what will your government do to beat cancer? · every day in south australia, 25 people are...

Election Priorities 2014

What will your government do to beat cancer?

Cancer Council SA Election Priorities 2014


Cancer Council SA asks that the next South Australian Government undertakes the following actions to help beat cancer for all South Australians through prevention, research and support.

1 Reinstate $1.2 million in funding for quit smoking social marketing campaigns and targeted Programs.

2 Reform and improve the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme to better support regional and remote South Australians diagnosed with cancer to ensure they have the same access to treatment and no worse outcomes than people living in metropolitan areas.

3 Ban smoking in alfresco drinking and dining areas to reduce the impact of second hand smoke on drinkers, diners and employees.

4 Fund a $600,000 per annum SunSmart social marketing campaign to change community attitudes and behaviours toward sun protection.

5 Introduce Education Department SunSmart policy guidelines for all schools to ensure children have adequate sun protection during peak UV times.

6 Reinvest in the SA Clinical Cancer Registry.

7 Re-commit to the ‘Beat Cancer Project’.

8 Extend restrictions covering the handling and disposal of asbestos products to cover homeowners undertaking renovations and home maintenance.

9 Regulate television advertising to protect children from unhealthy food advertising.

Every day in South Australia, 25 people are diagnosed with cancer.1

One in two South Australian men and one in three South Australian women will be diagnosed with cancer by the age of 85.2

Our Vision To beat cancer in South Australia.

Statement of Purpose To be an independent voice for cancer control in South Australia.

To beat cancer through engaging the community.

2


3

• Increase the Tobacco Retailer Licence Fee from $253 to a minimum of $1,000 per annum.

• Commit all Funds raised through the Tobacco Retailer Licence fee to the funding of Quit smoking mass media campaigns.

Smoking continues to be South Australia’s largest preventable cause of death and disease.3

Tobacco-related illness kills around 20 South Australians every week, over 1,000 each year, outweighing the total deaths from alcohol and other drugs combined.3 Tobacco use is estimated to cost South Australia 57,275 hospital bed days annually with a cost to the health system of in excess of $24 million.4

One in two long-term smokers will die prematurely from a tobacco-related illness.5

In recent years great strides have been taken to reduce smoking rates in South Australia, with great success, particularly as a result of expenditure on mass media campaigns at a level which evidence tells us is effective in achieving behaviour change.6 The recent decisions to remove all funding for anti-smoking social marketing campaigns threaten these efforts and see South Australia facing the very real prospect of a rise in smoking rates.

Anti-smoking mass media has the lowest cost per quitter and importantly, also encourages recent quitters to remain quit and discourages the uptake of smoking.7

A key reason for smoking rates having declined from 23.6% in 20028 to 16.2% in 20139 has been the positive impact of the cancer control media campaigns. Following a 2010 increase in Quit campaign TARPS to 700, we saw the most dramatic drop in smoking prevalence in South Australia for over 10 years.2

With the removal of social marketing funding and funding for dedicated Quit programs such as smoking in pregnancy, it is clear that South Australia is the odd state out when it comes to the push to reduce national smoking rates to 10% by 2018, as outlined in the National Healthcare Agreement 2012–18.10

1 Reinstate $1.2 million in funding for Quit smoking social marketing campaigns and targeted Quit programs.

25

20

15

10

5

0

per

cent

age

700 TARPS

Smoking prevelance in South Australia

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Counselling is a smart way of quitting, for me personally without Quitline’s help I wouldn’t have got off the cigarettes. I tried for 10 years to quit on my own and all of the help and support that I have had from Quitline has made it possible for me to quit. I have been quit now for over 11 months. Never throw it in, always keep trying. Thanks so much to Quitline.

John aged 44


4

On 9 November 2012, the South Australian Government joined the Commonwealth and other state and territory governments in endorsing the National Tobacco Strategy 2012–18, in which they agreed that ‘well-funded and sustained mass media campaigns increase quitting and reduce prevalence’ and committed the South Australian Government to play its part in preventing needless tobacco-related deaths by ‘run[ning] effective mass media campaigns (including television, radio, print and digital media formats) at levels of reach and frequency demonstrated to reduce smoking and based on current

Evaluation of the National Tobacco Campaign shows:

best practice principles’.10 The decision to withdraw funding for anti-smoking social marketing campaigns goes against this strategy.

