Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows

The Food Standards Australia and New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007 is aimed at making FSANZ a more efficient Authority by moving away from a one-size fits all assessment process for food regulatory measures.

Under the arrangements proposed in this there will be three different options for developing and changing food regulatory measures;

• a truncated process for minor variations 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.

The Bill also puts in place a legislative framework for variations to the Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Standard which relate to high level health claims – a standard which is still under development.  Health claims are of course quite contentious and the Democrats have concerns about moves in food labelling in this direction above and beyond the matters in this bill.

The Democrats are broadly supportive of changes that encourage efficiency within agencies.  Such changes should be encouraged.

However we do not support moves that weaken regulatory controls, reduce public consultation or give higher priority to industry needs than public health or safety.

The Foods Standards Australia and New Zealand Act 1991 clearly sets out that the objectives of food regulation 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 are desirable gaols and any changes to the regulatory regime must keep these in mind.

A number of submissions to the inquiry into the Bill raised the issue that the Act does not contain a definition of public health.

Both the AMA and CHOICE commented on the omission of a definition and the potential that this has for decisions about food regulation to be based on a limited view of public health – one which only looks at food safety and food borne illness – rather than a broader view of food regulation which includes its potential impact on health and nutrition.

At a time of unprecedented levels of obesity and the associated chronic disease burden, this is a major concern.

Food safety is an important issue.  Moves towards intensive farming practices, the introduction of genetically engineered ingredients, more extensive food distribution, all have implications for the quality and safety of our food.

In a context in which food supply is constantly evolving we need a regulatory framework that can manage any potential hazards from these changes.

But food safety is not the only element that we need to keep in mind when it comes to food regulation and public health.

We are all aware that Australia is in an unprecedented epidemic of obesity and diet related illness such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

And yet there has been little response from the Government to this burgeoning epidemic.

We are all aware of this government’s continuing refusal to support bans on television food advertising to children.

They have been equally lax in pursuing improvements to food labelling which would provide clear and consistent information to help people make healthy choices.

Food labelling is a tool and it should be used to help us choose healthier foods but as it stands they are a joke - designed more to confuse than to enlighten.

There is a lot of information provided on packaged and processed food.  Many people understand the importance of thinking about how much salt, fat and sugar they eat.

But lists expressed in terms that few of us can understand and don’t have the time to look at are not good enough.

The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health had to launch a 155 page guide to explain food labels last month shows that the present system is not working.

It is not acceptable that FSANZ is charging people $14.95 for a book to explain what is in an ingredients list, what percentage labelling of ingredients means, how people should read claims such as ‘low fat’ and ‘reduced salt’ and what kilojoules and fat is in commonly eaten foods and drinks.

And that people should have to take this book with them to see what’s in the 2000 or so foods that are listed in the book.

And the online information system that the Parliamentary Secretary also launched last month is no more help.

It may sound nice that you can look up 2,600 different foods and view data for up to 169 nutrients per 100 g for these foods but what does that actually mean for making healthy food choices during the day and how much help is an online system like that when you are doing your shopping?

What we need to know is where a particular food fits in a healthy diet and that information has to be easy to understand and easy to see.

Choosing the healthiest foods quickly is almost impossible at the moment for busy shoppers.

We need a clear, meaningful, coding system that people can understand which is what our amendment seeks to introduce.

“Traffic-light” food labels for nutritional quality (red, amber, green for high, moderate and low levels of sugar, fat, and salt) are an easy way for shoppers to see at a glance a food’s ranking on important dimensions.

A ‘traffic light’ system helps people make comparisons between products and to see what is the healthier option.

The intention of these traffic lights is obviously to guide the traffic and clear health profiles on food could dramatically change people’s choices.

Yes these labels would need to be flexible and specific for foods.

Obviously olive oil even though it is 100% fat is not all bad and an amber light might be appropriate, rather than red.

Similarly the natural sugar content of fresh fruits is often high but we would not want to be suggesting that people should limit their intact of fruit.

These issues can be accommodated in a traffic light system.

Many shoppers would be surprised to find that several of Australia’s best-selling breakfast cereals would carry red lights.

Choice’s recent analysis of children’s cereals showed that many are closer to confectionary than a health food – many were highly processed, high in sugar and salt and low in fibre, despite the marketers suggesting that they were a source of vitamins and minerals.

We also need to consider how trans fat are dealt with in such a labelling system.

There is growing evidence that trans fats pose a serious health risk and there are moves worldwide to deal with this.

Other countries have mandated the labelling of trans fats contents on foods.  Australia should follow this lead – perhaps expanding the saturated fat category to include trans fat and with very low levels triggering automatic red lights.

