David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

Despite being a retailer, a business previously known as shopkeeping, Coles apparently believes it knows enough about pig production to tell pig farmers how to produce their pigs. And if they do not do as they are told, Coles will not sell their pork. This leads to results that are bad for pig farmers, bad for the pig industry, bad for animal welfare and even bad for Coles's customers who eat pork.

A few years ago a product known as IMPROVAC came on the market. It is a simple injection given to male piglets when they are small which blocks the production of male hormones. IMPROVAC is innovative technology, an immunological product similar to a vaccine. It is not like a traditional chemical or a hormone. It leaves no residues, it has no side effects and it has no negatives for the environment or consumers. The same technology is starting to be used in other species.

Coles tells its pork suppliers not to use IMPROVAC. That is not because it has superior scientific knowledge to the regulator, the APVMA, which approved IMPROVAC, and not because it knows more about pig farming than pig farmers; it is so it can say to consumers, 'We don't sell pork that contains things'—things it knows nothing about, but which it thinks sound bad. It feeds on ignorance and bigotry about agriculture.

The reason pig farmers want to use IMPROVAC, and indeed should use it, is that it blocks the production of androgenic hormones in young male pigs. As they reach puberty, male pigs become aggressive and fight each other, similar to teenage boys. This is not harmless fun. They end up covered in bites and cuts. Some are more seriously injured. They are seriously stressed. And, because they are so busy fighting each other, they eat less food and do not grow as fast. A pen of adolescent female pigs, by contrast, is placid, with very little fighting.

Another consequence of the upsurge in the production of male hormones is that they cause an unpleasant taste in the meat, known as boar taint. Not everyone cares about it, but there are many consumers who have unwittingly bought pork, encountered boar taint, and sworn never to buy pork again. Some meat buyers insist on pork from female pigs. Asian markets are particularly sensitive to boar taint and, in the past, some pork export markets have insisted that the meat must only come from female pigs. Obviously, this is not something to be encouraged. Pig farming would not be viable if only female pigs were used.

In the past, pig farmers had two options. One was to surgically castrate male pigs prior to puberty so that the hormones were not produced. This was effective, but has obvious animal welfare issues. We are not talking about an operating theatre and peaceful anaesthetic. It also has an economic effect: the shock of castration stops growth for a while, and then the loss of the anabolic effect of male hormones means the pigs do not grow as fast as they would if they remained entire. The other option was to slaughter male pigs at a young age prior to puberty kicking in. This is far from ideal in terms of the type of pork produced and not very efficient either.

So what Coles has is a policy that is bad for pig welfare, because it results in unnecessary pain and suffering due to injuries from fighting, plus it promotes castration. It has a policy that is bad for pig farmers. They miss out on the benefits that IMPROVAC offers of faster growth rates and lower costs of production. It has a policy that is bad for the pig industry, which loses customers who are turned off by boar taint. And, last but not least, it has a policy that is bad for its customers. Pork is a wonderful product yet, because Coles rejects IMPROVAC, it is more likely consumers will encounter boar taint and be turned off it or go elsewhere in the hope that the pork will not be tainted. Coles does not actually care about pig welfare or the pig industry or its own customers. It just wants to be able to tell a nonsense story to gullible consumers. It perpetuates the myth that agricultural production involves the use of dodgy products and that shopkeepers have the competence to avoid that. It is a disgrace.