Freedom to protest, public health, and Covid-19

Update: the podcast of the event described below is now available, click here.

Recently, a number of protests have taken place on the grounds of The University of Sydney against Commonwealth government education policies.  See, for example, here (28 August) and here (14 October).

During the latter protest, police were filmed throwing a demonstrator heavily onto concrete (see here: https://twitter.com/honi_soit/status/1316224862889754624, while in this footage (https://twitter.com/honi_soit/status/1316223965568749568), my colleague Professor Simon Rice, the Kim Santow Chair of Law Reform and Social Justice at Sydney Law School, was pushed to the ground, arrested, and issued with a fine.

“It was violent without causing any particular harm”, he told The Guardian. “Disproportionate force, completely unjustified.”  See also here.

Ironically, Simon and I had just been discussing the tension between civil liberties and public health in the context of policing of earlier demonstrations.

Simon will be appearing as a member of a panel discussing these issues in a seminar entitled Protest in a Time of Pandemic, convened by the School of Social and Political Sciences in the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, University of Sydney, together with, Sydney Law School, Sydney Institute of Criminology, and Sydney Health Law.

Other Panel members include: Felicity Graham, Taylah Gray, Georgia Carr, Professor Danielle Celermajer and the author.

This is a live online event: Fri 13 November 2020, 11.00-12:30AEDT. See here for details and to register.

This seminar explores whether there is a right to protest during a pandemic, the tension between freedom and the policing of lockdown and social distancing measures, and the forms that protest might take in a liberal society.


Post Covid: alcohol and the night time economy in the Sydney CBD

Sydney’s CBD has been bleak and empty the past few months, especially at night, but coronavirus restrictions in NSW are slowly easing.

From 1 June, pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants can seat up to 50 customers (instead of the previous 10), provided businesses ensure social distancing of one person per 4 square metres, and no bookings of more than 10 persons.

If restrictions lift further, venues will likely begin to extend hours of opening and to kick start Sydney’s night time economy.

It’s worth noting the changes to service of alcohol laws introduced for the Sydney CBD late last year.

Complex changes to service of alcohol laws affecting licensed venues in inner Sydney were introduced following a series of alcohol-fuelled “one punch” attacks around 2013-14.

These controls included “lock-out” laws preventing patrons from entering licensed premises after 1.30am, restrictions on the use of glasses and on sales of certain kinds of alcoholic beverages after midnight, and an end to all liquor service at 3am.

Other controls included risk-based licence fees, and additional security and public safety measures, such as RSA (responsible service of alcohol) marshals, and mandatory ID scanning for certain venues.

See here for a review of those laws, and here for subsequent changes made following an independent review in 2016 conducted by former High Court Justice the Hon. Ian Callinan AC.

Opponents of Sydney’s lock-out laws have argued that these controls destroyed Sydney’s night life (and night-time economy).

In May 2019, the NSW Parliament established a Joint Select Committee to inquire into Sydney’s Night Time Economy, including the appropriate balance between community safety and health outcomes.

The Final Report recommended a number of changes that were subsequently implemented through the Liquor Amendment (Night Time Economy) Regulation 2019 (NSW).

Lock-out laws

The “lock-out” laws originally applied to prescribed “precincts” in the Sydney central business district, and Kings Cross.

During the lock-out period, new patrons were prohibited from entering the premises [hence “lock-out”], although patrons could remain on the premises, and leave at any time: see Liquor Regulation 2018 (as amended), s 89(4).

Section 89, as amended, retains the definition of a “lock-out period” to mean the time after 1.30am until 5am the next day.

The lock-out period has not changed, but the changes introduced in December 2019 provide that the lock-out law only applies to the Kings Cross precinct, not the CDB entertainment precinct: see here.

In Kings Cross, the lock-out restrictions continue to apply to hotels, clubs, licenced public entertainment venues and karaoke bars, and high risk venues (defined in s 116B(2) of the Act to mean hotels with patron capacity of more than 120 people that regularly operate after midnight), as well as “level 2” licensed premises that have had previous incidents of violence.

