NACCHO Aboriginal Health and #Obesity : Download #TippingtheScales Report Leading health orgs set out 8 urgent actions for Federal Government

“Sixty-three per cent of Australian adults and 27 per cent of our children are overweight or obese.

This is not surprising when you look at our environment – our kids are bombarded with advertising for junk food, high-sugar drinks are cheaper than water, and sugar and saturated fat are hiding in so-called ‘healthy’ foods. Making a healthy choice has never been more difficult.

The annual cost of overweight and obesity in Australia in 2011-12 was estimated to be $8.6 billion in direct and indirect costs such as GP services, hospital care, absenteeism and government subsidies.1 “

 OPC Executive Manager Jane Martin 

Download the report HERE  tipping-the-scales

Read over 30 + NACCHO Obesity articles published last 5 years

Read over 30+ NACCHO Nutrition and Healthy foods published last 5 years

Thirty-four leading community, public health, medical and academic groups have today united for the first time to call for urgent Federal Government action to address Australia’s serious obesity problem.

In the ground-breaking new action plan, Tipping the Scales, the agencies identify eight clear, practical, evidence-based actions the Australian Federal Government must take to reduce the enormous strain excess weight and poor diets are having on the nation’s physical and economic health.

Led by the Obesity Policy Coalition (OPC) and Deakin University’s Global Obesity Centre (GLOBE), Tipping the Scales draws on national and international recommendations to highlight where action is required. Areas include:

  1. Time-based restrictions on TV junk food advertising to kids
  2. Set clear food reformulation targets
  3. Make the Health Star Rating mandatory by July 2019
  4. Develop a national active transport strategy
  5. Fund weight-related public education campaigns
  6. Introduce a 20% health levy on sugary drinks
  7. Establish a national obesity taskforce
  8. Develop and monitor national diet, physical activity and weight guidelines.

OPC Executive Manager Jane Martin said the eight definitive policy actions in Tipping the Scales addressed the elements of Australia’s environment which set individuals and families up for unhealthy lifestyles, rather than just focusing on treating the poor health outcomes associated with obesity.

Watch video HERE : How does junk food marketing influence kids

“Sixty-three per cent of Australian adults and 27 per cent of our children are overweight or obese. This is not surprising when you look at our environment – our kids are bombarded with advertising for junk food, high-sugar drinks are cheaper than water, and sugar and saturated fat are hiding in so-called ‘healthy’ foods. Making a healthy choice has never been more difficult,” Ms Martin said.

“The annual cost of overweight and obesity in Australia in 2011-12 was estimated to be $8.6 billion in direct and indirect costs such as GP services, hospital care, absenteeism and government subsidies.1 But Australia still has no strategy to tackle our obesity problem. It just doesn’t make sense.

“Without action, the costs of obesity and poor diet to society will only continue to spiral upwards. The policies we have set out to tackle obesity therefore aim to not only reduce morbidity and mortality, but also improve wellbeing, bring vital benefits to the economy and set Australians up for a healthier future.”

Professor of Epidemiology and Equity in Public Health at Deakin University, Anna Peeters, said the 34 groups behind the report were refusing to let governments simply sit back and watch as growing numbers of Australians developed life-threatening weight and diet-related health problems.

“For too long we have been sitting and waiting for obesity to somehow fix itself. In the obesogenic environment in which we live, this is not going to happen. In fact, if current trends continue, there will be approximately 1.75 million deaths in people over the age of 20 years caused by diseases linked to overweight and obesity, such as type 2 diabetes, cancer heart disease, between 2011-20501,” Professor Peeters said.

“Obesity poses such an immense threat to Australia’s physical and economic health that it needs its own, standalone prevention strategy if progress is to be made. There are policies which have been proven to work in other parts of the world and have the potential to work here, but they need to be implemented as part of a comprehensive approach by governments. And they need to be implemented now.

“More than thirty leading organisations have agreed on eight priorities needed to tackle obesity in Australia. We would like to work with the Federal Government to tackle this urgent issue and integrate these actions as part of a long-term coordinated approach.”

In addition to the costs to society, the burden of obesity is felt acutely by individuals and their families.

As a Professor of Women’s Health at Monash University and a physician, Professor Helena Teede sees mothers struggle daily with trying to achieve and sustain healthy lifestyles for themselves and their families, while having to deal with the adverse impact of unhealthy weight, especially during pregnancy.

“As a mother’s weight before pregnancy increases, so does the substantive health risk to both the mother and baby. Excess weight gain during pregnancy further adds to these risks and is a key driver of infertility, long-term obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, while for the child, their risk of becoming overweight or obese and developing chronic diseases in later life greatly increases,” Professor Teede said.

“The women I see are generally desperate for help to improve their lifestyle and that of their families. They want to set themselves and their families up for healthy, long lives.

“Currently, there is a lot of blame placed on individuals with unhealthy diets and lifestyles seen as being due to individual and family discipline. Women from all backgrounds and walks of life struggle with little or no support to achieve this. It is vital that we as a community progress beyond placing all responsibility on the individual and work towards creating a policy context and a society that supports healthy choices and tips the scales towards obesity prevention to give Australian families a healthy start to life.”

The calls to action outlined in Tipping the Scales are endorsed by the following organisations: Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance (which includes the Heart Foundation, Cancer Council Australia, Kidney Health Australia, Diabetes Australia and the Stroke Foundation), Australian Health Policy Collaboration (AHPC), Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA), Australian & New Zealand Obesity Society (ANZOS), Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine, Baker Heart & Diabetes Institute, CHOICE, Consumers Health Forum of Australia, Deakin University’s Global Obesity Centre (GLOBE), Institute For Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Monash Centre for Health, Research and Implementation (MCHRI), LiveLighter, Menzies School of Health Research, The University of Melbourne’s Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, Melbourne Children’s (which includes The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and the University of Melbourne), the National Rural Health Alliance Inc, Nutrition Australia, Obesity Australia, Obesity Policy Coalition, Obesity Surgery Society of Australia & New Zealand, Parents’ Voice, Public Health Association of Australia and Sugar By Half.

Download the Tipping the Scales action plan and snapshot at opc.org.au/tippingthescales


1. Obesity Australia. Obesity: Its impact on Australia and a case for action. No time to Weight 2. Sydney, 2015.

NACCHO #Aboriginal Health and #Diabetes @theMJA the @NHMRC #Indigenous guidelines need update

Early onset of type 2 diabetes is very common in Aboriginal communities following Westernisation, so I agree with the recommendations of NACCHO and the RACGP, which recommended early screening.

Whether you do it annually or every 3 years is a less important question to me, and very patient-dependent.

Only 18% of Indigenous adults were tested for diabetes annually, as per the more intensive guidelines by the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), leading the authors to claim that the RACGP/DA guidelines were more practicable “

Professor Kerin O’Dea, Professor Emeritus at the University of South Australia and Honorary Professor at the University of Melbourne, said that the NHMRC recommendations “really need to be updated”.

Originally published MJA

Read over 120 diabetes related posts by NACCHO over past 5 years

MORE can be done to increase diabetes screening rates among Indigenous Australians and enable earlier intervention, say experts who are calling for a greater focus on young adults.

A study published in the MJA found enormous variation in diabetes screening rates between different Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs).

The proportion of Indigenous adults screened for diabetes at least once in 3 years – as per the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and Diabetes Australia (RACGP/DA) guidelines – ranged from 16% to 90% between different services.

Overall, 74% of Indigenous adults received a screening test for diabetes at least once between 2010 and 2013, the study found, based on de-identified data on 20 978 patients from 18 ACCHSs.

Only 18% of Indigenous adults were tested for diabetes annually, as per the more intensive guidelines by the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), leading the authors to claim that the RACGP/DA guidelines were more practicable.

Extract Overview provided by NACCHO

Download a full copy of 2 nd edition

http://www.racgp.org.au/download/documents/AHU/2ndednationalguide.pdf

Type 2 diabetes is most commonly found in obese adults who develop increasing insulin resistance over months or years. For these patients there is a substantial ‘prediabetic’ window period of opportunity to offer preventive interventions. Screening for diabetes is safe, accurate and cost effective, and detects a substantial proportion of people who may not otherwise have received early intervention.1 This chapter discusses type 2 diabetes in adults who are not pregnant.

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations is 3–4 times higher at any age than the general population, with an earlier age of onset.2 The precise prevalence is hard to pinpoint; a 2011 systematic review of 24 studies showed prevalence estimates ranged from 3.5–31%, with most lying between 10% and 20%. Diabetes prevalence in remote populations is approximately twice that of urban populations and is higher among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.3

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women die from diabetes at 23 and 37 times the rate of non-Indigenous Australian men and women respectively, in the 35–54 years age group.4 Large scale clinical trials have demonstrated that appropriate management of diabetes can prevent the development or delay the progression of complications such as myocardial infarction, eye disease and renal failure.5

Obesity is a very strong predictor for diabetes; a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 increases the absolute risk of type 2 diabetes by 1.8–19-fold, depending on the population studied. A cohort study of non-diabetic Aboriginal adults aged 15–77 years in central Australia found that those with a BMI of ≥25 kg/m2 had 3.3 times the risk of developing diabetes over 8 years of follow up compared to those with a BMI <25 kg/m2.1 The AusDiab study found that three measures of obesity: BMI, waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio, all had similar correlations with diabetes and CVD risk.6 Waist circumference performed slightly better than BMI at predicting diabetes in a remote Aboriginal community

The study defined screening tests to include glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing as well as the oral glucose tolerance test and venous glucose level testing.

Barriers to screening included being aged under 50 years, being transient rather than a current patient and attending the service less frequently, the study found. The authors concluded that particular attention should be given to increasing the screening rate in these groups.

The finding that young people were less likely to be tested was “intuitively reasonable”, the authors said, given that the risk of developing diabetes rises with age. However, they suggested that it was still best practice to test Indigenous adults from the age of 18 years, as it provided a “substantial opportunity for limiting the impact of type 2 diabetes”.

Indigenous Australians aged 25–34 years are five times more likely to have diabetes or high blood sugar levels than non-Indigenous Australians of the same age, they noted.

Despite this difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) only recommends screening Indigenous people for diabetes once they are aged over 35 years, and doing it every 3 years.

Professor Kerin O’Dea, Professor Emeritus at the University of South Australia and Honorary Professor at the University of Melbourne, said that the NHMRC recommendations “really need to be updated”.

“Early onset of type 2 diabetes is very common in Aboriginal communities following Westernisation, so I agree with the recommendations of NACCHO and the RACGP, which recommended early screening,” she told MJA InSight.

“Whether you do it annually or every 3 years is a less important question to me, and very patient-dependent,” she said.

Professor O’Dea said that more widespread use of HbA1c testing could increase the screening rate in Aboriginal communities, particularly among younger people and those who were more transient.

“If screening for diabetes was just a simple opportunistic HbA1c test, you wouldn’t have so many problems getting people to have it done,” she said. “HbA1c testing will give you a good idea of the mean glucose level, and unlike the glucose tolerance test, you don’t have to ask the patient to return in the fasting state.

“If it does turn out that the patient has borderline diabetes, then you can ask if they are prepared to do a glucose tolerance test,” she added.

