HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FOOD ADDITIVES, SCHOOL CANTEENS

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:01): I move:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into the use of additives and chemicals found in food sold in school canteens and their effects on children's learning, behaviour and health.

Many teachers and parents are disappointed with the new anti-obesity guidelines recently introduced into schools. These guidelines outline nutritional requirements for school canteens based on levels of salt, fat and sugar, and portion size. These guidelines have led many food suppliers to comply with the guidelines to ensure their products are still sold in school canteens. However, many of these foods are full of other undesirable ingredients.

It seems that the effects of the additives, including artificial flavours, artificial sweeteners and preservatives, have not been considered in the analysis of foods. Though banning the sale of lollies and soft drinks has led to a lower amount of artificial colours in school foods, preservatives, flavours and flavour enhancers are contained in many of the school canteen approved products in alarming amounts. These additives have been linked to asthma, behavioural problems and learning difficulties.

A classic example is that, as a result of the introduction of the new lite-bite pies and pasties which have reduced fat and salt levels so that they meet the government's new guidelines, we saw an increase in the use of flavour enhancers and artificial colours and flavours to replace the depth of flavour which sugar, fat and salt tend to give food and to which people have grown accustomed over the years.

Consequently, we have a situation of having many of those items added to our food. Many of the items added to our food are banned in many other countries, and they are banned for very good reasons. As a matter of fact, according to a report in The Lancet in the UK earlier this year, childhood hyperactive behaviour is exacerbated by food additives and artificial colours. Many children's foods contain artificial colours and additives which fuel hyperactive behaviours in children.

According to the report published in The Lancet, when levels of hyperactivity in children are raised, they risk experiencing challenging developmental and educational difficulties, especially with regard to their reading skills. According to the authorities, artificial food colours and additives have a detrimental effect on children's ability to benefit from schooling.

Professor Jim Stevenson, from the University of Southampton in the UK, and a team looked at the effects of additives on children's behaviour in a community-based double-blind with a pseudo controlled crossover trial. The trial was sponsored by the Foods Standards Agency (UK). The study involved 53 children aged three-plus and 144 aged eight to nine. They were given either a drink containing 211 (sodium benzoate), plus one or two artificial colour mixes, or a placebo drink. The two artificial colour mixes used in mix A contained the same ingredients as those used in the previous study; and mix B constituted what the average three year old and eight to nine year olds may be consuming today. The children's behaviour was measured on a GHA (global hyperactivity aggregate), based on teachers' and parents' ratings, along with computerised tests for attention for the eight to nine year olds.

The trial confirmed an informal study that was conducted not long ago in New South Wales by Sue Dengate, who is a leader in the campaign to remove or reduce the number of food additives that we use in our food today. That was a study of a number of classroom students in a New South Wales country classroom, where processed foods were removed—and these processed foods are still all available on our school canteen menus today—from the school and they were replaced with foods that were completely free of artificial colours, flavours and food enhancers. There was a stark change in the behaviour of those children: we saw an increase in how alert children were in the class, an increase in their interest in what they were doing, better behaviour, and an ability to control their behaviour that otherwise may have been disruptive to other students. These behavioural changes occurred within just in a two-week period.

The reason that I think we need to have a select committee on this issue is that I have recently surveyed a number of schools and many of them—I will not name them—have been kind enough to send me their menus under the new Right Bite program. We have seen that those menus are heavily dominated by so-called 'amber' foods and those amber foods include pies and pasties, hot dogs, cheese and spinach rolls, pizzas, and so forth. There is one menu here from a high school and another one from an area school where we see pies and pasties, but even things such as sandwiches have changed enormously over the years.

We need to be concerned about what many manufacturers are putting in food, because they are using additives that have been banned in many other countries. I have some notes here that do, in fact, highlight (and this may shock some members) how many additives are in, for example, the pies and pasties that have been approved for consumption in our schools under the Right Bite program. For example, pies, pasties and sausage rolls—and these are the light versions—contain things such as 102 (tartrazine), which is banned in many other countries, including Norway and Austria, and it is also one of the colours that has been voluntarily removed in the UK. It is also on a list of colours that are banned in many other countries but are still being used in South Australia.

