Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are now dealing with the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007. This bill proposes to amend the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 in a number of ways. Firstly, it reforms the assessment and consultation process.  The current one-size-fits-all model for assessing different applications and proposals by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Authority, FSANZ, will be replaced by three different streams so that applications and proposals can be assessed according to their nature and scope.  Secondly, the bill contains amendments to strengthen the alignment of the policy-setting process of the ministerial council and the standard development and approval process of FSANZ. The bill enables FSANZ to suspend consideration of an application for up to 18 months where the council has notified FSANZ that it is developing a policy guideline on the same issue. Thirdly, subject to necessary changes to the food treaty between Australia and New Zealand, the bill streamlines the process for finalising standards, removing the option for a second review by the ministerial council after FSANZ has approved the standard. Fourthly, the bill introduces a new process for the scientific pre-market assessment and approval of high-level health claims. Finally, the bill makes several minor and consequential amendments to the act to reduce red tape and duplication and to improve clarity.

According to the explanatory mem-orandum, the purpose of this bill is to amend the act to expedite the development of food regulatory measures and to improve the framework within which FSANZ operates and food standards are made. The bill represents the government’s response to ongoing feedback from consumers, government and industry highlighting a number of areas for improvement in the framework for developing and assessing food standards by the authority. This framework originated in the National Food Authority, established in 1991 when states and territories entered into an arrangement with the Commonwealth. When New Zealand became a partner in the Australian food regulatory system in 1996, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority was established. In November 2000, the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, agreed to a new food regulatory system in response to the food regulation review recommendations contained in the Blair report.

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 established a new independent statutory authority, Food Standards Australia New Zealand—which we know as FSANZ—to develop and approve science based food standards, and conferred policy responsibility for the food regulatory framework on a ministerial council, comprising ministers representing all relevant portfolios. New Zealand, again, joined the system by way of a treaty. In 2004, the Food Regulation Standing Committee, comprising senior officials from the New Zealand, Australian and all state and territory governments, undertook a review of the food regulatory system aimed at identifying opportunities for reducing delays in the authority’s food standards assessment and approval processes and enhancing the protection of confidential commercial information. During 2005, as part of the review, industry and consumers were consulted on any additional concerns with the current standards development process.

A range of possible improvements was identified through these processes. These improvements included, firstly, the time frame for decision making. The average time taken to complete a full assessment of an application had blown out to 16.8 months, leading to a considerable backlog of applications. Secondly, the one-size-fits-all approach fixed in the legislation for developing or amending a food standard meant that virtually all applications and proposals were being processed in the same way regardless of whether they were for a major or minor amendment to a standard or for a new standard altogether. Under the current framework, even applications for minor technical amendments are subject to the full gamut of two rounds of public consultation, three sets of reports and the opportunity for two rounds of ministerial council reviews. Thirdly, problems were identified relating to the interaction between the role of FSANZ and the ministerial council. Crossover between the standards development process undertaken by FSANZ and the policy development and final checks-and-balances role of the council were resulting in long delays and uncertainty. Fourthly, there were substantial industry concerns around the ‘free rider’ effect that resulted from generic standards. Currently there is no capacity for industry to capture exclusive benefits because all of the details of their applications were immediately made publicly available and because, once amended, the new standard applies to everyone. The absence of protections for commercially valuable information was identified as a disincentive for innovation, particularly in relation to health claims and novel foods.

The government has advised that the issues addressed in the bill were the subject of consultation with Commonwealth, state and territory governments, the New Zealand government, the food industry, consumer and public health groups and members of the public. Consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Australia-New Zealand Joint Food Standards Treaty, schedule 3 does not take effect unless and until amendments to reflect this new process have been made to the agreement with New Zealand. Labor calls on the government to promptly negotiate the requisite amendments to the agreement so that the amendments in schedule 3 may come into effect as soon as possible. Labor supports these changes, representing as they do an effort to improve and streamline processes for assessing applications and proposals by FSANZ. It is hoped that these changes will improve the timeliness of FSANZ decisions, as the government has promised.

On 29 March this year, the bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs for inquiry. The committee received 15 submissions on the bill and considered it at a public hearing in Canberra on 23 April. Submissions to the Senate inquiry highlighted a range of views concerning particular aspects of the bill. The Australian Medical Association expressed disappointment that the bill:

... seems to place greater emphasis on improving processes for industry (reducing red tape and streamlining) than it does on the public health implications of food regulation activities undertaken by FSANZ.