Study co-author, Associate Professor Christine Paul, said that there was significant variation in the use of HBA1c testing across sites and across time in the study.

“I think it is possible that increasing the use of HbA1c as a screening test may help [to increase screening rates]; however, I don’t think it’s the main answer,” she said. “Clearly some health services need support to get systems in place, regardless of which test they use.”

 

Aboriginal #Nutrition Health and #Sugar : @healthgovau Health Star Rating System review closes 17 August

 ” The Health Star Rating System has been marred by anomalies. Milo powder (44% sugar) increased its basic 1.5 Stars to 4.5 by assuming it will be added to skim milk. About one in every seven products bearing health stars goes against the Department of Health’s own recommendations.

Those of us working in public health question why obvious junk foods get any stars at all.”

See Sugar, sugar everywhere MJA insight article in full Part 3 below

  ” In 2012-13, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 2 years and over consumed an average of 75 grams of free sugars per day (equivalent to 18 teaspoons of white sugar)1. Added sugars made up the majority of free sugar intakes with an average of 68 grams (or 16 teaspoons) consumed and an additional 7 grams of free sugars came from honey and fruit juice. “

ABS Report abs-indigenous-consumption-of-added-sugars 

See Part 1 below for Aboriginal sugar facts

The Health Star Rating (HSR) Advisory Committee (HSRAC), responsible for overseeing the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system is undertaking a five year review of the HSR system.

The five year review of the system is well underway, with a public submission process opening on 8 June 2017 on the Australian Department of Health’s online Consultation Hub.

Since the consultation period has been opened there has been strong interest in the system from stakeholders representing a diverse range of views.

To ensure that as much evidence as possible is captured, along with stakeholders’ views on the system, a further two week extension to the consultation period has been agreed and it will now close on 17 August 2017

See full survey details Part 2 Below

Part 1 Aboriginal sugar facts

ABS Report

abs-indigenous-consumption-of-added-sugars

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people consume around 14 per cent of their total energy intake as free sugars, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that free sugars contribute less than 10 per cent of total energy intake.

Director of Health, Louise Gates, said the new ABS report showed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are consuming an average of 18 teaspoons (or 75 grams) of free sugars per day (almost two cans of soft drink), four teaspoons more than non-Indigenous people (14 teaspoons or 60 grams).

OTHER KEY FINDINGS

    • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people derived an average of 14% of their daily energy from free sugars, exceeding the WHO recommendation that children and adults should limit their intake of free sugars to less than 10% of dietary energy.
    • Free sugars made the greatest contribution to energy intakes among older children and young adults. For example, teenage boys aged 14-18 years derived 18 per cent of their dietary energy from free sugars as they consumed the equivalent of 25 teaspoons (106 grams) of free sugars per day. This amount is equivalent to more than two and a half cans of soft drink. Women aged 19-30 years consumed 21 teaspoons (87 grams) of free sugars, which contributed 17 per cent to their total energy intake.
    • The majority (87%) of free sugars were consumed from energy dense, nutrient-poor ‘discretionary’ foods and beverages. Two thirds (67%) of all free sugars consumed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people came from beverages, led by soft drinks, sports and energy drinks (28%), followed by fruit and vegetable juices and drinks (12%), cordials (9.5%), and sugars added to beverages such as tea and coffee (9.4%), alcoholic beverages (4.9%) and milk beverages (3.4%).
    • Intakes were higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in non-remote areas where the average consumption was 78 grams (18.5 teaspoons), around 3 teaspoons (12 grams) higher than people living in remote areas (65 grams or 15.5 teaspoons).
    • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people consumed 15 grams (almost 4 teaspoons) more free sugars on average than non-Indigenous people. Beverages were the most common source of free sugars for both populations, however Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people derived a higher proportion of free sugars from beverages than non-Indigenous people (67% compared with 51%).

Part 2 @healthgovau Health Star Rating System review closes 17 August

Introduction

The Health Star Rating (HSR) Advisory Committee (HSRAC), responsible for overseeing the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the HSR system, is undertaking a five year review of the HSR system. The HSR system is a front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) scheme intended to assist consumers in making healthier diet choices. The findings of the review will be provided to the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation (Forum) in mid‑2019.

In parallel with this consultation on the HSR system five year review, the HSRAC is conducting a dedicated investigation of issues and concerns raised about the form of the food (‘as prepared’) rules in the Guide for Industry to the HSR Calculator. These enable additional nutrients to be taken into account when calculating star ratings based on foods prepared according to on-label directions. A specific consultation process seeking input into this investigation opened on 19 May 2017 and will close at 11.59 pm 30 June 2017. The form of the food (‘as prepared’) consultation can be viewed on the Australian Department of Health’s Consultation Hub.

The HSR system

The HSR system is a public health and consumer choice intervention designed to encourage people to make healthier dietary choices. The HSR system is a voluntary FoPL scheme that rates the overall nutritional profile of packaged food and assigns it a rating from ½ a star to 5 stars. It is not a system that defines what a ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’ food is, but rather provides a quick, standardised way to compare similar packaged foods at retail level. The more stars, the healthier the choice. The HSR system is not a complete solution to assist consumers with choosing foods in line with dietary guidelines, but should be viewed as a way to assist consumers to make healthier packaged food choices.  Other sources of information, such as the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the New Zealand Eating and Activity Guidelines, also assist consumers in their overall food purchasing decisions.

The HSR system aims to:

1. Enable direct comparison between individual foods that, within the overall diet, may contribute to the risk factors of various diet related chronic diseases;

2. Be readily understandable and meaningful across socio-economic groups, culturally and linguistically diverse groups and low literacy/low numeracy groups; and

3. Increase awareness of foods that, within the overall diet, may contribute positively or negatively to the risk factors of diet related chronic diseases.

The HSR system consists of the graphics, including the words ‘Health Star Rating’, the rules identified in the HSR system Style Guide, the algorithm and methodology for calculating the HSR identified in the Guide for Industry to the HSR Calculator, and the education and marketing associated with the HSR implementation.

The HSR system is a joint Australian, state and territory and New Zealand government initiative developed in collaboration with industry, public health and consumer groups. The system is funded by the Australian government, the New Zealand government and all Australian jurisdictions during the initial five year implementation period.

From June 2014, food manufacturers started to apply HSRs to the front of food product packaging. Further information on the HSR system is available on the HSR website. The New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) website also provides information on the HSR system in New Zealand.

Purpose and scope of the review
The five year review of the HSR system will consider if, and how well, the objectives of the HSR system have been met, and identify options for improvements to and ongoing implementation of the system (Terms of reference for the five year review).

With a focus on processed packaged foods, the objective of the HSR system is:

To provide convenient, relevant and readily understood nutrition information and /or guidance on food packs to assist consumers to make informed food purchases and healthier eating choices.

The HSRAC has agreed that the areas of communication, system enhancements, and monitoring and governance will be considered when identifying whether the objectives of the HSR system have been achieved.

Although HSRAC will need to be a part of the review process, a degree of independence is required and independent management and oversight of the review is an important factor to ensure credible and unbiased reporting. An independent consultant will be engaged to undertake the review. Specific detail about the scope of the review will be outlined in the statement of requirement for the independent consultant. A timeline for the five year review of the HSR system has been drafted and will be updated throughout the review.

Next steps in the review process

As part of the five year review, HSRAC is seeking evidence based submissions on the consultation questions provided in this discussion paper.

This consultation is open to the public, state and territory governments, relevant government agencies, industry and public health and consumer groups.

Making a submission

The HSRAC is seeking submissions on the merits of the HSR system, particularly in response to the consultation questions below. The aim of the questions is to assist respondents in providing relevant commentary. However, submissions are not limited to answering the questions provided.  Please provide evidence or examples to support comments. Some areas of this review are technical in nature therefore comments on technical issues should be based on scientific evidence and/or supported by research where appropriate. Where possible, please provide citations to published studies or other sources.

While the HSRAC will consider all submissions and proposals put forward, those that are not well supported by evidence are unlikely to be addressed as part of the five year review.

Enquiries specifically relating to this submission process can be made via email to: frontofpack@health.gov.au. Please DO NOT provide submissions by email.

After the consultation period closes the HSRAC will consider the submissions received and will prepare a summary table of the issues raised which will be published on the HSR website. All information within the summary table will be de-identifiable and will not contain any confidential material.

HSRAC will treat information of a confidential nature as such. Please ensure that material supplied in confidence is clearly marked ‘IN CONFIDENCE’ and is provided in a separate attachment to non-confidential material. Information provided in the submissions will only be used for the purpose of the five year review of the HSR system and will not be used for any other purpose without explicit permission.

Please see the Terms of Use and Privacy pages at the bottom of this page for further information on maintaining the security of your data.

For further information about the HSR system, including its resources and governance structure, please refer to the Australian HSR website and the New Zealand MPI website.

Part 3 Sugar Sugar MJA Insights

Originally published Here

IT’S hard to escape sugar, not only in what we eat and drink, but also in the daily news and views that seep into so many corners of our lives.

There’s nothing new about concern over sugar. I can trace my own fights with the sugar industry back to the 1960s, and since their inception in 1981, the Australian Dietary Guidelines have advised limiting sugary foods and drinks. The current emphasis in many articles in newspapers, magazines, popular books and online blogs, however, go further and recommend eliminating every grain of the stuff from the daily diet.

Taking an academic approach to the topic, the George Institute for Global Health has published data based on the analysis of 34 135 packaged foods currently listed in their Australian FoodSwitch database. They found added sugar in 87% of discretionary food products (known as junk foods in common parlance) and also in 52% of packaged foods that can be described as basic or core foods.

The George Institute’s analysis is particularly pertinent to the Department of Health’s Health Star Rating System, and found that some of the anomalies in the scheme could be eliminated by penalising foods for their content of added sugars rather than using total sugars in the product, as is currently the case.

The definition of “added sugars” used in Australia also needs attention, a topic that has been stressed in the World Health Organization’s guidelines. I will return to this later.

In Australia, the nutrition information panel on the label of packaged foods must include the total sugars present. This includes sugars that have been added (known as extrinsic sugars) as well as any sugars present naturally in ingredients such as milk, fruit or vegetables (intrinsic sugars).

There is no medical evidence to suggest that intrinsic sugars are a problem – at least not if they occur in “intact” ingredients. If you consume fruit, for example, the natural dietary fibre and the bulk of the fruit will limit the amount of the fruit’s intrinsic sugars you consume. However, if the sugar is extracted from the structure of the fruit, it becomes easy to consume much larger quantities. Few people could munch their way through five apples, but if you extract their juice, the drink would let you take in all the sugar and kilojoules of five apples in less than a minute.

The Australian Dietary Guidelines do not include advice to restrict fruit itself because there is high level evidence of its health value. The guidelines do, however, recommend that dried fruit and fruit juice be restricted – the equivalent of four dried apricot halves or 125 mL juice consumed only occasionally.

Contrary to the belief of some bloggers, Australia’s dietary guidelines have never suggested replacing fat with sugar. That was a tactic of some food companies who marketed many “low” or “reduced” fat foods where the fat was replaced with sugars or some kind of refined starch.