Of course we should be banning the addition of trans fatty acids from all food.  Denmark banned these fats in 2004 with no adverse effects on taste or price.  Reports suggest that Starbucks is on its way to abandoning the use of trans fatty acids and that all US stores will be free of trans fats by the end of this year.  McDonalds are also moving that way.

Unfortunately the agency in Australia charged with protecting our health has done nothing.

Some foods naturally contain trans fat but it is the addition of them in products such as biscuits and cakes and fast foods which is most problematic.

It’s true that industry will probably not like a traffic light type system.  They will argue for voluntary schemes or try and make it more complicated so that it is too difficult for people to work out where a food really stands.

This is because traffic light approaches make it easy for people to see what foods are good and bad for health.

Industry is not going to want to see red lights on foods that are selling well.

But this sort of system can have a radical effect on people’s choices.  Since the introduction of this type of system in the UK there have been drops in the sale of some products.

We are aware that the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council is looking into front of package food labelling and has been doing so for sometime.

But we can not afford to draw this process out indefinitely.

There is considerable international evidence from overseas about the value of a simple traffic light system.

Back in October 2006 the food ministers stated in their communiqué that it was important to involve the food industry in the work of developing a scheme for Australia.

Consultation is always important but we can not let the demands of industry outweigh the needs of public health.

We need a mandatory system, a simple system, and a system which is not sponsored by the industry.

And we need that system brought in sooner rather than later.

Yes food labelling is only one step towards making the healthy choice the easy choice.  There is certainly more that the government can and should be doing.

Healthy food needs to be easy and cheap to get for all people.

As we have said on other occasions food marketing to children needs to be tackled urgently.

Junk food and soft drinks should be kept out of schools and sponsorship by fast food companies banned.

Our town planners need to be designing cities that are more pedestrian and cycling friendly.

We could arrest the development of obesity in children and adolescents and address the problem in adults if we put in a concerted effort.

Better food labelling is part of such an effort.

The Democrats are also concerned about the reduction to public consultation that this Bill will enact if passed unamended.

As it stands the Bill does not contain any requirement that FSANZ seek public comment where an application has been lodged to vary a standard dealing with a high level health claim.

It would also appear that only one round of consultation will be necessary when vitamins and minerals are being added to food.

The use of health claims on foods and the addition of vitamins and minerals are both controversial measures.

Many health professionals would argue that health claims on food are little more than a marketing tool which doesn’t provide any meaningful information.

There is little evidence that health claims contribute to educating the public or benefiting public health.

Indeed more and more industry driven claims on food may actually increase the public’s scepticism about food labels

Health claims may contribute to a ‘medicalisation’ of food, so that individuals think individual foods are the magic bullet that will reduce risk or solve health problems.

This will undermine whole-of-diet messages and distort the value of balance, variety and moderation in food selection

The truth is that individual foods do not cause or prevent a disease and for many diseases the role of diet is unclear.

In those diseases in which diet may play a role, there are many other factors also at play and we can not predict the individual level effects of any one food.

The addition of vitamins and minerals is also problematic.

Fortified foods, similar to foods which carry health claims, are often highly processed foods which have lower nutritional content.

Adding vitamins and minerals doesn’t make these healthy foods.

Fortification can be used as a way to market food and try and project a healthy image, but if the food is still high in sugar, fat and/or salt, the public can be mislead about its overall nutritional content.

Alternatively the fortification could be at such a low level that it is meaningless and yet consumers will think they are getting adequate calcium or vitamin C or whatever it is they are being sold.

And how will consumers manage all these fortified products?  If they are having a fortified breakfast cereal, fortified bread for lunch, vitamins in there fruit juice  - how will they know when is all too much?

Apples are apples and chocolate is chocolate.  But what happens when we start adding vitamins to chocolate?  Does this mean its as good as eating an apple?

If you’re trying to get you child or grandchild to eat something, are they more likely to go for the chocolate with added vitamins or the apple?

The line between what is healthy and unhealthy will become more unclear.  There will be more confusion.

This will make it all more difficult to sell the message that we need to be eating more natural and unprocessed foods, more fruit and vegetables.

It is true that there are cases of micronutrient deficiency – where adding folate or iodine or iron– may be generally beneficial but these are few and far between.

Generally we have access to the food that we need to meet our vitamin and mineral needs.

We should be concentrating our efforts on encouraging a healthy diverse diet, not clutching at fortification as the answer.

And we should be providing for a broad input into decisions about how far down this path we go.  We should be allowing all public health and consumer groups to have input into these decisions.