Page 1382 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The requirement for kilojoule display would also apply to drive-through menus, leaflets that list the food items of an outlet, and the internet if the food can be purchased online. The menu board must also say that the “recommended average daily energy intake is 8,700 kJ”. This has been produced as a mid-point for adults.
The maximum penalty is $275,000 where it can be shown that a business intentionally breached the law and $55,000 where a breach has occurred but intention cannot be proved. This penalty may seem large but this does replicate what has been done in New South Wales. We must also consider that we are dealing with very large companies and industries in this instance. There may be cases where businesses believe they can make more profit by not displaying the kilojoule count correctly and paying the fine. This is something we must avoid.
If, for some reason, a specific outlet or business needs the minister to make an exemption for a specific period of time, this is provided for in the legislation. The exemption, however, would be a disallowable instrument and subject to the normal processes of this Assembly.
The legislation also requires the Minister for Health to conduct a review of the legislation one year after it has been in operation. That review must consider whether salt, fat and sugar should be included in the mandatory displays in future. This is something that has previously been recommended by the Heart Foundation. The New South Wales Greens were able to successfully amend the legislation to include such a review, and it would be our hope that the review done in the ACT could build on that work in New South Wales.
Mr Tim Gill, Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of Obesity, Nutrition and Exercise at the University of Sydney, has previously said that the industry is unlikely to accept labelling for individual nutrients as readily as energy labelling, because many fast-food items exceed the daily recommended intake for salt or saturated fat. He also argued that the prominent disclosure of nutrients as well as kilojoule count would give fast-food chains impetus to create healthier products, because it would lead to competition in the industry to reformulate their food items.
The bill proposes that if a store voluntarily displays kilojoule counts on their menu boards, they must follow the methods of display that are used in this legislation. Examples of such stores could be those with less than seven outlets in the ACT and less than 50 in Australia. This provision has been included to ensure that the information presented to customers is consistent and reliable across the industry.
Having considered the financial cost to business, we do not believe it will be extensive, because standard menu boards are regularly revised to accommodate new products and meals. A number of companies are also creating these types of menu boards already because of the changes in New South Wales and also proposed changes in South Australia. The ACT is only a small addition.
To give some background to the history of this legislation, it was first mandated in New York in 2007. California then followed and President Obama went on to include this in the healthcare legislation passed in March 2010.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video