Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that palm oil, because of its low cost, is a common ingredient in many packaged foods, often supplementing vegetable oil; and

(b) the misleading labelling of palm oil in Australian products, often labelled as vegetable oil, with 50 per cent of products sold in supermarkets containing palm oil;

(2) further notes that palm oil has high levels of saturated fat with over 50 per cent of its composition being saturated fat, which is very dangerous to consumers with heart or other conditions;

(3) recognises the damage to the environment and endangered animals as a result of mass deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia which has led to the exponential threat of extinction to animals such as orangutans, tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses, all of which are already critically endangered; and

(4) calls on the Government to change the labelling laws on products sold in Australia to require products to clearly state when they contain palm oil.

Australians regularly indicate a desire for better food labelling standards. That is what Australians want, and I stand here today to support the call for clear and transparent labelling on products containing palm oil. This call is for both health and environmental factors.

Palm oil is made up of 50 per cent saturated fat, which can affect cholesterol levels. Saturated fat is a major cause of coronary heart disease in Australia. Palm oil is potentially harmful to everyday consumers, as it is used in approximately 40 per cent of our food products. Everyday Australians buying from supermarkets would not be aware of this. It has been reported by the National Heart Foundation that every 23 minutes an Australian dies from heart disease in Australia. Palm oil is often listed as vegetable oil and also disguises itself under over 200 alternative names in food packaging. I will say that again: 200 alternative names.

It is time to tighten labelling laws to inform the consumer clearly about what is in the food that they are consuming. Palm oil is popular with food manufacturers because it is cheap compared to other oil options and, unlike other crops, only requires less than half the land to produce the same amount of oil. I am calling on all governments to change the labelling laws of products sold in Australia to ensure that they clearly state when they contain palm oil. This is to ensure that consumers have the ability to make informed choices on food and goods they are purchasing, consuming and feeding their children.

It is important to also note where the palm oil comes from. Palm oil comes from the palm fruit. During its harvesting, it produces immense quantities of smoke into the atmosphere, contributing significantly to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The United Nations Environmental Program reported that palm oil is a major driver of deforestation in Borneo and Sumatra. In Malaysia and Indonesia, there has been mass deforestation, which has led to the threat of animals such as the orangutan and other critically endangered species, including tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses. Palm oil production is a major issue contributing to deforestation and habit degrading through logging. According to the World Wildlife Fund, an area the equivalent size of 300 football fields of rainforest is cleared each hour to make way for palm oil production. Two orangutans die per day because of this deforestation to make way for palm oil plantations.

As a nation we need to join the ranks of the EU and America and ensure that mandatory labelling of palm oil made and sold in Australia. There is strong public interest in mandatory labelling of food and other products which contain palm oil. I thank the former Labor member for Wills, Kelvin Thompson, for his invitation to Melbourne Zoo, where I was briefed on the Don't Palm Us Off campaign, which has received 160,000 signatures on their petition. I congratulate Zoos Victoria CEO Jennie Gray; Director of Wildlife Conservation Science, Rachel Lowry; General Manager, Jacquie O'Brien; Primate Keeper Fleur Butcher, who travels overseas each year to help the orangutans; and campaign ambassador Kelvin Thompson. Ministers from across this country will be meeting on 25 November at the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulations, and I urge ministers to collectively agree on changing food labels in Australia.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion addresses two issues. The first is the matter of clear food labelling—a matter which I have had a longstanding interest in. The second is the preservation of tropical wildlife, which in so many cases and in so many parts of the world is increasingly under threat of extinction—again, a matter that I have talked about in this place on other occasions. Both are important matters and need to be addressed. Perhaps we should have focused on one at a time so that we could have spent more time talking about each one individually but, nevertheless, I am happy to speak on this motion.

Some years ago—in fact, in 2009—there was an inquiry into food labelling in this country, led by Dr Neal Blewett, and it handed down its findings in 2011. There were some 61 recommendations from that inquiry, and one of them specifically talked about some of the labelling issues that are relevant to this motion.