The AMA proposed the adoption of a clear definition of ‘public health’ in the act and raised concerns in relation to changes to public consultation in some of the new assessment processes.

CHOICE raised a series of concerns about changes in the bill which it felt impacted poorly on consumer interests and the transparency of FSANZ’s processes. CHOICE particularly highlighted concerns about the new processes for assessing high-level health claims and argued that they compromised consultation and transparency, therefore undermining FSANZ’s integrity and primary objectives. CHOICE was concerned about changes to public consultation in some of the new assessment processes and that limitations on the capacity of ministers to request a review would limit their ability to protect the interests of consumers. Like the AMA, CHOICE also noted a lack of definition of ‘public health’ in the act.

CHOICE supported the new stop-the-clock provision and noted that it would be illogical for FSANZ to consider an application where the ministerial council had not yet finalised policy guidelines.

In common with the AMA and CHOICE, the Public Health Association raised concerns about changes to public consultation in some of the new assessment processes and noted the lack of a definition of ‘public health’ in the act.

The Dietitians Association of Australia was critical of changes to public consultation in relation to new processes for assessing high-level health claims and called for more information concerning the establishment and membership of expert committees. The association called for greater focus on the public health implications of food regulation activities.

The Cancer Council of Australia raised concerns that weaker measures in relation to food regulation could potentially lead to negative health outcomes for the public.

The Australian Food and Grocery Council argued that the amendments provided for a more efficient approval process where it was appropriate and particularly supported the new high-level health claims process, which it argued would address the significant ‘free rider’ effect. However, the council did raise concerns about the power of the ministerial council to amend standards and the lack of clarity in relation to the process for amending editorial notes. It suggested further amendments to ensure certainty for business.

The Australian Beverages Council also raised concerns around the lack of clarity in relation to the process for amending editorial notes. The council argued that the proposed stop-the-clock provision was unnecessary and would seriously inhibit innovation and the competitiveness of Australian industry. Bayer CropScience, Monsanto and Dairy Australia similarly raised concerns with the stop-the-clock provision. Bayer CropScience and Dairy Australia suggested further amendments to ensure certainty for business.

The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs considered these submissions and raised a number of issues in its report: the assessment of applications; changes to clarify the status of editorial notes in the standards; the role of the ministerial council; and the stop-the-clock provision allowing for the suspension of an application by FSANZ under specified circumstances. It suggested further amendments to ensure certainty for business. It raised issues around new processes for assessing high-level health claims and the public health implications of food regulation activities.

The committee made three majority recommendations, all of which Labor supports: firstly, that the Commonwealth consider clarifying the definition of ‘public health’ in relation to the objectives of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and the assessment of food standards; secondly, that the definition of ‘standard’ contained in proposed subsection 3(1) of the act be amended to clarify the process for amending editorial notes; and, thirdly, that the stop-the-clock provisions contained in proposed section 109 be amended to provide applicants with an option to proceed with the assessment process, on the understanding that approval may, if necessary, be rescinded or amended following any contrary policy decision by the ministerial council.

We are pleased that the government has moved on two of these issues, proposing amendments to address the committee’s recommendations dealing with editorial notes and the stop-the-clock provisions. Labor support these amendments. As it is always important that everyone is clear as to the intended meaning of legislators in regulatory regimes such as the FSANZ bill, we support the effort to clarify the use of editorial notes in the legislation.

Labor also support the government’s amendment of the stop-the-clock provision for greater flexibility. However, we are disappointed that the government has not adopted the third recommendation of the Senate committee, to include a definition of ‘public health’ in the bill. Labor had intended to move amendments to strengthen the public health objectives of the act, and we are happy to support the Democrats amendment in this regard as it has the same result as our intention.

Labor is conscious that efforts to improve processes for industry—reducing red tape, streamlining assessments and providing greater protections for intellectual property—must always be balanced with protecting the public health implications of food regulation activities undertaken by FSANZ. The government has a third amendment in its package—to omit subsection 112(6), a provision that has been removed after consultation with FSANZ. It appears that the provision has never been utilised and there are no existing regulations to this effect. Under these circumstances Labor will support this amendment.

