3. National Food Plan
   1. Food standards, policies, and strategies are developed to guide food-related decisions and actions right through the ‘farm to table’ cycle. Due to Australia’s three levels of government, Australia’s food system has many plans and policies that are used to acknowledge and address food-related matters. Some of these align and interconnect with one another; however, the majority have been created in isolation from one another, leading to different, and often conflicting, sector goals.
   2. This chapter will outline the potential benefits of a National Food Plan for Australia, as raised in evidence across multiple public hearings and through submissions. It will also examine some recent examples of international approaches to create a national food policy and consider what a national food plan should map out. Health-related matters will also be discussed, as the relationship between food and health was also highlighted in evidence.

The argument for a plan

Prior policies and attempts

3.3The first and only National Food and Nutrition policy was implemented in 1992. However, this policy framework is no longer used to inform food-related policy activities.[1]

3.4In 2009, both the public health sector and the food industry released position papers calling for the development of a national food policy, calling for an ‘integrated’ or ‘whole of government’ policy that included all relevant government departments in its development and highlighted concerns related to future environmental challenges for food production.[2]

3.5Shortly after in 2010, the government announced work would begin on a National Food Plan that would ‘integrate all aspects of food policy by looking at the whole food chain, from the paddock to the plate’.[3] The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) developed one such attempt over a two-and-a-half-year period. However, it was ultimately shelved due to the change of government.[4]

Calls for a plan

3.6In the absence of a current national strategy, various groups and stakeholders have called for a more holistic, national-level food policy in Australia.[5]

3.7The Australian National University’s (ANU) Agrifood Innovation Institute asserted that ‘priorities need to be set at the national level and all stakeholders need to agree on a bold, step-change approach to have a durable positive impact on food security, health and economic well-being.’[6]

3.8CSIRO also advocated for a national, whole of food system approach:

Establishing a national, whole-of-value chain ecosystem that brings together industry, universities, researchers, and the government would foster knowledge sharing, research collaboration, and resource pooling. Such a platform, supported by technology and science-backed approaches, would nurture innovation, stimulate new commercial ideas, ensure the industry's competitive advantage and sovereign food infrastructure capability, and secure the future workforce of the F&B [food and beverage] manufacturing industry.[7]

3.9The Food & Agribusiness Network / TURBINE also emphasised the need for a national food strategy or plan:

Such a strategy has been a topic of discussion across various entities for years and would serve to align all key actors – government, industry, academia, and communities – under a common vision. This strategy would outline clear objectives, set national priorities, and coordinate efforts to ensure that all contributions to the food and beverage sector are synergistic and drive towards a unified goal. The development of a National Food Strategy would not only streamline efforts but also reinforce Australia’s commitment to becoming a global leader in innovative, sustainable food and beverage production.[8]

3.10Mr Brian Witherspoon, Director of Policy and Engagement from Safe Food Production Queensland, spoke of the importance of a broad national strategic plan to ensure a holistic, coordinated approach to food:

I think what is missing from something we hoped we would have, and hopefully we will at some point, is a national food strategy that clearly articulates what the priorities are across the nation when it comes to food and making sure that all Australians have access to safe, suitable, healthy food. We don't have a national strategy that cuts across all of that.[9]

Fragmentation of responsibilities

3.11Submitters also raised the issue that, despite the importance of food policy to public health, the national economy, and the everyday lives of Australians, there is no single federal department or national framework that underpins or coordinates food-related activity in Australia.

3.12The Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney summarised the main food-related activities of each federal government department in the below diagram.[10]

Source: The University of Sydney – Charles Perkins Centre, Food policy in Australia: The role of different Federal Government organisations, 2021, pages 6­–7.

3.13The Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology called Australia’s food policy and regulatory system ‘large and complex’ and recommended that the Australian Government establish a National Food Plan chaired at the ministerial level:

In short, we must view and integrate all these largely disparate activities under the auspices of a single, national food system. We need to decide what that system should do – what success looks like – and then design policies and effective actions to achieve that vision.[11]

3.14The Australian Design Council suggested that a ‘strategic design approach’ is used to consult with food and beverage manufacturing stakeholders to develop a national framework:

… to address fragmentation across the industry, and a multitude of government policy and programs that underpin the national innovation agenda. A whole of government approach must cut across sectors, industries, and government portfolios to drive alignment across initiatives and programs to support further innovation and sustainable growth for optimal economic, environmental, and social impact.[12]

Burden on businesses

3.15Several submissions and witnesses told the Committee that the coordination of food-related activity in Australia has been a source of frustration to relevant stakeholders.