A petition is circulating in Australia at the moment in the form of an open letter to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), calling for Australia to follow the lead of other countries and to look at the advice contained in TheLancet study. Those who have signed that petition are people such as the Hon. Mr Kim Chance, a member of the former Western Australian Labor government and Ms Carolyn Cresswell, founder of Carmen's Fine Foods, along with nutritionists and psychologists. John Hyde MLA, a former parliamentary secretary for health and a member of the recently defeated Western Australian government, was very interested in this campaign to reduce the number of additives in food.

Dr John Irvine, a well known child psychologist, has also signed this letter, as have many prominent South Australians. General practitioners, primary school and secondary school principals, Ian Parmenter from Consuming Passions, Associate Professor Brad Pettitt (Dean of the Institute of the School of Sustainability, Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy at Murdoch University), and Professor Kerryn Phelps have also signed this petition. As the shadow minister for education in South Australia, I have also signed this petition. Many representatives of food companies, dieticians, health science professionals and occupational therapists and the Cancer Support Association of Western Australia have all got behind this campaign to reduce the number of artificial food additives and colours we allow here in South Australia.

Again, in a pie we will see sunset yellow, another one of those colours that have been banned in many other countries but we allow in our food here. That additive causes hyperactivity, upset stomach, skin rashes, kidney tumours, and chromosome damage, and it is banned in Norway and other countries. The food additive 160b causes hypersensitivity, allergic reactions, skin irritations, and behavioural and learning problems. These additives are in the pies and pasties that are for sale in our school canteens under the Right Bite program.

In relation to monosodium L-glutamate, a recent study done in some villages in China found that MSG actually contributes to child obesity. In the study, one family used MSG consistently in their cooking, while another family did not use MSG—and this study involved several families, not just the one family. The end result was that those families that relied on MSG to flavour their foods were consistently heavier than those families who did not. So, the scientific consensus was that MSG is also a contributor to obesity in schools, yet it is prevalent in just about every single product we allow to be sold in our school canteens.

Even something as simple as a ham sandwich contains things such as potassium chloride, which can cause gastric ulcers, circulatory collapse, nausea and liver toxicity—and there is a warning on it that it should not be given to children. The additive 407 displays a warning that it should not be given to children. The additive 250 nitrate, which is used to preserve meats, can cause hyperactivity, behavioural problems, asthma, headaches and dizziness. It is prohibited in foods for infants and young children.

With the melamine scandal in China, we have seen what happens when the wrong ingredients are put into foods—and that affected us right here in South Australia. I congratulate the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place for raising on the Byner program the concerns she had with some of these Chinese products. After the Byner program aired, we saw the worldwide recall of the chocolate teddy bears that were made in China because it was found that the milk was contaminated with melamine. I congratulate the Hon. Michelle Lensink on that initiative and foresight in being able to make a difference in this battle to ensure that the children in our schools are safe from the effects of additives in our food.

You do not need to move to packaged food or sandwiches: you can even move away from them, and look at things like vegetable juice, which contains the colour 129. Again, it is one of the colours that has been banned in many countries and which TheLancet report has said should be removed from food. It is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Norway, and now it will be banned in the UK. TheLancet report was taken very seriously by the UK parliament, and that is why it is legislating to remove these additives.

What is interesting about this is that the multinational food companies, Nestlé, for example, which produces Smarties, has now removed all of those colours from its Smarties for the UK market, because it knows that there is a voluntary ban now that will be compulsory in a very short time, and it has moved to natural colours to colour those Smarties. But, guess what they sell in Australia? In Australia they sell the very same Smarties full of those artificial colours, because they are cheaper. They are cheaper, and they are dumping them in Australia, and we are allowing it to happen.

All I am asking for is that this parliament support a select committee to find out just how much our children are being affected by additives in our food. There are plenty of people who will come forward to express their concerns and provide the evidence that this parliament will need to make a decision to make some changes that will resonate throughout Australia for children and also adults in selecting the food that they eat. I urge the chamber to support this motion.

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (11:17): I rise to speak on the motion that a select committee be established to inquire into the use of additives and chemicals found in food sold in school canteens and their effects on children's learning, behaviour and health. Clearly, the selection of food that is on offer to our children in the school environment is an important issue.

