Melbourne, This week there have been renewed calls for the Australian government to implement a series of measures aimed at improving our diet. These include restrictions on junk food advertising, improvements to food labeling and a tax on sugary drinks.
This time the recommendations come from a parliamentary inquiry into diabetes in Australia. Its final report, tabled in parliament on Wednesday, was prepared by a parliamentary committee made up of members from across the political spectrum.
The release of this report could be an indication that Australia will finally implement the evidence-based healthy eating policies that public health experts have been recommending for years. But we know that Australian governments have historically been unwilling to introduce policies to that the powerful food industry opposes. The question is whether the current government will put the health of Australians above the profits of companies selling unhealthy food.
Diabetes in Australia
Diabetes is one of the fastest growing chronic diseases in the country, with more than 1.3 million people affected. Projections show that the number of Australians diagnosed with this condition will increase rapidly in the coming decades. Type 2 diabetes accounts for the vast majority of diabetes cases. It is largely preventable, and obesity is among the most important risk factors.
This latest report makes clear that we urgently need to focus on obesity prevention to reduce the burden of diabetes. Type 2 diabetes and obesity cost the Australian economy billions of dollars each year and preventive solutions are highly cost-effective.
This means that money spent on preventing obesity and diabetes would save the government enormous amounts in healthcare costs. Prevention is also essential to prevent our health systems from being overwhelmed in the future. What does the report recommend?
The report presents 23 recommendations to address diabetes and obesity. These include:
-restrictions on marketing of unhealthy foods to children, including on television and online -improvements to food labeling that would make it easier for people to understand the added sugar content of products
-a tax on sugary drinks, where products with higher sugar content would be taxed at a higher rate (commonly called a sugar tax).
These key recommendations echo those prioritized in a variety of reports on obesity prevention over the past decade. There is compelling evidence that they are likely to work. Restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods
There was universal support from the committee for the government to consider regulating the marketing of unhealthy foods aimed at children.
Public health groups have consistently called for comprehensive mandatory legislation to protect children from exposure to advertising of unhealthy foods and related brands. A growing number of countries, including Chile and the United Kingdom, have legislated restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods in a variety of settings, including television, online and in supermarkets. There is evidence that comprehensive policies like these are having positive results.
In Australia, the food industry has voluntarily committed to reducing some unhealthy food advertising aimed directly at children. But these promises are widely considered ineffective.
The government is currently carrying out a feasibility study on additional options to limit the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. But the effectiveness of any new policy will depend on how comprehensive they are. Food companies are likely to quickly change their marketing techniques to maximize their impact. If any new government restrictions do not cover all marketing channels (such as television, online and on packaging) and techniques (including product and brand marketing), they are unlikely to adequately protect children.
Food labeling
Food regulators are currently considering a number of improvements to food labeling in Australia. For example, food ministers in Australia and New Zealand will soon consider imposing front-of-pack labeling with health star ratings.
Public health groups have consistently recommended the mandatory implementation of health star ratings as a priority to improve the Australian diet. These changes are likely to result in significant improvements in the healthiness of what we eat.
Regulators are also reviewing possible changes to the way added sugar is labeled on product packages. The committee's recommendation to include added sugar labels on the front of product packaging is likely to support this ongoing work. But changes to food labeling laws are notoriously slow in Australia. And food companies are known to oppose and delay any policy changes that could hurt their profits.
A tax on sugary drinks
Of the report's 23 recommendations, the sugary drinks tax was the only one that was not universally supported by the committee. All four committee members from the Liberal and National parties opposed the implementation of this policy. As part of their reasoning, the dissenting members cited submissions from food industry groups that argued against the measure. This follows a long history of the Liberal Party siding with the sugary drinks industry to oppose a tax on its products.
The dissenting members failed to recognize strong evidence that a tax on sugary drinks has worked as intended in a wide range of countries.
In the United Kingdom, for example, a tax on sugary drinks implemented in 2018 managed to reduce the sugar content in UK soft drinks and reduce sugar consumption. Dissenting committee members argued that a tax on sugary drinks would harm to families with lower incomes. But previous Australian models have shown that the two most disadvantaged quintiles would reap the greatest health benefits from such a tax and accrue the greatest savings on healthcare costs.
What happens now?
Improvements in population diet and prevention of obesity will require a comprehensive and coordinated package of policy reforms. Globally, a number of countries facing growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes are beginning to take such aggressive preventive measures.
In Australia, after years of inaction, this week's report is the latest sign that the long-awaited policy change may be near.
