AUSTRALIA HAS AN EFFECTIVE, ROBUST FOOD REGULATION SYSTEM IN PLACE
TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR FOOD
No, we don't!
TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR FOOD
No, we don't!
Message to the Australian Government - this 2019 Government PFAS webpage is Trump-style disinformation with the FAQs page having no credibility. Those webpages should be removed with all PFAS advice UPDATED!
The PFAS coverup
|
Australia’s PFAS contamination coverup is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to suppress and refute credible research and health advice to protect WHO, WHAT and WHY? Government, department heads and some industry sectors appear to operate a closed-loop collaboration propping up outdated health advice under the guise of our clean, green image and its economic value to the country. When it comes to livestock, milk and produce grown and raised in highly contaminated areas there are no disclosures of PFAS contamination.
|
The Australian Government cannot continue business as usual with new export trade agreements nor claim to have a robust food safety system as the PFAS Food Safety page proves. FSANZ simply lacks integrity and explains why there is now an increasing dependence by government and agencies on FSANZ declarations as the default go-to advice to continue the coverup.
A recent article |
Damage control
|
A 2020 news article, Toxic secret could be contaminating your meat notes,
... a letter sent by the Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association to the Prime Minister and Defence Minister. It warns:
|
Federal Government response, 20/2/2020 states,
|
But where is the contaminated meat going to? Is it going to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds, IGA, local butchers? Nobody knows. Government is making the assumption we only purchase one steak from one random beast therefore it is OK.
New stories coming -
- Coles, Woolworths & others how they deal with contaminants from their selected producers?
- Abattoirs - where do you get your meat from?
The sheer arrogance of federal government's defensive comments overlooks the reality that livestock from contaminated areas are going straight to market, full of PFAS - was happening in 2016, 2020 & still in 2022.
What livestock producer has access to clean pasture and clean water to withhold livestock to excrete out their PFAS compounds for a period of 6-12 months before being sent to market all the while contaminating clean land then potentially re-ingesting the PFAS.
So, are there studies related to:
What livestock producer has access to clean pasture and clean water to withhold livestock to excrete out their PFAS compounds for a period of 6-12 months before being sent to market all the while contaminating clean land then potentially re-ingesting the PFAS.
So, are there studies related to:
- contaminated PFAS livestock removed from PFAS sources to eliminate PFAS months before sold to market?
- working dogs coincidently dying at a younger age or suffering uncommon health issues?
- livestock suffering numerous health afflictions at a younger age?
- lower fertility rates amongst livestock at an earlier age than would be expected?
|
All the government had to do was remove the people from the risk, protect their welfare, secure their assets and separate food producing areas from contaminated sites. That's their job, but what our governments have chosen to do instead is manipulate food safety codes to allow food grown on contaminated land to be sold for public consumption and according to their own laws, that is fraud.
|
|
safemeat - safe or not
Just don't know how these comments by SAFEMEAT would hold up in court because it is the producer who wears all the risk. It is the producer signing off on NVDs declaring livestock have no chemical residue when in fact they do. SAFEMEAT are an industry association not listening to their peak industry livestock bodies and giving no reassurance to producers.
I challenge SAFEMEAT to provide producers with a legal communique to backup what SAFEMEAT are telling producers has:
|
Here we go again, default back to the 'almighty' FSANZ.
In the meantime, this is what SAFEMEAT preach - Australia's reputation as a world leading producer of high quality and safe red meat is underpinned by strict meat safety and traceability systems. To support these systems, the Australian government and the red meat and livestock industry established SAFEMEAT, a consultative partnership consisting of representatives from government and industry. SAFEMEAT is dedicated to promoting Australia's best practice management systems that ensure when customers purchase red meat or livestock from Australia, they can be confident in the quality and safety of their choice. |
I also challenge SAFEMEAT to show proof that livestock from known PFAS contaminated properties are being withheld and stored at abattoirs around Australia for sample blood testing.
meat & livestock Australia on pfas contamination - proactive or not?
The Meat & Livestock Australia Board (M&LA) would be extremely influential on movement of livestock internationally along with some of the biggest policy influencers for Australia's free trade agreements with other countries.
How is the Board managing the Australia wide PFAS contamination impacts, in particular with the beef industry? After all, there is potential for some serious financial risks and hits to the industry while Australia continue the same business-as-usual model of do-nothing while Australia's competing interests are being proactive about reducing PFAS exposures to livestock.
M&LA representatives, along with the CEO of the Integrity Systems Company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of M&LA, were asked similar questions at Senate Estimates on 27/05/2021. The questioning about PFAS contaminated livestock by Senator Malcolm Roberts got a little uncomfortable for M&LA. Here are just a few.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the significant challenges to this industry is the increasing presence of PFAS in the red meat supply chain. Does Meat and Livestock Australia have an advisory on PFAS contamination of cattle?