According to the most recent national nutrition survey in 1995, many children in Australia do not eat the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables required to ensure their wellbeing. Specifically, the survey highlighted that 6 per cent of girls and 4 per cent of boys do not eat any fruit or vegetables at all, and only 28 per cent of two to four year olds and 33 per cent of five to 12 year olds ate the recommended dietary intake of vegetables per day.

The NNS statistics concerning the dietary habits of children are clearly of concern. The Rann government has a ready recognised that what children consume in the school environment plays a significant role in influencing their dietary choices in life. For that reason, this government has been active in formulating initiatives that will foster a healthier eating culture in our schools through the Right Bite strategy.

However, I feel that the Liberal opposition needs to demonstrate some consistency as to whether it supports the government's healthy food initiatives in schools or whether it wants to go back to the previous situation where high-fat doughnuts and hot chips were often the staple offering of school canteens. I suggest this because, on the one hand, the opposition has been critical of the $1.55 million healthy school canteens initiative by suggesting that canteens should be able to sell junk food so that it does not impact on their profit margins, while, on the other hand, the opposition is suggesting, through this motion, that the healthy school canteens initiative does not go far enough.

The opposition is now pushing for a ban on any food with additives. The opposition's policy on this issue is clearly not consistent. This inconsistency can be partly explained by the motives of the member for Unley. In this place he put on the record the reason for his clear policy backflip on this issue. His motivation for putting forward this motion should be the opposition's concern for the health of the 165,000 students in our schools and demonstrating its commitment to lowering the incidence of obesity in the South Australian community.

Instead, the member for Unley is extrapolating from an incident within his family without understanding the context of that episode. On 3 June the member for Unley told the house about the unfortunate experience of his daughter, who suffered an asthma attack following a reaction to an additive after eating a doughnut at school. I am informed that the offending doughnut was not supplied by the school or sold by the canteen; it was supplied by an outside organisation as part of a celebration at that school of International Women's Day. However, it is very important to stress that, under the Right Bite strategy, the doughnut in question is, in fact, banned from sale in schools.

The reality is that our strategy promotes the consumption of fresh, natural and healthy foods with fewer preservatives, less fat, less sugar, less salt and fewer additives. I have great sympathy for the member's daughter, and I hope that she recovered quickly from this incident. However, it is very unfortunate that the member for Unley used this incident to explain his policy backflip and, consequently, has developed a proposal to have the department of education in South Australia take on a national role for monitoring and accrediting food additives in Australia.

In South Australia the Healthy Eating Guidelines were developed in collaboration with SA Health and, in 2004, were published and distributed to all schools and preschools. The guidelines outlined a whole of school approach to improving the general health of students and included a list of recommended and non-recommended foods for schools and preschools, based on the Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents and the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. From the start of 2008, all government schools and preschools were required to comply with the government's promise to ban junk food from school canteens and vending machines. The promotion of fresh food and drink in schools and preschools ensures that students are learning about the value of basic nutritious foods and that highly-processed, less nutritional foods should be eaten only occasionally.

The decision to ban junk food in school canteens and to introduce the Healthy Eating Guidelines in South Australian schools fits with the general direction being taken across the country. Food standards have also been introduced into schools in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. However, South Australia has taken a stronger stand than the other states by banning the use of artificially sweetened foods and drinks for schools and preschools, as these are an unnecessary part of everyday diets for children and students.

The second phase of the Right Bite strategy promotes food and drinks for the core food groups of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGHE) booklet, in line with Dietary Guidelines forChildren and Adolescents. These foods are mainly fresh and minimally processed foods and drinks. They are less likely to contain high levels of additives than highly processed foods. South Australian schools take very seriously the issue of protecting children with allergies. Not all allergies are linked to additives, of course, but our schools have measures in place to protect children with food allergies. In addition, canteen managers are trained to interpret nutrition labels and plan healthy menus. However, it is important that parents also take responsibility to ensure that schools are informed of any special dietary requirements for their children.

