Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

On every occasion of our lives sugar has been a part of the celebrations. Those treasured memories of christenings, birthday parties, weddings and anniversaries, for example, have all featured a special cake which contained the ingredient of sugar. Sugar is often at the heart of life's celebration. Sugar is a safe ingredient. It is a natural part of our life and culture. It is a natural product made from plants and cultivated in soil.

The sugar industry is one of Australia's most significant rural industries. It supports some 4½ thousand farmers, who grow sugarcane on family-owned and -operated farms. Sugar is the second-largest export crop in Australia after wheat. We are the third-largest raw sugar suppliers in the world, with 80 per cent of Australia's sugar exported. The sugar industry generates more than 50,000 jobs directly and indirectly in Australia. The industry's total annual revenue is around $2 billion. It is the lifeblood of many coastal communities from northern New South Wales to Far North Queensland. This is an important rural industry that deserves to be supported.

Unfortunately, the sugar industry finds itself under constant attack and facing a barrage of antisugar propaganda. These attacks are often based on claims from unqualified, self-appointed, self-opinionated experts that sugar is causing health problems. In particular, there are claims that sugar consumption is responsible for Australia's increasing level of obesity and consequent problems like diabetes.

Once upon a time the great demon was the amount of fat in food. Now some of these self-proclaimed experts have included sugar. Some people are desperately searching for a simple answer to a very complex question of why Australians are getting fatter. A small but very noisy minority blame sugar. Recently there was a leaked news story that the World Health Organization had received a report from consultants suggesting that the World Health Organization recommendation on the amount of sugar to consume every day should be reduced from 10 per cent to five per cent of daily calories. We have not seen anything official as yet. I understand this is only a recommendation and that the figure of five per cent versus 10 per cent is an arbitrary one with very little scientific basis. The World Health Organization does valuable work around the world on massive health problems like starvation, malaria and immunisation, and I hope very much that it does not put itself in the position of feeling compelled to downsize the sugar recommendations just because of pressure from individuals desperate to find some simple answer to the complex question of increasing obesity and consequential health problems.

To bring this issue back closer to home, there is no doubt that for some people attacking sugar has led to media coverage, personal publicity and book sales. It has been a great little earner. While the facts do not support their case against sugar, they are not letting facts get in the way of a good story. For example, one thing that they cannot explain is this: if sugar is the reason for obesity levels rising in Australia then why have obesity levels risen at a time when sugar consumption has been falling? Sugar cannot be the culprit behind rising obesity levels if sugar consumption levels have actually been falling. It makes a nonsense of their argument.

It is not just me who says so. The Dietitians Association of Australia says exactly the same thing. The Dietitians Association of Australia is a professional organisation representing qualified dieticians—the very people who are trained to give advice on correct eating habits and the types and amount of food that we should be consuming. This is what the Dietitians Association of Australia says on its website in an item headed 'Sugar and Obesity':

Sugar has been blamed as the 'root of all evil' in Australia's obesity crisis. But the Dietitians Association of Australia believes it is simplistic and unhelpful to blame sugar alone for such a complex issue.

Remember, these are the words of the Dietitians Association and not mine. The Dietitians Association also says:

Despite claims in recently-popular diet books that sugar is the cause of Australia's obesity epidemic, large long-term studies in this area are currently lacking. Interestingly, sugar intake has decreased in Australia over the past 40 years—but as a nation, we continue to put on weight.

A 20-page report, Sugar consumption in Australia: a statistical update, was released last year by Green Pool Commodity Specialists, a private analytical firm based in Brisbane. They produced data on the consumption of sugar in Australia from 1938 to 2011 and showed that the long-term trend in sugar consumption is down, falling from about 55 kilograms per person per year in 1938 to about 42 kilograms in 2011. I do not know what the obesity rates were in Australia in 1938 when people were eating an average of 30 per cent more sugar than we are now, but I am certain it was a fraction of today's figure. One of the reasons, of course, was that people got far more exercise in the thirties. In those days sugar was an important part of people's daily diet, but issues like obesity and diabetes were nowhere near the issues they are today. Sugar is not the problem.

It does not stop people with an axe to grind criticising sugar, of course. One of the noisiest critics of sugar is David Gillespie, who wrote a book in 2008 called Sweet Poison: Why Sugar Makes Us Fat, where he blames sugar, particularly fruit sugar or fructose, for the obesity epidemic as well as many chronic diseases. To prevent or treat obesity as a chronic disease, Gillespie recommends avoiding all sweet-tasting foods other than two daily servings of fruit. This is what the nutrition professionals who make up the not-for-profit organisation Nutrition Australia have to say about his book:

Sweet Poison is based on a gross misinterpretation and neglect of the key aspects of nutrition-related scientific literature … In fact, Sweet Poison is replete with errors and dubious claims.

