Posts

Bugs for Dinner? Not on My Watch!

,

Has the price of a steak taken your breath away recently? That’s because the government wants you eating bugs or lab grown cells, not organic red meat.

In 2022, I confronted Meat and Livestock Australia directly. They were signed up to the crazy plan of ‘net zero’ by 2030.

The only way they ever could have achieved this is by killing off cows, reducing the total number across the country. That means good farm-grown meat would be too expensive for the peasants, but the elites jetting off to Davos every year would be able to afford it.

Three years later, Meat and Livestock have just admitted they are ditching their net-zero 2030 goals, exactly like I told them to do three years ago. Yet, they’re still committed to doing it by 2050.

End the nonsense. Ditch net-zero and make meat affordable for every Aussie house!

Meat and Livestock Australia drops 2030 carbon neutral target | The Australian

Transcript

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: Yes, if you could, please.

Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.

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 : In part, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?

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.

Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?

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.

Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?

Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—

Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.

Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.

Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?

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 Strong : 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.

/5 Comments/by

The Threat From Lab-Grown Meat is Lost on FSANZ

,

I have asked, over multiple estimate sessions, about the approval process for lab-grown meat. While I acknowledge and understand Food Standard Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) need to take their time with this decision, the process seems more about ticking the boxes rather than conducting a serious investigation into the potential health impacts of this Frankenstein food product.

Australia has the highest quality farm produce globally, with the capability to both feed our population and export protein. There is absolutely no need for lab-grown meats. The process of cultivating muscle cells from live cattle via biopsy in a bio-reactor to create meat, bears a resemblance to how cancer cells replicate.

Lab-grown meat has the nutritional value of whatever it has been cultivated in. There’s no chance this product will match the nutritional value and safety of real meat.

One Nation believes that before lab-grown meat is approved, extensive generational testing must be conducted to assess the impact of this product on human cells, including testing for potential damage to reproductive capacity and to the development of cancers – a process known as genotoxicity testing. If such testing were performed on rats (a perfectly valid method), it would have been completed by now. The lack of such testing is alarming and begs the question – why has it not been conducted?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. At last estimates, I asked about genotoxicity of products grown in a bioreactor—lab meat. Your answer on notice—and thank you for providing this—was: ‘There are no safety concerns, including genotoxicity.’ Is that still your position?  

Dr Cuthbert: Yes, it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your answer doesn’t address my question. I didn’t ask if you had no genotoxicity concerns. I asked, and now repeat: have you received genotoxicity testing on this or a similar product from a suitable jurisdiction?  

Dr Cuthbert: I’ll pass to Dr O’Mullane, who is the general manager for risk management and intelligence and is managing the assessment.  

Dr O’Mullane: Thank you for the question. If I could just go back to a statement around genotoxicity or carcinogenicity, and that is that the starting material for these types of cell based meat products are cells taken from healthy animals. They are not cancerous cells and they are not cancer cells. They are cells that are harvested from connective tissue, from muscle tissue, from skin tissue. They are then taken into a bioreactor and they are selected. There are natural variants that can live for a reasonable period of time in that bioreactor under very specific and controlled conditions, along with tissue culture media components. Taken outside of that bioreactor, they are not capable of surviving. They are not going to survive food processing activities or cooking; they would certainly not survive through the human digestive tract. So our position very clearly is that the cells that are used in terms of the quail application that we’re currently looking at don’t pose any cancer concerns. They’re not cancerous. That view is held not specifically for these quail cells but certainly in a more general sense via the US Food and Drug Administration who have made statements in this effect and also the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, who provided a report last year around cell cultured foods, and they have made similar statements. To your question on genotoxicity data, I don’t believe that genotoxicity data was provided as part of this application. I will confirm that. So the characterisation of the safety risks are very much around the molecular characterisation of the cells and what is involved with the actual culture media. So we are confident that these cells and the actual products that are generated from those cells aren’t going to pose a human health and safety concern. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you have not received genotoxicity testing on this or a suitable product from a suitable jurisdiction?  

Dr O’Mullane: I don’t believe we have. But I will confirm that on notice if I may.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How can you say then that you have no genotoxicity testing concerns if you haven’t done or seen genotoxicity testing?  

