up to bring in-vitro meat to the market are the same billionaires who are telling us how much damage cows are supposedly doing to the environment. Nobody is apparently concerned about the obvious conflict of interest.
Livestock production is not bad for the environment. Livestock farts, burps and belches are part of the biogenic carbon cycle, which works like this: plants absorb carbon dioxide and, through the process of photosynthesis, harness the energy of the sun to produce carbohydrates such as cellulose. Cattle are able to break down cellulose for food, releasing methane into the atmosphere. Methane is CH4. Note the ‘C’ for the carbon atom.
Over a 12-year period, the methane is converted back into carbon dioxide through hydroxyl oxidation, a naturally occurring process in our atmosphere. The carbon released in that process is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being stored in a plant and then released when the plant consumed it. It’s a cycle. For a constant herd size, the cattle industry is adding no additional methane to the atmosphere—none. Insect-based fake meats and lab-grown in-vitro fake meats are a solution to a problem that does not exist.
I know why this is happening. Fake meats offer a scalable production system in a controlled environment located right next to major markets, offering high profits on a predictable, stable cash flow, independent of weather conditions—natural weather conditions.
No wonder the billionaire predators that run the world are lining up for their slice of this new multibillion dollar market. All they have to do is get their mates, their underlings, in government and the bureaucracy to persecute farmers out of existence, and the market for fake meats will present itself. Look at Holland and New Zealand, and now look at America, Britain, Canada and, with this application, Australia.
Why should we even let them call this rubbish ‘meat’? Meat is a natural product brimming with goodness. Fake meat is a chemistry experiment that has more in common with pet food than human food. It is flavourless cells cultivated in a test tube, with additives for taste and additives for so-called ‘nutrition’. It’s fake. As Senator McDonald’s inquiry into the definitions of meat and other animal products recommended, this stuff should not be labelled or sold as meat.
Clarkson’s Farm, on Prime Video, has been, I’m sure, an eye-opener for city dwellers who have no clue how bad the persecution of farmers who grow our food has become. After watching the very entertaining Jeremy Clarkson teach himself farming, contending with the rules, the paperwork, the long hours, the lawyers, the activists, the heartbreak and the never-ending expense, one has to ask, ‘Why would farmers do it?’ That is the idea. If billionaire predators can get decent, hardworking, salt-of-the-earth farmers to walk off their land, walk away from the love of providing the public with nature’s bounty, they can sell their Frankenstein food from their factories and make out like bandits while wrecking the health of everyday citizens.
I hear people say that fake meat will be dearer than natural meat, yet the billionaires promoting this putrid slop are not spending all this money just to make a product that is less tasty, less nutritious, less safe and dearer than the competition. Production volumes will soon ramp up, and quality and safety checks will be compromised to ensure the product is cheaper. The war on farmers will keep ramping up until room in the market has been conjured for their fake meat.
I understand that Labor, the Greens and teal Senator Pocock will oppose this motion, How can the Labor Party possibly still consider themselves the party of the people when over and over they sell out the people? The further left the teals, Greens and Labor Party march, the less relevant they become to the lives of everyday Australians and, worse, the more harm they do to the lives of everyday Australians.
I thank Senator McDonald for her comments and ask the Senate for its support for this motion. As long as we have amazing farmers bringing us natural, safe, nutritious protein, the world will never need dangerous food grown in a laboratory.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/79CuRWooavU/hqdefault.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-03-23 16:24:172023-03-23 16:24:23Would you eat “meat” grown in a lab petrie dish?
If Climate Change talk-fest COP doesn’t want to come to Australia that’s their loss. We’ll keep our abundant protein-rich red meat, delicious range of seafood, cheap and reliable coal-fired power, huge gas reserves and efficient petrol and diesel cars. Let COP eat their bugs in the dark while they wait for their electric vehicles to charge.
Transcript
Great news, Vanuatu still exists.
Experts told us it would now be underwater due to global warming and rising sea levels. Just like Al Gore forecast Mount Kilimanjaro would have no snow by 2016.
How many islands has Vanuatu lost due to rising sea levels? None. Mount Kilimanjaro is still topped with icy white powder.
Maybe that’s why it’s now called climate change instead of global warming?