I not only looked at that inquiry, at the time—and, perhaps, agitated for it—but also was part of a House committee that looked at the country-of-origin food labelling issue only a couple of years ago. So I am well aware of the difficulties associated with changing the labelling scheme in this country, the resistance that would be met if you tried to go too far and, in some cases, the legitimacy of that resistance. But I am also aware that it has been done better in other countries. If we can take a leaf out of what has happened in other countries, in making labelling a lot clearer, in respect to the nutritional value of the foods that are being consumed, that will make an immense difference to the health outcomes of people in this country. Clearer labelling is one of the things that is very much in demand when you speak to consumers out there.

As the member for La Trobe quite rightly pointed out, there is a direct link between good nutrition and health outcomes. Not surprisingly, a poll conducted by UMR Research indicates that 84 per cent of Australians support a change to the labelling structures that we have in this country. In particular, when I look at the Labelling Logic review of Dr Neal Blewett, recommendation 12 states:

That where sugars, fats or vegetable oils are added as separate ingredients in a food, the terms 'added sugars' and 'added fats' and/or 'added vegetable oils' be used in the ingredient list as the generic term, followed by a bracketed list …

of added sugars, added fats or added vegetable oils. The bracketed list would identify the specific ingredient added. And that is what is important, from a health point of view. Indeed, I have just met with some people in respect to allergies, and they will need to know if they might have an allergy to a particular food.

It seems that years later many of the recommendations from that initial Blewett inquiry are still to be fully implemented. Yet we know that in Australia over 60 per cent of the population are overweight and around a quarter of the population are obese. So there are some direct costs associated with good nutritional advice that arises when you have much better labelling. There have even been discussions in this place and overseas about adding a sugar tax to products that have a high sugar level within them, in order to try and reduce sugar consumption for the very same countries. Again, I note that other countries have been able to make some progress.

One of the concerns I have about all of the food labelling issues that we deal with under the FSANZ process—a process whereby we have the six states and two territories of Australia, and New Zealand—is all having to come to an agreement, a consensus. It is a cumbersome process. Perhaps it is time, if nothing else, we looked at that structure so that we can make the process much easier when it comes to doing what we know and what everyone else knows is common sense.

The last point I want to touch on, very briefly, and the member for La Trobe touched on it, is one of the issues associated with forest clearing in the tropics: the issue of pollution. I have seen it first-hand. It lasts, at times, for months at a time and is something that nobody should be subjected to, particularly those countries that surround the areas where the burning is taking place. They have to endure it for weeks and months at a time, at the expense of their health.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by thanking the member for La Trobe for bringing this issue and highlighting the issue of palm oil labelling and the impact of palm oil cultivation on the environment and local communities. Palm oil is a low-cost and versatile oil, which is increasingly being used by the processed food manufacturing sector. We find it in about half of all packaged products in our supermarkets. It is so widely used now that it accounts for 65 per cent of the global trade in vegetable oils. It is attractive because it is relatively cheap. It is also, as the member for La Trobe has touched on, a high-yielding crop, needing less than half the land required by other crops to produce the same amount of oil. It is also extremely versatile, in that it maintains its properties even when cooked under high temperatures. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil go into that in quite some detail in a recent article on their website, which talks about its cooking properties, its texture, its preservative effects and also the yield from production.

Here in Australia we do not produce a whole lot of palm oil; it is mainly done by small producers and is certainly quite insignificant compared with the levels of production in countries like India, Indonesia and Malaysia. Palm oil is used in a wide range of products that we see daily on our local supermarket shelves—including ice cream, chocolate, soaps and cosmetics—but, as the member for La Trobe has rightly pointed out, many of us would be unaware of this, as it is often labelled as vegetable oil.

