Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Let me have a look at it first.

Leave granted.

The remainder of the speech read as follows—

And so the proposed health traffic light system warning will only confuse and misinform the public. Consumers will not be able to differentiate between one product or the other at a time when the Australian sugar industry is creating more innovative and healthier products for Australian and overseas consumers. And as I have previously pointed out, no other country in the world is taking up this new form of labelling. Instead most go for a very clearly laid out table form of labelling. The Daily Intake Guide (DIG) is the labelling system preferred by the European Union. DIG front-of-pack labels outline the amount of energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt in a standard portion of the food and how that translates to average daily intake.

Furthermore, public health issues are multi-factorial and complex. It is unrealistic to expect that these can be addressed through reforms to food labelling alone. For food labelling to be effective it must be part of a package of initiatives that addresses all the factors. And we must also consider the cost of changing these labelling laws, which will be substantial, and effect industry profoundly.

The use of the food labelling system to support public health initiatives will inevitably increase the regulatory burden and its related costs on industry and consumers. It is essential that if industry and consumers are to meet this burden that it will result in substantiated and sustainable benefits. And yet , many of the recommendations proposed by the report are not supported by evidence that this will be the outcome. The proposals might 'feel good', but it has not been established that any noticeable beneficial outcomes will be achieved.

Public health policy is rightly directed towards encouraging consumers to eat less energy-dense foods. However, ironically if traffic light labelling goes ahead an opportunity will be lost for products such as sugar to evolve into products that provide consumers with general level health benefits that support this goal if the nutritional profile eligibility criteria as proposed are implemented. We already know that that there is an increase in sales of CSR's 'Better for You' sugar variants such as LoGiCaneTM and SMARTTM. This is evidence that consumers want such products and that the market is growing.

The inability to make beneficial health claims will remove the incentive and purpose for the sugar industry to invest in research and development to provide improved products which the community desires. Such products provide a national benefit that will enable Australian grown sugar to be differentiated from competitor sugar abroad and at home.

This legislation is not only harmful but in view of the rest of the world's reluctance to put into place the same initiatives, and the fact that there is no real evidence to show these new systems and laws will be any more effective, why would we do it? Why would we stop manufacturers taking the initiative to develop better products that are healthier for the consumer, and why then would we stop them from informing the consumer so that the full benefit and potential of these newly created products could be realised?

The whole concept of the traffic light system seems to be moving Australia further and further in the direction of a nanny state, where we are told what to buy, what to eat. In an Australia that is suffering the effects of the high dollar and competitive overseas market place, we can ill afford to bring in these recommendations. They are not fair, they are not logical, and in the long run they will only hurt manufacturers and, ironically, the people the laws are supposed to protect—that is the consumers.