Students with diagnosed food allergies and intolerances are catered for in South Australian schools and preschools through the development of health plans, which are developed in conjunction with parents, health professionals and school personnel. Incidentally, Food Standards Australia New Zealand is the responsible organisation in relation to the use of food additives in Australia and is, therefore, the appropriate organisation to approach on this issue. It is important to note, especially in the case of the member for Unley, that any person or organisation can make application to Food Standards Australia New Zealand to vary the code.

For the record, safety assessments of food additives are carried out before they are allowed to be used for human consumption. A food additive is approved for use by Food Standards Australia New Zealand only if it can be demonstrated that its consumption provides no harmful effects. Standards set by FSANZ are periodically reviewed and revised as new evidence becomes available, ensuring that a rigorous testing process is adhered to.

Establishing a select committee to investigate food standards would duplicate the work carried out by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and would be a waste of resources. It is already the case that food producers must comply with mandatory labelling requirements which ensure that all ingredients, including food additives, are clearly listed on the packaging. This ensures that people are able to make better informed decisions when purchasing food products, especially if they are sensitive to certain additives.

It is important to note that some food additives, such as preservatives, ensure food safety by protecting against the growth of pathogenic bacteria. These food additives (which the opposition has suddenly become averse to) are common in many supermarket products. To suggest that schools have a responsibility to ban food additives is misguided and the result of a personal experience morphing into a policy whim.

This motion also ignores the significant steps taken by this government to improve the health of our children through the Right Bite strategy. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the member for Unley resisted the Right Bite strategy only to come out and criticise it for being insufficient in relation to food additives. This motion clearly demonstrates the opposition's lack of a consistent policy relating to the health of our school students, and the government does not support it.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:26): I take a less cynical view than that expressed by the member for Napier. I think it is important to discuss these matters, and I believe that the member for Unley, in raising this issue in the parliament, is acting in the best interests of the wider community; however, I suggest that restricting the inquiry to school canteens is somewhat limited. As the member for Napier pointed out, there is an Australia and New Zealand food standards authority, although I must say that, in my view, it tends to be very generous in what it allows by way of food additives and so on in Australia.

The campaign by the state government to help our children become healthier I think is a great thing. Of course, it needs to focus not just on what the children eat but also on appropriate exercise. Before I go to the specifics of additives (because I have had personal experience with this issue), I mention that this is symptomatic of a deficiency in our system in regard to labelling, and that has been a hobby horse of mine for a long time.

As any member who frequents supermarkets or other such areas of human activity will attest, terms are thrown around such as 'natural', '97 per cent fat-free' (which means there is 3 per cent fat), 'fresh', 'fresh daily' and 'organic', which is often undefined, unregistered and falsely labelled. From the evidence I have seen, something like half the products on the market do not qualify to be called organic. We have the term 'free range', such as free range eggs and free range chicken, which is another area that is openly abused. Members may have followed the debate interstate between the free range producers association and the Egg Corporation, a big debate about what should or should not be called free range.

I make the point that our labelling laws in Australia are inadequate and certainly less comprehensive than those in the United States. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (formerly ANZFA) really needs to lift its game and make sure that things are properly labelled, including the country of origin, and stop this nonsense where something can be labelled as a product of Australia and count the packaging and so on.

As to the specifics of this motion, I discovered well into my life that I am allergic to additive and preservative 211, which is sodium benzoate. I discovered that this allergy to this particular additive—which, incidentally, is not allowed to be used in Europe but is used here in soft drinks, chocolates, biscuits and so on—can cause quite an unpleasant reaction. You need to be a cross between Einstein and a super sleuth to discover that it is not in Schweppes bottled lemonade, but it is in Schweppes canned lemonade. It is in virtually every other drink.

It is not in Coca-Cola, because Coca-Cola does not need any preservative. It has enough sugar in there to keep it for a long time. The average person, though, unless they are carrying around a code book with them, would have no idea what some of these additives do, and they would have no idea that in Europe many of these, as the member for Unley pointed out, are banned—just not allowed at all. I think ANZFA has been very easy-going in Australia in allowing some of these things to continue.

You can buy, for example, smallgoods which do not have big doses of sodium nitrite in them, but any of those chemicals, you would have to say are, undesirable to have in your system. Some butchers now are offering sausages which have to be frozen or used straightaway rather than having big doses of sodium nitrite in them. What is sold in school canteens is a reflection of the wider community, and what should be happening—not only in relation to additives—is that the foods that are sold there, and in fast food outlets outside of school, should clearly have less salt, less sugar and less fat than they currently do.