Cancer Council SA calls on the next South Australian government to reinstate funding for anti-smoking mass media campaigns and to fund it through an increase in the Tobacco Retailer Licence fee to at least $1,000 per annum - making it a cost neutral measure for the budget bottom line, but saving countless lives and millions of dollars in preventable hospital admissions in the future.

$1 $82BENEFITS TO THE HEALTH SYSTEM

ANTI-SMOKING MASS MEDIA SPEND

$1,000INVEST IN ANTI-SMOKING MASS MEDIA SPEND

6 LIVES SAVED


5

In line with Cancer Council SA’s submission to The Filby Inquiry we now call on the next South Australian Government to:

• Amend the escort eligibility criteria to allow automatic entitlement for people with cancer to a subsidised escort.

• Abolish the hospitalisation criteria which currently keeps loved ones away from their family members who are undergoing serious cancer treatment or who are dying.

• Abolish the pre-payment requirement for flights.

• Double the accommodation rebate to $60 per night for a single and $90 per night with an escort.

At Cancer Council SA we believe that distance should not equal disadvantage and where you live shouldn’t determine your cancer treatment.

On average, the expected lifetime financial cost of cancer faced by households is $47,200 per person11, making it difficult to pay household bills.

People with cancer and their families travelling long distances for cancer treatment require adequate support for transport and accommodation to ensure that the additional burden of a cancer diagnosis for someone in a regional and remote area does not significantly contribute to a person’s emotional distress at this time.

One of the ways of ensuring distance doesn’t equal disadvantage, when it comes to cancer treatment, is to ensure a properly funded and appropriately administered Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS) for people forced to travel to Adelaide for services which are not available in their local community, such as radiotherapy and specialist treatments.

South Australia lags behind all other states in the provision of the PATS for regional and remote South Australians.

The highest per kilometre rebate (provided under the Queensland scheme) does not equal or meet the ATO rate of between 63 and 75 cents for work-related vehicle expenses. See table below.

Since the commencement of changes to eligibility criteria and the administration of the scheme in November 2011, people with cancer have experienced significant difficulty accessing the scheme. To address these difficulties, Cancer Council SA seeks the introduction of escort criteria which is unique to people with cancer, the abolition of the harsh and unreasonable hospitalisation criteria and the abolition of the requirement for pre-payment of flights, which creates significant hardship.

Furthermore, Cancer Council SA seeks a commitment from the next South Australian Government to double the per kilometre rebate and an increase in the accommodation rebate to $60 per night for a single and $90 per night with a carer.

2 Reform and improve the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS).

Stateper km rebate

Accommod-ation rebate

Accommod-ation rebate with escort

Eligibility

Queensland 30¢ $60 $120 50 km from the nearest service.

New South Wales 19¢ $43 $60100 km from nearest service or a cumulative distance of 200 km in a seven day period.

Victoria 17¢ $35 $70100 km from the nearest service or an average of 500 km per week for a minimum of five consecutive weeks.

Western Australia 16¢ $60 $7570 km from nearest service for cancer treatment or dialysis or 100 km from nearest service for other specialists.

Tasmania 19¢ $46 $9250 km from nearest oncology treatment centre or 75 km other specialists.

South Australia 16¢ $30 $60 100 km from the nearest service.


6

Politicians of all persuasions recognise that the South Australian PATS has not kept pace with costs, notably the increase in petrol prices.

“...it’s a contribution to the costs and they really haven’t kept pace with the rise in the price of petrol for example.”

The Hon John Hill MP, then Minister for Health Radio interview, 891ABC 12 December 2011

“If we look back to 2001, fuel was about 90 cents a litre. If we look at what people are paying today, it’s about $1.50 a litre so you know that is a significant increase in the fuel cost so there are many areas that we can actually improve in the scheme.”

Tim Whetstone MP, Member for Chaffey, ABC Regional Radio, 17 April 2013

“It is abundantly clear to me, and is evidenced by the number of contacts my office receives from constituents, that the scheme is outdated and not meeting the needs of regional South Australians.”

Geoff Brock MP, Independent Member for Frome, Media Release, 16 August 2010

“[We will be] campaigning for reform of the Patient Assisted [sic] Transport Scheme (PATS) by increasing the repayment ration so that South Australia becomes a national leader in health service equality.”

Family First, 2010 State Election Policy Document - Health

Ted from Ceduna

My wife and I live in Ceduna and a return trip to Adelaide is 1600km, the equivalent of 16 hours travel in a car. We are both on a disability pension and do not have a lot of spare cash to use in emergencies.