3.16Food and Agri Australia called for a better streamline of the regulatory landscape to reduce burden on businesses:

… food manufacturing and exports are regulated across a wide range of government entities – exports are managed by trade, horticultural issues and organics are managed by the Agricultural Department, technology issues are managed by industry and food standards are regulated by the Department of Health. This landscape creates a complex network of regulatory standards that are incredibly challenging, especially for SMEs to navigate.[13]

3.17Ms Nicole McNaughton, Project Director, Food and Agribusiness Network, commented that the number of regulations and government bodies which businesses had to deal with was overwhelming:

We as an organisation are obviously very adept at navigating government grants, pathways, opportunities and resources. If you then put that at an SME level, how do you understand who to go to, what grants, what opportunities and what regulations you need to adhere to? We sat in on a presentation recently and one of our members said they have to navigate 36 different pieces of regulation from state to federal. Imagine the cost of doing that, let alone the time and the resources. I think being able to have a central body that is easily accessible for SMEs in particular is certainly needed.[14]

3.18Additionally, due to the absence of a national coordinated approach, one witness shared an episode from an international trade show, where other countries were represented in unison, but Australia was not, creating additional work for Australian stakeholders:

For example, quite a few years ago, for a trade show in China, we'd go there and see South Australia and we'd see Western Australia or Victoria represented at these trade shows. We're looking at the USA or the UK as one, but we're representing as multiple states. Food South Australia took the lead to facilitate an Australian pavilion at this trade show and basically buy the space and then sell it to each of the states, or the individual businesses within those states, to represent as them as one.

This is the type of activity that a national food body can facilitate and that is currently not there.[15]

Ministerial responsibility for food

3.19Food production, distribution, and consumption in Australia are overseen by different departments and multiple layers of government. Ministerial responsibilities cover many different parts of the food chain. According to submitters, this meant that on occasion, decision-making may be fragmented, which can create competing priorities.

3.20The Food and Beverage Accelerator called for a single point of responsibility, to prioritise the growth of the food and beverage manufacturing sector:

[…] ‘food and beverage’ is named as a National Manufacturing Priority; and ‘food’ is listed as a science and research priority by the Australian Research Council. However, there is no Commonwealth Minister for or Federal Department of Food – rather responsibility is diluted across multiple portfolios, which have a focus on primary produce. A single point of responsibility has the potential to move the policy and regulatory focus up the supply chain to value-added products and manufacturing.[16]

3.21Dr Simon Eassom, Chief Executive Officer of Food Frontier, was of the view that food must be recognised as a priority sector:

We urge the government to recognise food as a national priority and adopt the food security inquiry recommendation to appoint a dedicated food minister and develop a national food plan with a dedicated strategy to grow innovative and value-adding food sectors, such as alternative proteins.[17]

3.22Dr Michael Depalo, Board Chair and President of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology, stated at the first public hearing that:

… we have suggested that there should be a minister for food. That minister for food would try and accommodate all of the disparate parts of the agrifood sector together in one area, rather than having a piecemeal approach to all of the different aspects of agrifood, from paddock to plate, which sit across, if I am not mistaken, four different ministers at the moment.[18]

International approaches

3.23In recent years, several countries have developed their own national food policy. In this section, we will examine three of these—from Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan—to hopefully assist in the development of one here in Australia. As well as all three countries introducing a national food policy within the last 5 years, these three countries were chosen due to Canada and the United Kingdom’s similarities to Australia,[19] and Japan’s position as one of Australia’s key economic partners and the world’s fourth largest economy.[20]

3.24Dr Jen Taylor, Acting Director of Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), told the Committee that a national body, much like that of other countries, could have multiple impacts and outputs:

One thing that we've learnt from looking at the success in other countries is that other countries, including the Netherlands, […] but also Sweden, Canada and Singapore, have a national food strategy. They have a leadership and a national entity that owns that food strategy, and underneath that sit things like a vibrant SME structure, commercial technology transfer and skills uplift but also resource and infrastructure utilisation and efficiency—so pooling.[21]

Canada

3.25In 2019, the Canadian Government released the Food Policy for Canada: Everyone at the Table.[22] The policy consists of a vision, priority outcomes to achieve the vision, action areas to make progress on outcomes, and principles to help guide work on food system issues. Specific and measurable targets for each of the priority outcomes were developed by federal partners with input from the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council.[23]

3.26The Food Policy for Canada contains six long-term, interconnected, and mutually reinforcing outcomes to support better long-term planning for the Canadian food system. These were:

1Vibrant communities—improving community capacity and resilience to food-related challenges, through the provision of culturally diverse solutions in an inclusive manner.