My reaction to this motion is that I think it is well intentioned. I would argue that it should go beyond simply school canteens and, unfortunately, I do not have the confidence in ANZFA that the member for Napier does because, in my experience, it tends to be easily influenced by industry groups and commercial lobby areas and is very reluctant to restrict the use of many of these additives, artificial colourings and flavourings and so on.

I am not in the category of those who reject modern scientific advances, but you would have to question why it is that, in this day and age, people are affected by so many medical conditions and, whilst the jury is out, I think we should err on the side of caution, because we do not know the long-term consequences of the impact of some of these additives, colourings and flavourings and so on.

Maybe they are harmless, but I can recall being in this parliament not that long ago when we had members arguing that smoking did not cause lung cancer. I can remember one of the members saying that it was all based on a fallacy that lung cancer was caused by smoking. We would laugh at that today, but it is not that long ago that people were trotting out that sort of argument.

This motion, in my view, does not go far enough in terms of scope. I would be happy if ANZFA was actually a bit more rigorous and that, ultimately, comes down to health ministers putting pressure on ANZFA to really be a bit more rigorous and put the welfare of the community well above any consideration of commercial advantage, because, as the member for Unley said, it is possible to use some natural colourings rather than some of these artificial colourings and additives that go into nearly all the things that we eat and drink.

I think, when it comes to children, that we have an absolute obligation to ensure that we are not putting their wellbeing at risk by putting flavourings, colourings and additives in their food that are there simply to help sell the product and not for the wellbeing of the individual.

I think this motion is well meaning. I do not take quite the cynical, sceptical or political view that the member for Napier has but, reading between the lines, it is probably unlikely that this motion will succeed, because the government is unlikely to support it. As an issue, it needs to be extended, and the Minister for Health needs to push this case vigorously through ANZFA.

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (11:34): I rise to speak against the motion and add to the comments of my colleague the member for Napier. I want to begin by saying that I think the opposition needs to get its mind clear about what exactly it is on about in relation to this matter. One minute it criticises—

The Hon. S.W. Key: Generally.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: Well, this matter and probably generally as well. One minute the opposition criticises the $1.55 million Healthy School Canteen initiative by saying that canteens should be able to sell junk food so that it does not impact on their profits and, in the next breath, members opposite say that it does not go far enough, and that any food with additives should be banned.

I listened to the member for Unley talking about various harmful foods around the world, citing examples such as melamine in foods from China, and other examples. I know that the member for Napier mentioned this, but we have a body called Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), and state, commonwealth and New Zealand health ministers sit on this body, which has an unbelievably exhaustive process of evidence-gathering in relation to food and food additives. It has rigorous data collection, testing and consumer involvement, so much so that some of these processes are years long.

In fact, when I was minister, we pushed to try to streamline these processes so that they did not get so clogged up. For the member for Unley to be suggesting that schools start to take on these sorts of—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. L. STEVENS: But that is where this leads. How do they make those determinations? Further, there is an assumption in this motion that any preservative in a food is wrong. In fact, preservatives and additives are often there for a particular purpose. FSANZ—not ordinary schools—is the body that actually looks at preservatives and things added to food and makes a determination on the evidence.

I would like to speak in favour of what has happened in schools in relation to healthy eating when I was the health minister in 2004. Education and health combined began the process of developing healthy eating guidelines in our schools. Those guidelines were completed and are now in place in our schools. They outlined a whole-of-school approach to improve health generally, including a list of recommended and non-recommended foods for schools and preschools based on Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents and the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.

From the start of 2008, all government schools and preschools were required to comply with the government's promise to ban junk food from school canteens and vending machines. The promotion of fresh food and drinks in schools and preschools ensures that students are learning about the value of basic nutritious food and that highly processed, less nutritional foods should be eaten only occasionally.

The decision to ban junk food in school canteens and to introduce the healthy eating guidelines in South Australian schools fits with the general direction being taken across the country. The food standards have also been introduced into schools in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. However, we here have taken a stronger stand than the other states by banning the use of artificially sweetened food and drinks for schools and preschools, as they are an unnecessary part of everyday diet for children and students.