Recently my wife received notification that she would require surgery for cancer in Adelaide. We were informed two weeks before the date of surgery, so we went to PATS to seek prepayment for flights from Ceduna to Adelaide. With a pre-operation appointment first thing on the Monday morning prior to surgery, a weekend flight was required, but due to a lot of events in Ceduna at that time, there were no seats on any aeroplane on the Sunday before and those seats available for earlier flights cost $430 each, one way.

We were informed by PATS that because we had received 14 days notification of the surgery we would not qualify for prepayment and we would have to find the money ourselves, but because we are both on a disability pension, there was no way we could find the money in that time.

Because we could not afford the cost of airfares and PATS would not cover them through prepayment, we had no choice but to drive the 8 hours instead. So my wife was forced to sit in a car for 8 hours of travelling before the surgery and another 8 hours home again. Due to issues with my shoulders, I could not drive all of the way in one go, so we were forced to stop at Port Augusta and spend the night there, before continuing our journey to Adelaide the next day.

Whilst staying in Adelaide, at the Cancer Council SA Lodge, I was informed that PATS would not cover the cost of me staying in Adelaide while my wife was in hospital prior to and after the surgery. This is despite the fact the specialist clearly outlined that my wife required a carer for the trip. PATS wouldn’t cover that, so I was left out of pocket for these expenses too.

The total cost of travelling and staying in Adelaide during the surgery has left me out of pocket by $270.00. The PATS system needs to be changed so that people who need it can access prepayment, and it needs to cover carers while they are required to remain in Adelaide.


7

• Legislate immediately to ban smoking in all areas which are provided for the consumption of commercially provided food or beverages.

In 2007, the South Australian Government recognised workers and diners inside pubs and clubs needed protection from second-hand cigarette smoke, yet nothing has been done to protect people in outdoor alfresco areas. Not only does this place employees in jeopardy, it is contrary to the obligations placed on employers to provide a safe working environment for their staff.12

On World No Tobacco Day 2011, AdelaideNow reported then Health Minister, the Hon John Hill committed to ban smoking in alfresco dining and drinking areas by 2016.13More than two years have passed and there has been no legislation introduced to enact such a ban.

No amount of exposure to cigarette smoke is safe as it causes death, disease and disability.

Second-hand cigarette smoke exposes alfresco drinking and dining patrons and hospitality workers to more than 4,000 chemicals, an estimated 250 which are toxic or carcinogenic.14

The South Australian community supports a ban on alfresco smoking with 2010 research showing 90.3% of South Australians agreed that smoking should be restricted in outdoor dining areas and 74.6% agreeing that smoking should be restricted in beer gardens and outdoor seating in pubs.15

We lag (along with Victoria) a long way behind the rest of the nation when it comes to protecting our workers and patrons from the dangers of second-hand smoke in alfresco settings.

Evidence tells us that smoking restrictions support smokers who are trying to quit. In addition they can reduce their overall cigarette consumption. 54% of smokers who have tried to quit reported that a trigger to relapse was seeing someone smoking while 40% stated smelling cigarette smoke could cause a relapse.16

3 Ban smoking in alfresco drinking and dining areas to reduce the impact of second-hand smoke on diners and employees.

PEOPLE INCREASING THEIR FREQUENCY OF VISITING LIQUOR LICENSED PREMISES NET GAIN IN PEOPLE

VISITING LIQUOR LICENSED PREMISES

PEOPLE DECREASING THEIR FREQUENCY OF VISITING LIQUOR LICENSED PREMISES

Analysis of smoking restrictions in Queensland pubs and clubs17

21%

11%

10%


SA lagging behind the rest of Australia

With the exception of Victoria, every state and territory in Australia has legislated, taken steps to legislate or severely restricted smoking in alfresco dining settings, as the table below indicates.

‘Clear the air’ Campaign

In 2013 Cancer Council SA ran a campaign to highlight the level of public support for a ban on smoking in outdoor drinking and dining areas. The ‘Clear the Air’ campaign saw almost 4,000 responses from concerned South Australians who took the time to make their voice heard.

Smoking in alfresco settings by state

QLD Banned

NT Banned

ACT Banned

NSW Banned

WA Severely restricted – almost entirely banned

TAS Severely restricted – almost entirely banned

VIC No action

SA No action

8


9

• Funda$600,000SunSmartsocialmarketingcampaign to change community attitudes and behaviours toward sun protection.

Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world.18 At least two in three Australians will get skin cancer before the age of 70.18 Skin cancer accounts for over 80% of all new cases of cancer diagnosed in Australia each year.19

Sun exposure has been identified as the cause of around 99% of non-melanoma skin cancers and 95% of melanoma in Australia.20,21

Excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed in Australia, with 11,545 people being diagnosed with melanoma in Australia in 2009.22

Skin cancer is the most preventable of all common cancers, with almost all cases caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation—predominantly from the sun but also from solarium use.

The Victorian and Western Australian Governments each spend over $1 million each year on SunSmart campaigns and programs within their states. The South Australian Government does not invest in skin cancer prevention campaigns and programs, so groups such as Cancer Council SA have attempted to fill this gap. However evidence tells us that one of the most effective ways of raising awareness and effecting behaviour change is through the use of mass media campaigns23, something it is unreasonable to expect groups like Cancer Council SA to fund, particularly when every other jurisdiction protects its population.

Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun is known to be the major cause of skin cancer. Because of this, sun protection strategies, particularly Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide must be an essential part of the South Australian way of life, not just the policy of early childhood centres and primary schools.

4 Fund a $600,000 SunSmart social marketing campaign to change community attitudes and behaviours toward sun protection.

The national economic benefit based on the level of effectiveness that the SunSmart program has achieved since 1988

This represents ‘strong value for money’. (Shih & Carter 2008, unpublished)

LESS MELANOMA CASES OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS

A REDUCTION OF 1,900 PREMATURE DEATHS

20,000

49,000

1,900

FOR EVERY

$1

INVESTED, YIELDS

$2.30

RETURN IN HEALTH SPENDING

LESS NON-MELANOMA SKIN CANCERS FORECAST OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS


10

Unfortunately comprehensive sun protective behaviours in the community are declining. Current data shows that only 13% of the South Australian population reported that they protect themselves from the sun ‘usually’ or ‘always’ wearing sunscreen, a hat, protective clothing, sunglasses and seeking shade.24

While 60% of South Australians ‘usually’ or ‘always’ wear SPF30+ sunscreen, less than half wear a hat and only a third wear clothing that covers most of their arms and legs.24

There is clear evidence that an adequate investment in social marketing to encourage SunSmart behaviour can significantly reduce the social and economic costs of skin cancer.25 If social marketing investment declines, so does people’s sun protective behaviour. This evidence supports that further action by government is required to prevent avoidable skin cancer and related deaths. The data highlights that sustained investment is important, because when campaign activity decreases so too can the rate of change towards sun protection.25 Epidemiological data and a summary of the compelling economic evidence for return on investment also make a strong case for the investment in social marketing.23


• Mandate the Education Department to issue sun protection guidelines to all South Australian Government schools.

• Minister for Education to recommend independent and religous schools issue sun protection guidelines.

Sun exposure in the first ten years of life determines, to a substantial degree, the lifetime potential for skin cancer. Sun exposure after this age determines the extent to which this potential is realised.20

Schools can play a meaningful role in reducing children’s exposure to UV radiation and reduce the lifetime risk of developing skin cancer. As guardians of children during the peak UV radiation times during the day, schools have a duty of care to protect the children on their sites and in their care.

Parents also have a right to expect that when they send their children to childcare or school that they are protected from harm, including those harms associated with exposure to UV radiation.

Cancer Council SA developed a SunSmart Schools program in 1998 which is designed to assist South Australian schools with addressing this duty of care. The program has been successful, however only 53% of South Australian Primary Schools have joined. Currently, unlike the majority of their interstate counterparts, the South Australian Department of Education does not have a policy guideline in place with regard to UV exposure and does not actively encourage the schools under its control to join the SunSmart Schools program.

Research shows that schools with a written sun protection policy have the greatest number of students and staff protecting themselves from the sun.

5 Implement Education Department SunSmart policy guidelines for all schools to ensure children have adequate sun protection during peak UV radiation times.

11


12

The SunSmart Schools Program supports schools to implement policy in the areas of:

1 the environment—providing adequate shade for use by students and encouraging its use.

2 skin protection—requirement to wear broad-brimmed/ bucket hats, sun protective clothing, sunscreen, sunglasses (should be considered) when UV radiation levels are 3 or above.