On the other hand, the Regulations allow a Kings Cross liquor licensee to seek an exemption to both the lock-out and liquor sales cessation restrictions: see here.

Liquor sales cessation periods

Section 90 of the amended Regulations deals with the “liquor sales cessation period”.

During a liquor sales cessation period, hotels, clubs, licensed entertainment venues and karaoke bars, high risk venues, and venues to which a level 1 or level 2 licence applies – must not sell or supply liquor: see s 90(3).

The December 2019 amendments have not changed the liquor sales cessation period for the Kings Cross precinct: it begins at 3am and continues to 5am.

For premises in the Sydney CBD Entertainment precinct, s 90 states that if the premises are declared to be subject to a level 1 licence (and there are currently no such licenses), then the same liquor sales cessation period applies: service of alcohol must stop at 3am.

But otherwise, service of alcohol can continue on to 3.30am.

Wind-back of other controls

Section 91 of the Regulations sets out additional controls that apply to after midnight trading (the “general late trading period”) in hotels, clubs, licensed public entertainment venues and karaoke bars in Kings Cross.

These additional controls also apply to premises in other precincts which are declared to be premises to which this clause applies – due to a history of alcohol-related violence, or violence causing serious injury.

These additional controls include the requirement that drinks cannot be sold in glasses and glasses must be removed from patrons.

So, unless they are a declared premises, licensed premises in the CBD don’t have to remove glasses after midnight.  This is another of the wind-backs.

Section 92 provides that, in addition, shots and other drinks containing more than 5% alcohol (but with the exception of cocktails) cannot be sold after midnight.

However, following the December 2019 amendments, this control no longer applies in the Sydney CBD.

On the other hand, controls designed to slow the rate of alcohol consumption (and sober patrons up) remain.  Between 2am and the beginning of the liquor sales cessation period, no more than 2 alcoholic drinks can be sold or supplied to a person, and no more than 4 drinks during the general late trading period (after midnight).

These controls have not been wound back: see s 92(5)-(6).  However, they do not apply to “small bars”, which may apply for extended trading authorisation to trade after midnight.

They illustrate the intent of the legislation, which is to reduce levels of alcohol consumption in large venues, and to encourage a small bar culture. Small bars can now cater to up to 120 patrons (s 39).

Venues in the CBD precinct are no longer required to have an RSA marshal supervise the responsible service of alcohol during the midnight to 3.30am period on weekends and after public holidays, unless they are a declared premises to which this requirement applies (Regs s 94).

On the other hand, the requirement for a “round the clock incident register” continues in prescribed precincts (s 96), and the requirement for CCTV in premises within the Kings Cross precinct remains (s 95).

The ban on motorcycle gang members wearing clothing or symbols that identify their club remains in both the CBD and Kings Cross precincts (s. 98).

The NSW Parliament’s Joint Select Committee found that “due to the historical nature of Kings Cross, venue density and the small size of the precinct, there is a high risk that if the 2014 laws were removed, violence would increase and the rate of assaults would begin to rise again” (p vi).  However, these controls will be reviewed within 12 months.

A final, significant change introduced in December 2019 was the extension of trading hours for take-away bottle shops.  The amended regulations now give an exemption until midnight for premises that are otherwise authorised to trade to 10pm: Regs s. 117.

Did the lock-out laws work?

In August 2019, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research studied non-domestic assaults in the 62 months since the lock-out laws were introduced.

They found that non-domestic assaults were reduced by 53% in the Kings Cross precinct, and were reduced by 4% in the CBD precinct.

There was some displacement of violence to surrounding areas.

For example, non-domestic assaults rose by 18% in the proximate displacement area of Pyrmont, Ultimo, Chippendale, Surry Hills, Elizabeth Bay, and the Star City area.

It rose by more 30% in the non-proximate displacement area that included the suburbs of Bondi Beach, Coogee, Double Bay and Newtown.

But overall, the displacement was less than the reductions in violence that these laws achieved, meaning that overall violence was reduced by 13.3%.

Hospital admission statistics are another way of gauging the success of alcohol control laws in the inner city.

A study published in 2018 by The Medical Journal of Australia reported a 10% reduction in the number of violence-related fractures and a 7% reduction in drug and alcohol-related fractures presenting at St Vincent’s hospital.