2Increased connections within food systems—increasing governance spaces and partnerships that connect multiple sectors across the food system, to make progress together on food-related issues and adapt to emerging needs.

3Improved food-related health outcomes—improving diet-related health and reducing the burden of died-related disease, particularly among groups at higher risk of food insecurity.

4Strong Indigenous food systems—partnering with Indigenous communities and organizations to support strong and prosperous First Nations, Inuit, and Métis food systems, as defined by communities themselves.

5Sustainable food practices—improving practices along the food value chain to reduce environmental impact and improve climate resilience.

6Inclusive economic growth—creating a diversified, economically viable, and sustainable food system.[24]

3.27The Food Policy for Canada is supported by the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council, which brings together diverse perspectives to support the implementation of the policy. The membership of the Council includes individuals with experience and knowledge of food system issues, with backgrounds in the food and agriculture industry, members of academia, as well as members of Indigenous organisations and communities.[25]

Accountability

3.28To support the Food Policy for Canada, a cross-government reporting framework will measure and track progress towards priority long-term outcomes, which will ‘hold the government accountable for results and ensuring transparent reporting to Canadians’. It will also support decision-making that is based on evidence of effective approaches to tackling food system issues.[26]

United Kingdom

3.29In 2022, the Government of the United Kingdom (UK) released its food policy, titled Government food strategy.[27] The Government food strategy was created in direct response to the release of two extensive reports reviewing the UK food system, titled The National Food Strategy: Part One and The National Food Strategy: The Plan.[28] This was the first independent review of the UK’s food system in 75 years.

3.30The National Food Strategy: Part One made seven recommendations around two main themes—addressing disadvantage and maintaining food sovereignty. The recommendations centred around supporting disadvantaged families eat well, protecting the UK’s high food standards, and ensuring proper scrutiny of any trade deals.[29]

3.31The National Food Strategy: The Plan made fourteen recommendations around four themes:

1Escape the junk food cycle and protect the National Health Service. Under this theme it was recommended that the government:

1. Introduce a Sugar and Salt Reformulation Tax and use some of the revenue to help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low-income families.
2. Introduce mandatory reporting for large food companies.
3. Launch a new “Eat and Learn” initiative for schools.

2Reduce diet-related inequality. Under this theme it was recommended that the government:

4. Extend eligibility for free school meals.
5. Fund the Holiday Activities and Food programme for the next three years.
6. Expand the Healthy Start scheme.
7. Trial a “Community Eatwell” programme, supporting those on low incomes to improve their diets.

3Make the best use of our land. Under this theme it was recommended that the government:

8. Guarantee the budget for agricultural payments until at least 2029 to help farmers transition to more sustainable land use.
9. Create a Rural Land Use Framework based on the three-compartment model.
10. Define minimum standards for trade and a mechanism for protecting them.

4Create a long-term shift in our food culture. Under this theme it was recommended that the government:

11. Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system.
12. Create a National Food System Data programme.
13. Strengthen Government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy and sustainable food.
14. Set clear targets and bring in legislation for long-term change.[30]
    32. The Government food strategy incorporated findings from both The National Food Strategy: Part One and The National Food Strategy: The Plan to include policy initiatives to boost health, sustainability, and accessibility of diets ‘to support a resilient, healthier, and more sustainable food system that is affordable to all’.[31]
    33. The objectives for the Government food strategy are to deliver:

• a prosperous agri-food and seafood sector that ensures a secure food supply in an unpredictable world and contributes to the levelling up agenda through good quality jobs around the country.
• a sustainable, nature positive, affordable food system that provides choice and access to high quality products that support healthier and home-grown diets for all.
• trade that provides export opportunities and consumer choice through imports, without compromising the UK’s regulatory standards for food, whether produced domestically or imported.[32]

Accountability

3.34To support the Government food strategy, the Government of the UK is engaging closely with the food industry, including through the Food Industry Resilience Forum and UK Agricultural Market Monitoring Group.[33] It will also publish a report to monitor progress against the food strategy goals alongside the next UK Food Security report and will continue to do so regularly ‘at a frequency that allows trends to emerge, and dovetails with other relevant publications’.[34] This will draw on independent analysis from the Climate Change Committee, Food Standards Agency, and the Office for Environment Protection.[35]

Japan

3.35In 2021, Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) launched the MIDORI Food System Strategy (MIDORI) for sustainable food systems.[36] The word ‘midori’ is the Japanese word for ‘green’. MIDORI is a national strategy to achieve sustainable food systems transformation by enhancing production and ensuring the sustainability of the country’s agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors through innovation.[37]

3.36The medium- to long-term strategy charts focuses on two key outcomes:

1Enhancing engagement of stakeholders at each stage of the food supply chain.