I thank the Australian Greens for this breaking news that Vanuatu’s climate minister would only back Australia’s bid to host the 2026 Conference Of Parties, COP, if Australia doesn’t commit to any new coal or gas projects.
With that headline the solution is clear.
Australia must immediately fund and build as many coal and gas projects as humanly possible so there’s no chance we’ll have to host the expensive UN-WEF talk fest for climate elites, the 2026 COP.
What is the COP?
The UN’s Conference Of Parties involves millionaires, billionaires and politicians bouncing around the world in fuel-guzzling private jets to luxurious locations.
Gorging themselves on prime beef while preaching to we lowly peasants to reduce our carbon dioxide footprint, stop flying, stop driving and stop eating red meat.
If the 2026 COP was hosted in Australia, taxpayers would be forking out for the UN’s globalist elite talk fest.
We’d be paying for them to tell us to destroy our energy grid and commit economic suicide to appease the sun gods.
If COP doesn’t want to come to Australia that’s their loss. We’ll keep our abundant protein-rich red meat, delicious range of seafood, cheap and reliable coal-fired power, huge gas reserves and efficient petrol and diesel cars.
Let COP eat their bugs in the dark while waiting for their electric vehicles to charge.
We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/00H50W31Bgo/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-11-23 16:32:072022-11-23 16:32:13Climate talk-fest not coming to Australia is a win!
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/8mJfG0wSNhk/hqdefault.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2022-11-01 15:20:452022-11-01 15:20:50Demonisation of beef doesn’t have a leg to stand on
This was a letter I received after I questioned Meat and Livestock Australia about how they planned to make more money out of cattle without having more cattle in Australia. It all ties into the elites plan to have the peasants eat bugs.
I’m a passionate second-generation butcher, 40 years of age. Your questions to the head of Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) about meat prices were very impressive. The MLA l agree are doing a great job in production of better cattle. But, I’d like to say the reason for sending this letter is the supply chain above the retail sector has not acknowledged that the sharp price increase of meat in the past 8 years is hurting the consumer, who we butchers serve on the front line.
The quickness of the increases is strangling butchers and customers in demographic areas where people are mostly cooking at home and can’t afford to eat out. It saddens me seeing customers changing what they are purchasing from us as they can no longer afford to buy their steaks for dinner, opting for cheaper cuts and minimal weights. I am seeing a major shift in what customers can afford to eat which was never an issue with meat in the past.
Without prejudice I can say that all our suppliers we speak to are nearly happy with the price increases which is concerning me as they look at export profits over our own people. It saddens me to say that what you mentioned in your questioning, I can completely back and say it is what’s been going on in a way that’s hurting our own consumers.
It’s making the wealthy minority happy to a point where middle to low-income people in our own country can no longer afford to eat meat. The direction of the MLA will do nothing except help increase prices. This has been shown to me as a reader and a member of the MLA, it’s all about trying to increase meat prices.
https://cdn.seeklearning.com.au/media/images/career-guide/module/butcher-module.jpg330760Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-07-04 15:45:452022-07-04 15:59:58A letter from a Butcher about meat prices increasing out of reach
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.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/DIB3-free-lunch.00_00_03_13.Still001.png?fit=682%2C384&ssl=1384682Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-04-21 13:26:122022-04-21 13:27:31Eat the bugs or have your credit score docked – the Trusted Digital Identity Bill
I investigated where Meat and Livestock Australia is taking the $28bn red meat industry. It is clear that the industry plan titled “Red Meat 2030” does not tell the full story. Red Meat 2030 is a strategic plan to double the value of the red meat industry without increasing herd numbers or prices, whilst bringing the industry to net zero emissions. This sounds like a fairy-tale and yet the Liberal/Nationals Government is selling this plan to farmers with a straight face.
In answer to my questions on Tuesday Jason Strong, Managing Director of Meat and Livestock Australia made the stunning admission the Red Meat 2030 plan is not a plan but an “ambitious goal” – bureaucrat speak for a political goal not a planning goal. MLA do not have a plan for how to deliver the 100% increase in the value of the red meat market.
Improvements to feed composition, genetics, transport and finishing have led to a 13% increase in weight. Where is the other 87% increase coming from if herd numbers are not increased?
