Motions
Animal welfare—Cultured meat
Motion
Hon Amanda Dorn (10:28 am) without notice: I move:
That this house:
(1) acknowledges the potential of cultured meat as a humane, healthier and environmentally responsible innovation, and calls on the government to:
(a) support research, development, and commercialisation of cultured meat as a pathway to reduce reliance on intensive animal farming;
(b) promote the benefits of cultured meat as a hormone-free, sustainable source of protein for consumers; and
(c) explore opportunities to position Western Australia as a leader in cellular agriculture, ensuring economic, health and environmental benefits for the community.
At its core, this motion acknowledges the transformative potential of cultured meat—also known as cultivated, lab-grown or clean meat—as a humane, healthy and environmentally responsible innovation. We need to address how we feed a growing population without continuing to destroy our planet or compromising our health. It is about whether Western Australia chooses to be left behind or to lead the world in innovation. I also note that this debate builds on the work of the Education and Health Standing Committee, and its 2024 report New Bite: How alternative proteins could improve dietary and planetary health, which highlighted the health, environmental and economic imperatives for developing WA's alternative proteins industry. The committee found that Australians are consuming almost twice the recommended amount of red meat, that this overconsumption is linked to cancer, diabetes and heart disease, and that livestock supply chains are responsible for a significant share of global greenhouse gas emissions. It also recommended that the government provide greater support for the development of alternative proteins here in Western Australia. This motion responds directly to those findings.
I am sure most members have heard about this technology. It has been around for over a decade, but I will give members a brief description to clarify what it is and also what it is not. Cultured meat is essentially the same as meat from animals raised and killed for food. It has the same cellular structure, the same nutritional profile and, if developed correctly, the same taste and texture. However, the key difference is that it is produced in a lab rather than a slaughterhouse. Technically it is an animal product, but one that does not require the rearing or killing of animals. It is produced by harvesting cells from a single living animal without harming the animal, and then using those cells to create cell lines that can be grown and multiplied as required. Starter cells are then taken and put into a nutrient-rich medium that mimics the conditions inside an animal's body. The cells grow, multiply and form muscle tissue that can then be shaped into familiar meat products. Unstructured products like mince and burger patties are the easiest to produce, while structured cuts like steak require more advanced techniques such as tissue scaffolding. In essence, this technology offers a way to produce slaughter-free meat without antibiotics and without the environmental toll of animal agriculture.
In referring to the Eat for Health:Australian Dietary Guidelines, the committee found:
The Guidelines are based on international research which links the overconsumption of meat to a range of non-communicable diseases, including cancer, type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Given that non-communicable diseases are responsible for 89 per cent of deaths in Australia, our high levels of meat consumption are concerning.
Before I go on, I want to make it clear that plant-based proteins offer the greatest overall benefit for health, the environment and food security. They are the most direct way to shift diets towards sustainability. But let us be realistic. We know that change takes time. Many people will continue to want to eat meat even as awareness of its impacts grows. This is where cultured meat plays a role offering a valid alternative for those who want to eat meat while reducing the cruelty, emissions and the health risks inherent in animal agriculture. It is a bridge technology that allows us to move more quickly towards a future food system that is both sustainable and humane.
Firstly, cultured meat is kinder for animals because it removes the need for raising and slaughtering them for food. This is especially important as our population increases and the demand for meat rises. As I have highlighted in previous speeches, animal producers are expected to produce more and more with less space, which drives the rationale for intensive factory farming. Regardless of the conditions under which animals are kept while being raised, they ultimately end up in slaughterhouses. With cultured meat, we are able to do away with this system of exploitation and violence. It is a pathway to align our diets with what matters most—kindness.
Secondly, cultured meat is cleaner for the planet, reducing land clearing, methane emissions and water use compared with animal agriculture. Animal agriculture is one of the most environmentally damaging industries on the planet accounting for a minimum of 14.5% of total global emissions, a similar contribution to that of the transport sector. In Australia, approved clearing data from native vegetation clearing statistics shows that a large majority of native vegetation clearing in WA is attributed to agriculture, contributing to deforestation and habitat loss for native species. This clearing also leads to soil erosion, salinity and waterway contamination, threatening ecosystems. Methane emissions from livestock digestion accounts for the majority of agriculture emissions, with cattle responsible for nearly 65% of Australia's methane pollution. Water usage is also significant. Although improvements have been made, it still takes over 400 litres of water to produce one kilogram of live weight beef.
I found Cellular Agriculture Australia's White Paper: An Opportunity to Diversify Australia's Food System to be particularly interesting. It states:
Preliminary life-cycle assessments showed that cultivated meat could result in a reduction of up to 92% of greenhouse gas emissions, 63–95% of land use, and 82–96% of water requirements, compared to conventional meat production.