2Promoting innovation to reduce environmental burden.[38]

3.37MAFF has set ambitious targets and key performance indicators by the year 2050 within MIDORI, to be enabled through the development and implementation of innovative technologies and greening of MAFF’s policies. These include:

• achieving zero CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors.
• 50 per cent reduction in risk-weighted use of chemical pesticides.
• 30 per cent reduction in chemical fertiliser use.
• increasing organic farming to 1 million hectares (equivalent to 25 per cent of total farmland).
• sustainable sourcing of import materials by 2030.
• at least 30 per cent enhancement in productivity of food manufacturers by 2030.
• at least 90 per cent in superior varieties and F1 plus trees in forestry seedlings.
• achieving a 100 per cent rate of artificial seedlings in the aquaculture of species such as Japanese eel and Pacific bluefin tuna.[39]
  38. MIDORI’s approach to a sustainable food system is captured in the below infographic.

Source: Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems, 2021, p. 5.

3.39Further, in 2022, the MIDORI Act came into effect to facilitate the implementation of the food system strategy. The MIDORI Act’s main features include:

• Incentives and funding for producers to introduce and use climate-smart and environmentally friendly technology at its facilities, such as AI automated irrigation and fertilisation systems to reduce the use of chemical fertilisers, electric remote-controlled mowers for efficient weeding, and pinpoint pesticide application using drone technology.[40]
• Incentives and funding for producers who incorporate farming methods which reduce/remove greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., carbon sequestration, amino acid balanced feeds).[41]
• New labelling which features a star rating system which quantitatively evaluates producer’s actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The first of its kind was launched in March 2024 for 23 domestically produced agricultural products.[42]

Accountability

3.40In August 2023, MAFF published an interim report titled Initiatives of the MIDORI Food System Strategy and its Progress.[43] The report detailed the timeline of policy implementation, uptake statistics across the country, collaborations with other ministries, and progress on the key performance indicators. It also provided information on the various seminars and conferences which were held to promote MIDORI domestically, along with how it has been broadly received internationally.[44]

Through the health lens

Food options and choices

3.41The Australian food and beverage manufacturing sector has a direct role in shaping the health of Australian citizens. Ms Jane Martin, Executive Manager, Food for Health Alliance, outlined the sector’s specific role, stating:

Food and beverage manufacturers influence what foods are available for Australians to buy, the ingredients in those foods, the way they are made, the promotion and marketing of these foods and the prices that consumers ultimately pay. All of these aspects have a significant impact and influence on the foods and beverages that Australians eat and drink, on our diets and our health.[45]

3.42Most Australians do not eat a healthy diet, with less than one per cent of the population eating in accordance with Australian Dietary Guideline recommendations and over one third of energy in people’s diets coming from discretionary foods which have displaced healthier options.[46]

3.43As a result, many Australians experience poor health. Two in three Australian adults and one in three Australian children live with overweight and obesity, of which unhealthy foods is a significant contributing factor.[47] These increase risks for non-communicable diseases including type two diabetes, heart disease, and several types of cancer.[48]

3.44Submitters highlighted that many of the driving factors behind this poor health is structural and social. The Uniting Church of Australia, for example, argued that:

The drivers of obesity relate to the changing nature of food, towards more addictive, unhealthy, ultra-processed foods rather than some simultaneous failure of collective “willpower” of people across the globe.[49]

3.45It was also noted that healthy, fresh foods can be prohibitively expensive, inaccessible, or time-consuming to prepare compared to ultra-processed, low-nutrient and fast foods. For example, considerable public health issues are driven in part by food insecurity across regional and remote communities in northern Australia.[50]

3.46Ultra-processed food consumption and the associated health costs fall disproportionately on low-income households. However, according to the Foodbank Hunger Report 2023, an increasing number—now nearly half—of Australians are dealing with food stress.[51] More than one third of households experienced moderate to severe food insecurity in the reporting period, 77 per cent of whom experienced it for the first time that year. The same survey reports that a common strategy for food insecure households is to reduce spending on fresh produce and protein and swap for cheaper, processed alternatives.[52]