Dr O’Mullane: Based on the points that I’ve already made. It is based on the actual characteristics of the cells. These are entirely normal cells that have been taken out of healthy animals. So there is no plausible reason to consider that they would have any sort of cancer or genotoxicity potential.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re relying upon the FDA in America?  

Dr O’Mullane: We are not relying on the FDA. As part of this particular application, certain data have been provided. We are still going through an active process of scientific evaluation which is still running for at least another six months. On the basis of what we have seen to date, we went out with a first public consultation ending in February this year. The risk assessment that we put out very clearly said that there were no human health and safety concerns. If there is any additional information that might be available, either from yourself or others, that could be submitted, we would certainly be happy to look at that and see whether we needed to make any sort of adjustments. But, based on the evidence that we’ve seen to date, we are confident in the safety of this particular cell based quail.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’ve done no genotoxicity testing. What is the state of approval for Vow Group’s application to produce imitation quail meat in a bioreactor for human consumption?  

Dr O’Mullane: I mentioned that there was a first public consultation round earlier in the year. We’re due to go out with a second public consultation round in July. Then there will be a period of time where we will evaluate any submissions. That second so-called call for submissions report will include the proposed legal drafting: things like labelling that will appear in the Food Standards Code. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on our legal drafting in terms of its clarity and enforceability. We then go through a period of proposing a so-called approval report for the FSANZ Board to make a decision. At the moment we’re looking at around the end of the year, probably in December. Once the FSANZ Board has made a decision, there’s a 60-day window where that decision is notified to food ministers, who then have the opportunity to call for a review of that decision or not. Following that, if everything goes smoothly, it would be gazetted and then go into food law.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve in embarked on consultation?  

Dr O’Mullane: This is considered a major application, so we’re required to undertake two rounds of public consultation. We’ve undertaken one round, and we’re about to take—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve finished the first round. You’re about to start the second.  

Dr O’Mullane: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then the approvals will continue without any further testing, and, even if you give approval, it will be the subject of the health ministers and the states to object if they want to.  

Dr O’Mullane: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they got the capacity to do their own testing? They’d be relying on you.  

Dr O’Mullane: Yes. They would certainly provide us with very detailed commentary around why they were calling for the FSANZ Board to review its decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who decides use of the word ‘meat’, which the public rightly associates with an animal product, not a laboratory product? 

Dr O’Mullane: In relation to the current quail application, as part of the first public consultation we’ve looked at possible options for labelling and what it may be called. Where we are heading to at the moment is either ‘cell cultured’ or ‘cell cultivated’ quail. Based on the consumer feedback that we’ve had, that seems to be best understood by consumers. In terms of the use of the term ‘meat’, you’re right that there is a specific definition of meat in the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, which is defined there. But if the term ‘meat’ is used in an accurate context so as not to mislead consumers it could potentially be used in a different context.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean?  

Dr O’Mullane: For example, use of the term ‘milk’. Milk is defined in the Food Standards Code, but milk can also be used in the context of soy milk or oat milk. In that context it’s not misleading because consumers generally know that it’s not from an animal, similar to the use of the term ‘beer’ in ginger beer or ‘bread’ in shortbread. It’s around the context of use that we need to look.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your reply also states that FSANZ is a member of the World Health Organization’s technical working group on cell based food as well as an OECD expert group on cell based food. Can Australians have confidence this decision is all your own work instead of being guided by foreign commercial interests?  

Dr O’Mullane: We’re still going through an active process at the moment. The food hasn’t actually been approved. If it is approved by the FSANZ Board, it will be because there is a scientific weight of evidence supporting the safety and suitability of the cell cultured quail. If it does end up on supermarket shelves, consumers can be confident that that’s the case and that the food will be labelled appropriately so that consumers can understand the true nature of the food and that they can make informed purchasing decisions. Senator ROBERTS: But you’re doing no further testing, including no genotoxicity testing.  

Dr O’Mullane: We don’t specifically do testing. We rely on the evidence that the applicant has provided, and there are—  

Senator ROBERTS: You rely on the evidence the applicant has provided?  

Dr O’Mullane: We rely on the evidence the applicant has provided in the context of the legislative requirements to provide certain information, data and studies. That is supplemented by our own scientific searches of the literature.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is a new field, yet you’re relying on regulations or legislation made in this building?  

Dr O’Mullane: We’re relying on scientific information. It’s a weight of scientific evidence that will then support the decision one way or the other about whether to permit this cell cultured quail product. 

