Eating for Health and the Environment: Australian regulatory responses for dietary change

The Australian food system significantly contributes to a range of key environmental issues including harmful greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, soil desertification, biodiversity loss and water scarcity. At the same time, the Australian s food system is a key cause of public health nutrition issues that stem from the co-existence of over- and under-consumption of dietary energy and nutrients. Within these challenges lie synergies and opportunities because a diet that has a lower environmental impact generally aligns with good nutrition. 1 Australian State and Federal initiatives to influence food consumption patterns focus on individual body weight and ‘soft law’ interventions. These regulatory approaches, by focusing on select symptoms of food system failures, are fragmented, reductionist and inefficient. In order to illustrate this point, this paper will explore Australian regulatory responses to diet-related illnesses. The analysis will support the argument that only when regulatory responses to diets become embedded within reform of the current food system will substantial improvements to human and planetary health be achieved.


INTRODUCTION
The environment, human health, agriculture and food are intimately connected. In reflection of this, research addressing food security over the last decade has shifted away from a singular focus on agriculture towards adoption of a food systems approach. 2 The food system approach encompasses the activities that take place from production to consumption and considers the impacts of these activities on sustainability and food security. 3 Both in Australia International Scientific Symposium entitled Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets. At this Symposium, the accepted definition of a sustainable diet was the following: [t]hose diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources. 7 FAO's principle officer of Nutrition and Consumer Protection stated that this definition '[r]eaffirmed the notion that the health of humans cannot be isolated from the health of ecosystems'. 8 The definition is now the most commonly cited in the literature and various government policies on sustainable diets. In line with the developments at the international level, various EU member States including the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and France have created guidelines for food choices that integrate health and environmental sustainability. 9 Besides being a standalone concept, sustainable diets are arguably part of the human right to food and the underlying concept of food security. Food security exists when 'all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life'. 10 The right to food is broader than food security alone and incorporates the obligation of the State to respect, protect and fulfil people's entitlements to food. 11 In addition, transnational food corporations 7 'Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action' (FAO: Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, 3 November 2010) 309, 7. 8 Ibid. 9 German Council for Sustainable Development, The Sustainable Shopping Basket (2011) <http://www.nachhaltigkeitsrat.de/uploads/media/Brochure_Sustainable_Shopping_Basket_01.pdf> accessed 15 July 2014; Health Council of the Netherlands, Guidelines for A Healthy Diet: The Ecological Perspective (2011) <http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/en/publications/healthy-nutrition/guidelines-healthy-diet-ecological-perspective> accessed 15 July 2014; Swedish National Food Administration, The National Food Administration's Environmentally Effective Food Choices, proposal notified to the EU in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2009) < http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/miljo/environmentally_effective_food_choices_proposal_eu_2009.pdf> accessed 15 July 2014. The Swedish guidelines have since been withdrawn because the EU Commission found that the dietary recommendations, which included the suggestion that people eat more locally produced food, would contravene the EU's trade agreements. have responsibilities to 'respect human rights' including the right to adequate food and 'should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved '. 12 The former Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, argues that the right to food means more than 'a right not to starve' 13 and that 'States should discharge their duty to fulfil the right to adequate food by taking immediate measures to progressively make a transition to more sustainable diets'. 14 The current global industrial food systems, replicated within Australia, has not only failed to reduce starvation at a global level but has also fostered diets that cause more deaths worldwide from overweight or obesity related illnesses than starvation. 15 Sustainable diets help fulfil the right to food and foster food security by placing diet-related illnesses within the context of environmentally unsustainable food systems. Australian consumes 116 kilograms of meat each year, which is around three times as much as recommended by government guidelines. 20 An extensive body of work shows that meatbased diets require far more energy, land and water resources than a plant-based diet. 21 In turn, the over-consumption of meat is a causal factor of climate change and a range of health problems. 22 Australians are comparatively high consumers of manufactured or processed foods. 23 The value of Australian food imports in 2011-12 was $11.3 billion, which is 8.6 per cent higher than in 2010-2011. 24 These imports are largely: soft drink; oil and fat; cordial, syrup, bakery products and confectionary. 