The wording of Australia’s guideline on sugar has changed. The initial advice to “avoid too much sugar” led to the sugar industry’s multimillion dollar campaign “Sugar, a natural part of life”. This included distributing “educational” material to the general public, politicians, doctors, dentists, pharmacists and other health professionals discussing the importance of a “balanced diet”.

In spite of fierce lobbying by the sugar industry, the next revision of the guidelines retained a sugar guideline, although it was watered down to “eat only moderate amounts of sugars”. Some school canteen operators reported that they had been confronted by sweet-talking sellers of junk foods omitting the word “only” from this guideline.

The evidence for sugar’s adverse effects on dental health have long been known, but the evidence against sugar and its potential role in obesity and, consequently, in type 2 diabetes and other health problems has grown stronger. The most recent revision of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Dietary Guidelines, therefore, emphasises the need to “limit” added sugars and lists the foods that need particular attention.

Sugary drinks have been specifically targeted because the evidence against them is strong and extends beyond epidemiological studies. Double-blind trials now clearly link sugary drinks with weight gain, the only exceptions being a few trials funded by the food industry.

Added sugar is not the only topic for public health concern, and hence the government’s Health Star Rating System was set up to introduce a simple front-of-pack labelling scheme to assist Australians reduce their intake of saturated fat, salt and sugars from packaged foods.

A specially commissioned independent report (Evaluation of scientific evidence relating to Front of Pack Labelling by Dr Jimmy Chun Yu Louie and Professor Linda Tapsell of the School of Health Sciences, University of Wollongong) found that added sugars were the real problem, but the food industry argued that the scheme should include total sugars because this was already a mandatory inclusion on food labels and routine chemical analysis couldn’t determine the source of sugars.

This was a strange argument since food manufacturers know exactly how much sugar they add to any product, just as they know how many “offset” points the Health Star Rating System allows for the inclusion of fruit, vegetable, nuts or legumes. The content of these ingredients is only disclosed on the food label if used in the product’s name.

The Health Star Rating System has been marred by anomalies. Milo powder (44% sugar) increased its basic 1.5 Stars to 4.5 by assuming it will be added to skim milk. About one in every seven products bearing health stars goes against the Department of Health’s own recommendations.

Those of us working in public health question why obvious junk foods get any stars at all.

How can caramel topping or various types of confectionery, such as strawberry flavoured liquorice, each get 2.5 stars? Why do some chocolates sport 3.5 stars, while worthy products such as Greek yoghurt without any added sugars get 1.5 and a breakfast cereal with 27% sugar gets four stars?

The fact that over a third of Australian’s energy intake comes from discretionary products (40% for children) is the elephant in the room for excess weight. We need to reduce consumption of these products and allotting them health stars is not helping.

It’s clearly time to follow our dietary guidelines and limit both discretionary products and added sugar. Of the nutrients used in the current algorithm for health stars, the George Institute’s analysis shows that counting added rather than total sugars has the greatest individual capacity to discriminate between core and discretionary foods.

However, in moving to mandate added sugars on food labels and using added sugars in health stars, it’s vital to define these sugars. The World Health Organization has done so: “Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates”.

Regular sugar in Australia could be described as cane juice concentrate. It has no nutrients other than its carbohydrate. Fruit juice concentrates are also just sugars with no nutrients other than carbohydrates. At present the Health Star Rating System allows products using apple or pear juice concentrate to be counted as “fruit” and used to offset the total sugars. This is nonsense, and gives rise to confectionery, toppings and some breakfast cereals scoring stars they do not deserve.

Other ways to boost health stars also need attention. Food technologists boast they can manipulate foods to gain extra stars (Health Star Rating Stakeholders workshop, Sydney, 4 August 2016). For example, adding wheat, milk, soy or other protein powder, concentrated fruit purees or a laboratory-based source of fibre such as inulin will all give extra “offset” points to reduce adverse points from saturated fat, sugar or salt. Indeed, some food technologists have even suggested they could revert to using the especially nasty trans (but technically unsaturated) fatty acid from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils to replace naturally occurring saturated fat.

My alternative is to go for fresh foods and minimise packaged foods. If the stars look too good to be true, check the ingredient list. But remember that Choice found sugar may go by more than 40 different names. Buyer beware!

NACCHO Aboriginal Dental Health @AUS_Dental : It’s #DentalHealthWeek #SugaryDrinksProperNoGood

” Apunipima is participating in a range of activities over the next fortnight to celebrate Dental Health Week (7-13 August)

Our staff will be talking about the link between sugary drinks and tooth decay, and promoting the messages

#SugaryDrinksProperNoGood and #DrinkMoreWaterYoufla,

part of Apunipima’s Healthy Communities social marketing campaign, which aims to reduce sugary drinks consumption among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Cape York.”

From Apunipima’s Healthy Communities Mob Part 2 below

 ” The National Oral Health Plan outlines guiding principles that will underpin Australia’s oral health system and provides national strategic direction including targeted strategies in six Foundation Areas and across four Priority Populations. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People being a priority population.”

Download plan here

 Watch our interview with Aboriginal dentist Gari Watson on NACCHO TV

Part 1 : National Oral Health Plan identifes Aboriginal People as Priority Population

A proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have good oral health. On average, however, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience poor oral health earlier in their lifespan and in greater severity and prevalence than the rest of the population. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are also less likely to receive treatment to prevent or address poor oral health, resulting in oral health care in the form of emergency treatment.

  • There is limited representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the oral health workforce and many dental services are not culturally sensitive. For example, strict appointment times and inflexibility regarding ‘failure to attend’ may result in a fee to the consumer.
  • Trends indicate that the high-level dental decay in deciduous (baby) teeth is rising
  • Aboriginal people aged 15 years and over, attending public dental services, experience tooth decay at three times the rate of their Non-Indigenous counterparts and are more than twice as likely to have advanced periodontal (gum) disease
  • Aboriginal people experience complete tooth loss at almost five times the rate of the non-Indigenous population
  • The rate of potentially preventable dental hospitalisations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is higher than other Australians. Accessibility of services is a key factor contributing to the current gap between the oral health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the rest of the population.
  • More than two in five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over the age of 15 defer or avoid dental care due to cost. This is compared with one in eight (12.2%) who delayed or did not go to a GP.

Improving the overall oral health of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will require more than a focus on oral health behaviours. Culture, individual and community social and emotional wellbeing, history, demography, social position, economic characteristics, biomedical factors, and the available health services within a person’s community all form part of the complex causal web which determines an individual’s oral health status.

“Reducing sugary drinks will not only protect their teeth but also their wider health.This is yet another justification for the introduction of a health levy on sugar-sweetened beverages as a preventive public health measure”

This Dental Health Week Michael Moore, CEO of the ( PHAA)  Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) and other members of the Rethink Sugary Drink Alliance are urging Australians to reduce their consumption of sugary drinks.

Read over 25 NACCHO dental articles

Read over 25 NACCHO Nutrition  Articles

Read over 10 NACCHO Articles Sugar Tax

Dental Health Week Website

Dept of Health Dental Website

Part 2  #SugaryDrinksProperNoGood – It’s Dental Health Week!

Apunipima staff will run activities with children and young people as well as hold health information stalls in Weipa, Napranum and Mapoon to promote the campaign messages in Dental Health Week

‘The team will run a workshop for Western Cape College secondary students alongside Dr Matt More, Head of Dental Services for Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service in Weipa,’ Apunipima Health Promotion Officer Kiarah Cuthbert said.

‘We will be talking to young people about the amount of sugar in popular drinks, such as soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks and the impact of that sugar on your teeth and overall health.’

‘From there, we will head to Mapoon to spend time at the primary school yarning with kids about the sugar in drinks. We will also invite the kids to take part in a local art competition with the winner’s work used to promote the #DrinkMoreWaterYoufla message in Mapoon.’

‘Apunipima staff will then hold a health information stall at Napranum store and run an after school activity at Napranum PCYC, where young people will also have the chance to take part in a local art competition to promote the #DrinkMoreWaterYoufla message.

These activities will be supported by Napranum Tackling Indigenous Smoking Health Worker, Ernest Madua who will also be yarning with people about what smoking can do to your teeth and mouth.’

Apunipima Child Health Nurse Robyn Lythall, Chronic Disease Health Worker Georgia Gibson and Dietitian Jarrah Marsh gave kids from Nola’s Daycare and George Bowen Memorial Kindergarten Apunipima ‘Drink More Water Youfla’ water bottles last week which will really save the staff lugging big containers of water!

The bottles are plastic, easily stored in the fridge and will have the children’s photos on them so the kids know which one is theirs!

Big esso (thank you) to the Apunipima teams that helped with this!

The few remaining water bottles are being kept for children receiving their four year old health checks and their immunisations to help them get healthy habits for school.

Staff are encouraging kids coming in for health checks and shots to fill their bottles from the watercooler at the Hopevale Primary Health Care Centre on their way out.

The Healthy Communities Project Team (Cara Laws, Tiffany Williams, Kiarah Cuthbert and Kani Thompson) would like to thank Hopevale staff for sharing the water bottles, which are merchandise from our Sugary Drinks Proper No Good – Drink More Water Youfla campaign.

Picture: Childcare worker Auntie Irene Bambie and Georgia Gibson

Acid, sugar in sugary drinks pose serious threat to teeth

Part 3 Australians urged to choose tap water this Dental Health Week

Many Australians know that sugary drinks are not a healthy dietary choice, but they may not realise the serious damage they cause to teeth.

In line with the theme of Dental Health Week (7–13 August 2017) – Oral Health for Busy Lives, the health and community organisations behind Rethink Sugary Drink are calling on Australians to think of their teeth before reaching for a sugary drink when out and about.

Chair of the Australian Dental Association’s Oral Health Committee, Professor David Manton, said sugary drinks contained sugar and acid that weakens tooth enamel and can lead to tooth decay.

“Dental decay is caused by sugars, especially the type found in sugary drinks. These drinks are often acidic as well. Sugary drinks increase the risk of decay and weaken the tooth enamel, so it’s best to avoid them,” Prof Manton said.

“The best advice is to stick to tap water. Carry a water bottle with you to avoid having to buy energy drinks, soft drinks, sports drinks and other sugary drinks when you’re on the go. You’ll be doing your bank balance a favour too.”

Chair of the Public Health Committee at Cancer Council Australia, Craig Sinclair, said knowing the oral health impacts associated with sugary drinks further highlighted the need for a health levy on these beverages in Australia.

“Australians, and our young people in particular, are drinking huge volumes of sports drinks, energy drinks, soft drinks and frozen drinks on a regular basis – some are downing as much as 1.5 litres a day,” Mr Sinclair said.

“While regular consumption is associated with increased energy intake, weight gain and obesity, it also heightens the risk of tooth decay.

“We know through economic modelling that a 20 per cent health levy on sugar-sweetened beverages could reduce consumption in Australia and prevent thousands of cases of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke over 25 years, while generating $400-$500m each year.

“This extra revenue could be used for public education campaigns and initiatives to prevent chronic disease, reduce dental caries and address childhood obesity.

“While a health levy is not the only solution for reducing sugary drink consumption, if coupled with a range of strategies it could have a significant impact on the amount Australians are drinking and minimise their impact.”