These reductions suggest that changes to alcohol trading hours – including lock-outs, liquor sales cessation periods, and bans on late-night take-away liquor sales – were part of an effective package for reducing alcohol-related violence.

As with tobacco controls, it can be difficult to definitively quantify the specific contribution of each measure to the reduction in violent assaults.  It is the overall impact of the package of controls that speaks.

At the time the package of lock-out laws were introduced – after multiple, sickening, unprovoked attacks – there was a political imperative for action.

The Government had to do something, and it did.

It’s now five years later.  What strikes me is that the wind-backs introduced in December are relatively modest.

It remains to be seen what impact they will have on incidents of alcohol-related violence, and whether, in particular, they have created incentives for the kind of cultural change that is needed to ensure a safe, but late-night economy in Sydney.

Are you interested in studying health law?  Sydney Law School offers a Masters and Graduate Diploma in this area.  You can start in either the March, or July/August semester.  Click here, or here, for more information.

 

Despite industry objections, alcohol and pregnancy warnings will be mandatory in Australia and New Zealand

The food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has finalised the form of the alcohol and pregnancy warning label that will be mandatory on packaged alcohol sold in both countries.

Assuming the States do not request a further review, the new warning will be added as an amendment to Standard 1.2.7 of the Food Standards Code and will become mandatory after a two year transition period (see pp 6, 78 here).

Here it is.

It’s been a long time coming

In 2011, the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council commissioned a review of food labelling law and policy, chaired by Neil Blewett AC.

The committee’s report, co-authored by Australian public health law pioneer Chris Reynolds, is a terrific document, although increasingly difficult to locate online.

The Committee saw no reason to exempt alcohol from labelling requirements, in view of evidence relating to the risks of binge drinking and longer-term over-consumption.

(In 2015, alcohol use was responsible for more than 6,300 deaths in Australia, or 4% of total deaths – see AIHW, Australian Burden of Disease Study 2015, Table D2, p 167)

Amongst many sensible recommendations, the report recommended that “generic alcohol warning messages should be placed on alcohol labels” as part of a broader, multifaceted, national campaign addressing alcohol-related harm [recommendation 24].

Secondly, it recommended that a mandatory warning about the risks of drinking while pregnant should be included on “containers of alcoholic beverages and at point of sale for unpackaged alcoholic beverages” [recommendation 25].

Thirdly, it recommended that alcoholic beverages should not be exempt from energy labelling requirements that apply to packaged food under Standard 1.2.8 of the Food Standards Code [recommendation 26].

The Government’s response to the review is here.

Added momentum for a warning label about the risks of drinking while pregnant came from a Parliamentary inquiry in 2012 into the Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.

The Foreword to this report, from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, states:

“FASD [fetal alcohol spectrum disorders] is an entirely preventable but incurable condition caused by a baby’s exposure to alcohol in the womb. The consequences are expressed along a spectrum of disabilities including: physical, cognitive, intellectual, learning, behavioural, social and executive functioning abnormalities and problems with communication, motor skills, attention and memory.”

The lifetime cost of for one person with FASD in the United States is at least UD$2 million (see FASD Strategic Action Plan 2018-2028, p 8).

The Standing Committee recommended that the Commonwealth implement – by 1 October 2013 – a mandatory warning label advising women not to drink when pregnant or planning a baby on packaging of all pregnancy test kits (Recommendation 7).

This recommendation has not been implemented.

The Committee also recommended implementation – by 1 January 2014 – of a warning label for all alcoholic beverages advising women not to drink while pregnant or planning pregnancy (Recommendation 11).

FSANZ has now finalized this warning – for packaged alcohol.  A warning about drinking while breastfeeding was outside the scope of this work.

It should have been a non-brainer

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that in 2016, around 35% of Australian women drank while pregnant.  One in four women who were unaware of their pregnancy continued to drink after they found out.

In this age of personal responsibility, alcohol and pregnancy warning labels ought to be a no-brainer, but it has taken until 31 January 2020 for Food Standards Australia New Zealand to approve a mandatory health warning and graphic for alcoholic beverages that contain more than 1.15% alcohol by volume.