Mr Strong : With respect, I think it's a very limited threat, and I think the publicity and push of that issue from a very small number of producers doesn't accurately represent the threat. I think our industry is incredibly conscious of not just our biosecurity reputation but our responsibility to ensure that we provide a safe and wholesome product to all of our customers globally, and that goes to our 100 markets globally. This issue has been extensively evaluated by the authorities responsible and, while we are aware of it, it's certainly an issue that is being monitored on an ongoing basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Which authorities are responsible?
Mr Strong : The responsibility for making decisions about potential contamination would sit with groups like SAFEMEAT, and FSANZ would actually set the requirements or the levels that would have to be triggered for it to be a challenge.
Senator ROBERTS: That's the food standards--
Mr Strong : Australian and New Zealand food standards; that's correct...
Back to FSANZ again. M&LA are putting financial gain over human safety - that's fraudulent. They are not protecting our clean, green image and have no credibility.
Given the cattle industry has been pleading with the Australian Government to take action removing food producers from PFAS exposures, it seems strange the MLA have not moved. Would be concerning if conflicts of interests exist preventing resolutions for the farming community as farmer liability sits at the top of the table on the contamination issue which I would expect the Board would have influence over.
The Board need to be transparent with livestock producers as there are hundreds of sites around Australia on-selling to our domestic and export markets -
How is the Board managing the Australia wide PFAS contamination impacts, in particular with the beef industry? After all, there is potential for some serious financial risks and hits to the industry while Australia continue the same business-as-usual model of do-nothing while Australia's competing interests are being proactive about reducing PFAS exposures to livestock.
M&LA representatives, along with the CEO of the Integrity Systems Company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of M&LA, were asked similar questions at Senate Estimates on 27/05/2021. The questioning about PFAS contaminated livestock by Senator Malcolm Roberts got a little uncomfortable for M&LA. Here are just a few.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the significant challenges to this industry is the increasing presence of PFAS in the red meat supply chain. Does Meat and Livestock Australia have an advisory on PFAS contamination of cattle?
Mr Strong : With respect, I think it's a very limited threat, and I think the publicity and push of that issue from a very small number of producers doesn't accurately represent the threat. I think our industry is incredibly conscious of not just our biosecurity reputation but our responsibility to ensure that we provide a safe and wholesome product to all of our customers globally, and that goes to our 100 markets globally. This issue has been extensively evaluated by the authorities responsible and, while we are aware of it, it's certainly an issue that is being monitored on an ongoing basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Which authorities are responsible?
Mr Strong : The responsibility for making decisions about potential contamination would sit with groups like SAFEMEAT, and FSANZ would actually set the requirements or the levels that would have to be triggered for it to be a challenge.
Senator ROBERTS: That's the food standards--
Mr Strong : Australian and New Zealand food standards; that's correct...
Back to FSANZ again. M&LA are putting financial gain over human safety - that's fraudulent. They are not protecting our clean, green image and have no credibility.
Given the cattle industry has been pleading with the Australian Government to take action removing food producers from PFAS exposures, it seems strange the MLA have not moved. Would be concerning if conflicts of interests exist preventing resolutions for the farming community as farmer liability sits at the top of the table on the contamination issue which I would expect the Board would have influence over.
The Board need to be transparent with livestock producers as there are hundreds of sites around Australia on-selling to our domestic and export markets -
- Is M&LA declaring on Free Trade Agreements that Australia is not testing for PFAS contamination in meat?
- Is M&LA declaring that our meat product is free of foreign chemicals like PFAS?
- Is M&LA using the National Vendor Declaration signed by producers to absolve them from any future liability?
- So who is protecting the producer?
Specific tissue depletion half-lives ranged from 36 to 385 days for intraperitoneal fat, back fat, muscle, liver, bone, and kidney. These data indicate that PFOS in beef cattle has a sufficiently long depletion half-life to permit accumulation in edible tissues. PFOS Plasma Half-Life Determination and Long-Term Tissue Distribution in Beef Cattle
What does Agriculture Victoria say about pfas?
Agricultural Victoria's opening comment on this website peddles the same consistence disinformation and implicates the same agencies in the closed loop to keep the people uninformed.
Advice from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) informs the human health risk associated with consumption of livestock, and EPA communicates advice regarding potential impacts on personal consumption.
Decisions on retail food consumption are made by Victoria's Chief Health Officer in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in conjunction with relevant agencies.
A recent literature review carried out by Agriculture Victoria indicated no evidence of negative impacts on livestock health from studies currently available worldwide.
- My comments are bulleted in the following sections.
Advice from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) informs the human health risk associated with consumption of livestock, and EPA communicates advice regarding potential impacts on personal consumption.
Decisions on retail food consumption are made by Victoria's Chief Health Officer in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in conjunction with relevant agencies.