Isn't that incredible?
Thirdly, cultured meat is safer for people as it eliminates the use of antibiotics and growth hormones and reduces the risk of diseases like swine flu and salmonella. The committee report warned that intensive farming systems rely heavily on antibiotics, making Australia among the top five global consumers of veterinary antimicrobials. The World Health Organization named antimicrobial resistance one of the world's top 10 public health threats. Cultured meat offers a pathway to meet those challenges without the risks. Cultured meat is produced in sterile, controlled environments, reducing the risk of disease outbreaks like avian or swine flu and ensuring consistent supply. Cultured meat is free from antibiotics and growth hormones and can be enhanced with nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids. It also avoids contamination risks such as E. coli, which can occur during slaughter.
Finally, it is smarter for our economy, opening new industries, jobs and export opportunities in the global protein market. Globally, the cultured meat market is projected to grow from US$800 million in 2025 to over US$4 billion by 2035, with poultry leading the way. Countries like Singapore and the United States have already approved products for sale. Here in Australia, the first cell-cultured quail product has been approved and companies like Val Foods and Magic Valley are leading the charge. Western Australia, with its world-class agricultural sector, advanced manufacturing infrastructure and strong research institutions is well positioned to become a leader in cellular agriculture. But to seize this opportunity, we need strategic investment in infrastructure and workforce development. Let us be an early mover.
Public acceptance is growing, but challenges remain. A recent Australian study commissioned by Cellular Agriculture Australia found that while awareness of cultured meat is increasing, many consumers are still unfamiliar with the technology. Terminology matters. Cultured, clean or cultivated meat is preferred over lab-grown and our younger consumers are especially motivated by environmental benefits. After all, it is their future that is at stake. Cost is another barrier. As with any emerging industry, cultured meat is currently more expensive than meat from animals raised and killed for food. But with investment and scale, prices will fall, just as they did with solar panels and electric vehicles. There is also a perception hurdle. Some view lab-grown food as unnatural or scary. We must counter this with education, transparency and a focus on the benefits. I would argue that cultured meat is in fact more natural and that it removes the need for chemical inputs and intensive confinement.
This motion is about not only food technology, but also the future we choose for Western Australia, one built on kindness, innovation and sustainability. Cultured meat gives us the chance to align what we eat with the values we hold. Let us lead the way. I commend the motion to the house.
Hon Jackie Jarvis (Minister for Agriculture and Food) (10:39 am): As the Minister for Agriculture and Food, obviously I have a strong interest in the Animal Welfare Amendment (Chief Animal Protection Officer) Bill 2025, and I rise to speak about some of the things we are doing in Western Australia and, in some instances, to defend our livestock industries here.
It was interesting. I think the honourable member started with her clearly pre-prepared and read speech by quoting Report 7–Discussion Paper:New Bite: How alternative proteins could improve dietary and planetary health. That was a report from the 41st Parliament, from the Education and Health Standing Committee. The member quoted selected passages from that report, which looked at a lot of alternative proteins, including plant-based proteins—I think it even looked at insects at some point. We have had a former rural woman of the year who has done some fantastic work on protein from crickets, but it also touched on looking at cultured meat. I just want to highlight and read from page 15 of that report, which states:
3.2.1 Cultured meat might not have the same health benefits
The extent to which cultured meat (as distinct from plant-based alternatives) can assist people in achieving a more balanced diet is less straightforward because of indications that cultured meat might have the same impact on human health as animal-based meat. Haem iron, which is found in red and processed meats, is at the centre of this research. Once consumed, it breaks down in the gut and forms N-nitroso compounds—
I am sure I have mispronounced that—
which can damage the cells lining the bowel and ultimately cause cancer. Given that cultured meat is also likely to contain haem iron, there are suggestions it will have the same carcinogenic effects as red and processed meats.
Therefore, I do not think the idea that cultured meat is somehow healthier has been scientifically proven. I know that my colleague Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur, if she has the opportunity to speak, could provide some more scientific rigour around the idea of cultured meat because, obviously, she is a very well respected scientist who I understand has done some work in this area. There are concerns around this sort of lab-grown meat.
I also want to quote an article I found relating to some research from the University of California, Davis campus, a tier 1 research university in California, titled "Lab-Grown Meat's Carbon Footprint Potentially Worse Than Retail Beef". It is by Amy Quinton and was published on 22 May 2023. The subheading states:
Study Finds Scaling Up Production Using Existing Processes Highly Energy-Intensive.