3 curriculum—educating students about the balance between sun exposure for vitamin D production and skin protection from overexposure to UV radiation.

4 scheduling of outdoor activities out of peak UV radiation times, in shaded or indoor venues from September to April.

Implementation of sun protection guidelines would ensure that all South Australian schools protect the children in their care. It would also provide students with the educational tools to make wise sun protection decisions after they leave school.

NON-SUNSMART MEMBER SCHOOLS

Impact of SunSmart Schools Program in South Australia

55

318

373STUDENTS AT NON-SUNSMART MEMBER SCHOOLS

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

286

77

209

SUNSMART MEMBER SCHOOLS

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

81,360

75,751

STUDENTS AT SUNSMART MEMBER SCHOOLS

8:15am – 4:20pm UV ALERT

MAX UV Index12 (extreme)

EXTREME

VERY HIGH

HIGH

MOD

LOW

Issued by the Bureau of Meteorology

6am 8 10 12 2 4 6pm


17

• FundtheoperationoftheSAClinicalCancerRegistry,(temporarily being funded with community money) at a cost of $350,000 per annum.

• Investinexpandingtheregistry,bothintermsofthedata it collects and the number of hospitals from which data is sourced.

The Clinical Cancer Registry is vital to the effective delivery of cancer services and treatment in South Australia, as well as public confidence in the quality assurance measures in place at our major public hospitals. The Registry provides data relating the treatment and outcomes for people diagnosed with cancer in South Australia, it provides a vital check and balance mechanism for our cancer treatment services by enabling us to compare different treatment providers to ensure there are no great disparities and if there are to identify the reasons why.

The Registry also provides information about incidence, including location, which can instigate investigations and address concerns about occupational or environmental cancer risks.

6 Re-invest in the SA Clinical Cancer Registry.

Two registries are currently in operation in South Australia – both had deteriorated significantly as a result of financial cutbacks. As a result, in 2009 Cancer Council SA and the SA Government jointly invested $4.4 million to bring the registries back up to national standard. Regrettably, when that project was complete and South Australia possessed the best registry infrastructure in the nation, financial cutbacks in SA Health again threatened the survival of the Clinical Cancer Registry, by cutting the available funding for human capital to operate the Registry.

A short term solution was found and the Registry is now funded until June 2014 by Cancer Council SA and donations received from the public to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

With the future of this important cancer monitoring system again in jeopardy, we call on the next Government of South Australia to commit to properly fund the human capital who run the Clinical Cancer Registry.

The Clinical Cancer Registry provides information about incidence, including location, which can instigate investigations and address concerns about occupational or environmental cancer risks.


18

• CommittocontinuetofundtheBeatCancerProject, through the provision of $10 million over five years for cancer research from 2016.

Thanks to the contribution of cancer research, over the last 20 years in Australia we have seen: cancer deaths fall by approximately 14%25 and survival rates for many common cancers increase by as much as 30%.26

In 2011 Cancer Council SA invested $10 million into the Cancer Council’s Beat Cancer Project over the following five years (2012–16). That amount was matched by the South Australian Government, creating a pool of funds totaling $20 million managed within the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) for cancer research. These funds are accessed by researchers who obtain matching funding for their research projects from external sources. This means that for every $1 invested, $8 of cancer research is

7 Re-commit to the Beat Cancer Project.

funded. The Beat Cancer Project is the single largest source of funding for cancer research and infrastructure in South Australia.

Through investing these funds with SAHMRI, the Cancer Council Beat Cancer Project provides a more focused, strategic and collaborative way of delivering cancer research funds than ever before.

The five year funding agreement concludes at the end of 2016—during the term of the next government. Given the success of the Beat Cancer Project, both in attracting quality cancer researchers and their projects to Adelaide, as well as leveraging more than $4.1 million in the 2012-13 financial year in additional funding from outside sources, Cancer Council seeks a commitment from the next government of South Australia to continue to fund this important research and help us beat cancer.

FOR EVERY $1 THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INVESTS

$1 $8

$8 OF CANCER RESEARCH IS FUNDED

Professor Shudong Wang a recipient of Cancer Council’s Beat Cancer Project.

Professor Wang is a researcher from the University of South Australia and has established an international reputation in the field of medicinal chemistry and drug discovery.


Regulate to:

• Restrict homeowners from large scale asbestos removal in homes.

• Require home owners working with asbestos to follow the same procedures as South Australian workers.