The Rethink Sugary Drink alliance recommends the following actions in addition to a health levy to tackle sugary drink consumption:

  • A public education campaign supported by Australian governments to highlight the health impacts of regular sugary drink consumption
  • Restrictions by Australian governments to reduce children’s exposure to marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages, including through schools and children’s sports, events and activities
  • Comprehensive mandatory restrictions by state governments on the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages (and increased availability of free water) in schools, government institutions, children’s sports and places frequented by children
  • Development of policies by state and local governments to reduce the availability of sugar-sweetened beverages in workplaces, government institutions, health care settings, sport and recreation facilities and other public places.

Protect your teeth from sugary drinks with these tips:

  • Follow the Australian dietary guidelines: Focus on drinking plenty of tap water (it has no acid, no sugar and no kilojoules), limiting sugary foods and drinks and choosing healthy snacks (e.g. fruits and vegetables).
  • Find out how much sugar is in your favourite drink using the nutrition information panel on your drink or on the Rethink Sugary Drink website – it might surprise you
  • Carry a water bottle and fill up at the tap, so you don’t have to buy a drink if you’re thirsty.
  • Be aware of sugar disguised as a ‘healthy’ ingredient such as honey or rice syrup. It might sound wholesome but these are still sugars and can still cause decay if consumed frequently.
  • If you do drink sugary drinks, use a straw so your teeth are less exposed to the sugar and acid.
  • Take a drink of water, preferably tap water that has been fluoridated, after a sugary or acidic drink to help rinse out your mouth and dilute the sugars.
  • Do not sip a sugary or acidic drink slowly or over a long duration. Doing so exposes your teeth to sugar and acid attacks for longer.

For more information, visit http://www.dentalhealthweek.com.au/

About Rethink Sugary Drink: Rethink Sugary Drink is a partnership between the Apunipima, Australian Dental Association, Australian Dental and Oral Health Therapists’ Association, Cancer Council Australia, Dental Health Services Victoria, Dental Hygienists Association of Australia, Diabetes Australia, Healthier Workplace WA, Heart Foundation, Kidney Health Australia, LiveLighter, The Mai Wiru Sugar Challenge Foundation, Nutrition Australia, Obesity Policy Coalition, Stroke Foundation, Parents’ Voice, the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO) and the YMCA to raise awareness of the amount of sugar in sugar-sweetened beverages and encourage Australians to reduce their consumption. Visit www.rethinksugarydrink.org.au for more information.

Part 4  : Sugary drinks erode more than tooth enamel poor oral health brings knock-on effects

This Dental Health Week the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) and other members of the Rethink Sugary Drink Alliance are urging Australians to reduce their consumption of sugary drinks. “Reducing sugary drinks will not only protect their teeth but also their wider health”, said Michael Moore, CEO of the PHAA. “This is yet another justification for the introduction of a health levy on sugar-sweetened beverages as a preventive public health measure”, he added.

Australia is in the top ten of countries with the highest level of soft drink consumption. Around a third of Australians regularly consume sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) such as soft drinks, flavoured waters and energy drinks. These drinks are widely recognised by dental experts as a major contributor to tooth decay and erosion.

Mr Moore said, “It’s well known that sugary drinks are linked to dental health problems which can lead to significant amounts of discomfort and disability in themselves. However poor oral health is also associated with major chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and respiratory disease. Additionally, there are often compounding health effects between these types of comorbidities. Sugary drinks also strongly contribute to weight gain and obesity, so they negatively impact on health in multiple ways”.

Mr Moore continued, “At the individual-health level, it’s very important people avoid consuming these drinks on a regular basis, while at the population-health level it’s time we introduce a health levy on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce the harms they cause.”

“Research shows that a health levy on these drinks will effectively reduce their consumption, especially if implemented as part of a wider approach to address poor nutrition and diet-related disease. What is needed is a national nutrition policy, restrictions on the marketing of sugary drinks toward children, limiting their availability in schools and at events attended by children and young people and public education campaigns about the adverse health impacts of SSBs. These could easily be funded by the revenue generated by the levy”.

The theme of 2017 Dental Health Week is ‘Anywhere Anytime – Oral Health for Busy Lives’, which recognises that many Australians feel they don’t have time to properly care for their oral health due to their busy schedules. However, avoiding sugary foods and beverages which damage teeth is a simple preventive measure people can take and can be encouraged by governments.

“Along with maintaining proper oral health care, one of the easiest things people can do to protect their teeth and in turn their broader health, is to avoid sugar-laden drinks and to favour drinking tap water,” Mr Moore concluded.

 

NACCHO Research Alert : @NRHAlliance Aboriginal health risk factors #rural and #remote populations

 ” Health risk factors like smoking, excessive drinking, illicit drug use, lack of physical activity, inadequate fruit and vegetable intake and overweight have powerful influences on health, and there are frequently clear inter-regional differences between the prevalence of these.

While it can be argued that there is some degree of personal choice involved in whether individuals have a poor health risk profile, there is clear evidence that external factors such as environment, opportunity, and community culture each have very strong influences.

For example, access to affordable healthy food can often be poor in smaller communities and this, coupled with lower incomes in these areas, adversely affects the quality of peoples’ diets, the prevalence of overweight, and consequently the prevalence of chronic disease.”

From the National Rural Health Alliance Research View HERE

National data pertaining to personal health risk factors typically comes from the ABS National Health Survey and the AIHW National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS). Some State and Territory Health Departments run their own health surveys (which cannot be aggregated nationally with each other or with the ABS survey because of the different methodologies and definitions used (think different State rail gauges). Consequently data describing aspects of health in regional and especially remote areas can be thin (ie with imprecise estimates in some or all areas).

Example 1

Table 14: Fruit and vegetable consumption, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 15+ years, 2012-13

Roughly 60% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians 15+ in Major cities and regional/rural areas have inadequate fruit intake, closer to 50% in remote areas (compared with around 50% of all Australians 18+ in major cities and regional/rural areas).

Roughly 95% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians 15+ in Major cities and regional/rural areas have inadequate vegetable intake, perhaps higher (98%) in Very remote areas (compared with around 90%-94% of all Australians 18+ in major cities and regional/rural areas).

Example 2

NACCHO provided graphic

Table 16 Below : Overweight and Obesity, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 15+ years, 2012-13

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in rural/regional and Remote areas (29%-33%) were a little more likely to be overweight than those in Major cities (28%), with those in Very Remote areas (26%) least likely to be overweight.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Inner regional areas (41%) were more likely to be obese than those in Major cities (38%), but those in Outer regional (36%) and remote areas (~33%) were less likely to be obese.

Overall, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Inner Regional areas were most likely to be overweight/obese (70%), those in Major cities, Outer Regional and Remote areas were less likely to be overweight/obese (~66%), while those in Very Remote areas were the least likely to be overweight/obese (59% )

At the time of writing, the most recent National Health Survey was conducted in 2014-15[1], while the most recent AIHW NDSHS[2] was conducted in 2016, with most recently available results from the 2013 NDSHS. The most recent ABS Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey[3] was conducted in 2012-13.

Some organisations (eg the Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU)) have calculated modelled estimates for small areas (eg SLA’s and PHN’s), where the prevalence of some risk factors has been predicted based on the age, sex and socioeconomic profile of the population living there.

Some sites (eg ABS) present risk factor data as crude rates, other sites (eg PHIDU) present risk factor data as age-standardised rates.  The advantage of the age-standardised rates is that the effect of age is largely removed from inter-population comparisons.

For example, older populations (eg those in rural/regional areas) would be expected to have higher average blood pressure than younger (eg Major cities) populations even though the underlying age-specific rates happened to be identical in both populations (because older people tend to have higher blood pressure than younger people).

While crude rates for the older population will be higher, the age-standardised rates in such a comparison would be the same – indicating a higher rate that is entirely explainable by the older age of one of the populations.

Both crude and age standardised rates are useful in understanding the health of rural and remote populations.

 


[1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4364.0.55.001

[3] http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4727.0.55.0012012-13?OpenDocumentSmoking

Table 1: Smoking status, by remoteness, 2013 and 2014-15

MC

IR

OR/Remote

Percentage

Current daily smoker (18+) (crude) 2014-15 (a)

13.0

16.7

20.9

Current smoker (18+) (Age standardised) 2014-15 (b) (includes daily, weekly, social etc smoking)

14.6

19.0

22.4

MC

IR

OR

Remote+ Very Remote

Current smoker (daily, weekly, or fortnightly) 14+ (crude) 2013 (c)

14.2

17.6

22.6

24.6

Current smoker (daily, weekly, or fortnightly) 14+ (Age standardised) 2013 (d)

14.2

18.6

23.6

24.4

Mean number of cigarettes smoked per week, smokers aged 14 years or older 2013 (e)

85.9

113.1

109.4

126.2

Sources:

Compared with Major cities (13%), the prevalence of daily smoking by people 18 years and older in Inner regional (17%) and Outer regional/Remote areas (21%) is higher.

The NDSH survey reflects these trends albeit with a slightly different age group (14+) and a different definition of smoking (daily plus less frequently), but the NDSH survey adds detail for remote areas where smoking rates are higher again (around 25% versus around 23% in Outer regional).

In addition, the average number of cigarettes smoked by each smoker is higher in regional/rural areas (~110/week) than in Major cities (86/week), and higher again (126/week) in remote areas.

 

Smoking – exposure, uptake, establishment, quitting

Table 2: Smoking characteristics by Remoteness, 2013, 2014 and 2014-15

MC

IR

OR

remote

8.8

17.8

19.3

27.8

Proportion of pregnant women who gave birth and smoked at any time during the pregnancy (2013, crude, National Perinatal Data Collection, exposure tables, Table 5.1.2 )

8.5

17.0

18.9

27.5

Proportion of pregnant women who gave birth and smoked in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy (2013, crude, National Perinatal Data Collection) exposure tables, Table 5.2.2)

3.6

3.1

4.1

*9.4

Proportion of dependent children (aged 0–14) who live in a household with a daily smoker who smokes inside the home (2013, crude, NDSHS exposure tables, Table 6.3)

2.5

2.0

2.7

*2.9

Proportion of adults aged 18 or older who live in a household with a daily smoker who smokes inside the home (2013, crude, NDSHS, exposure tables, Table 7.3)

16.2

15.4

14.7

15.5

Average age at which people aged 14–24 first smoked a full cigarette (2013, crude, NDSHS, uptake tables, Table 9.3)

17.8

22.7

17.8

28.3

Proportion of 12–17 year old secondary school students smoking at least a few puffs of a cigarette (2014, crude, Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey 2014, uptake tables, Table 10.3

54.7

61.1

64.9

67.2

Proportion of persons (aged 18 or older) who have smoked a full cigarette (2013, crude,  NDSHS, uptake tables, Table 10.8)

2.5

3.4

2.5

3.7

Proportion of secondary school students (aged 12–17) who have smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime (2014, crude, Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey 2014, transition tables, Table 2.3)

20.2

25.9

44.1

45.2

Proportion of young people (aged 18–24) who have smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime (2013, crude, NDSHS, transition tables, Table 2.6)

21.3

16.8

19.0

15.5

Quitting: Proportion successfully gave up for more than a month (2013, crude, NDSHS, cessation tables, Table 4.3)

29.2

34.2

31.7

32.9

Quitting, Proportion unsuccessful (2013, crude, NDSHS, cessation tables, Table 4.3)

46.3

48.0

47.4

45.2

Quitting: Proportion any attempt (2013, crude, NDSHS, cessation tables, Table 4.3)

35.2

36.3

36.1

36.0

Mean age at which ex-smokers aged 18 or older reported no longer smoking (2013, crude, NDSHS, cessation tables, Table 11.2)

53.1

51.5

46.3

45.0

The proportion of ever smokers aged 18 or older who did not smoke in the last 12 months (2013, crude, NDSHS, cessation tables, Table 12.3)

4.9

6.0

4.8

7.0

Proportion of secondary school students (aged 12–17) who were weekly smokers (2014, crude, Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey 2014, established tables, Table 1.3)

6.9

9.3

6.8

10.4

Proportion of secondary school students (aged 12–17) who were monthly smokers (2014, crude, Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey 2014, established tables, Table 13.3)

13.0

16.7

21.2

18.8

Proportion of adults aged 18 or older who are daily smokers (2014-15, crude, ABS NHS, established tables, Table 3.3)

10.9

7.8

2.9

n.p.