I will quickly read a paragraph:
Researchers conducted a life-cycle assessment of the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted in all stages of production and compared that with beef.
Sorry, I just have to find my highlighted bit. It continues:
"Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It's not a panacea," said corresponding author Edward Spang …
The article goes on to say:
cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma), suggesting that investments to advance more climate-friendly beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions more quickly than investments in cultured meat.
I am also concerned about talk of livestock production on a global scale that does not specifically look at the WA experience. WA farmers are, quite frankly, the most efficient dryland farmers in the world. When we talk about intensive farming systems, we are talking, in this instance, about the carbon footprint of beef and sheep meat production. We quite often talk about irrigated land. We are talking about irrigated fodder crops. Western Australian farmers are amazing dryland farmers, and I am sure Hon Steve Martin and the member from the Nationals WA will agree with me. We make big global statements, but we do not look at WA farming systems and how we compare.
There is the idea that agriculture has been responsible for the majority of clearing—yes, a hundred years ago. I cannot think of any land that has been cleared for agriculture in Western Australia since probably the 1970s or maybe the 80s. It just does not happen. We do not clear land for agriculture. Yes, we are dealing with, I guess, the sins of our fathers in regard to land clearing that happened a long time ago, but it just does not happen now.
This week the Regenerative Food Systems Conference was in Perth. Unfortunately, I could not make it. I was hoping to get along there yesterday, but I could not get a pair. The honourable member who moved this motion would have been well placed to go to that conference to meet farmers who are farming in a regenerative, sustainable way; farmers who care about the environment; and farmers who care about their livestock. I appreciate that the honourable member and I will never agree. I am a committed meat eater. I have stood in this place before and said that I am a committed meat eater. I acknowledge that I and probably every other meat eater here could be well placed to eat more plant-based products—absolutely. I think we have a huge opportunity here in Western Australia for alternative proteins.
Before I go to that issue, the honourable member mentioned that we need innovation and we need an early mover. Honourable member, if there is someone who wants to do cultivated meat in Western Australia, the door is open. We are into value-adding. We are into science. We are into innovation. I have been the Minister for Agriculture and Food for a number of years and I have not had a single proponent come to me and say, "Minister, we want to set up a cultivated meat processing facility here in Western Australia." If people want to eat cultured meat, that is fine; the door is open for them to come to Western Australia. We have a great regulatory approvals system in place. We are opening the door to value-adding on food products everywhere. It ties into our Diversify WA plan and the idea that government has to somehow do something more to make an early mover come into the market—if it were financially viable, someone would come and do it. My door remains open to anyone who has the money ready to put up and start their own processing facility.
With regard to our livestock production here in Western Australia, as I said, our farmers are committed to sustainability. They are quite simply the best dryland farmers in the world. We are doing some great work with them from a research point of view. If members have ever been to dairy field days or even the beef industry field days, they will have seen DPIRD's clean green machine. It is a trailer that has a bit of scientific kit on the back that measures methane emissions. We need to measure. We cannot reduce until we can measure. We have given some support to a number of companies that are making actual, real advances and making products to reduce methane in cattle using the asparagopsis seaweed, or algae—I think it is a seaweed. We have people who are doing work down in Fremantle farming asparagopsis, and I have had briefings from them. They are putting their money where their mouth is and investing their own money into these projects. We also have another company, Rumin8, that is creating a synthetic asparagopsis, because it can better control the dosage. Again, I have been to its factory in Wangara. It is putting its money where its mouth is. It is spending the dollars.
From a DPIRD point of view, we have a fantastic Katanning Research Station, and if the honourable member wants to come down there with me, I would be delighted to take her there. The facility in Katanning does a lot of work with the sheep industry and is working with Meat and Livestock Australia to confirm genetic variation in feed intake and methane efficiency. I was there only a couple of months ago. I met two amazing young women who are research scientists. Every time I go to these DPIRD research stations, it is so fantastic to see young people getting into agricultural science. I met Bethany and Amy down there. They are two fantastic young scientists who live and work in Katanning. Again, they have a fabulous bit of kit that measures methane emissions from sheep, and then they are studying the genetics of those animals. As well as additives to feed, they believe that there is also some work they can do on genetics to make sure we can breed sheep that emit less methane. That is really important for industry, because a sheep that emits less methane uses their feed more efficiently; therefore, they put on more kilograms quicker. We know that animals that put on more kilos quicker—as unpalatable as it may be to that member—end up at the abattoir quicker, which means they have less time to emit methane. Therefore, there is a whole range of things to look at with feeding in confinement versus being in a paddock. I met Brittany Bolt and Amy, and I apologise that I cannot remember Amy's surname. Young Brittany went to New Zealand to present her findings at a research conference over there.