Tuesday’s answers give us a hint of what is really planned. To explain, at the moment marginal farming land produces meat that sells in the cheaper end of the market, mostly through major supermarkets. This allows everyday Australians to buy red meat as a routine part of their diet. Once MLA complete this plan, there will be no more of this reasonably-priced meat. The only red meat produced in Australia will be a premium product to go on the tables of the very wealthy, with most production being exported to wealthy citizens of other countries. That is where the 87% price increase comes from.
Red Meat 2030 is a plan to take red meat off the table of everyday Australians. This is implementing the political goals of the United Nations to reduce red meat consumption to 14g – one mouthful – a day. I spoke about this UN plan in my speech to the Senate recently. A vote for the Liberal, Nationals, Labor or Greens is a vote for taking red meat off the table of everyday Australians through their Red Meat 2030 plan.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for attending. May I start by complimenting Meat & Livestock Australia on their Australia Day TV advertisement. I loved it.
This is my first question. Mr Strong, in your letter to me, dated 27 October 2021, you acknowledged that the data I quoted at the last Senate estimates from a report published on the CSIRO website titled ‘Australian cattle herd: a new perspective on structure, performance and production’, dated 2021, was correctly quoted. I thank you for that and accept that Meat & Livestock Australia consider the figure I used is higher than what you would use. The lead author of that report, Dr Geoffry Fordyce, works for Meat & Livestock Australia on your NB2 herd pillar feed base program. Is that correct?
Mr Strong : He certainly has. I’m not sure if he’s currently contracted, but certainly he has worked with us, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So my decision to use the data that I used was logical, then, wasn’t it?
Mr Strong : Partially, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to turn to the Meat & Livestock Australia Strategic Plan 2025. You’re familiar with that. On page 4—these are your own words, Mr Strong—it says:
With a new whole‑of‑industry strategic plan in place, Red Meat 2030—
that’s the name of your plan—
there is an opportunity for MLA to drive transformational change. We have to find ways to support the industry to deliver on its ambitious vision of doubling the value of red meat sales.
Could you please specify what percentage of this 100 per cent increase in sales revenue will come from price rises and what percentage will come from sales volume increases.
Mr Strong : The Red Meat 2030 plan is actually the industry plan that was put together by RMAC. It’s a 10-year plan that the industry collectively put together. Our five-year plan then fits in behind that. We’ve adopted the same overarching goal and the six pillars—
Mr Strong : That’s our five-year plan. It draws on the Red Meat 2030 plan, which is the broader industry plan. It doesn’t specify what component of that growth comes from price or volume. Speaking from opinion, having been involved in that process, the setting of that target was being ambitious for the future of the industry in creating and capturing value but also making sure that we weren’t, as an industry, limited to price or volume. The industry, collectively, has over the last 30 years invested in a significant range of activities—not just with Meat & Livestock Australia and our R&D and marketing but with a range of other activities as well—for us to produce a higher quality, more consistent, traceable and guaranteed product but also to take advantage of or participate in the preferential market access that we have available to us. So there are opportunities for us to increase productivity, but there are also opportunities for us to create and capture more value in higher quality products where we have preferential access to high-quality markets. So it’s a combination of both.
Senator ROBERTS: Pardon me, but it sounds like waffle. Who are you trying to convince here? The farmers, the producers, need to have some kind of faith in what you’re leading and yet you’re telling me now that it’s just an ambitious plan with no limit on price or volume. Surely this has all been modelled.
Mr Strong : There are a number of things sitting behind it, but I think it’s quite the opposite to waffle. It’s providing opportunity in multiple areas rather than restricting it to one.
Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. Opportunity comes from knowing something about it. What you’re saying here is: ‘We haven’t done this. It’s an opportunity because it hasn’t been modelled.’
Mr Strong : The opportunity comes from the investments that the broader industry has made over the last 20 or 30 years in having a consistent, quality, traceable product—with a quality assurance program behind it—that is being sold at higher prices into markets where we now have preferential access.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, but you’re still talking very generally. To double the value of red meat sales you need to double the price if the herd stays flat.
Mr Strong : If the volume stays the same. The volume can increase if the herd stays the same size. You can have increased carcase weight or increased productivity.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, 13 per cent is your increased carcase weight. There doesn’t seem to be any real meat in this.
