Government Regulations on Fast Foods And Soft Drinks - Essay Example

This work deals with an analysis and evaluation of the Australian Government’s role in combatting obesity through its regulations. Firstly, this work claims that the Australian Government has the authority and resources to control the problem of obesity. Secondly, this work demonstrates that an unregulated market leads to the rise of obesity through market concentration. Thirdly, this work claims that food policy interventions are an important component of obesity-prevention strategies and can potentially drive positive changes in obesogenic environments. Finally in the conclusion part, this work summarises the main points. This work concludes that the Australia Government possesses the necessary authority and can take effective and pertinent measures to control the problem of obesity. Stricter Governmental Regulation of Fast Foods and Soft Drinks Necessary for containing Obesity Epidemic in Australia Argument One The Australian Government possesses the authority and resources to preclude obesity. A study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) disclosed that the ever increasing epidemic of obesity could be contained, if governments were to implement stricter measures to reduce the consumption of fast food. The deregulation of the market produced a negative impact, to the extent that there had been a tremendous increase in the sale and subsequent consumption of fast food (De Vogli, et al., 2014, p. 99). Furthermore, the increased consumption of fast food has resulted in the epidemic of obesity. The government has the required authority and resources to introduce measures that can prevent obesity. The latter can result in dangerous health outcomes, such as cancer, diabetes, cardiac disease and stroke. Australia had a very sharp increase in annual fast food transactions per capita at 14.7 (De Vogli, et al., 2014, p. 101). Opposing Argument The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia does not possess specific constitutional power to regulate food. The recent policy review indicated the complexity involved in formulating food policy, under the existing arrangements in Australia. In addition, this was confirmed in interviews. The Commonwealth government has not been empowered, specifically by the constitution, to regulate food. The regulatory control exercised by the Commonwealth emerges from a combination of constitutional powers, such as powers over corporations, and interstate and international trade (Crammond, et al., 2013, p. 217). The responsibility for food in the Commonwealth is distributed. Thus, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been vested with the responsibility of food production; the Minister of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has been made responsible for food processing; responsibility for the health aspects of food rests with the Minister of Health and Ageing; and a statutory authority, FSANZ, has been made responsible for establishing scientific standards. The intricacy of the food regulatory mechanism has been described as an impediment to making food policy, and specifically food policy that aims to prevent obesity (Crammond, et al., 2013, p. 217). Refuting Argument The regulation of unhealthy food marketing provides a cost effective and efficient measure for addressing obesity and overweight. The government was asked by the National Preventative Health Taskforce, in the year 2010, to bring to a halt the effects of un-healthy food marketing on children’s health. In the recent past, a detailed analysis had been conducted on a range of preventive measures. The conclusion was that regulation of unwholesome food marketing provided an efficacious and cost effective means for dealing with overweight and obesity (Chung, et al., 2012, p. 2). There are provisions for regulating food marketing by the Commonwealth, via its legislative powers. Thus, laws controlling such marketing by postal, telegraphic, telephonic, television, and other means of communication are to be enacted, in the near future. At the same time, the individual states and territories can utilise their general power to make laws on locally relevant issues (Chung, et al., 2012, p. 2). Argument Two An unregulated market results in increase in obesity via market concentration. An increase in obesity results from market concentration upon an unregulated market. Due to market concentration, oligopolies have emerged in the food sector of the economy. These entities inundate food supplies with soft drinks, fast food, and other low-cost, unhealthy, ultra-processed foodstuffs (de Vogli, 2014, p. 421). In the absence of controls and in the presence of minimal regulation, market competition deteriorates into market quasi-monopoly. The economies that do not have equitable rules, witness the situation, wherein the winners of competitions consider it commercially logical and more profitable to suppress the losers in the competition (de Vogli, 2014, p. 421). Opposing Argument The amount of caffeine that can be added to energy drinks and soft drinks has been limited by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. In addition, these drinks have to be housed in containers that carry labels advising their danger to children and pregnant females (Bainbridge, 2013). Refuting Argument The concerned authorities were of the considered opinion that regulatory reforms on sugar sweetened drinks and better provision of nutritional information would preclude obesity. Among the various available options, it had been suggested that taxation could prove to be a possible preventive strategy, with respect to the public health concern of obesity. It is essential to comprehend the perspective of the public regarding the influence of taxation. Such understanding