For detail of the amendment to Standard 2.7.1, which governs labelling of alcoholic beverages, see here (pp 100-104).

The Australian and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, which is responsible for developing food regulation policy, had earlier, in October 2018, requested FSANZ to consider options for mandatory alcohol and pregnancy warning labels.

Getting FSANZ involved was a good idea – long overdue.  FSANZ is a technical, a-political agency that reviews evidence, considers options and develops the mandatory technical standards that make up the Food Standards Code.

A methodical, evidence-based, bureaucratic process has significant advantages in areas of regulation prone to lobbying and interference from well-resourced industries.

The internet remembers

Draft (updated) National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Guidelines clearly state:

“A To reduce the risk of harm to their unborn child, women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy should not drink alcohol.

B For women who are breastfeeding, not drinking is safest for their baby.” (p 47)

In 2018, DrinkWise, a responsible drinking campaign largely funded by the alcohol industry, distributed a poster to hospitals and GP clinics around the country that said: “It’s not known if alcohol is safe to drink when you are pregnant”.

This was widely criticised; even the New York Times ran a story.

DrinkWise re-phrased its poster (see below).

DrinkWise now has a new campaign called “The internet remembers”.

Indeed.

Alcohol industry objections

The Approval Report for the new warning label lists the concerns raised by the alcohol industry, together with FSANZ’ response.  The warning FSANZ chose was: “Alcohol can cause lifelong harm to your baby” – which performed better in consumer testing than “Any amount of alcohol can harm your baby”.

For its part, the alcohol industry suggested that the text of the warning should be “It’s safest not to drink while pregnant” as “medical knowledge is not settled whether drinking small amounts [while pregnant] has a bad influence [on the foetus] (see p 44 here).

Industry was also concerned that the words “HEALTH WARNING” were “misleading, inflammatory and may alarm consumers” (p 26).  It recommended changing “HEALTH WARNING” to “DRINK RESPONSIBLY” (p 28).

FSANZ noted, unsurprisingly, that such a change would “not meet the intended purpose of the pregnancy warning label to reinforce public health advice and messaging not to drink alcohol while pregnant”.

Industry also objected to the red font required for “HEALTH WARNING”, on the basis that it would inflate costs.  It requested a monochromatic label (p 44).  It wanted the label to be smaller (p 29).  It felt the cost of the label was not proportionate to the benefit (pp 33-34).

Industry sought a longer phase-in period of up to 5 years, rather than the 2 years proposed by FSANZ (p 36).

Overall, while the alcohol industry was “fully supportive of interventions that are proportionate, well evidenced and shown to be effective at changing harmful consumption behaviours”, it was “concerned about the lack of rigour of the proposal in this regard” (p 43).

Its objections even extended to the ponytail in the graphic of the woman (p 24).

Overall, the impression you get is of an industry keen to reduce the consumer impact of the warning, keen to delay its implementation, and far more interested in revenue than the harm its products can cause the next generation.

No surprises there, unfortunately.

Smoke-free streets and lanes: a growing headache for big tobacco?

Smoke-free Melbourne?

One of Melbourne’s quintessential experiences is to stroll its laneways, many lined with restaurants.  Smoking here would spoil things for everyone.

In 2014, Causeway Lane, a small restaurant strip running between Bourke Street Mall and Little Collins Street, went smokefree.

You can read reactions to this smoke-free pilot here.

Three more laneways were added in 2015.

Victoria’s Local Government Act 1989 permits local governments, including the City of Melbourne, to make and enforce “local laws” (see ss 3E, 111) that relate to its functions or powers, provided they are not inconsistent with Victorian Acts or regulations.

The City of Melbourne’s Activities Local Law 2019, one of three local City laws, empowers Council to prescribe smoke-free (local) areas (see Part 3A). Click here for more information on City of Melbourne smoke-free places, and click here for a map of these places.

The City of Melbourne is currently reviewing community feedback about a proposal to make Bourke Street mall smoke-free.  See here, and here.