Having been the fourth largest user of asbestos per capita in the world, Australia has the highest per capita rates of malignant mesothelioma and other asbestos caused diseases in the world.27, 28 From 1945 to 1980, asbestos and asbestos products were included in approximately one third of all houses and in most public buildings.

The first people struck down with the deadly cancer were those who worked in the mining and milling of the asbestos product. A second wave of individuals struck down by malignant mesothelioma has been made up of people who used asbestos products in industry.

Asbestos-related diseases aren’t limited to mesothelioma, but exposure to asbestos can also result in asbestosis and contributes to the burden of lung cancer in Australia.

While the use of asbestos was totally banned in Australia in 2003, asbestos products can still be found in households across the state. With ‘do it yourself’ (DIY) home renovation becoming increasingly popular, there is significant evidence that we are yet to see a peak in cases of asbestos-related diseases, with a third wave of victims emerging as a result of exposure during DIY renovations.29

South Australian legislation, regulations and codes of practice currently protect employees who remove and dispose of asbestos as part of their employment. However these requirements do not extend to homeowners who undertake DIY renovations or home maintenance. Nor do they protect those people in the vicinity of any renovations or maintenance, including children.

Recent evidence shows that homeowners do not feel sufficiently able to identify asbestos in their homes and that they underestimate the risks associated with exposure.

These people will constitute a third wave of asbestos-related disease suffers in the future, if regulations are not changed. A new group of sufferers will continue to grow for many years to come and include not just home renovators, but anyone who is in close proximity when the renovations take place.

In order to stop this future wave of cases, regulations surrounding the safe removal and disposal of asbestos must be extended to cover private homes. This would ensure that all removal and disposal would be supervised by an individual who is licensed in the removal and disposal of asbestos.

8 Extend restrictions covering the handling and disposal of asbestos products to protect homeowners undertaking renovations and home maintenance.

13


David was my best mate, we grew up together, got in trouble together and went through life together. David was there the night I met my wife, he was the best man in my wedding and my daughter’s godfather. I always imagined we would grow old remembering the good old days and sharing some laughs.

Instead, in 2006, I held David’s hand in the Royal Adelaide Hospital while he gasped for breath and said goodbye to his children—David died from asbestos-related mesothelioma.

As a young man David had worked in retail in a store which was undergoing renovations and spent his days surrounded by construction workers cutting and using asbestos. Some 41 years later two girls lost their dad and a 18-month-old baby lost her grandfather because no one knew back then that the asbestos dust would cost David his life.

Today we do know the damage asbestos does, we know it kills people like David and yet a whole generation of young homeowners who are my daughters’ age are renovating homes without giving it a second thought—they wouldn’t even know what it looks like! We need to learn the lessons from people like David and protect future generations from the horrors of asbestos.

Malcolm from Hallett Cove

1945early

1980s

2 IN 3 HOMES BUILT IN AUSTRALIA BETWEEN WORLD WAR TWO AND THE EARLY 1980S STILL CONTAIN ASBESTOS

14


9 Regulate television advertising to protect children from unhealthy food advertising.

• Prohibit energy dense and nutrient poor unhealthy food and beverage advertising during the hours of 7:00–9:00 am and 4:00–9:00 pm weekdays and 7:00–9:00 pm on weekends.

• Establishing statutory mechanism and sanctions to ensure compliance.

• Use the Food Standards Australia New Zealand nutrient profiling model to establish criteria for the advertising of health foods.

Evidence tells us that maintaining a healthy weight throughout life is one of the most important ways to protect against many types of cancer.30, 31 It is estimated that around one quarter of all cancers could be prevented through appropriate food, nutrition and physical activity.32 Collectively, overweight and obesity, physical inactivity, and unhealthy eating are second only to tobacco as preventable risk factors for cancer.30, 31, 32 Addressing these risk factors is an important objective for reducing Australia’s cancer burden.

The 2007 Australian Nationals Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey found that 23% of children aged 2–16 years of age were overweight or obese33, with 25%–50% of obese adolescents remaining obese into adulthood.34

In Australia, food and drink advertising aimed at children is regulated through statutory guidelines and industry self-regulation. These standards do not regulate the types of food and drinks that may be advertised to children, except alcohol, and only apply to advertising shown during ‘C’ or ‘P’ rated programs or periods. Typically 7:00–8:00 am and 4:00–4:30 pm.35

However peak viewing times for children are between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm.36

Australian children are exposed to enormous amounts of advertising and promotion of unhealthy foods and beverages on television, the internet, children’s magazines, food packaging and placement in supermarkets and sponsorship of children’s sports.

