We currently believe there are no risks around carcinogens in our solution. Further research is planned, including toxicology investigations.

Throughout extensive scientific trials over nearly a decade, we have not found any seaweed-derived bromoform residue in any part of the animal including the meat, faecal matter, kidneys, blood.

The studies that looked at carcinogenic characteristics in bromoform were on rats and mice. The inclusion rates were 2,000 times the rates that would be used in ruminant livestock. As such, the bromoform concentrations were significantly higher in relation to the rodent body weight. Moreover, rodents do not have a ruminant digestive system.

Bromoform contained in seaweed does not accumulate in organs or food products when fed to cattle at the recommended effective inclusion levels and therefore will not affect brain, kidney, or liver function in cattle or consumers.

Drinking water standards for the US require bromoform concentration to be under 80 µg/L and EU standards are 100 µg/L for all trihalomethanes; including bromoform. Typical drinking water is between 10-20 µg/L bromoform which is formed when -chlorine-based disinfectants react with organic matter and bromine when added to drinking water.

Swimming pools typically contain higher bromoform levels due to high levels of disinfectant and organic matter. Several published studies (including Li et al. 2018, Kinley et al. 2020, and Roque et al. 2021) have tested all or a selection of liver, kidney, fat, meat, and faeces collected from both sheep and beef cattle. No bromoform was detected in any of those studies.

According to Roque et al. (2019) and Stefenoni et al. (2021) there was no difference in the microgram (µg) levels of bromoform detected in the milk of dairy cows with or without consuming the seaweed in their feed. Therefore no additional bromoform was added to the milk due to seaweed inclusion in the diet and microgram level bromoform is attributed to bromoform in the drinking water. The USEPA and EU recommended “safe to consume” levels of bromoform are more than 500 times higher than was detected in milk of cows in the Roque et al. 2019 dairy study and the seaweed had no impact on the comparison.

The Wageningen University Livestock Research further reinforces the proven, practical, and safe inclusion levels that have been demonstrated consistently in the foundation studies on the safety and efficacy of low levels of Asparagopsis (minimum effective level) to reduce methane from ruminant livestock.

Muizelaar et al (2021) reported finding μg/L levels of bromoform in milk of some of the cows from the first day of Asparagopsis offering but unfortunately the researchers have systematically excluded data from cows that had no detectable bromoform in their milk which is confirmed in the Table 3 footnotes. Further, the milk sample detectable bromoform report from study Day 1 is questionable in that only some of samples from the Low and Medium cows had detectable bromoform but there was no detectable bromoform in milk of the High-level cows. Particularly suspect considering that after Day 1 there was no further milk bromoform detected for the entirety of the study from those same cows. This outcome suggests faulty sample handling and possibly contamination that can occur when the same workers handling the seaweed also handle the milk samples. Also, there was no control group for comparison or bromoform analysis of the water supply therefore the ambiguity surrounding these samples and the lack of bromoform in subsequent samples makes interpretation impossible.

Vary late stage lactating dairy cattle were restricted of feed in a deprivation protocol to maximise intake of an Asparagopsis gruel of hazardous concentrations. Beyond that ambiguous Day 1 of Asparagopsis offering and even at these extreme concentrations and under a superfluous scenario where they were deprived of sufficient feed for the amount of seaweed offered via concentrated slug, there was only a single event in a questionable and minimal transfer of bromoform into the milk. This event occurred following a four day feed deprivation regimen and the one only milk sample that had detectable bromoform came from only one of the cows in the High-level group receiving the most hazardous concentration of Asparagopsis and that individual had restricted feed intake totalling only 3.1 kg of dry weight (DW) leading into the sample collection on the following morning (Day 9). The other cow in the High-level group had restricted intake of only 1.2 kg (DW) on the day prior to sample collection but even then bromoform could not be detected in the milk. No other cows receiving any level of Asparagopsis had detectable levels of bromoform in milk in the Muizelaar et al. (2021) study. Further, there or was no difference in milk bromoform of cows that did, and did not, receive the seaweed in any other previous study. However, the milk bromoform level reported by Muizelaar or any other study was minimal at less than half of the USEPA drinking water standard of 80 μg/L.

Existing research has demonstrated that the amount of Asparagopsis provided to cows by Muizelaar et al. (2021) should be mixed with 75 kg (DW) of feed to be at the desired minimum effective daily intake of Asparagopsis where animal welfare and economics are sustainable. That’s 24 times higher based on total intake and based on concentration of the seaweed gruel given alone during feed deprivation it was a perilous 50 times higher at 25 % (DW). Well designed and safe research has been conducted by some of the most reputable institutions in the world including CSIRO, University of California Davis, James Cook University, Penn State University – using much more sensitive techniques able to detect much lower levels of bromoform than the Wageningen study, and even then bromoform was not different from control cows in meat or milk in any study and the results of multiple studies repeatedly demonstrate the significant impact Asparagopsis can safely have on methane emissions from agriculture – it is a proven performer.

In summary, The Muizelaar et al. (2021) study has confirmed an almost infinite margin of food safety for responsible inclusion of Asparagopsis for antimethanogenesis, at or near, the minimum effective level in cattle feed.

A number of greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, methane included.

The amount of warming by each gas, called its global warming potential, is made up of how much energy it captures and how long it lasts in the atmosphere. Methane has 28 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. (It is 86 times more potent on a 20-year scale).

Livestock are producing methane each year so the problem doesn’t magically disappear in 12 years. Moreover, as methane only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years, action we take now can have a significant impact in the near term. We have an opportunity to remove a more potent, shorter-lived greenhouse gas from the global emissions inventory. This will be increasingly important given that demand for meat and dairy is forecast to increase in coming years.

If 10 percent of Australian feedlot and dairy cattle were fed seaweed and all the bromoform in the seaweed was able to escape it would have negligible increase to the contribution to atmospheric bromoform produced by all seaweeds.

The environmental benefits in methane reduction should far outweigh minimal environmental impact.

Relevant scientific papers:

• Glasson et al (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102673

• Jia et al (2022) http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7631-2022

An environmental risk assessment was carried out by Geomar in 2020, titled: Environmental Risk Assessment on bromoform (CHBr3) from Asparagopsis spp. as antimethanogenic feed supplement Assessment Report (Quack et al, 2020). The report assessed that intended operation of Asparagopsis seaweed farms with an annual yield of 34,746 tonnes dry weight (DW) in either open ocean or tank cultures in three different Australian locations would not impact the ozone layer or the organisms in the surrounding seawater under normal operating conditions.

“The annual CHBr3 released from the farming activities would be less than 1% of the overall natural and anthropogenic CHBr3 emissions from coastal Australia,” the report said.

Further, “feeding the processed macroalgae to the cows is very unlikely to cause environmental impacts due to elevated atmospheric CHBr3 concentrations larger than the maximum tolerable workplace concentrations.”