 

Smoke-free North Sydney

North Sydney Council has gone even further, voting in July 2019 to completely ban smoking in its CBD.

Community consultation showed 80% support in favour of the ban.

The traditional justification for second-hand smoke laws – in bars and restaurants, offices, trains and airplanes, is that smokers should not be permitted to harm the health of non-smokers.

With growing demand for fresh air, however, these laws have taken on a life of their own.

Area-wide smoking bans in public places are a logical follow-on from the decade-old smoking bans on Sydney beaches.

Manly beach went smoke-free in 2004, and all harbour and ocean beaches in Sydney’s northern beaches area are now smoke-free.

Bondi Beach also went smoke-free in 2004, and Waverley Council has since extended smoking bans to the Oxford Street Mall.

 

Conceptualising innovations in tobacco control

Second hand smoke controls reduce butt litter and harm to non-smokers, including asthmatics and others with lung and heart conditions.

It seems clear, however, that bans are expanding into areas where the risk of harm to non-smokers is substantially reduced.

It’s a process I call transformation: when the justification for existing legal controls changes over time as a result of norm change, facilitating further expansion.

These days, what functions do smoking bans serve?  Beyond causing harm to non-smokers, are they laws that relate to amenity – the desire of the majority not to have their enjoyment of public places spoiled by even transitory encounters with nasty tobacco smoke?

Or are they about reducing the potential for smoking to function as a socially communicable disease by reducing the visibility of nicotine-seeking behaviour?

Or are they about litter and protection of our waterways?  (I once saw a smoker put their butt in the bin.  Honest, cross my heart).

Or are they simply an exercise in “making tobacco use difficult” (to use Brawley’s term)?

Whatever the reasons, the nanny state theorists aren’t having a bar of it.

Residents’ demand for fresh air, and smokers’ recalcitrance on butt litter went down like “sick in a cup” with radio man Steve Price, who has blasted the ban as a “nanny state solution”.

Other ways in which tobacco controls can expand include through extension (where the purpose of the law remains the same, but the reach or intensity of legal controls becomes more extensive over time (as with prohibitions on tobacco advertising), and through creation (where law imposes distinctively new kinds of controls to help reduce initiation, encourage quitting, discourage relapse, and reduce exposure to second-hand smoke).

[a designated smoking area on Orchard Road, Singapore]

 

Smoke-free districts in asia

A similar trend towards smoke-free streets and precincts looks to be under way in parts of asia.

From 1 January 2019, the Orchard Road precinct in Singapore became a smoke-free zone.

Smoking has not been eliminated entirely along Singapore’s famous shopping strip.  But smokers are required to smoke in designated places, reducing litter, and further reducing non-smokers’ exposure to tobacco smoke in outdoor areas.

It’s a similar picture in Penang, Malaysia.  This wonderful world heritage city has gone smoke-free.

In the United States, Disney World and Disneyland are going smoke-free, and there are no designated smoking areas within these parks.

Not all tobacco control advocates are comfortable with the trend towards smoke-free public spaces.

Simon Chapman has argued that “banning smoking in wide-open public spaces goes beyond the evidence and is unethical”.

One interesting possibility is whether the failure to accommodate smokers’ nicotine addiction constitutes discrimination on the grounds of “disability” or “impairment” under NSW, Victorian and other anti-discrimination or equal opportunity statutes.

While opioid addiction has been considered a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [see commentary here], nicotine dependence has not yet been regarded as a “disability” or an “impairment” for the purposes of State anti-discrimination laws (see here, and here).

I’m not sure tobacco companies want all their addicted customers categorised as disabled, but you never know.

In the meantime, enjoy the fresh air!

[No smoking in George Town, Penang’s World Heritage site]

Interested in studying health law?  Click here and here for more information.

Breastfeeding rooms in US federal buildings: who would have thought?!

Last year the US watered down a resolution of the World Health Assembly that would have called on States to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding”, and to provide technical support to “halt inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children”.

A step too far, apparently, given the economic interests of US-domiciled formula companies.

See here for a previous post.

In June 2019, however, Congress passed a Bill requiring federal agencies to provide lactation rooms for lactating women in buildings that are open to the public.  Think federal courts, US Social Security Administration buildings, and indeed, within the US Capitol building itself.

