The Public Health Bill is getting a lot of media coverage:
Public Health Bill enjoys wide support
The Health Committee tabled its report on the Public Health Bill in Parliament on 27 June. The new Bill has provisions to give the Government powers to regulate to control obesity if voluntary codes don’t work after two years. The Minister of Health says regulation would require the approval of Cabinet, clear proof that self regulation was not working and that there was simply no alternative.
Read more: Press release, NZ Government, 27 June 2008
Health Committee weakens obesity provisions
FOE has mixed reactions to the Public Health Bill. We are pleased that the Health Committee has recommended retaining the provision for future governments to make regulations to reduce obesity. But we are disappointed that the ability to do this has been watered down.
Read more: Press release, FOE, 26 June 2008
PHA comment on Public Health Bill report
The Public Health Association says the bill does not go far enough. The powers to prevent communicable diseases such as tuberculosis are much greater than the ability to protect against non-communicable diseases such as obesity.
Read more: Press release, PHA 27 June 2008
Coalition welcomes proposed tightening of rules
Read more: Press release, OAC/Scoop, 26 June 2008
Public Health Bill ‘nanny-state’ territory
National disagrees with aspects of the new Public Health Bill.
Read more: DomPost/Stuff, 27 June 2008
Public Health Bill and Food
Law firm Simpson Grierson outline the provisions in the Public Health Bill relating to non-communicable diseases and discuss how and why the provisions are causing concerns to the food industry.
Read more: Simpson Grierson newsletter, May 2008
Health academic supports regulation of food ads
A health academic has slammed media attempts to change the Public Health Bill. The Bill could allow regulation of television food advertising if self-regulation by the industry fails. Professor Robert Beaglehole told the Committee that “I want self-regulation, and if necessary regulation, to serve the health of children. We need governments to be responsive to the health needs, particularly of the most vulnerable.”
Read more: NZPA/Stuff, 1 May 2008
Healthy ad rule could ban top shows, say TV chiefs
Read more: NZ Herald, 1 May 2008
Outed as a filthy egg fondler
Lynley Boniface comments on arguments raised at the Public Health Bill hearing.
“There is something inherently ludicrous about expecting any industry to introduce changes aimed at limiting its sales,” she writes.
“And there is absolutely no reason to think voluntary self-regulation by confectionery manufacturers will be any more sincere and effective than voluntary self- regulation by estate agents or financial planners has been.”
Read more: DomPost, 28 April 2008
Pineapple Lump ban next - business weighs into food debate
FOE’s Dr Robyn Toomath believes that it is essential the Government has the ability to regulate in case voluntary self-regulation by food manufacturers doesn’t work. Food industry groups oppose regulation-making powers in the Bill.
Read more: NZ Herald, 24 April 2008
Editors air fears about health bill
The media freedom committee is opposed voluntary codes of practice, fearing they could prevent the media reporting on social issues such as suicide.
Read more: DomPost/Stuff, 10 April 2008
McDonald’s opposes health bill crackdown
McDonald’s told the Committee that they support self-regulation, saying that the changes they have made shows that it can work. However, industry must get more involved in self-regulation. Regional Public Health supports the power in the Bill for the Director General of Health to issue voluntary codes but says that isn’t enough. It important for the Bill to contain the provision for regulation if all else fails. RPH also favours expanding the hours considered children’s viewing hours and limiting marketing junk food to children. New Zealand Medical Association wants the Director General of Health to be able to make some codes of practices and guidelines, including for advertising, binding.
Read more: NZPA /Stuff, 9 April 2008
McDonald’s praised for healthier vision
McDonald’s Restaurants say they broadly back the bill but oppose potential new regulatory powers within it. Instead, they support self-regulation and have shown by example that it can work. For instance, they have cut saturated fats in cooking oils and cut TV advertising during children’s hours. However, many of their competitors have failed to do the same.
Read more: NZ Herald, 10 April 2008
Cancer Society backs Bill
The Cancer Society say they would like to see real teeth in the bill so the government can do something effective, rather than expect industries to voluntarily change their behaviours.
Read more: TVNZ, 21 March 2008
Obesity challenge calls for more than smart one-liners
The NZ Herald editorial eloquently dismisses the ‘nanny state’ and ‘freedom to choose’ arguments put up by opponents of the Public Health Bill. These opponents are seeking to remove provisions relating to obesity prevention.
Read more: Herald on Sunday, 16 March 2008
Tough food controls in anti-obesity bill
Parliament’s Health Committee has begun hearing oral submissions on the Public Health Bill. The Herald reports that health groups are strongly backing the new provisions, but the advertising industry is lobbying politicians to amend the bill before it is passed. The Peak Group said the provisions were urgently needed.
Read more: NZ Herald, 13 March 2008
Ad industry behaving like King Canute
Green Party MP Sue Kedgley says the advertising industry is wildly exaggerating the actual provisions in the Bill.
Read more: Press release, Green Party / Scoop, 13 March 2008