The Greens and Democrats have proposed a number of additional amendments. Labor will be supporting some of these amendments—notably those which reflect concerns raised during the Senate committee hearings—but I will wait until the detailed consideration of the bill to go through each of these individually. In conclusion, I repeat that Labor supports this bill and the amendments I have noted. We believe this package represents an effort to improve and streamline processes for assessing applications and proposals by FSANZ and hopefully to improve the timeliness of FSANZ decisions.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to speak to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007. I want to focus on a particular aspect of issues raised by the food standards legislation. The legislation as a whole covers a range of areas, and previous speakers, particularly Senator McLucas, outlined the detailed aspects of the bill and all the different measures contained within it. Senator Siewert has detailed wider issues of labelling. As she points out, the objectives in the food standards act relate to 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.

The authority deals with its responsibilities within a public health framework. But, even with existing labelling where there are requirements—for example, regarding country of origin—it goes beyond just narrow definitions of human health to wider issues. A food label can tell us a lot about the food we put on our plate, like its country of origin or how much fat or sugar it might contain, but the quality of food labelling is often called into question and it can be very controversial. I think this issue of preventing misleading and deceptive labelling is an important one. One only has to think about the debates over the labelling of GMOs in food, which Senator Siewert has just alluded to, to be aware of how passionately people can feel about having the information they want and need in order to make choices to protect their own health and wellbeing or to address other consumer concerns they have regarding, for example, environmental impacts of the production of certain types of food.

People are concerned not only about their own health and wellbeing but also about the wellbeing of others; they are concerned at the moment about childhood obesity and the health and wellbeing of the planet, the environment and the animals that are often used in the production of some of this food. There is a growing awareness within the community about the treatment of animals in food production and the practices of factory farming. Each year more than 540 million farm animals are raised in Australia for food or food production. The clear majority of these animals live their lives in conditions that, I argue, most people would find unacceptable if they were fully aware of them. While many people do not think too closely about the source of their food, more and more are becoming aware of the cruelty associated with many factory farmed meat, dairy and egg products. In addition, many people, whilst they might not think too closely about the source of their food, are nonetheless influenced by words used on labels that might imply that all is well and good, which in some cases is clearly misleading.

A 2001 study of people in Queensland regarding their attitudes to buying meat revealed that consumers ranked the humane treatment of animals ahead of issues such as price. More people are choosing free-range or organic meat and eggs in the belief that they are buying a more humanely produced food as well as, in some cases, for environmental reasons. In 2006 the free-range egg market comprised 20.3 per cent of the total volume of the grocery retail egg market in Australia, which represents a 200 per cent increase since 2000. I would argue that that has been driven by significant and growing community concern based on growing community awareness of the conditions in which battery eggs are produced and that those hens endure. Alongside that, labelling has gone some way towards more accurately reflecting whether eggs are produced from caged birds. Inglewood Farms, which produces 60 per cent of Australia’s free-range chickens, reported a tripling in sales in six months. A 2006 survey focusing on Australian attitudes towards meat found that 63 per cent of respondents were more inclined to buy free-range pig products after becoming aware of the plight of factory farmed pigs.

I have to note in passing that it is quite unfortunate that the recent review of the animal welfare code of practice regarding the housing of pigs, particularly breeding sows, produced such a poor outcome in the face of such clear and overwhelming evidence of the appalling cruelty that sows are kept in for prolonged periods of time. Amendments to the code barely improve that at all and in some cases will make enforcement and oversight of those conditions and meeting of those codes even more difficult.

I would refer to a report that was recently produced by the animal protection and awareness organisation, Voiceless, a very professional organisation that looks at the facts and the details regarding the treatment of animals. They produced a report called From label to liable: scams, scandals and secrecy—lifting the veil on animal-derived food product labelling in Australia. I think it might have been sent to all parliamentarians. I know we all get a lot of mail—a lot of reports in our mail—but I would recommend people to dig that out of the big pile at the back of their desk and have a look at it, because it is very well written, well researched and quite straightforward in the information that it provides. That report highlights that our current food labelling system is woefully inadequate when it comes to the labelling of animal derived food products. Yes, there is certain information about animal derived food that has to be disclosed, but it is information like the lot identification or the date of packaging. There is no requirement under federal legislation in Australia which requires labelling that identifies how products such as meat or poultry were produced. Alongside that, of course, you may well get labelling that carries a very strong implication that it is produced in the open air, on green fields and under sunny skies when in many cases that is far from the reality.