The Bill requires the agency to provide a lactation room that is “shielded from view”, “free from intrusion”, and contains a chair, a working surface and electrical outlet.

This ensures a place for women both to breast-feed, and/or to express breast milk.  Importantly, it encourages breast-feeding, and expressing breast milk as a new normal for women with infants who are interacting or indeed working for the federal government.

The bill provides for exceptions: where it is impossible at reasonable cost to re-purpose a space as a lactation room using portable materials, or where new construction would be required to create a lactation room at a cost that is unfeasible.

The Bill is a nice example of a public health intervention that changes the environment to support a behaviour that benefits the health of both the infant, and the nursing mother.  President Trump signed it.  Who would have guessed?

And now for the hard question: Can you imagine anything similar happening in Australia, the clever country?

Click here for a quick summary of the benefits of breastfeeding: you might be surprised how significant and extensive they are.

It’s the kind of stuff the manufacturers of “toddler milk” (Nestle and all the rest) tend not to emphasise.

(By the way, for those interested in tracking US Congressional legislation that impacts global health, click here).

 

Why the media gets it wrong on obesity

“I’m not overweight”, writes columnist Katrina Grace Kelly in The Australian.  “I’m just the helpless pawn of a vicious corporate conspiracy”.

Amusing read, but it also illustrates why public health researchers are failing to cut-through with governments and the broader community on obesity.

“The ‘obesogenic environment’ is the culprit here, apparently”, Kelly writes, referring to a recently-released report from the Obesity Collective, and to recommendations from the Senate Select Committee into the Obesity Epidemic in Australia.

“The creators of the obesogenic environment are government, society in general and the harbingers of all evil – corporations, specifically, companies in the food and beverage sector, now being referred to as Big Food.”

She adds: “We are fortunate to have researchers on the public payroll, so they can conduct studies to arrive at such previously unimaginable conclusions”.

 

It’s all personal responsibility, stupid

Kelly’s beliefs about obesity illustrate why the problem is so hard to tackle at a population level.

The dominant framing of obesity as purely a matter of personal responsibility seems obvious, intuitive.  No one is force feeding us, right?

But it has a downside: if you’re fat, look in the mirror, you only have yourself to blame.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of adults who are overweight or obese has increased from 56% in 1995, to 67% in 2017-18, with an additional 900,000 adults becoming overweight in the 3 years since the previous survey in 2014-15.

There is a troubling trend here, but for many people, it’s difficult to accept that the causes of the trend might be different from the causes of an individual’s obesity.

 

Personal policy, and public policy

If you are obese, having greater personal responsibility is an excellent suggestion – it’s an excellent “personal policy”.

But it turns out to be a rather silly and unproductive explanation for the trend towards population weight gain.

For one thing, personal responsibility is not a new idea; in fact, it’s a strategic failure, so urging people to have more of it is unlikely to reduce obesity rates in future.

Viewing obesity in terms of the failure of personal responsibility also means that the dramatic trend towards weight gain over the past couple of generations – affecting many millions of people in most countries of the world – is best explained in terms of an unprecedented, mass deterioration in self-control.

Who could have guessed?!

Framing obesity in terms of individual responsibility probably does little to help those who are obese, although it might make the rest of us feel smug.  It also deflects attention from both the causes of, and the solutions to, the problem at a population level.  And that’s what healthy public policy needs to be directed towards.

Are you interested in health and medical law?  Sydney Law School offers a Master of Health Law, a Graduate Diploma in Health Law, and single unit enollment.  For more information, click here, or here.  For more information on what it’s like to study at the Law School, click here.

Beyond the “hot tub”: Australia’s runaway obesity epidemic

How sure are you that you won’t lose your feet or toes to diabetes?

According to a new report by the Obesity Collective, based at the Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney, obesity in Australia is getting much, much worse.

Between 2014-15 and 2017-18, the obesity rate in Australian adults rose from 27.9% to 31.3%.

In other words, over the past 3 years, an additional 900,000 Australians became obese.