3.47These health issues have significant impacts on individuals’ quality of life, health spending, and broader society. Overweight and obesity accounts directly for $4.3 billion—18 per cent—of annual health spending.[53] The total economic cost of diabetes and obesity is estimated to be around $73 billion per year[54] and expected to climb if action is not taken.[55]

3.48To combat this, submitters such as the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and Department of Regional Development, Manufacturing and Water suggested that:

Health strategies should be integrated into this approach to encourage demand for, and delivery of nutrition where it is most needed in response to trends identified earlies in this submission. This includes initiatives to promote healthy eating habits, improve food accessibility and affordability, and support local food systems. By prioritising health outcomes, we can ensure the development of products such as nutritious functional foods that align with public health objectives and contributes to improved nutrition outcomes for all Australians.[56]

3.49Including a health lens around food and beverage production and regulation, including as part of a National Food Plan, is also called for in the National Preventative Health Strategy 2021–2030[57] and the National Obesity Strategy 2022–2032,[58] and is in line with the international comparisons referenced above.

3.50Many of the policy suggestions provided by submitters, and summarised below, are also reflected in those strategies and paralleled in the international comparisons.

Policy ideas

Improving product labelling

3.51Submitters suggested improvements to product labelling requirements, most notably in relation to the Health Star Rating. The current Health Star Rating system is a voluntary, on-pack labelling system which uses a rating scale to quickly and easily indicate the healthiness of products.

3.52Suggestions to improve the system included making it mandatory, having more stringent salt and sugar thresholds, include new criteria (such as degree of processing), other fixes to stop the system being ‘gamed’, and limiting options for distraction from the rating system using graphic design.[59]

3.53Additionally, it was raised that the uptake of the Health Star Rating system remained skewed towards higher-scoring products. This reduces the stars’ potential to warn consumers about low-scoring, unhealthy food and beverages that play a leading role in driving chronic disease.[60]

3.54In July 2024, it was announced that Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ)and the Food Regulation Standing Committee will have oversight of the future decision-making process to mandate the Health Star Rating system. Previously, the responsibility sat within the food industry.[61]

Supporting the aged care sector

3.55The William Angliss Institute submitted that in 2020, Australians aged 65 and over represented 16 percent of the population, and continues on an upward trajectory, highlighting nutritional demand and relevant food and beverage products and services tailored to the aging sector.[62]

3.56According to Lite n’ Easy, maintaining good nutritional status is integral to the clinical management of older Australians, particularly in the presence of sarcopenia, reduced appetite, and acute illness.[63]

3.57Considering the significant reforms the aged care industry in Australia is undergoing, Lite n’ Easy is of the view that there is significant opportunity to explore innovation, new technologies, and products in meal service manufacturing and delivery for the aged care sector.[64]

3.58Lite n’ Easy called for government support of meal service delivery in aged care and expanding on current funding models, to ensure older Australians have access to new products that will enrich and improve their quality of life:

Government and industry must work together to make sure innovation in food and beverage manufacturing is prioritised to support the transformational change the sector is undergoing. This will lead to the development of new technologies in service delivery, as well as new products to benefit the health and independence of older Australians.[65]

Governing marketing

3.59Marketing plays a key role in consumer choices. Where there are social harms, as with tobacco, the government has a role in regulating marketing and funding public health campaigns to inform consumers:

…a strategy to address unhealthy food consumption that relies on willpower when foods and marketing strategies are being designed to undermine the exercise of willpower seems to doom such a strategy to failure.[66]

3.60Submitters were particularly concerned about marketing targeted at children. For example, Food for Health Alliance argued that:

Comprehensive government regulation is needed to ensure that children can go to school, participate in their community, play and attend sport, watch TV and go online without exposure to unhealthy food marketing that undermines their health and wellbeing.[67]

3.61Uniting Church in Australia noted that the voluntary Food and Beverages Advertising and Marketing Communications Code, effective since November 2021, falls short of community expectations, and that the WHO’s recommendations for mandatory policies are in effect in other countries and have been effective in reducing consumption of unhealthy food.[68]

3.62Similarly, there were calls from both the Uniting Church in Australia and the Food Health Alliance for the current voluntary self-regulatory Marketing in Australia of Infant Formulas (MAIF) Agreement to be replaced with legislation that more closely reflects the WHO’s International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent World Health Assembly Resolutions:

In Australia, there are no mandatory legal measures to prevent unethical marketing of infant formula, and the voluntary system that exists, the MAIF Agreement, is inadequate and does little to stop the commercial milk formula industry from their unethical and exploitative marketing to health professionals and parents.[69]

3.63There was also disagreement in evidence about the use of sugar and carbohydrate claims in marketing of alcoholic products. While Lion supported being able to continue marketing low/zero carbohydrate or sugar to enable consumer decision-making,[70] the Food for Health Alliance described the harms of a ‘health halo’ undermining consumer understanding of the health consequences of these products and recommended this be banned.[71]

3.64AUSVEG was of the view that the government should support the development of a national strategy and behaviour change program to increase vegetable consumption. AUSVEG stated that Australians are currently consuming, on average, 2.4 serves of vegetables a day, well under the recommended five serves a day. It submitted that:

If Australians consumed just one additional serve of vegetables per day, this would deliver:

• $200 million reduction in health expenditure per annum.
• $1.3 billion increase in returns to Aussie growers and food supply chain operators.

Driving an increase of just a serve per day will lead to improved health and wellbeing – reducing mental and physical health issues, obesity, and other illnesses – generating more than $1 billion economic value after 11 years to Australian taxpayers and governments at all levels.[72]

Mandatory schemes

3.65It was also noted that legislation would be more effective than voluntary, industry-led mechanisms. Regarding the reformulation targets for added sugars, sodium and saturated fats, the Food for Health Alliance argued:

Voluntary targets under the Healthy Food Partnership have not been effective in significantly improving the composition of packaged foods. The Healthy Food Partnership should be used as a mechanism for mandatory targets that represent best practice. It should be government led in line with current evidence and targets should be set free from conflicts of interest. Failure to comply with targets within a set time period must result in government regulation.[73]

3.66There was concern to ensure that commercial food for infants is nutritious and promoted in accordance with best practice:

There are limited regulations in place in Australia to ensure that foods marketed and sold specifically for infants and young children promote good nutrition. Recent research highlighted that many of these foods do not meet international recommendations, finding that 67% of baby and toddler foods in Australia fail to meet seven nutrition recommendations set by the World Health Organization’s European office.[74]

Supporting R&D

3.67The government can play a significant role by supporting investment in research and development of food and beverage products which form consumer diets.

3.68Targeted grants, particularly for local and small manufacturers, can foster innovation in healthy products.[75] To this end, the South Australian Government called for a ‘Sustainable and Healthy Food Innovation Fund’ to support collaborations between manufacturers and research institutions for new product development and commercialisation.[76]

3.69Tax incentives can also be used to promote research and development, including for specific manufacturing (for example low-alcohol beverages and plant-based or functional food products with proven health benefits).[77]

3.70The Australian Beverage Council was of the view that lowering barriers to innovation—for example, streamlining regulatory settings—would also allow for healthier options to come to market faster.[78]

3.71There were also calls for governments to invest in health research around the benefits of diets that include plant-based proteins and dairy products, by v2food and the Australian Dairy Products Federation, respectively.[79]

Committee comment

National Food Plan

3.72The Committee heard from many stakeholders on the issue of a lack of a nationwide policy on food. Inquiry participants were of the view that this lack of cohesion across federal, state/territory, and local governments, tends to lead to complexity, confusion, and competing outcomes.

3.73The evidence before the Committee, along with the international examples, suggests that a comprehensive and truly ‘whole of government’ plan is required to ensure the impacts of food policy on other areas of government and the impacts of other policies on the food system are identified and acknowledged.

3.74The food system is complex and interconnected. Food goes through a multitude of stages including production, processing, transport, consumption, and disposal, with each stage having economic, environmental, health, and social dimensions. For this reason, policies from a range of sectors—such as agriculture, transport, health, and the environment—are required to support the functions of a healthy and sustainable food system.

3.75A National Food Plan could not only define outcomes to achieve economic, environmental, health, and social progress, but also provide targets and accountability measures much like how Canada, the UK, and Japan included in their national food policies.