I take an interest in how the schools in my electorate are going with this matter, and they report good progress in putting it into practice. They also report changes in the way children view food. A number of my schools have gardens, and I imagine that that is occurring across the state in members' electorates, where students actually grow, cook and eat the food. I think that is a really important and valuable part of the curriculum.

The other point I would like to make is on the issue of allergies and how important it is for us to be aware of them. South Australian schools take very seriously the issue of protecting children with allergies. Not all allergies are linked to additives in foods, but our schools have measures in place to protect children with food allergies. In addition, canteen managers are trained to interpret nutrition labels and plan healthy menus, but parents also need to take responsibility to ensure that schools are informed of any special dietary needs their child requires. Students with diagnosed food allergies and intolerances are catered for in South Australian schools and preschools through the development of health plans in conjunction with parents, health professionals and school personnel.

As I mentioned before, it is FSANZ that is responsible for the use of food additives in food in Australia and New Zealand, and that is the appropriate organisation to take up the matter of additives. Any person or organisation can make an application to FSANZ to vary the code. The application must provide evidence justifying the purpose of the application and sufficient supporting data to enable the objectives of FSANZ, under the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand Act 1991, to be addressed. As I mentioned before, it has an exhaustive process of dealing with those matters because it gets so many of them; there are many and varied stakeholders in the food business, other than consumers. Safety assessment of food additives is carried out before they are allowed to be used, and a food additive is approved for use by FSANZ only if it can be demonstrated that no harmful effects are expected to result from the requested use.

The government does not support the setting up of a select committee to investigate this matter. It believes that setting up another group to investigate food standards would duplicate processes already established and would be a waste of resources that could be better used to promote healthy food and drink and physical activity in schools and preschools. I am sure any sensible person would agree with that position. To suggest that schools have a responsibility to ban food additives is misguided, and clearly the result of not thinking through the enormous complexity of that suggestion.

Finally, and as I said before, the schools in my electorate are taking this very seriously. It has been an opportunity for them to try new things in terms of growing the food, cooking the food and eating the food, sharing those results with parents and, where possible, changing behaviour in children's homes. Starting this move and cooperating in the ban on junk food in canteens is a very important step in terms of a change in food consumption in South Australia, something we know is critical for handling obesity and improving the general health of the entire community. With those words I conclude my remarks and urge members to vote against the motion.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:43): I am somewhat astonished at the government's response to this motion. It seems to be reading into it a lot more negatives than, on any reasonable understanding of what is being proposed, is the case. The member for Unley has asked that the house establish a select committee to inquire into the use of additives and chemicals found in food sold in school canteens and their effects on children's learning, behaviour and health.

I am sorry that the member for Fisher is not in the chamber at the moment, because I wanted to compliment him on the two select committees in which I have been involved since I have been in this chamber. At the outset I would like to say that I think that select committees, when they are set up, do some of the most valuable work of this parliament. It often saddens me that the level of debate we have in relation to a number of the bills that come before the chamber is not of a standard that I believe is commensurate with the importance of the things we are passing and debating.

I have sat on two select committees, both of them chaired by the member for Fisher and both of them set up at his instigation: one on cemeteries and one on juvenile justice. Both of those committees took evidence for something in excess of 12 months. As I said, they are very valuable in terms of the work that they do, because they have the ability to speak with a range of people and hear from anyone who wants to make a submission by advertising and making the work of the committee known. They gather, collate, think about and test information and come to a conclusion about whether or not there is a problem and how it might or might not be addressed.

I thank the member for Unley for the extensive work that he has done. I do not intend to reiterate any of the detail that he has already provided on the record in terms of the nature of the additives that are used in many foods. I will make a couple of comments, however, about the nature of the issue generally of school canteens. It has always fascinated me that, when I was in high school, which was way back in the sixties, we already had a health food canteen, and we only had things like chips available.

If there happened to be a school social at the end of term and there were leftovers from the stuff that was sold at the school social, that would then be sold off in the school canteen the next day. It was first in, best dressed. Whoever got there first got their little bit of extra stuff but, basically, we had a health food canteen where you could buy fresh fruit and a nutritious sandwich. Mums came in and did the work of presenting the food.

