Posts

Is there an mRNA Vaccine for Australian Cattle?

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chair: Which one are we on, Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: It is SQ23-000200.

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

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

Senator Roberts: You are involved?

Mr Strong: Correct.

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

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

Senator Roberts: That’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Roberts: Will the meat be labelled?

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

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

Senator Roberts: What is that, Mr Beckett?

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

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

Mr Strong: No. Not yet.

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Roberts: They are up next, I think.

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

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

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

Senator Roberts: So it’s very early days?

Mr Strong: Very early days, absolutely, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Roberts: If you could just let us know.

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

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

Mr Metcalfe: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you very much.

/24 Comments/by

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

A letter from a Butcher about meat prices increasing out of reach

,

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.

A letter from a constituent
Eat the Bugs Peasant – Meat and Livestock Australia
/2 Comments/by