25 Generally, ultra-processed food, like confectionary, requires more resources than food that is unprocessed or minimally processed, requires post-harvest chemicals and results in a range of waste by-products. 26 In fact, food processing companies are one of the main polluters of those industries that manufacture for end consumers. 27 19 These are some of the common factors across work from academic and domestic and international institutions. See  The industrial agriculture practice of specialising in crop or animal breeds for mass production has resulted in the degradation of biodiversity and the simplification of human diets. 28 It is well-established that diet-related diseases are associated with an inadequate intake of vegetables and fruits, and the over-consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods. 29 Accordingly, Australian people who are overweight and obese are likely to develop seemingly paradoxical nutrient deficiencies. 30 Data from Australian Nutrition Surveys reveal that only 6 per cent of Australian adults meet the recommended amount of fruit and vegetable serves. 31 Alongside being plant-based, not ultra-processed and diverse, a sustainable diet is safe and secure. While Australia has a comparatively safe food supply, food borne illnesses have increased by 44 per cent in the last two years. 32 In relation to food security, Australia does have adequate quantities of high-quality food when supplied by both domestic production and imports. 33 The National Food Plan: White Paper expresses concern over future food security in Australia, but remains confident that Australia will produce and import adequate food. 34 However, a growing body of work asserts that Australia, like other nations, has increasing levels of food insecurity caused by, for example, environmental degradation, food price increases and climate change driven disruptions. and 56 per cent of Australian females were either overweight or obese in years 2011-12. 36 This suggests, though is far from conclusive, that at least a significant proportion of Australians are experiencing overnutrition, where there is an oversupply of nutrients and energy relative to what is required for healthy bodily functioning. 37 A large body of work has shown the connections between poverty, obesity, hunger and food insecurity. 38 A recent, critical piece of work involved a mail survey in disadvantaged suburbs of Brisbane. 39 It found that one in four households were food insecure. In this context, food insecurity was strongly associated with a lack of money to buy food. 40 In addition, an emergent area of research has found that Australian people who are food insecure are more likely to be overweight or obese, as well as underweight, than food secure Australians. 41 Accordingly, the health impacts of the Australia food system disproportionately affects disadvantaged sectors in society. In line with this, the Australian government has found that obesity is most prevalent in the most disadvantaged communities, First Nations Peoples and people from overseas. 42 The prevalence of overweight and obesity in Australia signifies a level of food insecurity in Australia far higher than is commonly assumed. This in turn suggests a lack of a sustainable diet.
Food waste levels across Australia are concerning. Food waste generates greenhouse gas emissions including methane and carbon, and reflects a loss of natural resources such as water and fossil fuels used to produce the food. Baker et al in a study for the Australia Institute found that Australians are spending $5.2 billion a year on food that was not consumed. 43 Accordingly, more money is spent on food that is wasted than is spent on running the Australian Army every year. 44 In relation to environmental impacts, the National Waste Report estimates that one-third of Municipal Solid Waste and one-fifth of commercial and industrial waste streams are food waste. 45 Food waste is clearly a significant issue in Australia, but it also presents a number of opportunities. For instance, food waste can be used to create soil-enhancing compost and various non-governmental organisations have been created to respond to the demand for an efficient distribution of food in Australia. 46 In summary then, the evidence debatably suggests that the average Australian diet is unsustainable across a range of factors. However, Australia, unlike perhaps some middle income and developing countries with similar diet-related issues, has substantial opportunities to improve given the widespread availability and access to high-quality food in Australia.

IV. AUSTRALIAN REGULATORY RESPONSES
The responses of Australian regulators to peoples' food choices generally fall into one or more of the following three groups: guidelines, education and research or private mechanisms of regulation ('co-regulation' and 'self-regulation'  64 Queensland, Department of Education and Training, Smart Choices <http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/healthy/fooddrink-strategy.html>.The "Green" category includes those foods that are encouraged and promoted, and these foods include fruit, vegetables, sandwiches, wraps and water. The "Amber" categories are those foods and drinks that should not dominate choices and should be avoided in large serving sizes. These foods are, for example, meat pies, meat hamburgers, muffins and microwaved lasagne. The "Red" category are those foods and drinks that are supplier on no more than two occasions per school term, and includes food such as chocolate, chips, soft drink and lollies.
 "Healthier.Happier" interactive public campaign run by the Queensland government promotes making 'small changes' so you can 'look and feel better'. The changes suggested are mostly eating less ultra-processed foods and exercising.