More than forty years ago we had a health food canteen, with very strict controls on the sorts of things that could be sold. Of course, things change over time. Back in those days we could buy a packet of peanuts for threepence. That tells you how old I am, because it was pre-decimal currency. We now know that a lot of kids suffer from allergic reactions to peanuts and so we do not allow even peanut butter sandwiches into many schools.

In that forty or so years there has been a fair bit of scientific development on the use of preservatives. In fact, I will share with the house the fact that someone (a lady of about my age) suggested to me the other day that she was going to undertake a McDonald's diet. She had figured out that the amount of preservatives in McDonald's food was such that she would not need Botox or anything else to keep her young; she would just keep eating McDonald's, and she would have so much preservative in her system that it would keep her young. Admittedly, she might have a weight problem eventually.

We all know the story of the McDonald's burger that is put into a cupboard and left there and has not gone bad because it has so much preservative in it. I do not mean to be attacking McDonald's, because I do appreciate it as a corporation, and I realise that it too has got on the bandwagon and recognised that there is a need to swing its nutritional values around. It is introducing—and did a long time ago in the States, for instance—much healthier options for people going to McDonald's. Indeed, I remember being at a McDonald's in the States where I was able to eat a fresh chicken salad, a fresh piece of fruit and some fruit juice, and that was the lunch that I was able to buy.

That said, we do know that there have been enormous amounts of additives put into foods of a range of types over a period of years, and it has only been more recently that people have been thinking that maybe there is a problem with this. The nature of the member for Unley's motion is simply to say that maybe there is a better way than this formal mechanism that the member for Little Para suggested of being able to put submissions to a federal body that can make a determination.

It seems to me that the more straightforward approach for this state would be to support this motion to set up the select committee. There is no doubt in my mind that it would take some time to gather the information it would need to reach any conclusions. However, it would be appropriate for that committee (which, no doubt, would consist of people from a range of representation within the house) to make some recommendations. If that multiparty, or bipartisan, group came to a conclusion that maybe there was something in this proposal, it could make recommendations to the minister, who could then pass on those recommendations to the schools in some detail, as to how they might adjust what is sold in the school canteens.

No-one is suggesting that we want to become a nanny state and absolutely control everything that children eat while they are at school, or that this promises to be the answer to everything. However, it seems to me to be such a straightforward motion; that we simply set up a select committee consisting of representatives of both sides of the house (as is always the case with select committees of this house) to undertake an intelligent, unbiased, non-partisan examination of the issues involved and make some determinations and recommendations as to what might be the appropriate course of action, in terms of the amount of additives and preservatives, and whatever else, in our food.

When I first went to the United States (some years ago now, back in the 1970s), I was amazed to find that cheese there is really yellow. For some reason, in the US they think that cheese is yellow and, therefore, when they make their cheese they add colouring to make it more yellow. There is no reason for it. We know, for instance, from years ago, that children who were fed lots of raspberry cordial could suddenly undergo some behavioural changes. We do not know what is in these things.

I will tell members a funny story. I was at sport one day with my kids and I had the dog with me. He was sitting beside me very obediently. I thought he was getting a bit thirsty and I was giving him what I thought was water out of the kids' water bottle. However, it turned out to be a highly nutritious (no doubt) drink. The dog was going boonta, because he was lapping up this wonderful stuff that I was giving him, thinking it was water.

Mr Venning: He was on a high!

Mrs REDMOND: My dog was basically on a high from drinking whatever it was that I was giving him; some highly nutritious drink. As parents, we know that what we feed our kids makes a difference to their behaviour. Nutritionists will tell us that that is the case. I can see no reason why members of the government are taking this strange attitude to the proposal, instead of welcoming it, as I think they should do, and saying, 'Let's have a look at this. Our parliament does its most valuable work when we get together as a committee and discuss things sensibly in a non-partisan way. Let's do an investigation as a parliament. Let's do some of our valuable work on an issue that is clearly of interest and concern to the community at large and go ahead with a select committee.' Where is the harm in that? Why would a government oppose that course of action? I urge the government to again have a think about what the proposal says and to support the motion of the member for Unley.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:53): I commend the member for Unley for this motion. It does not necessarily say that food additives and chemicals in foods should be banned. The motion on the Notice Paper quite clearly states, 'to establish a select committee to inquire into the use of additives and chemicals found in food sold in school canteens and their effects on children's learning, behaviour and health'. It does not say that we want to ban them. Some of these chemicals need to be added for preservative reasons. I agree with what the member for Heysen just said, and I cannot see any problem at all in members of parliament sitting down and discussing this matter. I agree that some of the best work we do is when we meet in committees.