Nonetheless Sweet Poison: Why Sugar Makes Us Fat was followed by TheSweet Poison Quit Plan and The Sweet Poison Quit Plan Cookbook in both printed and e-book formats.

He followed this up with Big Fat Lies: How The Diet Industry Is Making You Sick, Fat & Poor. He has more recently moved on to oil seeds—what he calls vegetable oils—in another book, Toxic Oil: Why Vegetable Oil Will Kill You & How To Save Yourself. This book opens with the statement: 'Vegetable oils will give you cancer. Every extra mouthful of vegetable oil you consume takes you one step closer to a deadly (and irreversible) outcome.' He argues that seed oils are dangerous to health despite the fact they are recommended by the government health agency. In fact, seed oils—referred to by nutrition experts as omega-6 oils—are classified as essential oils; they are essential because they are absolutely vital to good health. But our bodies do not manufacture them so we have to obtain them from food; therefore, it is essential that we include omega-6 in our diets. Yet Gillespie is saying that every extra bit of seed oil is taking us closer to cancer. That is just a plain nonsense, the same as his attacks on sugar. This is the level of the so-called science against sugar and seed oil that is attracting headlines in our media and frightening people away from making sensible, safe food choices in appropriate amounts. What is next—wheat because it contains carbohydrates and potatoes because they contain starch? This sort of criticism is a nonsense.

On the other side of the argument are well qualified people with academic qualifications and experience in the field. One of these is Professor Peter Clifton from the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute. Professor Clifton has been a high-profile clinical nutritional researcher for over 20 years with the CSIRO. Professor Clifton co-authored TheCSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet, maintains a clinical practice in the specialty of fat management at Flinders Medical Centre and holds a clinical position at the Royal Adelaide Hospital specialising in the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. He is on the record as saying the health impacts of sugar have been overstated. In an interview with the ABC, Professor Clifton sensibly said:

Sugar is just another form of over-consumed calories, easily available and very palatable but no more metabolically deadly than starch or fat calories and certainly not equivalent to alcohol.

The sugar industry faces a lot of challenges. This is an industry that has had to withstand extreme weather, fluctuations on the world market, the strong Australian dollar and many other vicissitudes. Now adding to the challenges the industry faces is a re-energised antisugar lobby desperately stalking the industry and peddling mistruths and half-truths. It appears that 2014 will be the year of bashing sugar.

Just last month a United Kingdom based international antisugar campaign group called Action On Sugar hit the headlines with the statement that sugar is the new tobacco. Action On Sugar claims sugar is a major cause of obesity and that there is increasing evidence that added sugar increases the risk of developing type II diabetes, metabolic syndrome and fatty liver. It calls sugar a public health hazard. However, the UK government National Health Service, or NHS, pointed out in response that there is more than one factor associated with Britain's obesity problem—so the comparison to tobacco is not particularly helpful. The NHS said:

… unlike tobacco, it is possible to consume moderate amounts of sugar within a healthy balanced diet.

We need to dispel the myths that are being sold as truth. After over 150 years of growing and harvesting sugar in Australia, the sugar industry is once again under threat. The industry needs to be defended against this negative antisugar propaganda. This is an important industry supporting many families in Queensland and northern New South Wales, and it finds itself constantly on the defensive. North Queensland sugar grower Paul Schembri, who heads the Queensland industry group Canegrowers, told Mackay's Daily Mercury newspaper recently:

As an industry, we have recognised that in the last five years we have witnessed a very significant escalation in this campaign to demonise sugar … As you know, the basis of it is that a whole range of people are alleging that sugar is giving rise to a range of health issues. We strongly refute that. We are proud of the product we produce—we do not take kindly to having our brand trashed by a whole range of people.

Mr Schembri's view is supported by Nutrition Australia spokesperson Aloysa Hourigan, who points out that sugar is not the issue—the entire diet is the issue. 'It is not the fact we are eating sugar; it is the amount of sugar and the amount of food we consume in total,' Ms Hourigan said. 'It is our total energy intake that's the biggest problem. We need to cut our portions down.'

It is important we keep reinforcing the message that sugar in moderation can be part of a balanced diet. The opponents of sugar, unable to make the case based on science, turn to dramatic language, referring to sugar as 'toxic', 'poison' and 'addictive'. After a review of the scientific literature regarding sugar and addiction, Professor David Benton of Swansea University in the UK said:

There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sugar may be physically addictive.

As a senator from Queensland, where sugar is the most significant agricultural crop, it is important for me to rally against the hype and sensationalism of these antisugar crusaders. I want to reassure consumers that sugar is a safe ingredient and a natural part of life.