Generally, the approach of Australian regulators has been to focus on overweight and obesity, and promote the uptake of exercise and lower food energy intakes. This approach does not address the causal connection between the unsustainable, industrial means of producing, processing and distributing food with the resulting unsustainable diets.  Lancet, Vol. 374, 2009, 1917-1929; J Woodcock, P Edwards, C Tonne, Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport, Lancet, Vol. 374, 2009, 1930-1943; S Friel, AD Gandour, T Garnett, Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture, Lancet, Vol. 374, 2009, 2016-2025; A Markandya, BG Armstrong, S Hales, Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation, Lancet, Vol. 374, 2009-2015 A Haines, AJ McMichael, KR Smith, Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policymakers, Lancet, Vol. 374, 2009, 2104prevent or reduce diet-related illnesses or even to more broadly promote sustainable diets will continue to have little effect at a population-level. 93 In adopting this viewpoint, the social, economic and political emphasis on consumption and economic growth would need to transform before the law and policy surrounding sustainable diets, and diet-related illnesses in particular, can have significant impact.

C. Collaborative approaches to regulation of the food industry
The Australian food industry is dominated by subsidiaries of major multinational food and beverage companies, 94 with two supermarkets controlling the retail market. The place of these companies within Australian society gives these groups powerful influence over the Australian government. 95 Examples of Australian regulators engaging in private governance to respond to unsustainable diets include:  The "Food and Health Dialogue": a non-regulatory medium for collaborative action between the Government and leading food manufacturers and retailers. 96 This group agreed to set target reductions of salt in particular products. 97  The "National Food Plan White Paper": this paper deals with the Australian food system and highlights future collaborations with industry, the importance of flexibility, competition and reducing regulatory burdens on businesses. 98  The star-labelling front-of-pack-label ('FoPL') scheme: Food industry representative, public health groups and Australian governments were brought together to create a FoPL system. Together they created and agreed to a star-rating labelling system, similar to what is featured on white goods, movies and hotels. The stars would indicate the general nutritional qualities of food and would be a voluntary requirement as of June 2014 with the potential of becoming mandatory after two years. 99 Australian regulators have actively sought collaborations with food companies, which suggests that the food industry can be persuaded to market ethically and create sustainable products. Yet, these kinds of approaches may be set to fail because corporations are legally required to have the goal of growing in profits not the goal of growing in profits and providing sustainable, healthy food products. 100 In other words, the goals that corporations must pursue are at odds with the need for Australian society to move towards a sustainable diet and, in general, a sustainable lifestyle. 101 In relation to this, Australian food industries, and therefore, transnational agrifood corporations, increase profit margins by reaching larger markets, tempting people to buy more food and cutting production costs by, for example, sourcing food from cheaper sources. 102 A report by Kraft Foods Australia/New Zealand stated, 'It is well understood that the success of the food industry is based on growth.
Effective innovation strategies require a lightly-regulated marketplace at domestic levels '. 103 Reflecting this, food industries process foods so that the food is moreish, dense in debatably addictive nutrients, 104 long in shelf-life and transportable across long distances. 105 While these processes are highly effective at generating profit, it tends to reduce the nutritional value of food and dramatically increase its environmental impact.
Commentators are pointing to tobacco and asbestos companies and arguing that the food industry is employing the same strategies to slow or thwart formal, binding regulations. 106 Obviously, corporations that harm the public health, such as those that sell tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food, will attempt to prevent any policy or legislative measures that may reduce their profits. 107 In line with this, Brownell and Warner compared the empirical and historical evidence around tobacco and food industry practices, responses and strategies to influence regulation, research and public opinion. They concluded: Food is obviously different from tobacco, and the food industry differs from tobacco companies in important ways, but there also are significant similarities in the actions that these industries have taken in response to concern that their products cause harm. 108 Various strategies used by the food industry to avoid regulatory measures include: creating bias research findings, co-opting policy makers and health professionals by promoting partnerships with scientists; petitioning politicians; funding campaigns of politicians who will oppose regulation; encouraging voters to oppose regulation by creating fears around 'nanny state' governments; supporting information-based approaches like TV advertisements; avoiding disclosure of relevant health and environmental information and emphasising individual responsibility. 109 In line with this, a recent qualitative analysis based in New Zealand found that the food industry positions obesity as an economic burden and a result of poor lifestyle choices caused by lack of knowledge or character deficits. 110 The food industry was found to frame obesity as a consequence of an individual's low levels of physical activity rather than related to the structural issues and so emphasised social marketing as the key strategy. 111 Some of these strategies are evident in the recent controversy surrounding the Health Star-Rating FoPL scheme. To the surprise of the other participants and after the scheme was approved, industry groups involved begun publicly criticising the scheme, including the Australian Food and Grocery Council, which is the peak body for the processed food industry. 112  The complexity and scientific uncertainty around sustainable diets means that there is likely no standardised sustainable diet and that instead a sustainable diet is determined by the context including factors such as the geographic location and culture. Additionally, any discussion on sustainable diets must deal with some uncomfortable realities such as the ways in which food is produced, the limits to growth and human dependence on a healthy environment. As with any regulatory responses to unsustainable consumption, moving towards sustainable diets is likely to conflict with neoliberal economic ideologies.
