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

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

PFAS is a toxic problem for Australia and the Beef Industry

Available on these platforms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FSANZ must introduce a national standard for PFAS in food.

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

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

/by

Meat and Livestock – PFAS

, ,

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

Transcript

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

Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] What about the other two?

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

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

Your industry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] What is your role?

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] You’re just watching this?

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

/by