But meaningful and effective policy change will require politicians to listen to public health evidence rather than protests from food companies concerned about their bottom lines. (The conversation)NSA
NSA
NSA
This time the recommendations come from a parliamentary inquiry into diabetes in Australia. Its final report, tabled in parliament on Wednesday, was prepared by a parliamentary committee made up of members from across the political spectrum.
The release of this report could be an indication that Australia will finally implement the evidence-based healthy eating policies that public health experts have been recommending for years. But we know that Australian governments have historically been unwilling to introduce policies to that the powerful food industry opposes. The question is whether the current government will put the health of Australians above the profits of companies selling unhealthy food.
Diabetes in Australia
Diabetes is one of the fastest growing chronic diseases in the country, with more than 1.3 million people affected. Projections show that the number of Australians diagnosed with this condition will increase rapidly in the coming decades. Type 2 diabetes accounts for the vast majority of diabetes cases. It is largely preventable, and obesity is among the most important risk factors.
This latest report makes clear that we urgently need to focus on obesity prevention to reduce the burden of diabetes. Type 2 diabetes and obesity cost the Australian economy billions of dollars each year and preventive solutions are highly cost-effective.
This means that money spent on preventing obesity and diabetes would save the government enormous amounts in healthcare costs. Prevention is also essential to prevent our health systems from being overwhelmed in the future. What does the report recommend?
The report presents 23 recommendations to address diabetes and obesity. These include:
-restrictions on marketing of unhealthy foods to children, including on television and online -improvements to food labeling that would make it easier for people to understand the added sugar content of products
-a tax on sugary drinks, where products with higher sugar content would be taxed at a higher rate (commonly called a sugar tax).
These key recommendations echo those prioritized in a variety of reports on obesity prevention over the past decade. There is compelling evidence that they are likely to work. Restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods
There was universal support from the committee for the government to consider regulating the marketing of unhealthy foods aimed at children.
Public health groups have consistently called for comprehensive mandatory legislation to protect children from exposure to advertising of unhealthy foods and related brands. A growing number of countries, including Chile and the United Kingdom, have legislated restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods in a variety of settings, including television, online and in supermarkets. There is evidence that comprehensive policies like these are having positive results.
In Australia, the food industry has voluntarily committed to reducing some unhealthy food advertising aimed directly at children. But these promises are widely considered ineffective.
The government is currently carrying out a feasibility study on additional options to limit the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. But the effectiveness of any new policy will depend on how comprehensive they are. Food companies are likely to quickly change their marketing techniques to maximize their impact. If any new government restrictions do not cover all marketing channels (such as television, online and on packaging) and techniques (including product and brand marketing), they are unlikely to adequately protect children.
Food labeling
Food regulators are currently considering a number of improvements to food labeling in Australia. For example, food ministers in Australia and New Zealand will soon consider imposing front-of-pack labeling with health star ratings.
Public health groups have consistently recommended the mandatory implementation of health star ratings as a priority to improve the Australian diet. These changes are likely to result in significant improvements in the healthiness of what we eat.
Regulators are also reviewing possible changes to the way added sugar is labeled on product packages. The committee's recommendation to include added sugar labels on the front of product packaging is likely to support this ongoing work. But changes to food labeling laws are notoriously slow in Australia. And food companies are known to oppose and delay any policy changes that could hurt their profits.
A tax on sugary drinks
Of the report's 23 recommendations, the sugary drinks tax was the only one that was not universally supported by the committee. All four committee members from the Liberal and National parties opposed the implementation of this policy. As part of their reasoning, the dissenting members cited submissions from food industry groups that argued against the measure. This follows a long history of the Liberal Party siding with the sugary drinks industry to oppose a tax on its products.
The dissenting members failed to recognize strong evidence that a tax on sugary drinks has worked as intended in a wide range of countries.
In the United Kingdom, for example, a tax on sugary drinks implemented in 2018 managed to reduce the sugar content in UK soft drinks and reduce sugar consumption. Dissenting committee members argued that a tax on sugary drinks would harm to families with lower incomes. But previous Australian models have shown that the two most disadvantaged quintiles would reap the greatest health benefits from such a tax and accrue the greatest savings on healthcare costs.
What happens now?
Improvements in population diet and prevention of obesity will require a comprehensive and coordinated package of policy reforms. Globally, a number of countries facing growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes are beginning to take such aggressive preventive measures.
In Australia, after years of inaction, this week's report is the latest sign that the long-awaited policy change may be near.
But meaningful and effective policy change will require politicians to listen to public health evidence rather than protests from food companies concerned about their bottom lines. (The conversation)NSA
NSA
NSA