Proportion of smokers aged 18 or older who are occasional smokers (smoke weekly or less than weekly) (2014-15, crude, ABS NHS, established tables, Table 14.3)

40.1

44.7

42.3

52.7

Proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 18 or older who are daily smokers (2012-13, crude, ABS Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey 2012–13, established tables, Table 8i.3)

Source: http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data/ (sighted 11/7/17)
Note: Those estimates above with asterix have large standard errors and should be treated carefully.

Women in rural and remote areas were much more likely to smoke during pregnancy, with 28% of women in remote areas smoking during pregnancy, compared with 18-19% in regional/rural areas, and 9% in Major cities.

It is unclear whether exposure to environmental tobacco smoke varies by remoteness.

Young people outside major cities appeared to have their first cigarette at an earlier age (~15 years as opposed to ~16 years in Major cities.

Secondary school students in Inner regional (~23%) and remote (~28%) areas were more likely to have had at least a few puffs of a cigarette than those in major cities (~18%).

While 20% of young people in Major cities had smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime, 26%, 44% and 45% of young people in Inner regional, Outer regional and remote areas had done so.

People outside Major cities were as likely or slightly more likely to have attempted to quit smoking, but were less likely to be successful (and more likely to be unsuccessful).

A higher proportion of secondary students outside Major cities were weekly or monthly smokers (6%, 5% and 7% in IR, OR and remote areas versus 5% in Major cities weekly, 9%, 7%, and 10% in IR, OR and remote areas versus 7% in Major cities monthly).

Table 3: Current daily smoker, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 15+ years, by Remoteness, 2012-13

MC

IR

OR

R

VR

Crude Percent

Current daily smoker

36.2

40.9

39.8

47.4

51.1

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4727.0.55.0012012-13?OpenDocument Table 2 (sighted 12/7/17)

Prevalence of smoking amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 15 years and older is around 35%-40% in Major cities and regional/rural areas, and close to 50% in remote areas. Note that while the pattern is similar in Table 2 and Table 3 above, the figures for 18+ and 15+ year olds are slightly different.

Smoking Trends

Table 4: Comparison of declines in smoking rate estimates across remoteness areas, people 18+, based on ABS NHS surveys, 2001 to 2011-12

Survey year

MC

IR

OR/Rem

Australia

Crude percent daily smokers

2001

21.9

21.9

26.5

22.4

2004-05

19.9

23.0

26.2

21.3

2007-08

17.5

20.1

26.1

18.9

2011-12

14.7

18.3

22.2

16.1

2014-15

13.0

16.7

20.9

14.5

Source: ABS National Health Surveys

From Table 4 above, rates of smoking have clearly declined in Major cities areas, but have been slower to decline in Inner regional and Outer regional/Remote areas. Rates of smoking in rural areas, apparently static last decade, now appear to be declining. Rates in Major cities and Inner regional areas have declined to 0.59 and 0.76 times the 2001 rates in these areas. The 2014-15 rate in Outer regional areas is 0.79 times the 2001 rate.

Figure 1: Daily smokers 18 years and older, 2007-08, 2011-12 and 2014-15, NHS

Figure 1: Daily smokers 18 years and older, 2007-08, 2011-12 and 2014-15, NHS

Source: ABS NHS http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data/ established tables, Table 3.3 (sighted 11/7/17)

Figure 2: Smokers 14 years and older, 2007, 2010 and 2013, NDSHS

Figure 2: Smokers 14 years and older, 2007, 2010 and 2013, NDSHS

Source: AIHW NDSHS http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data/ tobacco smoking table S3.12 (sighted 11/7/17)

Note: Smokers include daily, weekly and less frequent smokers.

Figures 1 and 2 above both show clear declines in Major cities and Inner regional areas, but the trend in Outer regional and Remote areas is less clear, with ABS data showing a decline in daily smoking rates for people aged 18+ between 2007-8 and 2014-15, but NDSHS data showing little change in smoking rates for people 14+ between 2007 and 2013.

Alcohol

Table 5: Alcohol risk status, by remoteness, 2013 and 2014-15

Alcohol consumption

MC

IR

OR/Rem

Exceeded 2009 NHMRC lifetime risk guidelines, people 18+, crude %, 2014-15 (a)

16.3

18.4

23.4

Exceeded 2009 NHMRC lifetime risk guidelines, people 15+, age standardised %, 2014-15 (b)

15.7

17.4

22.0

Exceeded 2009 NHMRC single occasion risk guidelines, people 18+, crude %, 2014-15 (a)

42.7

48.5

46

MC

IR

OR

R/VR

Abstainer/ex-drinker, crude %, 14+, 2013 (c)

23.1

18.9

20.5

17.5

Low lifetime risk, crude %, 14+, 2013 (c)

60.2

62

56.9

47.6

High lifetime risk, crude %, 14+, 2013 (c)

16.7

19.1

22.6

34.9

low single occasion risk, crude %, 14+, 2013 (c)

40.4

41.8

38.1

30.8

Single occasion risk less than weekly, crude %, 14+, 2013 (c)

23.5

24.4

23.6

22.8

Single occasion risk at least weekly, crude %, 14+, 2013 (c)

13

14.9

17.8

28.9

Sources:

Table 6: Alcohol consumption against 2009 NHMRC guidelines, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 15+ years, by Remoteness 2012-13

MC

IR

OR

R

VR

Percent

Exceeded lifetime risk guidelines

18.0

18.7

18.2

22.5

14.3

Exceeded single occasion risk guidelines

56.7

57.4

50.7

59.0

41.4

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4727.0.55.0012012-13?OpenDocument Table 2 (sighted 12/7/17)

The figures in Table 6 are not strictly comparable with those for the total population in Table 5, because  Table 6 refers to people who are 15 years and older, while Table 5 refers to people who are 18 years and older.

The percentage of the 15+ ATSI population exceeding 2009 NHMRC Lifetime risk guidelines is around 15-20% with little apparent inter-regional variation, compared with, for the total population 18+,  16% in Major cities, increasing to 23% in Outer regional/remote areas.

The percentage of the 15+ ATSI population exceeding the 2009 single occasion risk guidelines is around 50-60%, and around 40% in Very remote areas, compared with, for the total population 18+,  40-50% in Major cities, rural and regional areas.

Alcohol trends

Table 7: Type of alcohol use and treatment for alcohol, by remoteness area (per 1,000 population)

MC

IR

OR

R/VR

single occasion risk (monthly) 2004

287

304

321

370

2007

285

292

312

437

2010

274

312

329

413

2013

250

273

315

422

lifetime risk 2004

200

215

234

262

2007

199

210

238

314

2010

189

225

251

310

2013

167

191

226

349

very high risk – yearly 2004

167

185

206

243

2007

172

183

206

288

2010

161

183

218

266

2013

151

166

194

258

very high risk – monthly 2004

77

84

104

130

2007

78

89

100

153

2010

79

94

113

154

2013

70

70

100

170

very high risk – weekly 2004

21

27

41

38

2007

24

28

24

50

2010

37

43

54

78

2013

27

28

38

70

Closed treatment episodes 2004–05

61

72

60

58

2007–08

76

84

80

129

2010–11

69

96

87

135

2013–14

68

79

93

155

Source: NDSHS,  http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data/  alcohol -supplementary data tables, Table S18

Notes:
Single occasion risk (monthly): Had more than 4 standard drinks at least once a month
Lifetime risk: On average, had more than 2 standard drinks per day
Very high risk (yearly): Had more than 10 standard drinks at least once a year
Very high risk (monthly): Had more than 10 standard drinks at least once a month
Very high risk (weekly): Had more than 10 standard drinks at least once a week

There is a clear increase in the prevalence of people who drink alcohol in such a way as to increase their single occasion risk (eg from car accident, assault, fall, etc) and their lifetime risk (eg from chronic disease – liver disease, dementia, cancer etc) as remoteness increases.

In 2013, single occasion risk ranged from 25% of people 14 years or older in major cities to 42% of people in remote areas, while lifetime risk increased from 17% in major cities to 35% in remote areas.

In 2013, The prevalence of people who drank more than 10 standard drinks in one sitting at least once per week, increased from just under 3% in Major cities to 7% in remote areas.

In 2013-14, there were just under 70 closed treatment episodes per 1,000 people living in Major cities, increasing to around 80 and 90 per 1,000 population in Inner and Outer regional areas, to 155 per 1,000 people living in remote Australia.

 

Illicit drug use 2013

Table 8: Illicit drug use, “recent users” 14+, 2013

MC IR OR remote

Crude percent

Cannabis

9.8

10.0

12.0

13.6

Ecstasy

2.9

1.5

1.6

*1.8

Meth/amphetamine

2.1

1.6

2.0

*4.4

Cocaine

2.6

0.8

*1.1

*2.5

Any illicit drug

14.9

14.1

16.7

18.7

Source: AIHW National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 2013. http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data/  Illicit drug use (supplementary) tables S5.6, S5.11, S5.17, S5.21, S5.26.

Note: * indicates large standard error (therefore some degree of uncertainty)

Illicit drug use appears to be higher in Outer regional and remote areas compared with Major cities and Inner regional areas, in large part due to higher rates of cannabis use in these areas, but with apparent lower use of ecstasy and cocaine in regional areas compared with Major cities.

 

Physical activity

Table 9: Physical inactivity, people 18+, 2014-15

MC

IR

OR/Remote

Percentage of people aged 18+ who undertook no or low exercise in the previous week (crude) (a)

64.3

70.1

72.4

Percentage of people aged 18+ who undertook no or low exercise in the previous week (age standardised) (b)

64.8

68.6

71

Sources:
(a) ABS NHS (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4364.0.55.0012014-15?OpenDocument Table 6.3)
(b) PHIDU (ABS NHS data) (http://phidu.torrens.edu.au/social-health-atlases/data#social-health-atlas-of-australia-remoteness-areas) sighted 18/7/2017

Note that level of exercise is based on exercise undertaken for fitness, sport or recreation in the last week.

Physical inactivity appears to be more prevalent with remoteness, increasing from 65% of people in Major cities to 71% in Outer regional/remote areas.