Childhood health, which includes obesity, is a big problem. Many of the additives in processed food are detrimental to maintaining a healthy body and body weight. As the member has just said, behavioural disorders, such as hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder (ADD) can be caused by food additives, preservatives and colourings.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr VENNING: That is exactly right. I am a living example of bad habits gained when I was young at a private school tuckshop—things like chips, Coke, nuts, sugar, deep-fried food and all that sort of thing. You get into bad habits. Back then there was not a scare. If someone gets into a habit like that, they have it for life—although I did not get my current problem until later in life, thank goodness; it was when I entered this place that I got the problem.

Children's concentration skills and, hence, their ability to learn can also be impacted by the food they eat. Excessive sugary foods or processed foods consisting of many additives and chemicals can give children—and adults, also, for that matter—a rush of energy but, as the food is processed, the rush of energy quickly wears off and then the child (or adult) finds themselves lethargic, struggling to concentrate, and wanting to have more food to pick up their energy levels again. I know this, because I suffer from this; I suffer from a sugar addiction. We all know what the highs and lows do and we try to fight it but, when you are tired and have deadlines to meet, sugar solves the problem, but we know it is very short term—and it is not good for you at all.

I think that an inquiry into the impacts on children of the additives and chemicals in foods sold in canteens is clearly warranted. I think the recent Chinese milk scandal involving the melamine chemical contamination illustrated the importance of knowing what is in the food products that particularly children consume. If such an inquiry can reveal what foods have negative impacts on children's learning, behaviour and health, they can be removed from sale in canteens and there would be many benefits.

Students would be more attentive and receptive during class, with fewer misbehaving children, taking the pressure off teachers and enhancing the whole learning environment. Childhood obesity would be less of a problem if healthier, more natural food options were available in school canteens, and this would help ease the burden the obesity epidemic is causing on the health system. Childhood obesity is a huge problem. Behavioural disorders caused by chemicals in food would be less prominent if the foods containing such chemicals were banned, making life much easier for everyone involved with children.

I think it is also important to note that banning foods in school canteens that adversely affect children's health, behaviours and learning will have flow-on benefits for everyone involved in the child's life—the family, the sports coach, the after school hours care staff, etc.

We are lucky to live in a state that has so much fresh fruit and vegetables, and there are many healthy alternatives to junk food and highly processed food, and it is about time more of these foods were served in the school canteens. Australia's farmers produce the world's cleanest food. We do not need a lot of these colourings and preservatives, and they should be discouraged where practical.

I am not aware of the government's Right Bite initiative that was discussed earlier by the member for Little Para. If there is an initiative, I suggest it should do more, and I cannot understand why the government is not supporting this motion. This is a great opportunity to highlight what our young people eat and what lifelong bad habits begin at a school canteen. Some children are never aware and never get the opportunity to eat anything other than fast foods such as hamburgers, fried and battered chicken, potato chips, sugary soft drinks, pies with fat, doughnuts and deep fried sweets. Children need to get used to eating grills, salads, vegetables, nuts, fruit, water, fruit juices, etc. Labelling on a product should be displayed on a canteen notice board so that, if it is offered at a canteen by popular demand, everyone needs to know that their choice could be having adverse effects on their health and general wellbeing.

I commend the member for Unley for moving this motion. I think it is a common-sense thing. I cannot understand why the government does not let this go through, because you cannot just disagree with everything—we do have some good ideas on this side. I believe this is a good opportunity for the government, because it is a good idea, can do no harm and can highlight a problem. I would look forward to serving on this committee. I am happy to serve on the select committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think it is a great idea. Also, I support the member for Unley, because it is a great initiative—and he is a very good shadow minister, too.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT