Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The principal objectives of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007 are to meet and maintain high-level food regulation standards. FSANZ, as it is commonly known, is responsible for developing food standards and codes of practice covering the content and labelling of food, as well as food safety standards in Australia and New Zealand. While the Australian Greens are supportive of the need for review and revision of the current act, we do not believe that the bill before us adequately meets the needs of a modern and dynamic food standards process.

We are concerned that the act does not meet some of its basic objectives, in that it fails to provide a definition of ‘public health’ and, in doing so, fails to ensure that the legislative measures of the act are squarely aimed at delivering public health outcomes as opposed—as some would say—to being more focused on delivering food industry outcomes, in some cases. We also believe the act should include a stronger component of public consultation and address the advertising of unhealthy food to children. And we are concerned that the measures relating to the identification and labelling of genetically engineered food products are not in line with community concerns or a reflection of the desired community standard.

The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs undertook an inquiry into the provisions of this bill. While the Australian Greens are supportive of the main body of this report, we did include additional comments to address the definition of ‘health’, the issue of editorial notes, public consultation, some of the aspects of advertising to children, and genetically modified foods.

When we come to the issue of public health we believe that a very considered approach is needed. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 clearly sets out its objectives. They are: the protection of public health and safety; the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and the prevention of misleading and deceptive conduct. These objectives place the context of food regulation clearly in a public health framework, highlighting the need for safety and health outcomes. Yet the act does not have a clear definition of public health.

So here we have legislation whose main objective is public health—but what is public health? With this in mind, we believe that the bill should include a definition of public health. Unfortunately, sometimes you would think that the interests of the food industry were being placed ahead of the interests of consumers and public health. The AMA put this opinion to the Senate committee in their submission. The report on this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs made a recommendation that the definition of public health be clarified, but, as far as I can tell from reading the latest lot of amendments, the government has not done that. The Greens believe that more is needed, and we highlighted that in our additional comments report.

We believe very firmly that the act needs a clear definition of public health. The Greens support the AMA’s proposal that any definition of public health needs to include a commitment to the precautionary principle, which they defined in their submission:

The precautionary principle states that when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

As such, I have proposed an amendment to include the following definition of ‘public health’ in this bill, with the definition of the precautionary principle in mind. The definition is: public health is the organised response by society to minimise illness, injury and disability and to protect and promote health; it recognises that health and health care occur in an economic and sociocultural system both nationally and internationally, and therefore seeks to influence all sectors to maximize the health and wellbeing of society; and the precautionary principle should be applied in relation to all public health outcomes considered within this act. I will talk further about the definition when I move the amendments.

I now move on to the issue of public consultation. If passed, the bill will also see the implementation of three different options for the development and changing of food regulation arrangements. These are: a truncated process for minor variation of a food regulatory measure; a more extended process for a new food regulatory measure or a major variation to a food regulatory measure; and a general procedure for all other changes.

A number of submissions to the inquiry were from groups representing consumer and public health interests who indicated concern about the limitations imposed on public consultation proposed within the bill. The point they make is that, while there is a need for streamlining the consultation process, the current bill does not provide adequate opportunities for public consultation, particularly in relation to health claims on food and the maximum residual levels of pesticides and veterinary medicines. The submission from CHOICE recommends:

... that the proposed amendments to the FSANZ Act should also include a definition or further clarification of what applications or proposals would be considered to be a “major variation”, such a “significant change” or involve such “scientific or technical complexity” that they would require the full assessment and consultation processes. This would be consistent with the information provided in Section 36 of Subdivision E which outlines what is considered to be a “minor variation”.

CHOICE also point out in their submission that the establishment of an expert panel to advise FSANZ on applications to amend the health claims standard does not go far enough. They think appropriate consultation measures with an adequate time frame are essential to meet the public interest needs in this area. In response, the Australian Greens are recommending that the bill retain the current provisions that applications for amendments to the health claims standard must be subject to public consultation in a way which enables all public health and consumer stakeholders to comment on the implications and on the evidence provided for the proposed changes.

Then we come to the issue of editorial notes. The bill also amends the definition of a standard in subsection 3(1) to clarify that boxed text identified as an ‘editorial note’ or ‘example’ is not part of a food standard. The Australian Beverages Council commented in response to this that they are of the strong opinion that editorial notes:

... should not be used at all within the written content of the FSC or any individual Standard as they represent a “lazy” form of regulation. Even though the Act may state that editorial notes are not regulations, no court of law would fail to take note of them. We therefore strongly suggest that such editorial notes be removed from the body of the FSC ... Regulations should in themselves be clear and unambiguous and not require “editorials” that are claimed not to be regulations.

A number of other submissions to the inquiry argued that, if editorial notes are important enough, they should be specified as regulations in the legislation and hence become disallowable instruments. The Greens support these views and the committee report, which states that there needs to be a ‘clear process of amendment to the editorial notes which will ensure appropriate public oversight and consultation’. In fact, the Greens believe that all editorial notes, boxed or otherwise, should be adopted as regulations to make the process clear.

Then we come to something that was not addressed in the bill but that we think should have been, and that is the issue of television advertising standards, or what we call the junk food clause. We believe very firmly that this is a public health issue. Health experts say that there are now more than 1½ billion overweight people around the world. One-quarter of Australian children are either overweight or obese and it is expected that this proportion will grow to one-half by 2025. We have one of the fastest growth rates of childhood obesity in the world. Professor Philip James, head of the International Obesity TaskForce, says the long-term costs of obesity will be huge. He says:

The problem of obesity is so big it was classified by WHO (World Health Organisation) as the biggest unrecognised public health problem in the world.

Private research puts the cost of obesity in terms of health and productivity losses at $11 billion per annum. The AMA has expressed concern that the rise in childhood obesity may, for the first time in Australian history, result in a decline in the life expectancy of newborns.

The International Association for the Study of Obesity says that government insistence that people need merely to exercise more and improve their diets is not enough. It has renewed calls to ban junk food advertising aimed at children. In 2004, Australian advertisers spent $410 million on food advertising. More than 90 per cent of food advertising promotes fast food, chips, lollies, soft drinks, ice-cream and other junk foods—in other words, it is directed at children. A recent study commissioned by New South Wales Health found that overeating, not a lack of exercise, is the real cause of the growth in childhood obesity. Experts agree that kids cannot distinguish between advertisements and what their parents tell them, and we know that more than 90 per cent of food ads are for junk food and that overeating is the real cause of childhood obesity.

It is not hard to join the dots and come up with a ban on junk food advertising as being a sensible, logical solution. A ban on junk food advertising directed at children is what the Greens propose. The Greens propose amendments that prevent children from being exposed to advertisements pushing chips, lollies, fast food and soft drinks, where 90 per cent of the advertising dollar is spent, but allow for advertisements for food deemed beneficial to children’s health, such as fresh fruit. We believe this is a sensible approach and hope that the Senate sees it that way too.

A serious response to this growing public health issue must include measures to prevent advertising directed at children of food products which damage their health. This is why the Greens recommend that this bill should include a standard to remove the advertising of junk food during children’s television hours. This is a public health issue. This standard is entirely consistent, we believe, with the primary objectives of food regulation and public health as set out in this act. If there is a role for food standards in achieving public health outcomes and in assisting consumers to make informed choices about the health implications of particular foods for themselves and for their families then this is undoubtedly an area where FSANZ could be actively used in the community to combat the lifelong impacts of obesity. Therefore, we will be making the following amendment: that the advertisement of food or beverages during children’s television viewing hours should not occur unless the minister for health, having determined that such an advertisement is beneficial to the health of children, allows such an advertisement.

I would like to move on now to another area that we believe should be addressed in the standards, and that is genetically modified food. Truth in labelling is an extremely important issue, which I and the Greens believe is gaining increasing public awareness in Australia. The Australian Greens are very conscious of the right of every Australian to know exactly what food they are eating and where it has originated from. I do not believe that you can discuss food standards and safety in the absence of a requirement to tell people whether or not they are eating genetically engineered food products. Irrespective of whether or not you support the more liberal use of GMOs in agriculture, I believe that consumers have a right to make an informed choice about the social, economic and environmental impacts of their purchases. This includes the right to determine for themselves whether they actually want to eat genetically modified food.

This issue is about choice and knowledge; it is about the right to know. It is about allowing the public to be informed of what is in their food and how it is produced in order to let them decide whether it is really what they want to eat and whether they are prepared to pay for it. It should not be up to industry and its lobbyists to determine what they will and will not tell Australians about what is in their food and where it came from. Manufacturers and producers should be required to tell people what is in their products and where they came from so that people can decide for themselves whether they want those products. Australian consumers deserve to be listened to in this debate; it is important that their opinion is also taken into account. There is wide community expectation that the contents and components of goods and their country of origin—or the countries of origin of their various parts—will be accurately disclosed. Consecutive surveys have demonstrated that the consumer’s need for accurate country of origin labelling and for detail of what is in the food is very high.

A Taylor Nelson study in 2002 showed that 92 per cent of Australians thought that food derived from GE crops, such as oils, should be labelled; and 92 per cent thought that labelling should include highly refined products derived from genetically modified crops. This was reinforced by 61 per cent of Australians saying that they thought they would be less likely to buy a product if they knew it came from an animal that had been fed genetically engineered grain. Further research undertaken that same year by Taylor Nelson showed that 68 per cent of Australians would be less likely to eat a food that they knew had been genetically modified.

For these reasons, I think we need to amend the food standards to require full disclosure of genetically modified content. At the moment the requirement to label accurately for genetically modified organisms is extremely lax and most products do not disclose whether they contain genetically modified organisms or whether any of their component products have been genetically modified. We believe that the community want to know what is in their food and their requirement to know is growing. Therefore, I will also be moving amendments in the committee stage that the standards require notification of the content of genetically engineered organisms.