In 2015 Australia imported around $100 million worth of palm oil for use in our processed food sector. Under current regulations palm oil can be labelled using generic terms such as 'vegetable oil'; however, food manufacturers can voluntarily label it as palm oil or as 'uses sustainably-sourced palm oil'. Regulations do, however, require the declaration of certain nutrients in the nutrient information panel on food labels, including saturated fat. The total amount of saturated fat from all the ingredients in a food—including palm oil, if it is used—must be declared. Using the nutritional information panel can help consumers to make healthier food choices. FSANZ has previously rejected an application for mandatory ingredient labelling of palm oil when used in food products because the application was about environmental, not health, concerns.

Many food manufacturers are voluntarily labelling their products and some companies are members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which promotes the supply of palm oil sourced from ecofriendly areas. The government review of food-labelling law and policy in 2011, as the previous speaker touched on, recommended that where fats and vegetable oils are added as separate ingredients in a food, it be followed by a bracketed list of the added fats or added vegetable oils. The government response to the recommendation was that FSANZ would undertake a technical evaluation and provide advice on the proposed changes. The latest update is that FSANZ is progressing work on the technical evaluation and expects to provide further advice in late 2016.

In the remaining time I wish to touch on some of the economic and environmental aspects of palm oil production. We know that in some regions palm oil cultivation has caused, and continues to cause, deforestation, and pollution has also been touched on. This is on land that was once predominantly covered by primary forest and, as the member for La Trobe has touched on, the consequence of this is leading to an increased threat of extinction to a wide variety of animals, including orangutans, tigers, elephants and rhinoceros, as well as plant species. However, the notion that we simply replace palm oil with other oils does not withstand scrutiny when all the facts are considered. As the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil observes, palm oil plays an important role in the reduction of poverty for many in the developing world.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I extend my thanks and congratulations to the member for La Trobe for bringing forward this motion, and can I acknowledge the work of the former Labor member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, who has been a stalwart advocate for the appropriate labelling of palm oil.

Like my colleagues, I rise today to call on the government to amend food-labelling laws for products sold in Australia, to ensure products clearly state when they contain palm oil. Palm oil finds its way into around 50 per cent of the items we buy at the supermarket. However, the vast majority of Australians do not know they are purchasing items containing palm oil, because of misleading labelling—in many instances it is generically labelled as vegetable oil. Clear and accurate labelling of products is in line with the community's desire to make informed choices when it comes to the products they buy.

Palm oil production can have serious environmental impacts. This is particularly the case in South-East Asia where palm oil production has expanded exponentially and, for the most part, in a way that is unsustainable. Palm oil production has led to widespread deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia, putting already endangered species like orangutans, tigers and elephants in further danger of extinction. Orangutans in particular have been disappearing at a shocking rate as a result of deforestation. Palm oil production currently contributes to the death of around 1,000 orangutans each and every year. I know that I and many in my electorate would like to be able to make an informed, ethical choice when it comes to environmentally unsuitable products. Clear labelling of palm oil will allow consumers to use their buying power to advocate for sustainable practices.

Palm oil consumption also has significant health implications. Palm oil is made up of over 50 per cent saturated fat and can be found in around 40 per cent of our food products. Added fats, sugars and vegetable oils cause significant health risks when consumed in excess. They can lead to health problems such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and even some cancers. Saturated fats are a major cause of coronary heart disease, and we know that Australians already consume about twice the amount of saturated fat that they should. We all know that we need to limit our intake of certain fats and sugars, but how can we do that effectively if we do not what kinds of sugars, fats and oils are in the food we eat? To make informed decisions, we need clear information on food labels. Whether it is a nutritional decision or an ethical one, Australians deserve to know whether palm oil is contained in the products they buy.