Sixty-seven percent of Australian adults are now either overweight or obese (2017-18), an increase from 63.4% in 2014-15.

That’s astonishing.

Astonishingly bad news.

Australia now ranks 5th out of 44 OECD countries in the obesity stakes – it’s a race we shouldn’t be trying to win.

If this trend persists, how will we look in 2027-28?

By that time, nearly nine million Australians will be obese.

Think of the cost – not only costs to our taxpayer-funded health care system, but premature deaths from cardiovascular disease, obesity-related cancers, limbs, feet and toes amputated due to our runaway diabetes epidemic.

According to Diabetes Australia, 4,400 diabetes-related amputations already occur each year in Australia.

That’s set to get worse.

 

Australia’s runaway obesity epidemic needs to become an election issue

How long till we see concerted national action that is not choreographed by the big food lobby?

Did you know that the Australian Food & Grocery Council seeks a “constructive and collaborative response to obesity”?

They’ve been saying stuff like that for years.

I call it the “hot tub approach”.  Let’s all jump into the hot tub together and soap each other’s backs, and see what we can achieve…together.

This “constructive and collaborative approach” – characterised by voluntarism, and weak accountability structures – has been official policy in Canberra for years.

It would be great if it actually worked.

But if it was going to work, wouldn’t we be seeing positive results by now?

 

Life outside of the “hot tub”

There is life beyond the hot tub.

Feasible policy options to halt Australia’s obesity epidemic have been identified.  We know what we could and should do.

The “Australian Obesity Prevention Consensus” sets out an evidence-based policy agenda for the federal government.

Implementing the (surprisingly strong and certainly welcome) recommendations of the Senate Select Committee into the Obesity Epidemic in Australia would also be a good place to start.

The INFORMAS Network monitors the actions of state and federal governments and has issued scorecards on the performance of Australian governments, with priority recommendations.  (Watch out for the 2019 Food Policy Index Progress report, to be launched on 2 April 2019).

These reports include recommendations for legal and regulatory changes that the processed food industry will resist.

Like implementing credible – as distinct from voluntary, weak and loophole-ridden – standards to protect children from exposure to unhealthy food and drink marketing.

Like setting ambitious, time-sensitive and independently-monitored targets for reformulation to be met by food manufacturers, retailers and caterers.

Like a health levy on sugary drinks.  (Remember folks, at the end of the day, it’s only sugar water, not holy water).

Like making the Health Star Rating system mandatory.

No one likes sharing hot, soapy water with the folks from “big food” more than me, but the statistics speak for themselves.

Over the last 10 years, the number of Australians with obesity has more than doubled, from 2.7 million (2007-08) to 5.8 million in 2017-18.

It’s time to get out of the hot tub, and to implement long-recommended, evidence-based policies to create healthier food environments.

Put another Winfield on the Barbie

Having actor Paul Hogan headline Cure Cancer’s “Barbecure” makes no sense to me.

Put another shrimp on the barbie, I get it.  But so what?

Hogan may regret the staggeringly successful “Anyhow, have a Winfield” advertising campaign he headed in the 1970s, but his presence in a cure cancer campaign is inept.  It muddies the message.

Winfield is a brand of cigarettes now owned by British American Tobacco Australia.

Of his former campaign for Winfield, Hogan has said “Yeah, we were encouraging people to smoke.

“Young ones were taking up smoking and all going for Winfield. It was a staggering success but I was a drug dealer. But who knew then?”

This is not to suggest that Hogan is not sincere in wanting to help.  I’m sure he is.

But why does an organisation raising funds to support cancer research ask one of the most effective promoters of tobacco in Australian history, someone who is still, apparently, a smoker – to front the campaign?

Curing cancer…a tale of two strategies

Cure Cancer’s Barbeque concept seems to be about raising money for what we might call “techy” solutions to treating cancer – funding research towards a new drug or therapy.

(Must say, though, I love the idea about hosting a barbie, telling the guest list they’re not invited and hitting them for hard cold cash instead).

Cancer research is, of course, worthy and deserving of funding.  Who knows, many of us may one day benefit from such research and the therapies that result.

But there’s another way to cure cancer as well…it’s called reducing the risk that Australians will get cancer in future.