I will spend a bit of time talking about alternative proteins. The report the member mentioned that had been done in the 41st Parliament, New Bite: How alternative proteins could improve dietary and planetary health, talked about alternative proteins, and Western Australia is well placed to be a leader in alternative proteins. Tonight, I am off to—I had to write it down—the 8th International Food Legume Research Conference and 5th Australian Pulse Conference. I do not know whether Hon Steven Martin will also be attending.
Hon Steve Martin interjected.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: I have my finger on the pulse. I am going to be there. I am road-testing this, because I was going to use it in my speech tonight—maybe I will not. I just want to keep you "lupin" in!
Several members interjected.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: Sorry, President; I got a little bit carried away there.
I refer to a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation research article I found from 22 February 2024 titled Cracking lupin wide open: from test sausages to protein ingredient. It talks about the work done by a great Western Australian company, Wide Open Agriculture, to harness the power of lupin. Lupin and other pulses and legumes are fantastic for WA farming systems. They add nitrogen back into the soil and fix the nitrogen in the soil—I am not sure whether I have that terminology right—so they are really good for farming systems. One of the challenges is that we need to make it a high-value product. Lupin is traditionally used for stockfeed. We have a few companies in Western Australia. I recently went to visit one somewhere north of Wanneroo that is producing some fantastic lupin food products. We got to try some biscuits baked from lupin flour. My adviser was with me, and she was particularly pleased because her partner is coeliac. She got to take home all the leftover cookies for her partner, because he cannot eat wheat-based products and lupin has been declared gluten-free. This CSIRO report from 2024 is amazing. It talks about Dr Graham Arnold, who, back in 1976, was handing out prototype lupin sausages and cookies.
Lupin is currently a low-value product. We want to turn it into a high-value product. As I said, WA is well placed for alternative proteins. Plant-based proteins absolutely have a role to play. There is lots of ongoing research being done. In 2019, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development released a report titled Alternative plant-based proteins: WA's ability to participate in an alternative, plant-based proteins market. In 2021, DPIRD released a report titled Prescriptions for Growth: Opportunities for Western Australian food and beverage firms in Foods for Health markets. I do not have copies of those reports with me here today, but I am happy to pass them on to the honourable member. In 2022, DPIRD released reports titled Western Australian plant protein processing and Western Australian plant-based milk. CSIRO released the National Protein Roadmap 2022, and, also in 2022, DPIRD released the Western Australian health-focused oat extracts report.
Honourable member, I know that plant-based proteins are gaining traction. I certainly know that in my household, with my 21-year-old daughter and one of her friends living with me, everything they eat seems to be protein enhanced. They have high-protein yoghurts and all sorts of things. Hon Stephen Dawson and I were lucky enough to visit a brewery recently—for professional purposes—to look at spent barley. As I said, our Western Australian grain growers do not use irrigation. This rain-fed barley has gone into a brewery to make beer, and the spent grain is a high-protein product. Currently it is used as stockfeed, which is fantastic, but we want to add more value to it. The ChemCentre is doing a research report on how we can use that protein from spent barley waste from these boutique breweries and actually turn it into product—namely, whether it can be used to create a protein powder or some kind of protein supplement. We know that it is all the rage at the moment. People want high-protein foods.
I get most of my protein from red meat and, of course, fish, chicken and pork—I am protein agnostic—but I know that that is not for everyone. Interestingly, I did a quick survey this morning of two vegans and two vegetarians who work in this place in the broader building, and all of them said that they would not eat meat that was basically grown in a lab. I am more than happy to talk about plant-based proteins until the cows come home. Come on, people!
Hon Andrew O'Donnell: I don't think that one worked, either!
Hon Samantha Rowe: It's a tough crowd.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: That one did not work, either. All right. I will hold off on my comedic career!
With regard to cultured meat, as I said, the door is open if a proponent wants to come and put their money down and build a facility in Perth.
Hon Steve Martin (10:54 am): I will be brief. I know that other members are keen to contribute. I was not planning to contribute to this motion, but I have to. I thank the Minister for Agriculture and Food for her defence of farming in Western Australia. The words we use are important. I heard the honourable member moving the motion talk about the vast environmental damage done by agriculture in Western Australia, and I simply cannot let that stand. Too often we hear those words, and almost always we hear them here in the city. We hear talk about the vast environmental damage that, somehow, I and others are doing in regional Western Australia. People in the city do not grow their own food or catch their own water. Apart from rooftop solar, they do not produce their own power or grow their own fibre, yet somehow vast environmental damage is happening out there. By the way, we do not hear farmers and people in regional Western Australia talking about the environmental damage that is happening where they live; we hear about it down here. I want to put the record straight.
We also heard about land clearing in Western Australia through agriculture. I have no idea where the honourable member has been in regional WA, but if she can find me anywhere where more than a quarter of an acre has been cleared for agricultural purposes in the last 50 years, I would be surprised. It took CBH Group about three years to clear 20 trees outside Moora so they could put in a CBH bin. Again, I will tell members where I do find clearing of native vegetation: it is in the suburbs of Perth and Bunbury. We often see a nice bulldozer flattening a bit of scrub and timber in the suburbs to build houses. I see that all the time. I do not see that where I live. That is disappointing.
We also heard about water use and how many billions of litres it takes to grow a gram of beef. This number gets plucked out of the internet by a Google search. Quite frankly, it is a lazy bit of research—we heard from the agricultural minister about this—that somewhere in the mid-west of America, it takes a certain amount of water to grow one gram of beef. That is not what happens in regional Western Australia. We are dryland farmers. We get very little rain to start with, and we use every single drop that falls as efficiently as we can in grain and in livestock.
This motion states that cellular agriculture will reduce the reliance on intensive animal farming. In Western Australia, we have very little reliance on intensive animal farming. We are broadacre farmers and we do a wonderful job using the rainfall we have on the land we have.
The member moving the motion gave the game away when she said, "We absolutely have to avoid any mention of something being lab grown, because the public won't like that." Absolutely they will not. The member can call it whatever she likes, but we know what it is: it is lab-grown meat. I think the phrase she used about lab-grown meat was "more natural". Again, go for a drive, have a look around regional WA and then tell me that something grown in a laboratory in China, Vietnam or somewhere—that is where most of it will be grown—is more natural than the sheep and cows running around in country WA.
I know that other members are keen to speak, but I do not want to defend our sector—it does not need defending; it does a wonderful job—but highlight the wonderful work that our grain and livestock farmers do in regional WA. I am more than happy to support them every single opportunity I get.
Hon Julie Freeman (10:58 am): I rise today as a genuine farmer—one of a few in the room, including a farmer's husband behind me—to speak to how really wonderful our livestock industries are. I find myself in furious agreement with the Minister for Agriculture and Food and Hon Steven Martin about how incredibly innovative our farmers are.
I am not opposed to cultured meat. I think that the science is fascinating and that pursuing that science will probably lead to all sorts of other discoveries along the way. I am not opposed to people seeking alternatives to what we already have. Looking into the future, I can see potential for something like cultured meat. If we continue to do space exploration or put people in Antarctica for long periods of time, sure, that would be a very reasonable and viable alternative in those sorts of circumstances. I am more than happy to support research, development and commercialisation and am happy to explore the opportunities that may exist. If there is a market for that, it will happen, and good on the people who are involved in it.
Within the motion, there is an implication that somehow farming livestock is inhumane, that somehow the product farmers produce is unhealthy and that somehow it is environmentally irresponsible. I refute that there is even a need for a pathway to reduce reliance on animal farming. I think what we do is quite magnificent.
In referring to the state of our industry, I want to look at Meat and Livestock Australia's State of the Industry Report for 2024. That report states quite clearly that Australia holds around 1.9% of the global cattle herd and about 5.8% of the global sheep flock, which are not significant numbers in the global perspective, but let us bear in mind that Australia was the second largest beef and bovine meat exporter in 2023 after Brazil and ahead of India and the US; Australia was the world's largest sheepmeat exporter, ahead of New Zealand, the UK and Uruguay; and Australia was the world's largest goat meat exporter in 2023, ahead of Kenya, Ethiopia and Tanzania. We may be small, but, in a global context, we are feeding the world. Over the past 20 years, the total global consumption of meat has been steadily increasing at an average annual rate of 1% for beef, 1.9% for sheepmeat, 1.4% for pork and 3.1% for poultry meat. This is in countries that previously were developing and are now growing their middle class and are looking for great sources of protein because they recognise the health benefits and this is what they want and they have the way to do it. Meat consumption is growing globally.
It was interesting that Hon Amanda Dorn mentioned that cultured meat is expected to be worth $4 billion by 2035. I can tell her that in 2022–23, Australia's red meat and livestock industry turnover totalled $81.7 billion, so it is a really significant industry. I do not want to take away from the potential of another $4 billion being added to our export economy, but I do not think that we are at the stage now at which we are ready to consider any sort of transition.
I also would like to address some environmental realities. Again, I turn to Meat and Livestock Australia's Greenhouse Gas mitigation potential of the Australian red meat production and processing sectors final report, which it did in cooperation with the CSIRO. In 2005, greenhouse gas emissions from our livestock industry totalled 124.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. By 2015—so, in a decade—we had almost halved that to 68.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, and the journey continues. The journey continues by using excellent farming practices. We have continuously improved our land management. We have continuously reduced enteric methane, and the Minister for Agriculture and Food gave some great examples of some of the work that is being done in seaweed supplementation to help with that. We are continually looking at our breeding programs to make sure that we help to reduce methane emissions. It was found that by 2021, emissions from the Australian red meat industry had fallen by 78.56%. This is an industry that is not turning its back on its responsibilities to the environment; it is actively working.
As a sheep producer, I know that we are required to have an accreditation through Meat and Livestock Australia. As a canola producer, we are required to have an international sustainable canola accreditation. We have to put in an enormous amount of work to prove that we are meeting our obligations to reduce our carbon emissions, to protect our biodiversity, to protect waterways and the like.
I would also like to reiterate that—I do not even have the words for it, to be honest. On the science behind cultured meat, I will refer to a blog post by Cole–Parmer, which is a US-based company that produces lab equipment. Obviously, it is promoting how its lab equipment can be used in the process of creating cultured meat. It says:
Cultured meat production is a multi-step process that combines biological science and engineering to create a sustainable protein source. The process can be broken down into five essential steps:
1. Cell Sourcing
Cultured meat begins by obtaining animal cells via a biopsy.
Then there is the cell line establishment. Once the cells have been isolated from the biopsy—this is very technical—they can proliferate and transform into different cell types, such as muscle or fat cells. It continues:
Establishing robust cell lines is critical for ensuring consistency, efficiency, and scalability in future production batches. Cells are cultured for immediate use or frozen for future production.
Then the cells have to be grown. They go into a bioreactor in a controlled environment that mimics natural cell growth conditions. Then they have to be scaffolded. Cells are attached to scaffolds that mimic the natural arrangement of animal tissue to create the desired texture and structure. The final stage is the harvesting process, whereby the tissue is processed into the final meat product. That is very complicated, and it does not sound very natural to me when I think about the alternative. The alternative is that, at a particular time of the year, my husband will put the ram into the paddock with the ewes, Cecil will do his job and then, come autumn time, we have lambs bouncing around everywhere ready for the winter. That is the most natural meat-production process. It is the way nature intended it to be.
Added to that, I have lived with a sheep producer for over 30 years. He has had sheep in his life for his 59 years on this planet and has never had an existence without them. He is deeply committed to the welfare of those animals. He takes every opportunity to make sure that they are healthy. We do not go away for long in summer because we have to make sure that they have water. For the couple of months of summer when there is no feed in the paddock, he supplement feeds them with our lupin seconds. But it takes only two or three tonnes of lupins to feed them over summer because we have so much good food for them to graze on in either the pastures or the crop stubbles. These are happy animals that are roaming free and living a very natural life. The mothers are with their babies until they are naturally weaned. There is nothing artificial in this process. When the time is right, we are able to send them off to market very proud of the product that we have produced and very proud of the animal welfare that they have endured. They are shorn once a year, because there is nothing worse for an animal that is not native to Australia than to have a fleece that is too large. The honourable member mentioned mulesing. Mulesing is not a modern farming technique. Our sheep are bred to have bare rumps now and also we use crutching when we need to.
Hon Jess Beckerling (11:20 am): I rise to make a brief contribution on this motion, and I want to thank Hon Amanda Dorn for bringing it to this house. The motion asks us to consider humane, healthy and environmentally responsible methods to produce protein, with a focus on cultured meat. As a vegetarian of more than 30 years, I know that there are many ways we can get our protein, and I strongly support the call for us to be proactive about developing ways that reduce the impact on animals and the environment. I have also lived in regional WA for most of my life, so I know that many cattle farmers are doing great work looking after and also restoring the forests on their land. Cattle farming does not have to go hand in hand with deforestation, and there is no excuse for it to continue. But the fact is that across Australia it does, and beef farming is a leading cause across the continent. That is largely due to Queensland, as the minister has pointed out, but in WA the situation is different. The leading cause of deforestation here is Alcoa's strip mining of the northern jarrah forests.
We are not only Western Australians; we are also Australians. The leadership and the innovation we show here and the conversations we have about innovation, as Hon Amanda Dorn encourages us to do, matter. At an Australian level, cattle farming is not the leading cause of deforestation because the majority of farmers are clearing forest; it is because some of the more industrial-scale farmers are clearing huge areas. I want to bring members' attention to a quote responding to a 2021 study by Gemma Plesman, the Queensland campaign manager for the Wilderness Society. She referred to data showing that 13,500 hectares of forest had been cleared in Queensland between 2018 and 2021 in spite of new laws that have been introduced. She said:
This data isn't surprising as Australia is a deforestation hotspot along with places like the Amazon. In the state that bulldozes the most forest and bushland – Queensland – the state's own data shows that the majority of deforestation is for the beef industry.
