Fake news frenzy: Why the "we don't feed Bovaer" response did more harm
To have significant methane-reducing outcomes, less than a quarter of a teaspoon of Bovaer is added to 15 to 20 kilograms of cattle feed. Picture Bovaer.
The spread of misinformation online surrounding the methane-reducing cattle feed supplement Bovaer was one of the most intense cases of a fake news health frenzy that social media experts have seen post the pandemic.
The way some livestock businesses handled it - by rushing to distance themselves from the product - may cause them more damage in the longer term, it has been suggested.
As the beef and dairy industries in Australia take stock of what actually unfolded, nerves are on edge about the other efforts being made to reduce methane emissions and what sort of consumer backlash might fire up online.
What unfolded
An announcement from the big United Kingdom dairy co-operative Arla Foods that it would start trialing the additive on 30 farms seems to have set the online conspiracy theory wheels in motion.
Incidentally, two months earlier, Coles had announced in Australia it was partnering with Mort & Co Grassdale Feedlot in Queensland to trial Bovaer.
Coles said international studies had shown Bovaer - which is broken down as part of the natural digestive process of the animal - to be successful in reducing methane emissions but this trial would be the first in Australia to test the feed supplement in a real-world, large-scale commercial feedlot of industry size and scale.
There was little fanfare around the Coles move until the emergence of social media posts overseas of people tipping out their milk.
Then Australians like politicians Craig Kelly and Bob Katter jumped on the bandwagon, declaring Bovaer a toxic drug and claiming people had to wear protective gear just to handle it.
It's impossible to determine for certain, however social media experts who have traced threads believe the UK storm may have been ignited by dairy farmers themselves who believe cattle methane is not a contributor to climate change and they should not be asked to feed supplements to their animals for that purpose.
Certainly, in Australia there were plenty of social media posts from those claiming to be in the beef and dairy industry spreading misinformation about Bovaer and other management practices used in feedlots or on-farm. They were doing this under the banner of 'fighting back' against methane-reducing efforts in their industries.
Let the cows fart, they argue.
The truth
DSM-Firmenich, the Swiss-Dutch company that has developed the compound, published a comprehensive package of information, complete with independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies, reinforcing the product's safety.
Industry bodies like Meat & Livestock Australia, which has spent more than $1 million studying Bovaer and is currently undertaking two further research projects to the value of $8.1m, says all research has confirmed that the product is safe for consumers as well as handlers.
National farmers organisations have also said 15 years of trials have proven there is no risk to consumers or animals.
Numerous scientists around the world have pointed to the plethora of credible information available about Bovaer proving its safety and its ability to reduce methane emissions in cattle.
Adding less than a quarter of a teaspoon of Bovaer to 15 to 20 kilograms of cattle feed can reduce methane emissions by up to 60 to 90 per cent.
Professor Oliver Jones, Professor of chemistry at RMIT University, said Bovaer was a relatively simple chemical that was broken down in part of the cow's stomachs where it inhibits a specific enzyme that produces methane.
"Because it is broken down quickly, it is not absorbed whole and is not present in milk; it indirectly increases the fat content because substances that would have been converted to methanol are instead converted to fats," he said.
Professor of Dairy Science at the University of Sydney Sergio Garcia said it takes just a few seconds to go to official pages like European Food Safety Authority and retrieve the full technical evaluation of Bovaer and the details on the many comprehensive studies done to evaluate its safety.
"There is an amazing amount of detailed, trusted and verifiable information readily available to all," he said.
Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the University of Leeds Alastair Hay said the additive 3-nitroxypropanol (3-NOP) inhibits the enzyme methyl coenzyme M reductase, the enzyme that catalyses the final step of methanogenesis in the digestive system of ruminants.
"3-NOP is rapidly metabolised to 3-nitroxypropionic acid (3-NOPA) in cattle and 3-NOPA disappears from the plasma of cattle rapidly with most lost over a 3-hour period," he said.
"Tests have been done on the milk of animals receiving 3-NOP and no metabolites were detected. The level of detection was 5ug (micrograms) per kilogram of milk. Theoretical studies indicate that levels of 3-NOP possible in milk at the dosing levels proposed are some 100 times less than would occur at the dose accepted by the FSA as safe. The FSA states that a dose of 0.3mg per kilogram body weight is one it judges to be safe."
The fallout
The rush by Australian dairy processors, and some branded beef supply chains, to tell consumers their farmers are not using Bovaer has been met with a fair bit of distaste throughout the wider livestock industry.
The argument is that move has the potential to validate unfounded and unscientific conspiracy claims which should be debunked, not entertained, by all in the industry.
Senior lecturer at Monash University Dr Clare Southerton, who has expertise in digital misinformation, said pressure to respond immediately was intense and that was where mistakes were made.
"These events happen so quickly, there is no time for roundtable discussion on how to respond," she said.
"And it's understandable companies want to be responsive because there is awareness of the risks of doing and saying nothing.
"But it may be you are setting yourself up for a bigger problem down the line."
Dr Southerton said it was very common for health misinformation to spread on social media.
"Firstly, health content in general is growing on social media," she said.
"People increasingly trust content that others are providing about their health because it feels more reliable and it's everyday experiences and everyday language.
"A content creator sounds very relatable and any negative experiences with doctors amplifies that."
She said the origin of misinformation can be unintentional and not malicious.
"When people don't have good health literacy or misunderstand a complicated term, all it takes is a simple post," she said.
"There was plenty of health misinformation spread before social media. The difference is now millions can be reached quickly.
"It's possible for a video that is only up for 24 hours to be seen by millions."
So what is the solution for companies or industries facing this?
"There is no quick fix or silver bullet," Dr Southerton said.
"Generally, best practice is try to be as transparent as possible, to take seriously the concern and not dismiss it as fringe.
"Remember people are typically reading the information out of context. They don't know the field very well.
"Providing clear information simply, that addresses concerns quickly, is the best you can do."