THE broader issue of the misinformation fueling the case for eating less meat has arisen in the submissions made to the research into the labeling of alternative proteins.
Manufacturers and leaders in the red meat industry have pointed to a growing number of false claims about the manner in which beef is produced, and urge senators evaluating submissions to use rigorous reference sources.
Share your thoughts on our survey on vegan food labels
Some claims relate to land clearing, emissions and water use and others relate to red meat consumption rates in Australia in relation to dietary guidelines.
Manufacturers have been working to combat misinformation for some time, especially regarding sustainability evidence promoted by alternative protein advocates, and say this research provides many examples of how widespread falsified information about beef production is.
Submissions are rolling in to the research that examines the use of terms like beef, bacon, chicken, and ground beef on alternative meat labels that contain no animal protein at all.
One of the experienced naturopaths and public health academician, Dr. Alehta Ward, has drawn fierce criticism for a variety of claims ranging from land clearing to red meat consumption by Australians.
However, their explanation that nearly half of Australia’s cattle herd received growth hormone is seen as an example of completely false information upheld in the name of promoting herbal product consumption.
Dr. Ward’s only reference for claiming to back up her argument that meat ânaturalâ doesn’t mean it’s more beneficial to health is an unassigned statement in an article published in the Guardian.
Beef producers argue that this is hardly a scientific source.
The truth is
Hard numbers are reported on the use of hormones to promote hormone growth in Australia, but estimates from industry sources such as research and development company Meat & Livestock Australia and the Australian Lot Feeders Association put it well under 50 percent.
In fiscal 2019-20, 33 percent of the total number of cattle classified under Meat Standard Australia were treated. A total of 46 percent of the cattle slaughtered this year were assessed according to MSA.
Coles supermarket does not buy any HGP treated cattle or the main export markets of China and the European Union, so no beef produced for these customers is treated. China has been one of Australia’s three largest beef customers for three years.
A third of the cattle fed in Australia are now Wagyu, according to ALFA, and they are not being treated for HGPs.
In addition, HGPs are rarely used in female cattle, and the female percentage of adult cattle slaughter has not fallen below 40 percent in the past 18 months.
While manufacturers also cite the extensive scientific research showing that consuming meat from animals treated with HGPs poses no health risks, they say the blatant misrepresentation of the extent of its use in Australia is on the wider Lack of credibility in submissions from. points out many are urging that the labeling of vegan foods should remain unregulated.
The story of fake facts, prevalent in the investigation of fake meat labels, first appeared on Farm Online.