The reality is that many of the commonly accepted terms that we might use to help us make more humane choices are not defined in federal legislation, such as the current law that we are debating at the moment, and they are not linked to any animal protection standards, leaving aside a separate debate about the adequacy and enforceability of our current animal protection standards when it comes to farm and factory animals. There is no certainty about what terms such as ‘free-range’, ‘organic’, ‘barn laid’ or ‘grain-fed’ actually mean. The term ‘free-range’ can and is still interpreted differently by different producers for different products. Animals produced in free-range conditions may still be subject to painful procedures like tail docking, mulesing or dehorning, or subject to limited food, early weaning, routine antibiotics et cetera. As the report from Voiceless says, many producers are hiding their inhumane factory farming through feelgood product labelling, using terms such as ‘farm fresh’ or ‘naturally perfect’ along with positive imagery of happy, healthy cows or chickens frolicking in green fields. I would once again remind the Senate that one of the aims or objects of the food standards legislation is the provision of adequate information and the prevention of misleading and deceptive conduct. I think this is an area that does merit further examination over the coming period.

It is true that we have a number of voluntary certification or quality assurance schemes. Some people may be aware of the RSPCA accreditation system for egg production and pigs. I did mention previously some improvement and standardisation in the basic labelling of eggs in terms of whether they are caged eggs. Even that small advance in accuracy in the labelling of eggs came about only after a very concerted community campaign over long period of time which sought to phase out the battery cage. Indeed, here in the ACT, legislation was actually passed by the ACT legislative assembly to ban battery cage produced eggs, but that was not agreed to by other state governments. Instead a very poor compromise of just a small increase in the size of the cages was put in place.

You might recall, Mr Acting Deputy President Murray, a particularly fetching photograph of me with a chicken on my knee, helping to promote that campaign! I am not sure if that helped or hindered—it depends on people’s views. That was just one part of a large number of efforts to campaign on that issue. The end result of that campaign was to get some labelling that at least had that basic message: ‘This egg comes from a bird in a cage.’ Systems like the RSPCA accreditation system have developed because the public is concerned about animal welfare. People have not done this just for the hell of it; it has been agreed to in various ways. They are concerned about how food is produced and they want information. But as this report makes clear, these schemes are largely self-regulated. They apply a variety of standards. Some adopt a very narrow approach to animal welfare, some are more prescriptive than others and some are more open to public input than others.

These systems are helpful as far as they go, assuming they are accurate, but they limited. We need uniform enforceable laws. Without mandated labelling and terms defined in law, there is no easy way of differentiating between more humanely produced products and intensive factory farmed products. This can be done. I understand that the ACT and Tasmania have legislation that requires the way that food is produced be identified, but this is limited to the labelling and sale of eggs.

Mandatory labelling of the way eggs are produced is also legislated in the European Union. Last year the European Commission also adopted an animal welfare action plan which includes a proposal for an EU animal welfare label. This label would identify products produced under high welfare standards linked to scientific standardised indicators. Australia has a precedent for providing information that is not focused just on food safety or public health on food labels. Our country of origin standards for labelling let consumers know where the food was produced—an issue of importance to many people. Food labelling that lets consumers know how their food was produced is another step in helping people make informed choices and using the power of the market to encourage producers to operate in more humane ways.

As well as not having labelling requirements to identify whether animal derived food was produced humanely, Australia also does not have any enforceable standards for the labelling of vegetarian or vegan products. This means that the many people who now, for environmental, ethical or health reasons, choose not to buy or eat animal products and by-products, may, and indeed often do, inadvertently end up consuming these products. Many people may not be aware that marshmallow and liquorice often contain items made from the bones, tissue, hoofs and skin of animals such as cows, pigs and fish, or that emulsifiers that have innocuous numbers like 481, 472 and 471, which are frequently found in basic products like bread, can sometimes contain animal derived fats. Again, some organisations such as the Vegetarian Society have developed their own labels to help consumers. But we should not have to rely just on NGOs to provide us with information. I probably should declare in passing, Mr Acting Deputy President Murray, that I am a patron of the Vegetarian/Vegan Society of Queensland. If you want to come along to one of our meetings some time, they are a bundle of fun, I can assure you.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do you have for dinner?