Mr Strong : There’s an outcomes report that actually lays out some of the progress that has already been made. Look at something like Meat Standards Australia, which is the eating quality program. Last year it added $158 million in value to farmgate revenue for producers and over the last 10 years it has created more than $1 billion in value at the farmgate. We can share with you the extension adoption report, which does list some very specific areas, like Meat Standards Australia, like the Profitable Grazing Systems program and the Producer Demonstration Sites program, which have quantified increases in farmgate value and also increases on a per hectare basis of benefit to producers of adopting the things that the industry has invested in.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll accept that, if you’d like to send us that. The fundamental figure though is 100 per cent increase in value with flat herd size.
Mr Strong : No, it’s not, Senator. There’s nothing about a flat herd size. It is doubling the value of red meat sales over a 10-year period.
Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:
We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.
I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?
Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?
Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.
Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.
Mr Strong : Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.
Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?
Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.
Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.
Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.
Mr Str ong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?
Mr Strong : We can provide you with some.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ve got questions on this. Perhaps, if you stick around, we can talk about it.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. I’ve only got two more questions. Can you provide that breakdown?
Mr Strong : We can provide some. As I say, that’s an industry broader 10-year goal. In our five-year plan we’ve laid out a range of areas that we’re investing in, so we can certainly provide you with a range of activities that are currently underway. And, like I mentioned before, the outcomes report will give you some evidence of where that progress has already been shown.
Senator ROBERTS: Just to summarise, I’m concerned—and hopefully your figures will alleviate that concern—that what you’re relying upon is a huge increase in price, which will hurt the consumer. The second thing I’m concerned about is why this is being done. Let’s listen to the chair’s questions and let’s get the figures from you.
My last two questions: I acknowledge from your letter that there’s been a reduction in carbon dioxide production of 53 per cent since 2000 by the Australian red meat industry. Again, there’s never been any evidence produced that carbon dioxide needs to be cut from human activity. This has been driven by measures that are now in place. How will you get the other 47 per cent, other than calling the permanent herd reduction numbers a net zero measure?
Mr Strong : There are a range of things already underway and a couple we can point to straightaway including feed supplements. There are two good examples of that.
Mr Strong : No, additional feed supplements that will go into a ration, for example. The red asparagopsis seaweed product has demonstrated to reduce the production of methane by more than 90 per cent. There’s also a synthetic version of the same type of component, which so far has demonstrated the same type of effect. So feed supplements are certainly a key opportunity in reducing the amount of methane being produced.
One of the other areas relates to things we’ve just been talking about, which is increasing productivity from the herd that we have through improved genetics, improved productivity through the things we were just talking about. So there are a number of areas in addition to a stable herd which are already largely proven and underway. We’re only a couple of years into the path to 2030.
Senator ROBERTS: WWF in America has been on a concerted campaign to kill the beef industry. The same organisation is doing the same here in this country, and cattle graziers have told me that. So there’s a lot of pressure on the beef industry, its very existence, for political reasons, not economic or scientific reasons. Do you, as the MLA, just accept the mantra that we need to cut the carbon dioxide produced by humans or human activity, or do you actually have scientific justification for accepting that?
Mr Strong : It’s not our position to enter into that discussion.
Mr Strong : It’s not the environment to have a position either way. This is an industry goal, which is ambitious, but what’s really important is that we don’t think about CN30 in the absence of profitability, productivity and intergeneration sustainability. There’s nothing that we’re doing or investing in that doesn’t have a lens on profitability or productivity of the industry at the same time as thinking about its impact on the environment.
Senator ROBERTS: I would beg to differ. It seems to me that you need to have a sound rationale for why you’re doing these things and I have yet to see any proof of that. Feeding seaweed to cattle, feed supplements: surely there’s cost in there. You’re asking farmers to change their practices which could increase costs further. It seems like the doomsayers that have been hitting our electricity sector, our transport sector, our regulatory sector are now hitting our agriculture sector in many, many ways.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5EzJvGrH7YY/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-04-08 14:28:372022-04-08 14:37:04Eat the Bugs Peasant – Meat and Livestock Australia
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.
https://www.vetvoice.com.au/imagevault/publishedmedia/3zebrp4o7obvodx3cwjv/vet_voice_-_cows_-_group.jpg399836Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-07-31 15:12:002021-08-24 10:33:25PFAS is a toxic problem for Australia and the Beef Industry
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.
