Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I support Senator Roberts's motion for a committee inquiry because I think that transparency in the decisions we make around food is critical. It's important. Nobody should be afraid of transparency and inquiries into something like this. So I congratulate Senator Roberts for bringing this forward.

The food we eat is the most important thing that we think about each day. Some of us are better at thinking about it than others. I'm afraid that I fall off the wagon regularly with things that are certainly not approved on the healthy foods list. But, generally, we think about food a lot, particularly the food that we give our children and that we put on plates to share with our families and friends. We think about it in terms of cost and we think about it in terms of nutrition. When we plate up, we think about whether we going to be regarded as a superhero. I learnt a lot about that from running butcher shops. Those are the sorts of decisions that we as humans make as we decide what it is that we're going to feed our loved ones, our in-laws and ourselves.

This idea of having an inquiry into what cell based meat protein is, what in-vitro food is, makes complete sense. It makes complete sense to provide an environment where Australians and other people around the world can see a very open and transparent discussion. I believe there is nothing to be afraid of from either the meat industry or the cell based meat industry, because we should welcome consumers feeling confident in the food that they buy.

Last week I had the benefit of being at a summit with a very interesting panel of people. One of them researches the human desire for food and what the future of food will look like. There is a great deal of data that shows that consumers are looking for an understanding of what they eat, of trust in what they eat. Australian farmers are very high on the list of trusted professions. I believe at the moment it is doctors, nurses, farmers. There has been a huge investment into people understanding where their food is grown and how it's grown, and we should celebrate that. But, if there are new entrants to the market, they are actually seeking that same tick, that same quality understanding, that same desire from humans that this is something they should feel confident about.

This application that's in process for in-vitro protein has gone before FSANZ. I have to tell you that I am not satisfied that they are a transparent organisation, because, in 2016, they allowed an application from a major food manufacturer to go through to change the definition of meat. They allowed it to become so broad that you can now have processed vegetables, processed plant protein, being called meat. Put a picture of the animal on the front and talk about meat, and that's branded on the product. I'm not afraid of that, but it's not right. We spend so much time demanding that consumers have truth in labelling, that they can trust the claims that are made, and yet we allowed a process to go through that, frankly, allowed consumers to be misled. The idea of this referral that Senator Roberts is making is about transparency and about confidence, and I would hope that one element of that will be the definition of what this is.

One of the people I met during the process of the inquiry was Professor Paul Wood AO. Just last week, Professor Wood addressed the Rural Press Club in Queensland. He talked about exactly this topic—the production of cell based meats. This is an important topic not just because of consumer sentiment and not just because of nutrition. We have recently seen a whole lot of startups that have taken taxpayers' dollars and the hard-earned dollars of mum-and-dad investors, and, very sadly, those startups have not been able to support the claims they have made, and millions of dollars have been wasted.

The problem is not that the project is unworthy of investigation; it's that their claims have been too great—too outlandish. It reminds me of when you get a rush on a market: 'This is so exciting! We're going to pour money into these things!' You then run the very real risk of cell based claims doing what has already been done with plant based claims and of people losing a lot of money.

These claims being made about the production systems do bear scrutiny. Will they stand up to the scrutiny of a senate inquiry? If they have nothing to be frightened of, then they should welcome this.

This government has come in based on them saying: 'We believe in transparency. We believe in a new kind of government.' Well, this is just one more example of how hypocritical that is, because, the moment we want to shine some light on a very important topic, it's: 'No; we're going to shut that down. We're going to shut down any transparency of examination.'

There is no risk, I believe, that these new plant based proteins or cell based technologies are going to drive out production by traditional farming methods. They just won't. As much as some people—like my good friends in the Greens, and like some industry people—would like to have us believe it is, this is not about a competition between red meat, or farming organisations, and these new products. Please do not think that is the point of what I'm trying to say tonight.

I'm trying to say that there is a new technology coming to town which, if it were successful, could potentially feed poorer parts of the world—parts of Africa and South America—by providing a different form of protein. But billions of dollars are being poured into this new technology and into an estimated 150 cultivated-meat startups around the world, because they're betting that investor money that they'll be able to produce lab-grown protein alternatives at a commercially viable scale, while also attracting customers. Now, that is a noble and fair pursuit of commerce. That is the way the world works: new products come to market; they're invested in; and then consumers make a decision about whether or not that is going to go ahead. But, given some of the technological issues, that has a very real risk of actually sending a lot of these investors and companies to the wall, because the science is very difficult. It is very challenging.

Some cell-based-meat startups have publicly announced that they have commissioned fermentation vessels of up to 250,000 litres in size. The biggest that has ever been done to date in cell culture has been about 10,000 to 20,000 litres. So this is the first example of a commercial claim of a company that is attracting investor dollars but that is not supported by any technology or any manufacturing process in the world to date. I think that it is only fair that we start allowing people to have a transparent discussion of what these technologies are and whether or not they are a whole lot of hype.

I've got no doubt the technology works. We've seen it in Japan. They can produce pieces of protein that look like meat grown from an animal. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is these products being sold as if they are an investment certainty. If that is not worthy of a Senate inquiry—of the full public examination that we have the benefit of having in this country—then I don't know what is. I want to know what the government is frightened of and what the Greens are frightened of. When did they become frightened of transparency and good public decision-making? This is the point of the Senate! This is the reason why our forefathers designed an upper house: to allow us to have an in-depth look at legislation about government investment and at issues that keep Australians awake at night. This is a perfect example of a new technology, where an application is going to FSANZ and there will be absolutely no scrutiny by Australians. They deserve to know if this is a good idea. Does it work scientifically? Are there manufacturing schemes that allow this? And, most importantly of all, should they risk their hard-earned dollars by going into this?

These fermenters run at 37 degrees, which requires a lot of energy and generates a lot of heat. The room needs to be cooled down, which requires more energy. These facilities are going to need a lot of electricity and a lot of inputs; they will not have a low environmental footprint. This is a process where it isn't easy to grow cells. Extraneous agents such as bacteria or fungi can quickly outgrow and destroy the culture if they're allowed into the sterile environment. I recommend that, if you have the time, you read Adjunct Professor Paul Wood's address that he gave to the Rural Press Club. It has been widely reported on Beef Central; it was only last week, on 17 March.

This deserves an inquiry. If this new technology is so good, then the publicity and transparency should be welcome. But, if it is not, why don't Australians get to see that? Why can't we have a discussion about new food products? As I said, as I stated at the very beginning, what we put into our bodies is the most important trend happening in the world at the moment. Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a First World country, get to decide about whether we have organic food or food that has been grown free range, or whether our food has been grown in an environment that has been ticked off by accredited agencies. But when we move into new products and new lines we should allow consumers to have the same confidence that they expect from a farmed product. That's all I'm saying.

They should be given an appropriate definition. We should understand this: are we going to use the same food definitions that we use for meat or for vegetables? This is a far bigger and more serious issue, and I think it's being fobbed off. Senator Sterle, who I have the utmost admiration for, is a man who is very genuine and who fights hard for his part of regional Western Australia. He calls a spade a spade. I enjoy that, but he has been sent in by the government to fob off transparency in the examination of a new technology. Instead, it will be sent off to FSANZ, where it will happen behind closed doors. We should be ashamed of that, because this is our job. Our job is to come to the Senate and examine these serious issues.

So good on you, Senator Roberts, for coming up with this motion to make sure that it's examined properly. I call out the government, who continue to say that they believe in transparency and open government—I call that out for the lie that it is. When they vote against this tonight, be clear: they'll be voting against investors having transparency, consumers having transparency and the broader food industry having transparency. I think it's shocking, and they should be ashamed.