A recent literature review carried out by Agriculture Victoria indicated no evidence of negative impacts on livestock health from studies currently available worldwide.
Do PFAS affect livestock?
There has been no evidence of PFAS affecting the health or production of grazing livestock in Australia.
There has been no evidence of PFAS affecting the health or production of grazing livestock in Australia.
- AG Victoria need to clarify the evidence related to age, breeding stock, livestock bred on contaminated land, etc. How can PFAS be found to CAUSE health impacts in rats and monkeys but not livestock? Pretty obvious to me. Did these studies explore functional aspects like reproduction, immune, metabolism rate, etc? Were the studies researched in real farm dynamics noting weather is a significant factor in surface level readings. Did the study have any bias?
- Your own research study authored, at the time, with staff from AG Vic, Victoria's Chief Vet and Victorian toxicologists highlights a lot of old overseas data but still too many gaps. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in livestock and game species: A review
- Some better research data could come from the Australian Veterinary Association surveying local vets from PFAS impacted regions. That would be novel approach but may need some whistle-blower protection for accuracy.
- As I have been following some of the recent Australian research, I am also concerned there is a bias using pharmacokinetics [PK] (the process of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) in animals) and toxicokinetics [TK]- (study of systemic exposure during toxicological experiments on animals) to potentially undermine polluter liability. It's about stock exposures to PFAS contamination and how modelling can determine its clearance from the body.
- Bring down polluter's economic liability to those areas that sit on the borderline of exceeding PFAS levels.
- Normalising levels going into the food chain.
Does PFAS exposure of livestock need to be declared on the National Vendor Declaration?
The signing of a Livestock Production Assurance (LPA) National Vendor Declaration (NVD) is a matter for the livestock producer.
Signing the LPA NVD needs to take into account the rules of the LPA program. Producers should consult with LPA if they have specific queries about the use of the NVD. The LPA program is the Australian livestock industry's on-farm assurance program covering food safety, animal welfare and biosecurity. The LPA NVD is the main document behind Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier of safe red meat to domestic and international markets. Red meat producers are required to complete a NVD for all livestock movements.
Is there a maximum level for PFAS in food sourced from livestock?
There is no maximum level for PFAS for food products sourced from livestock.
The maximum level is the limit placed on the level of a contaminant in food. Maximum levels for certain contaminants and natural toxicants are set under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and adopted under Victorian legislation.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand has developed non-regulatory 'trigger points' for livestock products including meat, offal and milk, as well as seafood, fruits and vegetables.
The trigger points are used by government authorities to identify whether further investigation may be required if PFAS is detected in analysed foods.
There are no domestic or internationally regulated maximum levels for PFAS in food as to date there is no clear evidence of any adverse effects of PFAS in human populations...
There are currently no restrictions on domestic or international trade in agricultural products in relation to PFAS.
Agriculture Victoria is working closely with other government departments and agencies, and monitoring the situation. This includes providing assistance to relevant authorities undertaking human health risk assessments.
The signing of a Livestock Production Assurance (LPA) National Vendor Declaration (NVD) is a matter for the livestock producer.
- Mixed messaging here - legally they should or legally they don't. This also absolves Agriculture Victoria from future liability.
Signing the LPA NVD needs to take into account the rules of the LPA program. Producers should consult with LPA if they have specific queries about the use of the NVD. The LPA program is the Australian livestock industry's on-farm assurance program covering food safety, animal welfare and biosecurity. The LPA NVD is the main document behind Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier of safe red meat to domestic and international markets. Red meat producers are required to complete a NVD for all livestock movements.
Is there a maximum level for PFAS in food sourced from livestock?
There is no maximum level for PFAS for food products sourced from livestock.
The maximum level is the limit placed on the level of a contaminant in food. Maximum levels for certain contaminants and natural toxicants are set under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and adopted under Victorian legislation.
- Default to FSANZ, again.
- The webpage notes: last updated: 03 Feb 2022 so AG Victoria need to back up the underlined comment.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand has developed non-regulatory 'trigger points' for livestock products including meat, offal and milk, as well as seafood, fruits and vegetables.
The trigger points are used by government authorities to identify whether further investigation may be required if PFAS is detected in analysed foods.
- Analysed is the magic word. Relates to NO DATA, NO PROBLEM!
There are no domestic or internationally regulated maximum levels for PFAS in food as to date there is no clear evidence of any adverse effects of PFAS in human populations...
There are currently no restrictions on domestic or international trade in agricultural products in relation to PFAS.
- So, AG VIC is ignoring international countries setting maximum levels for some PFAS compounds in food so shouldn't there be some forward planning.
Agriculture Victoria is working closely with other government departments and agencies, and monitoring the situation. This includes providing assistance to relevant authorities undertaking human health risk assessments.
- Can Ag Vic share these communications with the public because there is nothing happening on your webpage other than highlight a wheel of policy influencers going nowhere fast?