Millions of native animals, including Australia's iconic koala are killed or left homeless when bulldozers destroy their habitat.
We should not reduce this to the binary of cattle versus forest because, as I have said, we can have both. In fact, many primary producers are the best forest protectors and restorers around. Nonetheless, we have a major problem on this continent, with beef farming in particular being the leading cause of the loss of forests and is part of a larger problem in which more than half of Australia's forests and woodlands have been degraded or destroyed since Europeans arrived. A comprehensive scientific study titled Little left to lose shows that the South West biodiversity hotspot, a precious biodiverse part of the world, has lost or degraded 90% of the original vegetation. There is no doubt in my mind that the key challenge in this generation following such fast-paced and broadscale degradation of the natural environment, even though, as the Hon Dr Steve Thomas points out, the vast majority of this has been historical—
Hon Steve Martin: We're twins; only our mother can tell us apart.
Hon Jess Beckerling: Apologies—Hon Steve Martin. I commonly mix up your surnames, but usually not out loud.
Our key challenge is to make the necessary changes fast enough and with real substance and commitment to restore the extraordinary ecosystems that make up this magnificent planet while we still can. That means supporting sustainable and healthy food systems and properly supporting the excellent landcare work happening across regional WA is a key part of this work. Thank you.
Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur (11:12 am): I thank Hon Amanda Dorn for bringing this motion to the house and the wonderful contributions that we have heard. It is a wonderful debate and I think we should be discussing topics like this more often in this chamber. I rise today as a person who, as Hon Julie Freeman mentioned, has done those complicated processes in the lab for over a decade; that has been my life. I have produced different forms and products using the synthetic biology approach that we have been learning about in this chamber. As with anything, there is another side to the coin and we must educate ourselves on and look into that. I thank the Minister for Agriculture and Food for bringing to our attention that report on alternative proteins and plant-based proteins. I have gone through that report, and it is a really good piece of work. However, again, we see that information and knowledge is used a lot to build a political narrative. We probably should not be doing this.
Coming back to cellular agriculture in Western Australia, Hon Amanda Dorn brought to our attention that it takes 92% more water to produce beef or similar meats than to produce cellular agriculture, which can reduce that. Let me bring to members' attention that a lot of papers published in the scientific domain in the top journals refer to the figure of approximately 70% to 80% less water, but this is based on a lot of assumptions. That requires recycling the media that we prepare on a daily basis, which normally does not happen in the industrial setting where you want to scale products up to a certain level. It also depends upon recycling and the different plant designs that people use compared to Boston or the industry just starting in Australia. I will not talk about Western Australia in that space yet.
The biggest problem, as the member mentioned, is not the water; it is the energy. Approximately 75 to 95 kilowatt hours are required to produce one kilogram of cellular meat. That is huge if we put the numbers in context at this moment. It is an energy guzzler, if you ask me. At the same time, there is the cost of the bioreactors. I have founded a synthetic biology startup and I can tell members that with bioreactors, it cost lots of money to set up a very basic lab-level pilot study, let alone on the scale we are talking about to match the industry in Western Australia. The sterile environments required in a very small pilot lab just for a proof of concept is just not financially viable at this moment in time.
Scale and supply is another big issue we have at this moment. Most of this industry is at a pilot space right now. The very basic consumables that we use in the labs also involve cell lines, which include biopsies, but when we take that successful cell line further to produce at a pilot space—I am not even talking about the industrial scale yet—it requires the chemicals and the serums that are also produced by the animals. We have not yet found a synthetic way to produce those serums. They cost a lot. Cost is absolutely one of the biggest barriers. Again and again, we go back to the same animal, and the welfare of that animal, which we are trying to protect and look after. However, the most significant risk that I see in this space is corporate consolidation. This works because they are normally the very first people who invest into this industry and patent that work. They pose the biggest risk to equity in the food industry, as well as the biggest danger to our farmers, families and smallholder industries. When those big giants patent the way they do it and look to scale it up, we are looking at a whole consolidation happening and the big giants or the big pharma coming and taking over our farming industry at the same time. There is a huge risk to food equity and access.