3.76Further, the Committee understands that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture released its report Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond – Inquiry into food security in Australia in November 2023.[80] The report made a total of 35 recommendations, including 12 recommendations surrounding the implementation of a national food plan.[81]

3.77The Committee supports the first recommendation of the Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond – Inquiry into food security in Australia report:

• Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation and cooperation with State and Territory Governments, relevant industries, sectors and the community, develop a comprehensive National Food Plan providing for the food security, including nutritional security, of the nation and its people. The National Food Plan must have clear objectives and measurable targets set out in regular updates and action plans, and subject to regular review.[82]
  78. The Committee makes the following recommendations for this inquiry which calls for a unified, ‘whole of government’ policy framework which would allow food-related activities and initiatives to be underpinned by the same set of goals and reduce the likelihood of policies/activities contradicting or undermining each other. The Committee believes that increased connections across the Australian food system will strengthen our ability to make progress together on food-related issues.

3.79The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop a National Food Plan for Australia, which includes:

• clear objectives
• defined outcomes
• measurable targets

The National Food Plan should be developed in consultation with state/territory and local governments, along with relevant sectors, stakeholders, and the community.

Health

3.80The Committee acknowledges that all government policies around food and beverage manufacturing and regulation should harmonise with existing health policies. In particular, the Committee notes the relevance of many of the policies and strategies outlined in the National Preventative Health Strategy 2021–2030 and the National Obesity Strategy 2022–2032.

3.81The Committee notes the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport in The State of Diabetes Mellitus in Australia in 2024 report, including that the Australian Government should:

• reform food labelling to allow consumers to clearly identify the content of added sugar from front-of-pack labelling
• implement a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages, based on price modelling and international best practice and graduated according to the sugar content
• consider regulating the marketing of unhealthy food to children
• provide its response to the Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond report and considers a dedicated resource within the Department of Health and Aged Care to support access to healthy food to all Australian communities.[83]

3.82The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through a cross-governmental approach, acknowledge and address the linkages between agri-food production and nutrition and health to minimise the impact of non-communicable diseases.

Footnotes

[1]The University of Sydney – Charles Perkins Centre, Food policy in Australia: The role of different Federal Government organisations, 2021, p. 4.

[2]The University of Sydney – Charles Perkins Centre, Food policy in Australia: The role of different Federal Government organisations, 2021, p. 4.

[3]Hon Joe Ludwig MP, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, ‘Australia’s First Ever National Food Plan – Our Food, Our Future’, Media Release, 3 August 2010.

[4]The University of Sydney – Charles Perkins Centre, Food policy in Australia: The role of different Federal Government organisations, 2021, p. 4.

[5]See, for example: Charles Sturt University, Submission, 59, p. 3; Name Withheld, Submission 84, p. 2; Food Frontier, Submission 96, p. 23; Food and Beverage Accelerator, Submission 111, p. 8; Australian Research Data Commons, Submission 112, pages 1–2.

[6]Australian National University / Agrifood Innovation Institute, Submission 66, p. 3.

[7]CSIRO, Submission 58, p. 6.

[8]Food & Agribusiness Network / TURBINE, Submission 39, p. 14.

[9]Mr Brian Witherspoon, Director, Policy and Engagement, Safe Food Production Queensland, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 13 June 2024, p. 19.

[10]Note: Following Administrative Arrangements Orders issues on 1 June 2022, some government department names and functions may have changed.

[11]Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology, Submission 71, p. 3.

[12]Australian Design Council, Submission 33, p. 5.

[13]Food and Agri Australia, Submission 65, p. 2.

[14]Ms Nicole McNaughton, Project Director, Food and Agribusiness Network, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 13June 2024, p. 6.

[15]Mr Darren Curnow, Market Development Manager, Food South Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 3July 2024, p.5.

[16]Food and Beverage Accelerator, Submission 111, p. 18.

[17]Dr Simon Eassom, Chief Executive Officer, Food Frontier, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 7 August 2024, p. 23.

[18]Dr Michael Depalo, Board Chair and President, Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology, Committee Hansard, Sydney, 23 May 2024, p. 19.

[19]Grattan Institute, Which countries in the OECD are most like Australia?, p. 1.

[20]Australian Government – Export Finance Australia, Japan, www.exportfinance.gov.au/resources/country-profiles/japan/, viewed 16 October 2024.

[21]Dr Jen Taylor, Acting Director, Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 26 June 2024, p. 4.

[22]Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Food Policy for Canada, pages 1–13.

[23]Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Food Policy for Canada, p. 5.

[24]Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Food Policy for Canada, pages 6–7.

[25]Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Food Policy for Canada, p. 8.

[26]Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Food Policy for Canada, p. 8.

[27]Government of the United Kingdom – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government food strategy, pages 1–33.

[28]National Food Strategy, The National Food Strategy: Part One, pages 1–110; National Food Strategy, The National Food Strategy: The Plan, pages 1–290.

