DISSENTING REPORT
SENATOR
BOB BROWN and SENATOR
RACHEL SIEWERT,
AUSTRALIAN GREENS
Protecting Children from Junk Food
Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008
The
overwhelming weight of evidence presented to this Committee confirms the urgent
need to address the growing problem of childhood obesity in Australia and the benefits of restricting
advertising junk food to children. The Australian Greens are grateful for the
thoroughly researched and extensive submissions of many of the contributors and witnesses
to this inquiry and will take on their advice in further improving the bill.
There
is no dispute that obesity in Australia is a serious problem. The Committee
majority report notes the following facts: Australia now has the fifth highest
rate of adult obesity amongst OECD countries; that 17 percent of children aged
between 2 -16 are overweight and 6 percent are obese; there is a demonstrated
link between childhood and adult obesity; the cost of adult obesity in
Australian in 2008 is estimated at $8.3 billion; and there are 'negative
effects of unhealthy food advertising to children'.
So
the conclusions and recommendation of the majority report that the Bill not be passed ignore the evidence, the urgency of the
problem, and the evidence and recommendations of the majority of submissions to the inquiry.
The
National Preventative Health Taskforce and advertising junk food to children
The
recommendation to refer the information gathered by the Committee to the
National Preventative Health Taskforce ignores the very title of the discussion
paper released by this group: "Technical Report No 1: Obesity in Australia: a need for urgent action".
The
Committee report ignores action by concluding that it would be 'premature to
bring forward legislative changes'. Nevertheless, the Taskforce report
identified the need to "Protect
children and others from inappropriate marketing of unhealthy foods and
beverages" as a
priority. Citing evidence from Australia, the United Kingdom,
United States and other international examples, that
report stated that the research "suggests that simple regulatory
restrictions such as restricting content and timing of advertisements would
reduce children's exposure to advertising of non-core foods".[i]
Importantly,
the Taskforce report makes the specific recommendation to:
Curb inappropriate
advertising and promotion including consideration of banning the advertising of
energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods and beverages on free-to-air television
during children’s viewing hours (i.e. between the hours of 6.00am and 9.00pm),
and reducing or removing such advertising in other media such as print,
internet, radio, in-store and via mobile telephone. [ii]
The
Taskforce was fully apprised of the extensive information on this subject and
presented a position that is entirely consistent with the objectives of this Bill. This is reason to proceed with this Bill with resolution, rather than dismiss it with a
recommendation for further information.
Inadequacy
of self regulation by industry
The Committee
majority concluded that the recent development of a self-regulatory initiative
by industry is a positive step and notes industry's request that it be judged
on its future progress in this area. Nonetheless, the Committee recognises the
'reservations' of witnesses and submitters which argue that self-regulation is
inadequate, inappropriate and simply does not work. As Professor Rickwood, from the Australian Psychological
Society told the Committee:
There appears to be a
conflict of interest. If you are advertising products, the whole aim of
advertising is to increase the use of that product. If they are advertising
products that are high in fat, sugar and salt, their aim is to increase the
uptake of those products. We know that those products are contributing to
obesity, so there is a conflict. How can they self-regulate really when there
is a direct conflict there?[iii]
We disagree
with the Committee's rose-tinted view that self-regulation will do for now. In
the face of a national obesity epidemic, described by the National Preventative
Health Taskforce as one of the greatest public health challenges facing Australia, it is wrong to suggest the food and
advertising industries should be given responsibility for regulating junk food
advertising to children. This is the role of government and, as so many
submitters and witnesses have argued, should be regulated through legislation.
Extending
the advertising restriction times
Numerous
submissions and witnesses to the inquiry
identified that the current timing of restrictions does not capture the
broadcast periods when high numbers of children are viewing. The preponderant
evidence is for extending the restricted times to 6.00am – 9.00pm,
as proposed by the National Preventative Health Taskforce. We will be amending
the Bill to incorporate this position.
Conclusion
The
evidence presented by submission and witnesses on the link between advertising
junk food to children and childhood obesity is compelling. A prohibition on
junk food advertising during children's peak television viewing times, as this Bill will achieve, is one strong and effective measure in what
must a multi-faceted and comprehensive approach to addressing the enormous challenge
of obesity in Australia. We welcome the input for all contributors
to the inquiry to strengthen and improve this Bill.
Senator
Bob Brown
Senator
Rachel Siewert
[i]
National
Preventative Health Taskforce, 2008 Technical
Report No 1: Obesity in Australia: a need for urgent action pp 27
[ii] National Preventative Health
Taskforce, 2008 Technical Report No 1: Obesity
in Australia: a need for urgent action pp30
[iii] Professor Richwood Proof
Committee Hansard, 19 November 2008 pp 20
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page