Hon Amanda Dorn also brought to our attention feeding the growing population. Since I started studying agriculture about 20 years back in India, the biggest question asked and brainstormed in every lecture I went to was how we are going to feed nine billion people in 2050? The good news is that that is a question of the last decade. We have made immense progress in genetic gains in the agriculture industry. Honestly, Western Australia is leading that space. Western Australian farmers have not just delivered but demonstrated to the rest of the world how agriculture can be done differently with the natural resources and the environments in this country. There is a lot of inspiration and a lot of scientists travel from all over the world to study these practices and how our farmers are doing it with the resources, the scarcity of water and the nutrients in the soil. Western Australian soils have next to zero phosphorus, which is one of the most important micronutrients for plants to grow. Yet nature found its way. Western Australia is one of the 36 global biodiversity hotspots. That fascinates me. How on earth is Western Australia a global biodiversity hotspot when its soils have next to no nutrients? That shows promise for the future that we have more than plenty to feed nine billion or 10 billion people. We have had a large increase in that space after COVID; we had a lot of COVID babies, so we might have 10 billion people to feed. That is not a question discussed in any agricultural settings among scientists these days because we have solved that problem. There is a lot of incredible work that has been done by the farming community of Western Australia.
Again, nothing is a silver bullet. Everything has to happen in moderation. There is nothing wrong with doing the proof of concept, pilot studies and being innovative. We have been doing that. As I said, I have had my own startup producing synthetic biology products that are very scarcely available in the legumes. Western Australia again has been one of the leaders in producing the key pasture species for the livestock industry. However, I identified that when we want to produce pastures that reduce methane emissions into the environment when our livestock feeds on it, the genetic networks are connected. When one wants a gain from a genetic perspective, there is always a trade-off. I found the trade-off was that if I increase the production of those nutrients in the legumes by genetic setting, I will also make them much more methane inefficient. That is the reason for the choice of taking that process into the lab and not putting that poison into the paddock for our livestock. That is where the science and innovation need to go, and that is where the government needs to support the next generation of technologies and solutions.
With all that in view, and having done it myself, I do not commend this motion to the house. Thank you very much.
The President: Members, the question is that the motion be agreed to. There being no further speakers, the time for non-government business will expire.
Hon Amanda Dorn: I seek my right of reply. Apologies, President.
The President: If there are no other speakers, the member may reply to the debate.
Hon Amanda Dorn (11:21 am) in reply: Thank you, President. In closing this debate, I want to return to the key points. This is about kindness. Thank you to honourable members for their contributions, but how can you humanely kill something that does not want to die? Happy animals in paddocks—thank you, Hon Julie Freeman, I absolutely respect your position on this, but you said yourself that you proudly send them off to market, which I guess is just another way of saying to slaughter. I guarantee those animals arriving for slaughter, arriving to the kill floor, are not happy animals. Cultured meat offers a way to eat meat without raising and slaughtering animals. Thank you to the honourable scientist. It is a pathway out of a system built on cruelty—
Point of order
Hon Jackie Jarvis: I would ask that the member to refer to the honourable member by her correct title.
Hon Amanda Dorn: My apologies.
The President: Honourable member, we are required to refer to all members by their correct title, although I do acknowledge that sometimes we get blocks about people's names. I ask that you refer to the honourable member.
Proceeding resumed
Hon Amanda Dorn: My apologies, honourable Parwinder.
The President: Perhaps try Hon Parwinder Kaur.
Hon Amanda Dorn: I am sorry. My apologies, Hon Parwinder Kaur—my sincere apologies.
Cultured meat offers a way to eat meat without raising and slaughtering animals—that is it. It is a pathway out of a system built on cruelty, violence and intensive farming towards one that reflects the values of compassion and innovation. It is about the environment—animal agriculture being one of the most destructive industries on the planet. The committee's New Bite report made it clear that Australians eat almost twice the recommended amount of red meat and livestock. Supply chains are driving deforestation and emissions. Cultured meat, by contrast, has the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It is about public health. Cultured meat is free from antibiotics and growth hormones and avoids the risks of zoonotic diseases like avian flu, swine flu and salmonella. At a time when antimicrobial resistance is one of the World Health Organization's top global threats, this really matters. It is also about economic opportunity. The global cultured meat market is forecast to grow in millions.
I sincerely thank my colleagues for their contributions to this debate. I also invite members to read the excellent work of the Education and Health Standing Committee in its report titled New Bite: How alternative proteins could improve dietary and planetary health, as well as Cellular Agriculture Australia's report titled White Paper: an opportunity to Diversify Australia's Food System. Both provide an invaluable foundation for the discussion we are having today. Colleagues, this motion is about not only food technology, but also about the future we choose for Western Australia—a future that is kinder.
I commend the motion to the house.
Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders.