Table 10: Average daily steps, 2011-12

MC

IR

OR/Rem

Average daily steps, 18+ years, 2011-12 (a)

7,393

7,388

7,527

Average daily steps, 5-17years, 2011-12 (b)

9,097

9,266

9,160

Sources:

In 2011-12, adults living in Outer regional/Remote areas took slightly more steps than those living in Major cities or Inner regional areas, while the number of steps taken by children and adolescents in regional/Remote areas was slightly greater compared with those in Major cities.

Table 11: Average time spent on physical activity and sedentary behaviour by persons aged 18+, 2011-12

MC

IR

OR/Remote

Australia

Hours

Physical activity(a)

3.9

3.4

3.9

3.8

Sedentary behaviour (leisure only)(b)

29.3

28.0

27.9

28.9

Sedentary behaviour (leisure and work)(b)

40.2

35.2

36.0

38.8

Notes:
(a) Includes walking for transport/fitness, moderate and vigorous physical activity.
(b) Sedentary is defined as sitting or lying down for activities.

Source: ABS 2011-12 Australian Health Survey (Physical activity) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4364.0.55.0042011-12?OpenDocument  Table 5.1

Adults living in Inner regional and Outer regional/Remote areas were about as likely as (or very slightly less likely than) those in Major cities to be sedentary in their leisure time, but appeared to be slightly less likely to be sedentary overall (ie their work involved a greater level of physical activity).

Table 12: Whether children aged 2-17 years met physical and screen-based activity recommendations, 2011-12

MC

IR

OR/Rem

Crude percentage

Met physical activity recommendation on all 7 days(a)(b)

27.5

34.3

34.2

Met screen-based activity recommendation on all 7 days(b)(c)

28.0

29.7

31.0

Met physical activity and screen-based recommendations on all 7 days (a)(b)(c)

9.7

10.9

14.2

Notes:
(a) The physical activity recommendation for children 2–4 years is 180 minutes or more per day, for children 5-17 years it is 60 minutes or more per day. See Physical activity recommendation in Glossary.
(b) In 7 days prior to interview.
(c) The screen-based recommendation for children 2–4 years is no more than 60 minutes per day, for children 5-17 years it is no more than 2 hours per day for entertainment purposes.

Source:
ABS 2011-12 Australian Health Survey (Physical activity) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4364.0.55.0042011-12?OpenDocument  Table 14.3

Children in rural and regional Australia appeared more likely (34% vs 28%) to meet physical activity recommendations and slightly more likely (30%vs 28%) to meet screen-based activity recommendations than their Major cities counterparts.

 

Fruit and vegetable consumption

Table 13: Fruit and vegetable consumption, people 18+ years, by remoteness, 2014-15

MC

IR

OR/Remote

Crude Percentage

Inadequate fruit consumption(a)

50.0

50.6

51.2

Inadequate fruit consumption(b)

50.4

48.3

48.0

Inadequate vegetable consumption(a)

93.4

93.5

89.3

Inadequate vegetable consumption(b)

n.p.

n.p.

n.p.

Sources:
(a) ABS NHS (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4364.0.55.0012014-15?OpenDocument Table 6.3)
(b) PHIDU (ABS NHS data) (http://phidu.torrens.edu.au/social-health-atlases/data#social-health-atlas-of-australia-remoteness-areas) sighted 18/7/2017

Note that adequacy of consumption is based on comparison with 2013 NHMRC guidelines.

Half of adult Australians eat insufficient fruit, with little clear difference between major cities and regional/rural areas.

Around 90% of adult Australians ate insufficient vegetables, with little clear difference between major cities and regional/rural areas.

Table 14: Fruit and vegetable consumption, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 15+ years, 2012-13

MC

IR

OR

R

VR

Crude Percent

Inadequate daily fruit consumption (2013 NHMRC Guidelines)

59.0

60.6

56.9

54.9

49.1

Inadequate daily fruit consumption (2003 NHMRC Guidelines)

62.1

63.6

59.8

58.3

51.6

Inadequate daily vegetables consumption (2013 NHMRC Guidelines)

95.9

93.5

93.6

94.5

97.9

Inadequate daily vegetables consumption (2003 NHMRC Guidelines)

93.8

90.6

90.5

91.2

96.1

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4727.0.55.0012012-13?OpenDocument Table 2 (sighted 12/7/17)

Roughly 60% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians 15+ in Major cities and regional/rural areas have inadequate fruit intake, closer to 50% in remote areas (compared with around 50% of all Australians 18+ in major cities and regional/rural areas).

Roughly 95% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians 15+ in Major cities and regional/rural areas have inadequate vegetable intake, perhaps higher (98%) in Very remote areas (compared with around 90%-94% of all Australians 18+ in major cities and regional/rural areas).

 

 

Overweight and Obesity

Table 15: Overweight and Obesity, people 18+ years, by remoteness, 2014-15

MC

IR

OR/Remote

Crude Percentage

Persons, overweight/obese (a)

61.1

69.2

69.2

Age standardised percentage

Males overweight (b)

43.8

41.1

34.3

Males obese (b)

25.8

33.1

38.2

Females overweight (b)

28.9

28.3

30.1

Females obese (b)

25.0

32.4

33.7

People  overweight (b)

36.2

34.4

31.4

People obese (b)

25.4

32.6

35.8

Sources:
(a) ABS NHS (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4364.0.55.0012014-15?OpenDocument Table 6.3)
(b) ABS NHS http://phidu.torrens.edu.au/social-health-atlases/data#social-health-atlas-of-australia-remoteness-areas

Adults in rural/regional areas are more likely to be overweight or obese than people in Major cities (69% vs 61%).

However, there were inter-regional BMI and gender differences:

  • Compared with those in Major cities, males in Inner regional and especially Outer-regional areas were less likely to be overweight (41% and 34%, vs 44%) but much more likely to be obese (33% and 38% vs 26%).
  • Compared with those in Major cities, females in Inner regional and Outer-regional areas were about as likely to be overweight (~29%) but much more likely to be obese (~33% vs 25%).

 

Table 16: Overweight and Obesity, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 15+ years, 2012-13

MC

IR

OR

R

VR

Crude Percent

Overweight

27.5

28.8

30.1

32.5

26.4

Obese

37.9

41.3

36.2

33.1

32.3

Overweight/obese

65.4

70.1

66.2

65.6

58.8

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in rural/regional and Remote areas (29%-33%) were a little more likely to be overweight than those in Major cities (28%), with those in Very Remote areas (26%) least likely to be overweight.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Inner regional areas (41%) were more likely to be obese than those in Major cities (38%), but those in Outer regional (36%) and remote areas (~33%) were less likely to be obese.

Overall, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Inner Regional areas were most likely to be overweight/obese (70%), those in Major cities, Outer Regional and Remote areas were less likely to be overweight/obese (~66%), while those in Very Remote areas were the least likely to be overweight/obese (59%).

These figures compare with 61% – the prevalence of overweight/obesity for (predominantly non-Indigenous) people living in Major cities.

 

High blood pressure

Table 17: High blood pressure, people 18+, by Remoteness, 2014-15

MC

IR

OR/Remote

Percentage

Crude % (a)

21.9

27.1

24

Age standardised % (b)

22.7

24.6

22.1

Sources:

(a) ABS NHS (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4364.0.55.0012014-15?OpenDocument Table 6.3)
(b) ABS NHS http://phidu.torrens.edu.au/social-health-atlases/data#social-health-atlas-of-australia-remoteness-areas

Age for age, people in rural/regional Australia appeared to be as likely, or very slightly more likely to have high blood pressure than their counterparts in Major cities (~23% vs ~24%). However, because people in rural/regional areas are older (on average), the prevalence of people with high blood pressure is higher (~26% vs 22%) than

Updated 31/07/2017
To view archived Risk Factors click here

Aboriginal Health Please support the @MaiWiruSCF #Sugar Challenge Palyaringkunytjaku – Towards Wellbeing

“ The rates of obesity and insulin resistance syndrome in our communities are now so high that the majority of the adult population over 35 will be affected.

This provides a situation in which we are not aiming to target a subset or at risk group of the population with a nutrition strategy but our whole population is both at risk and suffering disease.”

Professor Paul Torzillo, Medical Director of Nganampa Health Council said in Fighting for “Good Food” (Mai Wiru), submitted by Lorenzo Piemonte, International Diabetes Foundation (2015)

 ” Congratulations, Mai Wiru. They are excited to be taking 10 influential Anangu senior women on a nutrition education retreat so they can experience first hand how a healthy diet feels, and can consequently extend lives in the APY Lands – to do this though, they need your help

Friends,please share this and support it. I met so many wonderful people when I spent two day in the APY Lands last week – they deserve our help.”

Indigenous Health Minister Ken Wyatt

Amata was an alcohol-free community, but some years earlier its population of just under 400 people had been consuming 40,000 litres of soft drink annually.

The thing that I say in community meetings all the time is that, the reason we’re doing this is so that the young children now do not end up going down the same track of diabetes, kidney failure, dialysis machines and early death, which is the track that many, many people out here are on now,”

Mai Wiru, meaning good health, and managed by long-time community consultant John Tregenza.

See Previous NACCHO Post Aboriginal Health and Sugar TV Doco: APY community and the Mai Wiru Sugar Challenge Foundation

Palyaringkunytjaku – Towards Wellbeing is the brain child of Inawantji (Ina) Scales, a young Pitjantjatjara woman from the APY Lands.

Ina has seen too many family and friends, too many Anangu (people from the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands) die from diet related illnesses.

Watch video

Ina wants to give Anangu the same opportunity Hope For Health has given Yolngu in the top end

See fundraising website

In 2016 Ina met with Damon Gameau, the founding director of the Mai Wiru Sugar Challenge Foundation.

She told him of her sadness from watching so many people become ill and pass away, she also told of her personal experience from visiting Living Valley Springs and the happiness she felt at now understanding the solutions.

Ina asked Damon for his help, and the Foundation’s help, to share her experiences with other people on the APY Lands.

Here we are today, raising funds to send 10 senior and influential women to an intensive health and nutrition retreat where they will learn and be able to personally experience firsthand, the benefits of healthy eating and living.

By providing a culturally appropriate setting with language interpretation, we will free participants to focus, distraction free, on learning the extensive information that will be provided.

These strong community leaders will then be able to return to community to share their experiences and become healthy living champions.

This is a 2 week trip with an interpreter and staff member to support the women through their learning and experiences, and further to be able to support the women on their return to community.

This will also ensure longer lasting results and help participants maximise their learnings and minimise any stumbling blocks they come across.

Our aim is to have an intensive and immediate impact for these women, enabling them to experience the benefits of healthy eating and living, and to expand their understanding of the impacts of foods on their bodies, to understand the how and why foods have such influence over us.

In their roles in community they can then spread the word about their positive experience and help others make healthier choices.

The participants are being selected based on their location and their capacity to influence on their return.

As a result, these women will become healthy living champions, sharing their knowledge and experience in their regions.

We can’t do it without you.

Help Ina make a good impact on the health of her people, of the Anangu nation.