Action on this issue began all the way back in 2009 when it was agreed by Australia and New Zealand to undertake a comprehensive review of food-labelling laws and policies. The resulting report, Labelling Logic, recommended that added sugars, fats and vegetable oils must be clearly labelled. That report is now some five years ago. Tens of thousands of Australians have spoken out against unsustainable palm oil production through petitions, polls and campaigns like Zoos Victoria's Don't Palm Us Off. The government must act in line with community expectations and implement the Labelling Logic recommendation as a matter of urgency. The government must act to ensure that palm oil is clearly and accurately labelled on our food and other products. Through proper labelling we can begin to make healthier and more environmentally friendly choices. This is a win-win proposition: good for the environment, good for consumers and good for the health of Australians. On that basis, it requires action from this parliament.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for bringing this motion to the parliament today into this chamber to debate. The motion calls for a change, so that we have palm oil being labelled on products—noting that labelling is currently misleading; that palm oil contains 50 per cent of saturated fats which is dangerous to consumers with heart and other conditions; and the environmental damage and loss of habitat for threatened species. The United Nations Environment Program identified that palm plantations are a problem because of deforestation of rainforests and loss of habitats, which is the greatest threat to the orangutan. Such transformation of land has led to increases in greenhouse gas emissions and threats to biodiversity. Palm oil is the most produced and traded oil. It employs about six million people globally and has been a key factor in moving many communities out of poverty. We have seen a rapid rate of growth in South-East Asia, Malaysia and Indonesia, producing around 85 per cent of the world's palm oil.

Labelling that informs people of what they are eating and where food comes from is a policy that Labor supports. It is important for health reasons that people know what types of oils they are eating. As we know, palm oil has high levels of saturated fats, which is a cause of cardiovascular disease, and contains palmitic acid, which is a chief constituent of palm oil that affect insulin and leptin regulation of glucose and appetite. At the moment, consumers cannot identify what type of oil they are consuming, because the oils are genetically listed on labelling. To understand what is on a written label and, I guess, to support this motion, it is important for people to have a higher level of health literacy to make an informed choice, particularly if health is a key driver of consumer choice. I think it is very critical that, whilst we are looking at changing labelling, we need to place a bit more emphasis on preventative health to educate people on such matters.

The environmental issues are of a great concern to the industry. Through consumer choice and pressure placed on multinational manufacturers, they should be demanding a more sustainable source of palm oil. But what this motion does not highlight is that there are significant labour issues within this industry: child labour; low wages; abuse of migrant labour from countries such as Nepal, the Philippines and Bangladesh; debt bondage; labour trafficking; tens of thousands—if not more—stateless children of parents working in the plantations; and violations to human rights. Yet this industry provides significant economic support for communities in Malaysia and Indonesia, employing around 3½ million people, so much so that that has been a driver of people coming out of poverty.

Much has been done to address these issues. What has been mentioned is the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil certification system that assists in identifying palm oil that has been sustainably harvested, and also work in the area around labour, with Free and Fair Labor in Palm Oil Production: Principles and Implementation Guidance released to inform the minimum standards for plantations. What has previously been mentioned by other speakers is the Blewett report, and I think that highlighted the need for much broader labelling around oils and sugars. I think it is very prudent that recommendation 12 out of that review, which the ministerial forum will be looking at at the end of this month, is actually supported, and I do hope that is the case.

Previous attempts by private members' bills looking at changing labelling to address palm oil have failed. They have failed because they have looked outside the process, which is that the states and territories are the bodies that are responsible for the regulation and enforcement of food labelling. They have failed for a number of reasons around the cost to business. In fact, it is quite ironic that the Abbott opposition at the time actually supported the bill, which would have cost Australian businesses $150 million to implement the changes. Not only that; there are our obligations under the World Trade Organisation, so we need to be very mindful of what we do with that. The regulatory system in place with the states and territories is a way forward, and I do hope that those ministers meeting at the end of the month do support recommendation 12.

But will that change deforestation? Probably not. Will it lead to better health outcomes? Maybe so. I think the key message, though, is that this government has not put a lot of emphasis on prevention measures for health. If you do not have a high level of health literacy, it does not matter what labelling is there. We need to ensure that those programs are funded, that those that have poor health outcomes do have a higher level of health literacy and do gain out of— (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.