[29]National Food Strategy, The National Food Strategy: Part One, pages 9–10.

[30]National Food Strategy, The National Food Strategy: The Plan, pages 144–162.

[31]Government of the United Kingdom – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government food strategy, pages 7–9.

[32]Government of the United Kingdom – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government food strategy, p. 8.

[33]Government of the United Kingdom – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government food strategy, p. 7.

[34]Government of the United Kingdom – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government food strategy, p. 9.

[35]Government of the United Kingdom – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government food strategy, p. 9.

[36]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems, pages 1–14.

[37]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems, p. 5.

[38]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems (Pamphlet), p. 1.

[39]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems, p. 4.

[40]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems, pages 10–11.

[41]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems, p. 13.

[42]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems, p. 12.

[43]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MIDORI Food System Strategy, www.maff.go.jp/j/kanbo/kankyo/seisaku/midori/, viewed 20 September 2024.

[44]Government of Japan – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Initiatives of the MIDORI Food System Strategy and its Progress (Miona Ikeda, trans.), pages 1–18.

[45]Ms Jane Martin, Executive Manager, Food for Health Alliance, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 7 August 2024, p. 18.

[46]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28, p. 6.

[47]Ms Jane Martin, Executive Manager, Food for Health Alliance, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 7 August 2024, p. 18.

[48]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28, p. 6.

[49]Uniting Church of Australia, Submission 93, p. 10.

[50]Northern Territory & Charles Darwin University, Submission 63, p. 4.

[51]Food Bank & IPSOS, Food Bank Hunger Report 2023: National Key Findings Report

reports.foodbank.org.au/foodbank-hunger-report-2023/, viewed 20 September 2024.

[52]Food Bank & IPSOS, Food Bank Hunger Report 2023: National Key Findings Report

reports.foodbank.org.au/foodbank-hunger-report-2023/, viewed 20 September 2024.

[53]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28, p. 7.

[54]La Trobe University, Submission 15, p. 4.

[55]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28, p. 7.

[56]Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries & Department of Regional Development, Manufacturing and Water, Submission 114, p. 8.

[57]Department of Health, National Preventative Health Strategy 2021-2030, p. 54, www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/12/national-preventive-health-strategy-2021-2030_1.pdf, viewed 20 September 2024.

[58]Health Ministers Meeting, National Obesity Strategy 2022–2032, p. 33, www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022/03/national-obesity-strategy-2022-2032_0.pdf, viewed 20 September 2024.

[59]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28 Attachment 1, p. 14.

[60]Food Health Alliance, Submission 28 Attachment 1, p. 13.

[61]Public Health Association, Food Ministers make right choice for Health Ratings: public health community, www.phaa.net.au/Web/Web/News/Media-releases-2024/Food-Ministers-make-right-choice-for-Health-Star-Ratings--public-health-community-.aspx, viewed 20 September 2024.

[62]William Angliss Institute, Submission 120, p. 3.

[63]Lite n’ Easy, Submission 117, p. 1.

[64]Lite n’ Easy, Submission 117, p. 3.

[65]Lite n’ Easy, Submission 117, p. 3.

[66]Uniting Church in Australia, Submission 93, p. 8.

[67]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28 Attachment 1, p. 11.

[68]Uniting Church in Australia, Submission 93, p. 9.

[69]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28 Attachment 1, p. 17.

[70]Lion, Submission 121, pages 4–5.

[71]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28 Attachment 1, p. 18.

[72]AUSVEG, Submission 30, p. 9.

[73]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28 Attachment 1, p. 17.

[74]Food for Health Alliance, Submission 28 Attachment 1, p. 16.

[75]Concept Beverages, Submission 9, p. 3; Government of South Australia, Submission 122, p. 7.

[76]Government of South Australia, Submission 122, p. 7.

[77]Australian Food and Grocery Council, Submission 76, p. 9; Government of South Australia, Submission 122, p. 7.

[78]Australian Beverage Council, Submission 113, p. 4.

[79]v2food, Submission 109, p. 3; Australian Dairy Products Federation, Submission 116, p. 15.

[80]Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond – Inquiry into food security in Australia, pages 1–227.

[81]Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond – Inquiry into food security in Australia, pages xix–xxv.

[82]Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond – Inquiry into food security in Australia, p. 19.

[83]Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, The State of Diabetes Mellitus in Australia in 2024, pages xvii–xviii.