  • The rate of kidney failure in Aboriginal communities is 15 x the rest of Australia; Type 2 diabetes is 3 x the national average.
  • For too long now high Aboriginal death rates have been attributed to alcohol consumption. The communities and region of the APY lands have now been alcohol free for 40 years yet average life span on the lands is just 55; 20 years lower than the rest of Australia. This is because of poor diet.
  • Professor Paul Torzillo, Medical Director of Nganampa Health Council said in Fighting for “Good Food” (Mai Wiru), submitted by Lorenzo Piemonte, International Diabetes Foundation (2015) “The rates of obesity and insulin resistance syndrome in our communities are now so high that the majority of the adult population over 35 will be affected. This provides a situation in which we are not aiming to target a subset or at risk group of the population with a nutrition strategy but our whole population is both at risk and suffering disease.”
  • Dr Amanda Lee et al in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Nutrition in remote Aboriginal communities: Lessons from Mai Wiru and the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands, (2015), state that more than 75% of Indigenous deaths result from potentially avoidable causes. This includes type 2 diabetes, a preventable, non-communicable chronic disease. About 70% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults, and 38% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were considered overweight or obese in 2015, with an additional 8% of children who are underweight, another major contributor to the avoidable deaths.
  • Communities on the APY Lands have a long history of being proactive, for example, communities took back management of their stores to ensure food security (the availability and affordability of healthy food and essential items on a daily basis through their local store).
  • There are programs in place that address nutrition and health, but the scale of the problem necessitates a spot fire approach and they are struggling to extend and achieve the progressive results needed to combat chronic health and nutrition issues in the Aboriginal population.
  • The success of service delivery in remote communities depends on the level of community involvement and buy-in. By providing an intensive experience with ongoing support community members will be empowered to create and manage change in their communities.

To make this program fly we need your wonderful support to get there!

We know you’re all very busy people and this is why we appreciate your help more than you can know! Here is a list of 10 things that you could do to help us make Ina’s dream of Palyaringkunytjaku – Towards Wellbeing a reality.

  1. Share our emails – when you receive our emails – share them with your friends and networks.
  2. Share our Social Media posts – Follow us on Facebook and invite your friends to do the same.
  3. Talk to your friends, family, colleagues – tell them what we are doing and how they can support us.
  4. Give us a call. We are looking for more support and are ready to answer calls. We can talk in more detail about the project and who knows where a conversation may lead. Email info@maiwirufoundation.org
  5. Hold a fundraising event. Be creative – a donation box at your work for a month, hold a concert, a dinner party with tickets, a raffle, a physical challenge among your friends, a percentage of your office mates salaries for a month. Design your own style of fundraising.
  6. Create your own campaign under this ‘Palyaringkunytjaku’ umbrella – simply click the button at the bottom of the screen that says ‘Fundraisers – Create Your Own’. You can select one of the impact levels and let your friends and family know what the funds raise will enable. You might like to do ‘6 Spoons in June (and July)’ for the length of this campaign and ask for sponsorship, as an incentive
  7. Keep a close eye on our campaign-we need to hit the target, so if we get close and time is short consider donating again to get us over the top
  8. Have you got something special to give? Relevant health products or services? Donate towards our perks or retreat or help with distributing perks to donors.
  9. Send a message through your networks. Do you have a voice in your community? Do you have a big social media following? Perhaps a lot of professional networks? One or two emails during the campaign from you could result in thousands of dollars towards our very important work. We have email templates for you to use and technical support available if you require. Email: info@maiwirufoundation.org
  10. Did we mention sharing our social media, emails and talking to people you know about what we are doing? When people hear and understand your passion, they can be inspired to jump on board.

All donations are tax deductible.

What happens if we get more or less than $63,500?

By hitting $63,500 we can make Ina’s dream a reality and take 10 participants from the APY Lands on this program, means Palyaringkunytjaku can go ahead as Ina hoped.

There are always many people from the APY Lands who would benefit from this experience,, therefore the amount we raise will directly impact on the number of people Ina and the Mai Wiru Foundation are able to support.

The Mai Wiru Sugar Challenge Foundation is an indigenous community-led initiative, implementing nutrition programs in central Australia’s remote APY Lands. After two years of consultation, and multiple visits from nutritionists to indigenous communities, the team are working on three key projects: opening healthy living cafes, funding permanent nutritionists on the ground, and intensive nutrition workshops.

Melbourne filmmaker Damon Gameau embarked on a unique experiment to document the effects of a high sugar diet on a healthy body, consuming only foods that are commonly perceived, or promoted to be ‘healthy’. Damon’s now acclaimed documentary The Sugar Film raises awareness of the hazards of any diet containing too much sugar. In making the film Damon included a segment about an innovative health program initiated by Indigenous communities in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara(APY) Lands, where stores were stocking healthy foods and nutritionists were advising customers on the best food choices. Damon determined to give back to the APY communities who featured in That Sugar Film by supporting them in their mission to take control of their own nutrition and improve the health status of Aboriginal families on the APY Lands.

Damon founded the Mai Wiru (Good Food) Sugar Challenge Foundation, a not-for-profit enterprise working with APY communities in an indigenous-led initiative to improve their health.

The health challenges of Aboriginal people are well documented, with current research identifying a 10 year gap between the life expectancy of indigenous and non-indigenous males and indigenous and non-indigenous females. The report published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare : Indigenous Health (2014) found that ‘The largest gap in death rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians was in circulatory disease deaths (22% of the gap) followed by endocrine, metabolic and nutritional disorders (particularly diabetes) (14% of the gap)’.

You can start your own campaign to raise money for Palyaringkunytjaku – with a goal for one of the impact levels below:

  • For the flights – 1 participant (12 in total) = $767
  • For the 2 week health workshop – per participant (10 participants) = $5,990
  • Meals during transit per person – 4 days (12 people) = $300
  • Vehicle expenses – hire, mileage, fuel, maintenance. Pickup and return to community – 3 vehicles for all participants = $11,169
  • Accommodation Alice Springs – per person 2 nights (each direction) twin share = $150

What happens if we get more or less than $63,500?

By hitting $63,500 we can make Ina’s dream a reality and take 10 participants from the APY Lands on this program, it means Palyaringkunytjaku can go ahead as Ina hoped. There are always many people from the APY Lands who would benefit from this experience, therefore the amount we raise will directly impact on the number of people Ina and the Mai Wiru Foundation are able to support

If you would prefer to make a donation by bank transfer/direct deposit, please see our bank account details below. Please advise by email – info@maiwirufoundation.org – when donation is made so we can issue a tax receipt. Thank you.

Account Name: Mai Wiru Sugar Challenge Foundation
Bank: Suncorp
BSB: 484 799
Acct No: 507433042
Description: Please enter your email address

Aboriginal #Earlychildhood #Obesity Study : We need to reduce the prevalence of overweight/obesity in the first 3 years of life

“People who are obese in childhood are at increased risk of being obese in adulthood, which can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, some types of cancer, diabetes, and arthritis,”

Research found reducing consumption of sugary drinks and junk food from an early age could benefit the health of Indigenous children, but that this is just one part of the solution to improving weight status.

“We know that Indigenous families across Australia – in remote, regional, and urban settings – face barriers to accessing healthy foods. Therefore, efforts to reduce junk food consumption need to occur alongside efforts to increase the affordability, availability, and acceptability of healthy foods,”

 Ms Thurber, PhD Scholar, from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at ANU.

A major study into the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children has found programs and policies to promote healthy weight should target children as young as three.

Lead researcher Katie Thurber from The Australian National University (ANU) said the majority of Indigenous children in the national study had a health body Mass Index (BMI), but around 40 per cent were classified as overweight or obese by the time they reached nine years of age.

Download the Report Here Thurber BMI Trajectories LSIC

Latest national figures show obesity rates are 60 per cent higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared to non-Indigenous Australians.

In 2013, around 30 per cent of Indigenous children were classified as overweight or obese, and two thirds of Indigenous people over 15 years old were classified as overweight or obese.

Key messages

•  The majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children nationally have a healthy Body Mass Index
•  However, more than one in ten Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Footprints in Time were already overweight or obese at 3 years of age, and there was a rapid onset of overweight/obesity between age 3 and 9 years
•  We need programs and policies to reduce the prevalence of overweight/obesity in the first 3 years of life, and to slow the onset of overweight/obesity from age 3-9 years
•  Reducing children’s consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and high-fat foods is one part of the solution to improving weight status at the population level
•  To enable healthy diets, we need to (1) create healthier environments and (2) improve the social determinants of health (such as financial security, housing, and community wellbeing). Creating healthy environments is complex, and will require both increasing the affordability, availability, and acceptability of healthy foods and decreasing the affordability, availability, and acceptability of unhealthy foods
•  Programs and policy to promote healthy weight need to be developed in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
•  Despite higher levels of disadvantage, most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children maintain a healthy weight; we need programs and policies that cultivate environments and circumstances that will enable all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to have a healthy start to life
 

Ms Thurber said improving weight status would have a major benefit in closing the gap in health between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

“Obesity is a leading contributor to the gap in health,” Ms Thurber said.

“We want to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and communities, as well as policy makers and service providers, to think about what will work best to promote healthy weight in those early childhood years.

“We want to start early, and identify the best ways for families and communities to support healthy diets, so that all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children can have a healthy start to life.”

The research used data from Footprints in Time, a national longitudinal study that has followed more than 1,000 Indigenous children since 2008. It is funded and managed by the Department of Social Services.

Professor Mick Dodson, Chair of the Steering Committee for the Footprints in Time Study and Director of the ANU National Centre for Indigenous Studies, said Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children deserve the best possible start in life.

“This study shows just how important it is to support them, their families and their communities to provide a healthy diet and opportunities for physical activity,” Professor Dodson said.

Ms Thurber said using the Footprints in Time study, researchers for the first time were able to look at how weight status changes over time for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, enabling them to identify pathways that help children maintain a healthy weight.

The research has been published in Obesity.

Aboriginal Health #obesity : 10 major health organisations support #sugartax to fund chronic disease and obesity #prevention

Young Australians, people in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and socially disadvantaged groups are the highest consumers of sugary drinks.

These groups are also most responsive to price changes, and are likely to gain the largest health benefit from a levy on sugary drinks due to reduced consumption ,

A health levy on sugary drinks is not a silver bullet – it is a vital part of a comprehensive approach to tackling obesity, which includes restrictions on children’s exposure to marketing of these products, restrictions on their sale in schools, other children’s settings and public institutions, and effective public education campaigns.

We must take swift action to address the growing burden that overweight and obesity are having on our society, and a levy on sugary drinks is a vital step in this process.”

Rethink Sugary Drink campaign Download position statement

health-levy-on-sugar-position-statement

Read NACCHO previous articles Obesity / Sugartax

Amata SA was an alcohol-free community, but some years earlier its population of just under 400 people had been consuming 40,000 litres of soft drink annually.

See NACCHO Story

SBS will be showing That Sugar Film this Sunday night 2 April at 8.30pm.

There will be a special Facebook live event before the screenings

 ” The UK’s levy on sugar sweetened beverages will start in 2018, with revenue raised to go toward funding programs to reduce obesity and encourage physical activity and healthy eating for school children.

We know unhealthy food is cheaper and that despite best efforts by many Australians to make healthier choices price does affect our decisions as to what we buy.”