Restricting unhealthy food marketing to children has been recognised as an important area for action in the prevention of obesity.37 Systematic reviews have found that children are not fully aware of the persuasive intent of food marketing and that food marketing influences the food preferences of children, generates positive beliefs about the foods advertised, influences purchase requests of children, and influences children’s food consumption.38, 39, 40

FIGURES FROM AIHW 2000–2010

15


A 2010 survey found that 93% of South Australians were in favour of the government introducing stronger restrictions to reduce the amount of unhealthy food advertising seen by children, with 79% strongly in favour. In addition 91% of South Australian consumers want government to regulate the use of unhealthy food products in games and competitions on websites aimed at children.41

Restricting unhealthy food marketing to children has been demonstrated as a cost-effective obesity intervention. According to the Assessing Cost Effectiveness of Obesity Report, a modelling study commissioned by Victoria’s Department of Human Services, a restriction of unhealthy food advertising on television was potentially the most cost-effective and cost-saving intervention of 13 interventions assessed for preventing and managing childhood obesity.42

Whilst this intervention is predicted to reduce individual children’s risk of obesity to only a small degree, the restriction of advertisements for unhealthy foods and beverages to children would have considerable beneficial effects over the entire population. In addition to these direct measures, food marketing is likely to have broader indirect effects on children’s food preferences and food choices.43

It is a difficult task raising a young family and you want to do the best you can to set them up for life, that is why I try my best to provide my children with healthy food. As a working mum the convenience of take away and unhealthy food can be tempting, but while I try hard to make the time to cook fresh healthy meals for my children, they are being bombarded with advertising from fast and junk food companies. The result of this advertising blitz is my children constantly nagging me for the latest and greatest unhealthy food product they have seen on TV. I can understand why eventually so many parents give in, it is hard always saying no.

It is hard enough raising happy, healthy kids, it would be that much easier if the junk food ads were banned during programs kids watch.

Hanna from Norton Summit

16


19

References

1. South Australian Cancer Registry (2013) Cancer in South Australia 2009 – with projections to 2012. Adelaide: South Australian Department of Health.

2. Data Cube, Incidence 2009: http://www.aihw.gov.au/cancer-data/

3. Begg, S, et al. The burden of disease and injury in Australia 2003, 2007, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

4. Collins, D and HM Lapsley. The cost of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian society in 2004/05, 2008, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

5. Doll, R, et al. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors, British Medical Journal, 2004. 328(7455): p.1519

6. Cancel Council Victoria. Tobacco control and mass media campaigns: evidence brief. Canberra: The Australian National Preventive Health Agency; 2013 Available from: http://anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/94287D19C5A643FFCA257B960003E8F6/$File/LASER%20PRINT_EV%20BRIEF_MASS%20MEDIA_v2_screen%20res.pdf

7. Hurley, S.F. and J.P. Matthews, Cost-effectiveness of the Australian National Tobacco Campaign. Tobacco Control, 2008. 17(6): p. 379-84.

8. Hill, J. Media Release, Smoking Rates Fall in South Australia, 2012.

9. Snelling, J. Media Release: “The number of South Aussie smokers running out of puff” 31 May 2013

10. Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs, National Tobacco Startegy 2012-2018, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra. Available at http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/D4E3727950BDBAE4CA257AE70003730C/$File/National%20Tobacco%20Strategy%202012-2018.pdf

11. Cancer Council NSW. Cost of Cancer in NSW: A report by Access Economics PTY Limited for the Cancer Council NSW. NSWCC: Sydney 2007.

12. Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986.

13. “Plan to ban smoking in all outdoor eating and drinking areas in five years”, AdelaideNow, 31 May 2011.

14. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, A Report to the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004.

15. TCRE. Key smoking statistics for SA-2010. Tobacco Control Research and Evaluation, Cancer Council SA 2011.

16. Centre for Health Research and Psycho-oncology. Tracking NSW community attitudes and practices in relation to tobacco: a biennial telephone survey. Unpublished report by The Cancer Council NSW. 2007

17. Queensland Health. Review of smokefree laws: discussion paper. Brisbane, Australia: Government of Queensland, 2007. Available from: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/tobaccolaws/documents/33161.pdf

18. Staples MP, Elwood M, Burton RC, Williams JL, Marks R, Giles CC. Non-melanoma skin cancer in Australia: the national survey and trends since 1985. Medical Journal of Australia 2006; 184(1): 6–10.

19. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Australasian Association of Cancer Registeries. Cancer in Australia 2001. AIHW cat. No. CAN 23. Canberra. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2004.

20. Armstrong BK. How sun exposure causes skin cancer: An epidemiological perspective. In: Hill D., Elwood J. M. and English D. R. (Eds). Prevention of Skin Cancer. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, pp. 89-116

21. Armstrong BK, Kricker A. How much melanoma is caused by sun exposure? Melanoma Research 1993; 3(6): 395-401

22. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer incidence projections, Australia 2011 to 2020. Cat. no. CAN 62. AIHW:Canberra, Australia2012. Available from: www.aihw.gov.au

23. Dobbinson SJ, Wakefield MA, Jamsen KM, Herd NL, Spittal MJ, Lipscomb JE, Hill DJ. Weekend sun protection and sunburn in Australia: Trends (1987-2002) and association with SunSmart television advertising. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008; 34: 94-101

24. Sharplin G. Cancer risk factors in South Australia: Results of the 2012 Health Omnibus Survey. Report prepared for Cancer Council SA. Adelaide, Cancer Council SA, 2013

25. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Causes of death 2011. 3303.0. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia 2012

26. AIHW, CA (Cancer Australia) & AACR (Australasian Association of Cancer Registries) 2008. Cancer survival and prevalence in Australia: cancers diagnosed from 1982 to 2004. Cancer series no. 42. Cat. No. CAN 38. Canberra: AIHW.

27. Dodson R, Hammar S, editors. Asbestos: risk, assessment, epidemiology, and health effects, 2nd ed. Boca Raton: taylor and Francis, 2011.

28. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2008). GRIM (General Record of Incidence of Mortality) Books. AIHW: Canberra


20

29. Olsen, N, Franklin, P, Reid, A, de Klerk, N, Threlfal, T, Shilkin, K, Musk, B, ‘Increasing incidence of malignant mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos during home maintenance and renovation’, Medical Journal of Australia, 2011

30. Must A & Strauss RS 1999. Risks and consequences of childhood and adolescent obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 23 Suppl 2:S2–11.

31. World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington DC: AICR; 2007.

32. World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Policy and action for cancer prevention. Food, nutrition, and physical activity: a global perspective. Washington DC: AICR; 2009 Available from: http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/chapters/pr/Introductory%20pages.pdf

33. Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation, Preventative Health National Research Flagship, University of South Australia. 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey - main findings. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2008 Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/66596E8FC68FD1A3CA2574D50027DB86/$File/childrens-nut-phys-survey.pdf

34. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General’s call to action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General; 2001 Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/pdf/CalltoAction.pdf

35. Australian Communications and Media Authority 2007. Review of Children’s Television Standards. Issues Paper. Sydney

36. McGinnis JM, Gottman JA, Kraak VI & editors 2006. Food marketing to children and youth: threat or opportunity? Washington (DC): National Academies Press.

37. World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003

38. Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth. Food marketing to children and youth: threat or opportunity. Washington DC, USA: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2005.

39. Dalmeny K, Hanna E, et al. Broadcasting Bad Health: Why food advertising needs to be controlled. International Association of Consumer Food Organisations; 2003.

40. Hastings G, McDermott L, et al. The extent, nature and effects of food promotion to children: a review of the evidence. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2006.

41. Morley B, Martin J, Niven P (2010). Obesity prevention and policy proposals: Public acceptability in South Australia (Topline results). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria.

42. Magnus A, Haby MM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of removing television advertising of high-fat and/or high-sugar food and beverages to Australian children. Int J Obes (Lond ) 2009

42. Livingstone S. New research on advertising foods to children: an updated review of the literature. Ofcom; 2006


Cancer Council SA 202 Greenhill Road, Eastwood SA 5063 PO Box 929, Unley BC SA 5061 t 08 8291 4111 f 08 8291 4180 www.cancersa.org.au

Responsibility for the content of this submission is taken by the Chief Executive, Cancer Council SA, Professor Brenda Wilson.

Contact Alana Sparrow, Manager Advocacy Policy and Prevention, Cancer Council SA [email protected] or 08 8291 4150.

what will your government do to beat cancer? · every day in south australia, 25 people are...

Documents