Home

Sadly, the Federal Government rejected the Traffic light labelling reforms today.

While the labelling system might have lead to some confusion for certain unhealthy foods (eg. those high in natural sugars as opposed to highly processed foods that are low in sugar), it is still a far better system than the current labelling laws.

The Government cited there was “inconclusive evidence” to support  introduction of a traffic labelling system, particularly when viewed alongside studies showing that such a system can influence buyer behavior.

The bottom line is, Australia has some extremely powerful food lobby groups whose members would have been disadvantaged  if the traffic system had been given the green light.

Written by Andrew Talati

A Fat Tax has been discussed around the world since the mid-Nineties.

Now it seems that one country has decided to take it on board.

In a bid to reduce its rates of obesity and heart disease, the Danish Government is applying a surcharge to all foods that contain more than 2.3% saturated fat.

Will it work? If so, how will other governments go about implementing it?

How it will work
In 2004, the Danish Government made it illegal for foods to have more than 2% trans fatty acids.  In 2010, it began taxing all sugary foods in an attempt to put a stop to rising obesity levels and their associated health problems.

Governments around the world are also considering implementing a fat tax – but there is some debate as the best way to approach it.

At present there are three schools of thought:

1.  Increase the tax and cost of high fat foods, using the money to reduce the price of healthy food options;

2. Only tax foods with a poor food score (e.g. only red foods in the traffic light system); or

3. Spread a tax across a variety of food types.

However, many believe that a fat tax will create an unnecessary stigma and/or drive people to other unhealthy alternatives.

Which foods to target?
One of the biggest problems with applying a fat tax is deciding on what foods to tax.

High fat, high sugar, or high salt? Each has contra-implications for longterm health and wellbeing.

For instance, taxing only high fat foods would just drive people to eat high salt or high sugar foods instead.

Taxing these foods will also drive up prices. This may initially seem like a good idea, especially for less healthy foods. But, as the rising prices of cigarettes shows, increased prices don’t always result in reduced sales.

Other alternatives
An alternative to taxing foods is to create a health promotion strategy that increases education about nutrition, healthy food choices and occasional foods.

Many believe this is a much better solution to rising obesity rates and lifestyle diseases.  They argue that ‘banning’ unhealthy foods can lead to a spike in consumption rather than a reduction.

Also, unhealthy foods are not just consumed by overweight or obese people. There are many ‘thin’ people who consume large amounts of unhealthy food and yet a fat tax could create a stigma against the obese. This in turn may reduce their efforts to lose weight and improve their health.

There’s no denying that being overweight has a negative effect on your health and/or lifestyle. Creating a fat tax may be one option to help us change our food habits.  Cheaper prices might also make healthier choices more appealing.

Then unhealthy food providers could no longer argue that people consume fatty, salty and sugary foods because processed food is cheaper.

Written by Andrew Talati

It’s a sad day when a company that sells a cancer delivery system is suing the Australian Government for damage to their brand and trademarks. This is based on the proposal to introduce plain packaging with an olive green colour with the brand name. I maintain that if cigarette packaging does not influence or pursued prospective smokers why would you bother to sue?

Phillip Morris, one of the big American tobacco companies has threatened litigation if plain packaging legislation proceeds.

It’s funny how the tobacco company has suddenly become concerned of the government’s action being unconstitutional, well if taking steps to save lives is being unconstitutional it’s a very sad day.

The facts are chilling, 5,000 Australians a year die from smoking related illness with the costs to our health care system and our society $31.5 billion each year.

Written by Andrew Talati

The increase in obesity in Australia is disturbing. It doubled for the general population and trebled for 7-15 year old between 1985-1997. And that’s 14 years ago. According to Jane Martin from the Obesity Policy Coalition, 6 in 10 Australian adults, and 1 in 4 children are overweight or obese.

The Obesity Policy Coalition is a group of leading public health agencies working to encourage individuals, governments and industry to stop the progression of obesity, especially in children. They’re targeting all forms of promotion of unhealthy food that children have access to, especially TV advertising during child-watching hours.

A really useful initiative of the coalition has been the introduction of the free download ‘traffic light food tracker’ app. that helps consumers know if foods are healthy even when labels say ‘fat-free’ or ‘sugar-free’, while they’re at the supermarket. The only negative comments have been from food manufacturers. Should we be surprised?

Empty calories – foods full of calories but empty of nutrients are a part of the problem. You only have to watch kids on any street, at any time, slurping from their bottles, not of water, but fizzy drinks. Drinking carbonated drinks has doubled in line with the rise in obesity. But there’s a bigger worry than getting fat. The UK Daily Mail recently reported on a Swedish study that showed 2 fizzy drinks a day can double your risk of developing pancreatic cancer, which has only a 2% survival rate.

Would a ‘fat tax’ help? They’ve introduced one in Denmark, so we should be watching closely to see what happens. A tobacco tax reduced the number of smokers, so it’s certainly worth trying anything that might cut obesity.
Professor Kelly Brownell of Yale University thinks a tax on soft drinks would be a good place to start. At a recent conference of the Australian Psychological Society, he had this to say:
“From a psychological perspective, human beings respond to what we call environmental defaults. In eating terms this means they will eat foods that are most easily available, least expensive, and most heavily marketed. If the school canteen serves junk food, school children will eat junk food. If the school canteen serves healthy food, children will eat healthy food.”

If we don’t take action fast, we’ll be able to replace the image of the fit bronzed Aussie with a sickly overweight/obese person lolling in an armchair, unable to get up.

Written by Andrew Talati

Is freedom of choice killing us? With Obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease rates rising is having a free market with no rules/limited regulation or self regulation creating an unhealthy nation.

While there is continued debate regarding the marketing of unhealthy food products, food labeling and other policies to reverse the current trends there are those who advocate that we should have the freedom to eat what we want when we want.

However if you look at the big picture is having an open, free market leading to positive long-term outcomes for the nation.
You can go to KFC and buy the double down burger which may seem fantastic but what is the real cost? Or a family meal for under $20 from McDonalds, a meal which is full of high levels of fat, sugar and salt can be freely available in an open market without restrictions or regulation?

Is the marketing of highly processed foods containing high levels of fats, sugar and salt to an unsuspecting consumer a good thing?

However have we lost our capacity to make informed decisions as to the long-term health of society.

There are many examples where having an open market and giving people freedom in certain liberties to choose what products to buy and what price.
This may seem fantastic in the short term for example the dumping of cheap fruit and vegetables on the Australian market however in the long term the true cost is becoming dependent on to 2 major retailers and destroying the local agricultural industry.
In the long term we pay higher prices and have less fresh fruit and vegetables.

Cigarette advertising is another example where regulation leads to lower consumption which in the long term reduces the incidences of lung cancer and other smoking related deaths.
People are aware of the dangers but still choose to smoke so regulation is a necessary evil.

So is having unlimited, unregulated really that great in the long term?

Written by Andrew Talati