Food policy for good health, learning from the UK
As evidence mounts world wide of the increasing incidence of diet-related illnesses, food policy is rapidly becoming a core interest of The George Institute.
"It is inevitably going to be one of our priority areas", says Jacqui Webster, Senior Project Manager of the Australian Division of World Action on Salt and Health (AWASH) for The George Institute.
In October The George Institute brought together a group of organisations and individuals active in the food policy arena to discuss the current Australian state of play. A key aim was to consider how government might be influenced to take action on important issues such as food composition, food labeling and the marketing of foods to children.
The sense which emerged from the lively discussion, chaired by Professor Bruce Neal with representatives from the National Heart Foundation of Australia, consumer advocacy group Choice and the New South Wales Cancer Council along with nutrition advocates, was that Australia lacks government leadership on food policy which is fragmented, disjointed and inconsistent.
The presence from the United Kingdom of Jeanette Longfield MBE, Director of ‘Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming’ as guest speaker at the discussion provided the opportunity to compare Australia’s situation with that of the United Kingdom.
Sustain is a unique advocacy organisation representing around 100 national public interest organisations. It seeks to improve food policy by facilitating information exchange, advising and negotiating with regulatory agencies and encouraging businesses to produce, process and market foods which are good for health and the environment.
No equivalent organisation exists in Australia, though the participants at the lunch seminar expressed keen interest in meeting on an ongoing basis for informal networking to share information on food policy developments.
The recent announcement of a Food and Health Dialogue between the Department of Health and Aging, the food industry and public health organisations is welcome, according to Ms Webster. But she says the lack of transparency about the objectives and work program is frustrating and it’s questionable whether the necessary regulatory systems are in place to drive forward the changes required to seriously tackle diet related diseases such as obesity.
The UK Food Standards Agency was set up as a policy making body independent of existing government ministries to cut through the conflicts and contradictions evident when governments seek to protect the interests of both consumers and farmers in food production.
In Australia, food policy potentially cuts across several government portfolios, including health, agriculture, consumer affairs, Treasury and the environment. The enforcement body, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) lacks policy making powers, Ms Webster said.
In developing a wider strategy on food policy, The George Institute will take account of issues and ideas generated by the October discussion. Also under consideration is how to extend the model established for the AWASH campaign on salt reduction to other problematic ingredients and food composition issues, such as trans-fats, saturated fats, added sugar and portion sizes.
A number of government reports have already recognized the effectiveness of the AWASH campaign in working with the food industry towards achieving a healthier product range. Some 20 major food companies have committed to national salt reduction plans across their product portfolios and some have agreed to reduce salt content by 25 per cent across their range over the next five years.
Despite the huge achievement of gaining industry awareness of and action on the issue, consumer awareness is still lagging. For this and to set clear targets against which we can monitor industry progress, The George Institute believes a co-ordinated government leadership is required. Achieving this goal is a key current focus of the campaign.