is crucial for policy decision making, as acceptance among the wider community can be evaluated from it (Moretto, et al., 2014, p. 2456). In the Citizens’ Jury conducted in Australia, in the year 2013, the question of whether a tax was to be imposed upon food and drinks was envisaged. The objective of this taxation was to prevent obesity, and the ensuing harm that would result to society, due to obesity, in the future (Moretto, et al., 2014, p. 2456). Argument Three Food policy interventions are crucial for obesity-prevention strategies. The pre-selected interventions pertaining to food marketing and service were accorded the maximum support. On the other hand, the least support was accorded to interventions in the retail sector and primary production. Certain aspects had been provided with the maximum emphasis. Some of these were; collaborative and whole-of-government approaches; the influence of the food industry; conflicting agenda and policies; regulatory challenges; and economic disincentives. A few of the interventions, such as the public sector healthy food services policies were supported; whereas, considerable opposition was expressed towards marketing restrictions and fiscal interventions (Shill, et al., 2012, p. 162). Opposing Argument Self-regulation of the food industry is sufficient for averting the obesity epidemic. It has been observed that the Federal Government, food and advertising industries, and the free to air broadcasts advocate self-regulation in the industry. Some articles in the print media had been seen to favour less governmental regulation of the industry, self-regulation of the industry and personal responsibility among consumers (Henderson, et al., 2009, p. 1402). Refuting Argument Several impediments have been discerned, with regard to implementing regulation of the food industry, at the state level. First, it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to regulate television advertising and not that of the state or territory. Second, the enormous power of the food industry, which is opposed to its being regulated. Third, the absence of incontrovertible evidence that illustrates the effectiveness of regulation. Another factor for determining feasibility was evidence of support from the community for regulation (Chung, et al., 2012, p. 1). It is the common perception that the regulation of unhealthy food marketing provides a feasible strategy for preventing obesity. However, there are several barriers to implementing such regulation at the state level. As such, the state level policy makers have demonstrated a preference for regulation at the Commonwealth level (Chung, et al., 2012, p. 1). Conclusion This work claims that Australian Government has the required authority to control obesity by making relevant regulations. In addition, an unregulated market would result in increased obesity by market concentration. Food policy interventions, per se, are crucial for obesity prevention strategies. As such, this work concludes that obesity problem can be resolved, if the Australian Government were to make relevant policies and regulations. Reflective Journal This work made me acquire several skills, such as the analysis and synthesis of material, by adopting a reasoned thinking process. My analytical skills were enhanced tremendously, due to the argumentative and persuasive nature of this work. By undertaking this work, I was able to evaluate the opinions of diverse authors and arrive at a logical conclusion. Moreover, my searching skills were improved substantially, as I had to browse through several online libraries and Internet sites, in order to procure the relevant material. After completing this work, I have emerged successful in synthesising the pertinent facts and applying them to the situation under consideration. Furthermore, I could resolve the issues that had cropped up during my research work. This work has substantially and definitely improved my research skills and made me adept in achieving objectives. With the completion of this research work, my confidence and ability to carry out future research works and achieve their objectives have increased manifold. References Bainbridge, A., 2013. Federal Government calls for input on regulation of caffeinated energy drinks amid health concerns. [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 August 2014]. Chung, A. et al., 2012. An analysis of potential barriers and enablers to regulating the television marketing of unhealthy foods to children at the state government level in Australia. BMC Public Health, 12(1), pp. 1-6. Crammond, B. et al., 2013. The possibility of regulating for obesity prevention - understanding regulation in the Commonwealth Government. Obesity Reviews, 14(3), pp. 213-221. de Vogli, R., 2014. Obesity proves market failure. World Nutrition, 5(5), pp. 420-423. De Vogli, R., Kouvonen, A. & Gimeno, D., 2014. The influence of market deregulation on fast food consumption and body mass index: a cross-national time series analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92(2), pp. 99-107A. Henderson, J., Coveney, J., Ward , P. & Taylor, A., 2009. Governing childhood obesity: framing regulation of fast food advertising in the Australian print media. Social Science & Medicine , 69(9), pp. 1402-1408. Moretto, N. et al., 2014. Yes, the government should tax soft drinks: findings from a citizens jury in Australia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(3), pp. 2456-2471. Obesity Policy Coalition, 2014. Next steps: building on the prevention system to address overweight and obesity in Victoria. [online] Available at: [Accessed 1 August 2014]. Shill, J. et al., 2012. Government regulation to promote healthy food environments--a view from inside state governments. Obesity Reviews, 13(2), pp. 162-173. Read More