/7 Comments/by

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

The UN-WEF Menu Plan for the West

,

The UN-WEF menu plan for the West is about power over the necessities of life — food, energy and water. This unelected socialist bureaucracy, with their loyalty directed to foreign power centres, are busy punishing you and the Australian economy using this made-up concept of a carbon footprint.

The truth is, our agricultural footprint in Australia does not contribute to global “emissions” — not that this would be a problem anyway. Australia has so many trees, grass and crops that every atom of CO2 and methane we produce is re-absorbed into the environment, producing higher growth and heathier soils.

During question time, I asked Senator Wong to provide the figures used to justify the Albanese Government’s nation-killing environmental policies. No sensible answer was received. This debate must be about science and data, not scare campaigns and hubris.

The war on farming is not about the environment, it’s about control. It creates a false sense of food scarcity to make lab-grown, food-like substances a profitable industry for the predatory billionaires.

One Nation will always stand up for Australia’s farmers and rejects the UN-WEF goals of food supply control.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator Gallagher: Could you repeat the question? We missed the last 15 seconds of it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Senator, I am awaiting statistics as we speak, but what I can say to you, and as someone who was the climate change minister, is that there is opportunity in agriculture to deal with climate change. As you know, for many years the National Farmers Federation had a much more forward-leaning policy than the coalition when it came to agriculture and climate change. I’m advised it’s in the order of 16 to 17 per cent. Thank you very much, Senator Watt. For the year to June 2023, the agriculture sector was responsible for 17.7 per cent of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. 

Modelling by ABARES shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. I recall that one of the early reports I read which made me so much more acutely aware of the risk to agriculture of climate change was a report which CSIRO did many years ago, before we won government in 2007. It modelled that Goyder’s line would move south of Clare. For anybody from South Australia—and I know that would be very bad news for Senator Farrell in particular—who knows what the mid-north is like, that is a very frightening prospect. We do think it is important to look at how it is that our food and fibre producers can best adapt to a changing climate. Many are already doing so and are obviously involved in the discussions with government about climate policy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: As the World Economic Forum were meeting in Davos last month, the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, stated that agriculture accounts for between 26 and 33 per cent of world emissions and will account for half a degree of warming by 2050. He further stated that a warming planet will grow less food, not more, and so farming needs to be a major focus of reducing human carbon dioxide production. Minister, how do you reconcile the production of food accounting for between 26 and 33 per cent of emissions with your figure of 17.7? 

Senator WONG: There’s a different denominator, Senator. One is as a percentage of Australian emissions, and one is as a percentage of global emissions. I also am unclear from the context and detail of the quote you gave me whether or not Special Envoy Kerry was dealing with food production further downstream as well. I don’t know what he’s referring to. But I certainly agree with what he was saying about the implications for food security. 

What is also true is that not only is that a substantial issue for Australia, because it will affect our capacity to produce the levels of grain production we have, which is obviously very important for our economy, but also the nations on who this will fall most hard are those nations who have the least capacity to be resilient to this change. If you look at countries like Bangladesh— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The methane cycle, soil carbon sequestration and forest carbon sequestration absorb all Australian agricultural emissions, meaning Australian agriculture contributes nothing to global emissions. Minister, is the war on farming not about the environment but rather about creating a false scarcity of food to force the adoption of laboratory-grown food-like substances that predatory billionaires own for their profit and control? 

Senator WONG: Senator, there’s a lot in that question, but I want to go back to the fundamental proposition: climate change is already affecting our agricultural production now. I read to you the figures earlier: ABARES modelling shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. No, you don’t like the facts, and we know— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick? 

Senator Rennick: A point of order, Madam President: models are not facts. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, that’s a debating point. Minister Wong, please continue. 

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I understand your views on this. I disagree with them. What I would say to you is this: if you go and talk to a lot of Australia’s primary producers, if you go and talk to primary producers in the Pacific— 

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Canavan. 

Senator WONG: or South-East Asia, the truth is that people are already experiencing the impact of climate change on agricultural production. We might want to wish it away for ideological reasons, as Senator Canavan does, but— (Time expired) 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to wait for silence. 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to call an opposition senator, so those senators interjecting are wasting her time. 

/11 Comments/by