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Great dinners, Senator Evans—wonderful stuff! The issue here, though, is not to try and impose a moral code on people. I should also note that, even though I am a patron of that society, I am not vegan and I am actually wearing leather shoes at the moment. So there is full disclosure going on here. The issue is about knowledge and choice. These are issues that are of concern and interest to many people. I would argue, as we have greater awareness about the environmental impacts of every aspect of our behaviour and the greenhouse impacts of every aspect of our behaviour, including our food consumption, that people will become more and more interested in how their food is produced and whether or not it contains animal derived products. I believe the public should be provided with information that lets them decide whether the food product is what they want and how they want to spend their money. Australians have a right to make informed choices and to take a personal stand against animal suffering with each dollar they spend at the supermarket. I have said previously that this not only enables them to make a more informed choice but also provides direct incentives for producers to, I would argue, expand market opportunities for them, for the growing band of consumers who take these issues into account in choosing what they buy in the area of food.

I am raising this issue at this stage, taking the opportunity of the second reading debate on this legislation, not to put forward amendments at this stage or anything like that but really to just open up the issue for wider consideration by the community, by the parliament, by the food standards authority. As I said, a lot of the issues and the greater detail are contained in that report put out by the Voiceless organisation. It is one that I think does need further consideration. It would need a lot of thought for it to be done properly and effectively in a way that did not create a lot of unnecessary costs on producers. But I would also argue that having a single, standardised, clear and enforceable national standard may actually assist producers and may assist in efficiency, compared with a lot of varied, imprecise, voluntary based and unenforceable regulatory regimes, which can actually provide people who are less scrupulous and more willing to be misleading with opportunities to exploit market opportunities that really they have no right to.

I leave my remarks for the pondering of the Senate and the wider community. These are issues that I will continue to raise in the future. I also seek leave to incorporate the speech of Senator Allison so we can get on to the committee stage of the debate.

Leave granted.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McLucas, Senator Siewert and Senator Bartlett for their contributions to this debate. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007 proposes amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991. It sets out the process for developing and amending joint food standards for Australia and for New Zealand. In summary, the bill introduces a risk based standards assessment and consultation process that will make the process more efficient and more effective. The bill aligns and harmonises standard development processes to eliminate unnecessary duplication and red tape, recognises the changing environment and creates processes to improve the management of issues in relation to food innovation.

On 29 March 2007 the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007 was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which delivered its report on 1 May this year. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also reviewed the bill and included comments on the bill in the Alert Digest No. 5 of 2007. Both reports make recommendations that propose the development and tabling of relatively minor government amendments.

In light of these reports it is proposed to move three government amendments to the bill: firstly, to amend the definition of ‘standard’ contained in proposed subsection 3(1) of the bill to also exclude editorial notes and examples which are not boxed; secondly, to amend the stop-the-clock provisions contained in proposed section 109 to provide applicants of paid applications with an option to proceed with the assessment process if they so wish; and, thirdly, to remove new subsection 112(6) of the bill. Subsection 112(6) of the bill authorises the amendment of the standards development process in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 by regulation. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee is concerned that such a provision involves a delegation of legislative power.

The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report also recommended including a definition of ‘public health’—and I know honourable senators mentioned this in the preceding debate. A determination on this complex issue cannot be made by the Commonwealth alone, as such a definition will have significant impact on all jurisdictions, including state jurisdictions, territory jurisdictions and New Zealand. This issue is being considered by the Food Regulation Standing Committee Strategic Working Group presently. The government is actively monitoring the progress on this issue and will consider whether the objectives of the FSANZ Act ought to be clarified once this consultation process among jurisdictions is complete. It notes, however, that there is a need to avoid any clarification of a definition of public health that would result in unintentionally narrowing the scope of the act’s objectives. Additional clarification on a number of comments made by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has been included in a supplementary explanatory memorandum for the bill.

The state, territory and, indeed, New Zealand governments have all been closely involved in the development of this legislation. All parties are committed to a food regulation system that runs as smoothly and efficiently as possible while maintaining the existing transparent and accountable arrangements. The bill demonstrates this government’s continued commitment to the protection of public health and safety and it improves upon the already robust regulatory arrangements that protect the safety of food for all Australians. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.