George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is no secret that I am a passionate supporter of the sugar industry, given that my electorate is the biggest sugar-growing electorate in the nation. We should all be passionate supporters of the sugar industry in this place, because Australia is the third largest exporter of sugar. More than 4,000 cane farms along Australia's eastern seaboard are mostly owned by farming families. The industry underpins 50,000 jobs in this nation. Sugar production is the social and economic fabric that has woven itself through the development of many coastal Queensland towns. Despite its critics, sugar is a natural part of life. In moderation, it plays an important role in providing the energy necessary for human bodies to function properly. The Australian Diabetes Council states that no single nutrient, including sugar, is responsible for weight gain or loss. The Dieticians Association of Australia believes it is simplistic and unhelpful to blame sugar alone for rising rates of obesity and other health related problems. Despite this, the sugar industry has enemies who are trying to destroy sugar's reputation.

Earlier this year three US academics made a string of outlandish claims about sugar—for instance, calling it 'toxic', saying it was linked to the rise of non-communicable diseases and that its effects were akin to that of alcohol. They advocated for the severe regulation of sugar and pushed for a tax based on the sugar content of a food product. These are things that I utterly reject. I note that we now have diet books on the market disparaging sugar as a 'sweet poison'. Well, there are enemies of sugar out there and there are also enemies within government, unfortunately. The current National Health and Medical Research Council's Australian Dietary Guidelines on sugar are this:

Consume only moderate amounts of sugar and foods containing added sugars.

That is great, but the draft guidelines that are out now change that to say:

Limit intake of food and drinks containing added sugar. In particular, limit sugar-sweetened drinks.

The reality, though, is that the systemic literature review of all the papers submitted to the NHMRC advocating for a change in sugar's status from 'moderate' to 'limit' as a means to combat obesity were found to be weak. There is no clear scientific justification for it. What is more, the facts are that, while sugar consumption in Australia has dropped 23 per cent since 1980, obesity rates have doubled and diabetes has tripled. If the Dietary Guidelines are changed from 'moderate' to 'limit' intake of sugar this will end up in the lap of Food Standards Australia New Zealand and a purge will begin on added sugar in food products, replacing it with fat and artificial sweeteners, each with their own dietary issues.

The same situation occurred in the UK recently were authorities regulated the amount of salt in a product, changing the taste of their iconic HP Sauce. What will the iconic Australian Tim Tam taste like if its sugar content is halved? This is nanny state madness. I call on the Minister for Health and on this government to tell the NHMRC to stick to the facts when determining the new Australian dietary guidelines. And the facts they have found is that there are only weak arguments to change the sugar intake from 'moderate' to 'limit'. (Time expired)