Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Roberts for bringing this motion to the Senate. I note what Senator Whish-Wilson has just said. I want to make the point that, regardless of what he feels about anyone's personal positioning on listening to the science, the whole point of a Senate committee inquiry is to operate as a committee. To say that one person can hijack or disrespect a committee process actually disrespects the committee process of this place. I think it is highly unfair to not support a committee referral based on your personal opinion of one person's viewpoint.

I support this referral not because I am opposed to cultured meat, lab-grown meat or cell based meat, as it can variously be referred to, but because I do believe we need to investigate it further. I have a very interesting journal article here from the Quest International Journal of Medical and Health Sciences. The journal article is a very good outline. The article's titled 'A review on lab-grown meat: advantages and disadvantages'. It covers off on both components. One of its conclusions is:

Large-scale research, clinical trials need to be done to obtain more data to support cultured meat as a climatically sustainable alternative. Based on currently available information, it will be too early to comment on the viability, environmental impact, carbon footprint, and necessary rethink for unrestrained culture meat production and consumption.

This was written and published in 2021, so it's not an old report. It identifies—and I found this very interesting—that cultured meat was first developed in the 1930s. While our modern technology has improved, the processes, the concept, the idea and the ability to produce cultured meat, cell based meat or lab based meat was developed in the 1930s. As the article says:

Winston Churchill even predicted, 'Fifty years hence we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.'

I find that absolutely fascinating. It goes to the basis and the reasoning for lab-grown meat.

There are lots of different opinions about why we should be converting to lab-grown meat or not. I do note and agree with Senator McDonald's comments that this is not an either/or. I do not believe that investigating lab-grown meat will suddenly see the demise of our farming and livestock industries. I am certainly not of the opinion that lab-grown meat is any more humane, kinder, gentler or better and should replace farming, because our farmers and livestock producers, on the whole, are some of the best in the world. They treat their animals humanely while they are in the production line.

One of the original concepts behind producing lab-grown meat is that we know the world's population is growing almost exponentially. The world now produces more than three times the quantity of meat it did 50 years ago as developing countries grow in both population and prosperity. Global meat consumption increased by 58 per cent over the 20 years to 2018 to reach 360 million tonnes annually. We know that, as some of our developing nations become more prosperous, their meat consumption is going up. We also know protein consumption is a vital component of the human diet. A lot of the original concepts of lab-grown meat were looking at ways that we could produce an ethical, affordable, sustainable protein to particularly help feed our Third World nations.

Where we haven't got to yet on the whole concept of lab based meat production is cost-effectiveness. At the moment, it is much more expensive to produce lab-grown meat than traditional meat. Indeed, the first lab-made hamburger, created in 2012, cost about US$325,000 to produce. I'm glad I wasn't at that dinner party and paying for it! More recently, Dutch startup Mosa Meat estimated that the price of production is about $80 a kilo. If you want marble score five-plus wagyu, you can accept paying that price, but, if you're just going for a hamburger patty at 80 bucks a kilo, I don't think so. So my sheep producers aren't quaking in their seats just yet.

However, that's not to say there that won't be a role for lab produced meat in future. That is why I support having this Senate inquiry, having this investigation and looking at all aspects. I do tend to agree with Senator McDonald: yes, there's an application before FSANZ at the moment, and, yes, FSANZ have a role to play in assessing the safety of foods that are allowed to be sold in Australia. By and large, they do a pretty good job, but this is also the same organisation that now says it is healthier to drink Diet Coke than orange juice. I sometimes question, when they are purely looking at things through a fixed lens and assessing things according to a fixed formula or algorithm, whether they are actually looking at the whole picture.

I have no problem—in fact, I completely agree—that the Senate has a good role to play in looking at this issue and evaluating it and in hearing from scientists, because we do all respect the science, and some of the technicians. There are a lot of claims about the environmental benefits of cultured meat or lab-grown meat and the potential reductions in methane production from meat grown in a lab. But, on the flipside, lab produced meat is highly energy intensive. It requires more power and therefore produces more CO2. So, while it might be reducing methane production, it could be increasing CO2 production. CO2 has a longer lifespan than methane. So is it truly more environmentally sustainable, when we're talking about greenhouse gas emissions?

I do think the conversation is a little bit akin to the use of gene technology in our food production systems. Once upon a time, there were huge concerns about the role of genetically modified organisms in our farming production systems. But we've also learnt over time that, with tried and tested methods—thoroughly tested—we can get good outcomes. There are ways—and there are proposals—to use gene editing or gene modification to improve nutritional benefits of certain foods. In the case of things like genetically modified cotton, we have significantly reduced our chemical usage, which is good for the environment.

I think thoroughly investigating this is better than just saying yes or no so that we understand it, understand what benefits it could bring and understand the risks that are involved. Let's not forget that lab-grown meat is not a vegetarian alternative and not a vegan alternative, because it is meat. It is produced from taking a biopsy from an animal—taking muscle cells from an animal and putting them in a bioreactor, more often than not in foetal bovine fluid, to produce the meat. Unlike 'plant based meat'—and I use quotation marks because I would rather call it plant based protein—this is a cultured meat. It actually is a meat. But it's not grown in paddocks. It's not fed grain. It's not grazing on pastures. It's a cell that's put into a Petri dish in a lab, into a bioreactor, and allowed to multiply. Conceptually, it sounds just a little bit too sci-fi for my liking. However, I do think that there may be a role for it. But I think that we should be able to investigate it.

I must say, I am actually very surprised that the government and the Greens are not supporting this referral, because they like to come here and tell us to listen to the science. Well, that's what we want to do. They like to come in here and tell us that they are the parties for openness and transparency. Well, that's what this referral will do. It will allow us to have a public investigation into the pros and cons of lab based meat, and to properly assess not only what impact it would have on diets or on consumers, but also what impact it would have on competing industries. Will it impact our meat and livestock industry, or will it have no impact? I don't have a predetermined idea. That's why this referral needs to go ahead, because there are a lot of open-minded people like me out there who would just like to learn more. That's exactly what this referral is about. And that's why I commend this referral to the chamber. I would encourage the Greens and the government to change their positions and support this referral, in the interests of listening to the science and having an open and transparent process.