While Australia races into a compulsory country of origin labelling framework on the basis of a few people becoming sick, a simple question arises. Why are governments so reluctant to introduce other compulsory labelling systems that would do much more to address widespread ill-health, injury and social harm?
Some 21 cases of hepatitis A have been linked to imported frozen berries.
As a result, the Prime Minister has announced that a key component of the government’s response will be “a new country-of-origin labelling framework that will improve clarity for consumers”.
Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce has set out what this will entail. “Country-of-origin labelling should be simple, compulsory, diagrammatical.” It should “do away with weasel words … [and] give the Australian man or woman pushing their trolley no doubts”. He has firmly dismissed suggestions that new labelling requirements might add to the costs for business. And the government is committed to acting speedily – even within weeks.
The government is right to take this matter seriously. Hepatitis A is a nasty disease, and Australians are absolutely entitled to a safe food supply, with all the measures that are necessary to ensure this.
However, there is a broader context.
Obesity is one of Australia’s most pressing health problems. About a quarter of Australian adults and a quarter of our kids are overweight and obese, with consequences well beyond even cancer, heart disease and the rising tide of diabetes. We have become a society of junk and processed food consumers, with massive promotion of unhealthy foods to adults and children.
For decades the food industry has resisted strong, clear food labelling. Ministerial councils have debated, discussed, delayed, established working parties, negotiated, commissioned review after review, and avoided taking any action that might seriously offend commercial interests.
As recently as 2011, a comprehensive review established by the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, led by former Health Minister Dr Neal Blewett AC, recommended a clear pathway to strong, evidence-based front-of-pack labelling. The 61 recommendations included the proposal “that a multiple traffic lights front-of-pack labelling system be introduced”. There were four recommendations based on traffic light labelling on the front of packs. There were also three based on improving country-of-origin labelling.
Ministers resisted the traffic lights proposal but accepted the recommendation of “an interpretive front-of-pack labelling system”. After yet more delays, difficult political negotiations and significant compromises reached with industry, the result was a “health-star rating” system. This is an important development, but a small step compared to what could have been achieved; the system is entirely voluntary, and far from what is needed.
Alcohol does even worse. There is no effective labelling at all, only feeble, low-key and barely noticeable information the industry itself chooses to put on some products.
Something is very badly wrong here. Obesity and inappropriate nutrition are associated with thousands of deaths, extensive ill health, and a large and growing toll on our health system. Alcohol is similarly the cause of massive health and social problems and justified community concern. Yet while the harms are blindingly obvious to governments, none will introduce the kind of labelling that gives consumers the information to which they are entitled.
But country of origin is different – here we have an instant commitment to a shortened process, bypassing the obfuscation that has occurred on health-related pack labelling, with an approach that mirrors almost to the letter the commonsense approach health authorities have long supported for packaged food and alcohol.
The need for proper food and alcohol labelling is so much more important than proper country-of-origin labelling, and it is likely to do much more for public health. There is of course a difference. Overseas producers don’t have much sway over our local politicians. They also don’t have the same lobbying, public relations and promotional budgets as Australia’s food and alcohol industries. Further, they don’t contribute to political parties.
Acting on country-of-origin labelling is a good and proper thing to do. It also shows that the government can act with speed on food labelling, can bypass normal processes, is willing to brush off industry objections, and recognises the importance of legislation rather than alternative weak voluntary agreements.
It will be the most blatant hypocrisy if this measure goes ahead without a similar approach to other types of food and alcohol labelling, where the potential gains for health and the community are so much greater.
Mike Daube is Professor of health policy at Curtin University and Michael Moore is chief executive officer, Public Health Association of Australia.