Perhaps before regulatory action around sustainable diets can take place, the social discourse surrounding legal responses to overweight and obesity will need to move away from an excessive focus on weight loss and personal responsibility. Transitioning from single-issue thinking to systematic understandings of the interface between human bodies, food and the 113 See, e.g., Lenore Taylor, 'Fiona Nash accused of misleading Senate again over food rating scheme: Assistant health minister's claim of 'unanimous decision' to perform cost-benefit analysis before launch is disputed' The Guardian (online), 14 February 2014 < http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/14/fiona-nash-accused-misleading-senate-again-foodrating-scheme> where the chief executive of the Public Health Association, Michael Moore, 'That would fit with an industry agenda to prevent or delay the uptake of a system that will allow parents to know how healthy the food is that they are putting in their children's lunchboxes. The food industry doesn't want to mount the direct argument against a system consumers want, but they want to undermine it quietly'. 114 The chief of staff, Alastair Furnival, and his wife had been co-principals in Australian Public Affairs but, on his appointment as chief of staff, his wife had taken over full control. From this point, there are a number of ways in which Australian regulators could proceed, and it is likely that a combination of various instruments will be more effective given the extent and complexity of the issue. 119 Firstly, Australian regulators could influence food choices by changing the prices charged for certain food items. This could take the form of corrective taxes for unsustainably produced, unhealthy foods or subsidies or reduced taxes around sustainably-produced, healthier foods. The Goods and Services Tax is already applied on food apart from minimally processed food products, so this may suggest that such regulatory interventions are relatively ineffective. In line with influencing food choice, Egger has analysed the idea of an individual carbon-trading scheme against the potential impacts such a scheme would have on lifestyle choices. Theoretical outcomes from implementation of such a scheme include an increase in personal energy-driven transport (walking, cycling etc). 120 Secondly, Australian regulators could alter their public procurement rules. 121 The Australian Government is one of the largest consumers of goods, 122 and so has significant power to increase demand for food products that meet high environmental, social and economic standards. EU member States provide an example of how prioritising nutritious, seasonal, sustainably produced foods and allowing small producers to enter the tender process can shift populations towards sustainable diets. 123 Thirdly, Australian regulators could influence a shift towards sustainable diets by providing consumers with more information. One way to do this is to stop the movement towards the development of "ag-gag" laws in Australia, which laws are designed to prevent people from documenting the treatment of farmed animals and, in doing so, from raising related public health issues. 124 Ag-gag laws prevent community debate that could lead to: law reform, reduced meat consumption and better-informed consumers. Another approach is to create a State-regulated eco-label that is either mandatory or voluntary. An eco-label visually communicates to consumers information about the environmental impact of their food choices. 125 In this way an eco-label recognises and rewards food producers with low environmental impacts and fosters more informed decisions by consumers. In line with this, Australia will need to incorporate environmental sustainability into the main text of its dietary guidelines, which it has made progress towards albeit gradually. 126 Lastly, the Australian government could re-structure its institutional arrangements and physical spaces to encourage sustainable diets. Health, food and environmental concerns do not fit into the existing, conventional agencies and departments that separately regard health, food and agriculture. 127 Moreover, Australian regulators could reform planning laws to protect peri-urban agricultural areas and promote community gardens. Extensive research indicates that community gardens in Australia improve the health of participants, while providing other benefits such as enhanced social capital and carbon sequestration. 128 Consequently, there are a number of ways that law and policy can influence food consumption patterns to align with sustainable diets. Future work in this area will need to critique and expand on these potential regulatory responses.

VI. CONCLUSION
Sustainable diets are critical for addressing the broader food-related sustainability issues evident at domestic and international levels. This paper has outlined the emerging understandings of sustainable diets within international organisations and academia.
Regulatory interventions by Australian regulators that relate to food consumption patterns were outlined. These responses were found to ignore or downplay the relationship between food consumption, health and the environment and instead focus on weight-management, personal responsibility and collaborations with food industries. The ineffectiveness of these approaches to either achieve their own aims or transition towards sustainable diets was discussed. If Australian regulators moved past the current approaches then Australia would be in a position to explore innovative legal responses that improved and sustained the health and well-being of humans and the environment.