Using smart public policies, we can prevent the risk that Australians will get heart disease, and diabetes too.

Unfortunately, preventive health enjoys a fraction of the profile – and almost none of the money – that techy solutions like research towards new drugs or therapies attract.

This could be because one important dimension of prevention at the population level is regulation, and that makes prevention a political matter.

Australia has a pretty shabby record in using law and regulation to reduce modifiable risk factors for the non-communicable diseases that are responsible for the overwhelming share of death and disability in this country.

When it comes to food and diet-related risk factors, for example, see the scorecard and priority recommendations for Australian governments issued by the Global Obesity Centre, a WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, at Deakin University.

How many lifetimes till these are implemented, I wonder?

A decade ago, the National Preventative Health Taskforce released a blueprint for improving the health of Australians.

I can no longer find that report on the Australian Government’s website.

Although the government has raised the excise on tobacco and implemented plain tobacco packaging, no formal targets have been set for reductions in obesity or dietary risk factors, and prevention policy has been described as “flapping in the wind” (Swannell 2016).

Preventing cancer is “curing” cancer too

The Australian Preventive Health Agency, which was established to spearhead preventive efforts, and to fund preventive research, was de-funded and is extinct.

This move damaged momentum on preventive health in Australia, as Leeder, Wutzke, and many others have pointed out.

Which is a shame, because preventing cancer is “curing” cancer too.

Are you interested in health law?  Sydney Law School offers a Master of Health Law with mid-year entry.  See here and here for more information.

Update and summary guide to the WHO report: Advancing the right to health: the vital role of law

In September 2018 the World Health Organisation published an Update and Summary Guide to the report Advancing the Right to Health: the Vital Role of Law.

[See here for a previous post on the full report].

The summary Guide, like the full report, was a collaboration between the World Health Organisation, International Development Law Organisation, Sydney Law School, and the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, Washington DC.

The aim of the original report, published in January 2017, was to raise awareness about the role that the reform of public health law can play in advancing the right to health and creating the conditions in which people can live healthy lives.

The Update and Summary Guide keeps the same focus: providing an introduction to the role of law in health development, with links to the full report, while also drawing attention to topics that were beyond the scope of the original report, and to links between law and the health-related Sustainable Development Goals.

The Update and Summary Guide integrates new health data and refers to new developments, including a list of highly cost–effective legal measures for reducing risk factors for non-communicable diseases (“NCDs”), drawn from the updated Appendix 3 of the WHO Global Action Plan for Prevention and Control of NCDs. It also references selected new decisions, such as the unsuccessful claim by a tobacco company against Uruguay’s tobacco control laws, and the decision of the Constitutional Court of Colombia confirming the right to receive information about the health effects of sugary drinks.

Public health law in the USA: What can Australia learn?

SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT: 

Public Health Law and Health Leadership in the United States: What can Australia learn?

Thursday 19 July, 6.00-7.30pm, Sydney Law School

In 2016, life expectancy at birth in the United States fell for the second year in a row.  Since his inauguration in 2017, President Trump and his administration have taken a number of actions that arguably weaken America’s public health infrastructure.

At the same time, the Unites States remains one of the world’s great innovators. With 52 States and more than 89,000 local and city governments, the United States frequently functions as a social laboratory for social policies, and public health laws and practices. While constrained in some areas by its constitutional design, the United States remains a leader: its influence and innovations in public health law cannot be ignored.

What can Australia learn from recent American experience with public health law and regulation?  What are the good ideas?  What should be avoided?  How can Australian jurisdictions adapt the best American innovations and create an enabling legal and political environment for public health and wellbeing?

This seminar features presentations reviewing public health law and leadership in the United States, with particular reference to: communicable diseases and pandemic preparedness, non-communicable diseases, health care, injuries and global health leadership.

This seminar is co-hosted by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, and Sydney Law School.

This event features a keynote presentation by Professor Lawrence Gostin, who is the Linda and Timothy O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law School, Washington DC, and Faculty Director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Prof. Gostin is also the Director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law.

For further information on this event, further speaker details, and to register for this event, click here.