Sugar tax adds to the healthy living toolbox   see full article 2 below

 ” Alarmingly, with overweight becoming the perceived norm in Australia, the number of people actively trying to lose weight is declining.   A recent report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that nearly 64 per cent of Australians are overweight or obese.  This closely mirrors research that indicates around 66 per cent of Americans fall into the same category.

With this apparent apathy towards personal health and wellbeing, is it now up to food and beverage companies to combat rising obesity rates?

Who is responsible for Australia’s waistlines?  Article 3 Below

Ten of Australia’s leading health and community organisations have today joined forces to call on the Federal Government to introduce a health levy on sugary drinks as part of a comprehensive approach to tackling the nation’s serious obesity problem.

The 10 groups – all partners of the Rethink Sugary Drink campaign – have signed a joint position statement calling for a health levy on sugary drinks, with the revenue to be used to support public education campaigns and initiatives to prevent chronic disease and address childhood obesity.

This latest push further strengthens the chorus of calls in recent months from other leading organisations, including the Australian Medical Association, the Grattan Institute, the Australian Council of Social Services and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.

Craig Sinclair, Chair of the Public Health Committee at Cancer Council Australia, a signatory of the new position statement, said a health levy on sugary drinks in Australia has the potential to reduce the growing burden of chronic disease that is weighing on individuals, the healthcare system and the economy.

“The 10 leading health and community organisations behind today’s renewed push have joined forces to highlight the urgent and serious need for a health levy on sugary drinks in Australia,” Mr Sinclair said.

“Beverages are the largest source of free sugars in the Australian diet, and we know that sugary drink consumption is associated with increased energy intake and in turn, weight gain and obesity. Sugary drink consumption also leads to tooth decay.

“Evidence shows that a 20 per cent health levy on sugar-sweetened beverages in Australia could reduce consumption and prevent thousands of cases of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke over 25 years, while generating $400-$500m in revenue each year to support public education campaigns and initiatives to prevent chronic disease and address childhood obesity.

“The Australian Government must urgently take steps to tackle our serious weight problem. It is simply not going to fix itself.”

Ari Kurzeme, Advocacy Manager for the YMCA, also a signatory of the new position statement, said young Australians, people in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and socially disadvantaged groups have the most to gain from a sugary drinks levy.

The Rethink Sugary Drink alliance recommends the following actions to tackle sugary drink consumption:
• A public education campaign supported by Australian governments to highlight the health impacts of regular sugary drink consumption
• Restrictions by Australian governments to reduce children’s exposure to marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages, including through schools and children’s sports, events and activities
• Comprehensive mandatory restrictions by state governments on the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages (and increased availability of free water) in schools, government institutions, children’s sports and places frequented by children
• Development of policies by state and local governments to reduce the availability of sugar-sweetened beverages in workplaces, government institutions, health care settings, sport and recreation facilities and other public places.

To view the position statement click here.

Rethink Sugary Drink is a partnership between major health organisations to raise awareness of the amount of sugar in sugar-sweetened beverages and encourage Australians to reduce their consumption. Visit www.rethinksugarydrink.org.au for more information.

The 10 organisations calling for a health levy on sugary drinks are:

Stroke Foundation, Heart Foundation, Kidney Health Australia, Obesity Policy Coalition, Diabetes Australia

the Australian Dental Association, Cancer Council Australia, Dental Hygienists Association of Australia,  Parents’ Voice, and the YMCA.

Sugar tax adds to the healthy living toolbox 

Every day we read or hear more about the so-called ‘sugar tax’ or, as it should be more appropriately termed, a ‘health levy on sugar sweetened beverages’.

We have heard arguments from government and health experts both in favour of, and opposed to this ‘tax’. As CEO of one the state’s leading health charities I support the state government’s goal to make Tasmania the healthiest population by 2025 and the Healthy Tasmania Five Year Strategic Plan, with its focus on reducing obesity and smoking.

However, it is only one tool in the tool box to help us achieve the vision.

Our approach should include strategies such as restricting the marketing of unhealthy food and limiting the sale of unhealthy food and drink products at schools and other public institutions together with public education campaigns.

Some of these strategies are already in progress to include in our toolbox. We all have to take some individual responsibility for the choices we make, but as health leaders and decision makers, we also have a responsibility to create an environment where healthy choices are made easier.

This, in my opinion, is not nannyism but just sensible policy and demonstrated leadership which will positively affect the health of our population.

 Manufacturers tell us that there are many foods in the marketplace that will contribute to weight gain and we should focus more on the broader debate about diet and exercise, but we know this is not working.

A recent Cancer Council study found that 17 per cent of male teens drank at least one litre of soft drink a week – this equates to at least 5.2 kilograms of extra sugar in their diet a year.

Evidence indicates a significant relationship between the amount and frequency of sugar sweetened beverages consumed and an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes.  We already have 45,000 people at high risk of type 2 diabetes in Tasmania.

Do we really want to say we contributed to a rise in this figure by not implementing strategies available to us that would make a difference?

I recall being quite moved last year when the then UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said that he wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t act on reducing the impact of sugary drinks.

“I am not prepared to look back at my time here in this Parliament, doing this job and say to my children’s generation… I’m sorry. We knew there was a problem with sugary drinks…..But we ducked the difficult decisions and we did nothing.”

The UK’s levy on sugar sweetened beverages will start in 2018, with revenue raised to go toward funding programs to reduce obesity and encourage physical activity and healthy eating for school children. We know unhealthy food is cheaper and that despite best efforts by many Australians to make healthier choices price does affect our decisions as to what we buy.

In Mexico a tax of just one peso a litre (less than seven cents) on sugary drinks cut annual consumption by 9.7 per cent and raised about $1.4 billion in revenue.

Similarly, the 2011 French levy has decreased consumption of sugary drinks, particularly among younger people and low income groups.

The addition of a health levy on sugar sweetened beverages is not going to solve all problems but as part of a coordinated and multi-faceted approach, I believe we can effect change.

  • Caroline Wells, is Diabetes Tasmania CEO

3. Who is responsible for Australia’s waistlines? from here

Alarmingly, with overweight becoming the perceived norm in Australia, the number of people actively trying to lose weight is declining.   A recent report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that nearly 64 per cent of Australians are overweight or obese.  This closely mirrors research that indicates around 66 per cent of Americans fall into the same category.

With this apparent apathy towards personal health and wellbeing, is it now up to food and beverage companies to combat rising obesity rates?

Unfortunately it is not clear cut.  While Big Food and Big Beverage are investing in healthier product options, they also have a duty to shareholders to be commercially successful, and to expand their market share. The reality is that unhealthy products are very profitable.  However companies must balance this against the perception that they are complicit in making people fatter and therefore unhealthier with concomitant disease risks.

At the same time, the spectre of government regulation continues to hover, forcing companies to invest in their own healthy product ranges and plans to improve nutrition standards.

The International Food and Beverage Alliance (a trade group of ten of the largest food and beverage companies), has given global promises to make healthier products, advertise food responsibly and promote exercise. More specific pledges are being made in developed nations, where obesity rates are higher and scrutiny is more thorough.

However companies must still find a balance between maintaining a profitable business model and addressing the problem caused by their unhealthy products.

An example of this tension was evident when one leading company attempted to boost the sale of its healthier product lines and set targets to reduce salt, saturated fat and added sugar.  The Company also modified its marketing spend to focus on social causes.  Despite the good intentions, shareholders were disgruntled, and pressured the company to reinstate its aggressive advertising.

What role should governments play in shaping our consumption habits and helping us to maintain healthier weights? And should public policy be designed to alter what is essentially personal behaviour?

So far, the food and beverage industry has attempted to avoid the burden of excessive regulation by offering relatively healthier product lines, promoting active lifestyles, funding research, and complying with advertising restrictions.

Statistics indicate that these measures are not having a significant impact.  Subsequently, if companies fail to address the growing public health burden, governments will have greater incentive to step in.  In Australia, this is evident in the increased political support for a sugar tax.  The tax has been debated in varying forms for years, and despite industry resistance, the strong support of public health authorities may see a version of the tax introduced.

Already, Australia’s food labelling guidelines have been amended and tightened, and a clunky star rating system introduced to assist consumers to make healthier choices. Companies that have worked to address and invest in healthy product ranges must still market them in a responsible way. Given the sales pressure, it is tempting for companies to heavily invest in marketing healthier product ranges.  However they have an obligation under Australian consumer law to ensure products’ health claims do not mislead.

We know that an emboldened Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is taking action against companies that deliberately mislead consumers.  The food industry is firmly in the its sights, with a case currently underway against a leading food company over high sugar levels in its products. This shows that the Regulator will hold large companies to account, and push for penalties that ‘make them sit up and take notice.’

At a recent Consumer Congress, ACCC Chair Rod Sims berated companies that don’t treat consumers with respect.  He maintains that marketing departments with short-term thinking, and a short-sighted executive can lead to product promotion that is exaggerated and misleading.  All of which puts the industry on notice.

With this in mind, it is up to Big Food and Big Beverage to be good corporate citizens.  They must uphold their social, cultural and environmental responsibilities to the community in which they seek a licence to operate, while maintaining a strong financial position for their shareholders. It is a difficult task, but there has never been a better time for companies to accept the challenge.

Eliza Newton, Senior Account Director

NACCHO Aboriginal Health #KHW17 #Kidneysfirst :Ten bad food habits that will kill you

 ‘ Almost half of heart-related deaths are caused by 10 bad ­eating habits.

Diets high in salt or sugary drinks are responsible for ­thousands of deaths from heart disease, stroke and type 2 ­diabetes, according to a study. Scientists also blamed a lack of fruit and vegetables and high ­levels of ­processed meats.

Researchers looked at all 702,308 deaths from heart ­disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes in the US in 2012 and found that 45 per cent were linked with “suboptimal consumption” of 10 types of nutrients. They mapped data on dietary habits from population surveys, along with estimates from previous research of links between foods and disease, on to data about the deaths to come up with the figures.”

Originally published in The Australian

This is our last NACCHO post supporting Kidney Health Week / Day

Further NACCHO reading

Sugar Tax     Obesity     Diabetes    Nutrition/Healthy Foods

The highest proportion of deaths, at 9.5 per cent, was linked with eating too much salt, while a low intake of nuts and seeds was linked with 8.5 per cent.

Eating processed meats was linked with 8.2 per cent of deaths and a low amount of seafood omega-3 fats with 7.8 per cent. Low intake of vegetables ­accounted for 7.6 per cent and low intake of fruit 7.5 per cent.

Sugary drinks were linked with 7.4 per cent, a low intake of whole grains with 5.9 per cent, low polyunsaturated fats with 2.3 per cent and high unprocessed red meats with 0.4 per cent.

The research, published in the journal JAMA, also found men’s deaths were more likely to have links to poor diet than women’s.

Key Points

Question  What is the estimated mortality due to heart disease, stroke, or type 2 diabetes (cardiometabolic deaths) associated with suboptimal intakes of 10 dietary factors in the United States?

Findings  In 2012, suboptimal intake of dietary factors was associated with an estimated 318 656 cardiometabolic deaths, representing 45.4% of cardiometabolic deaths. The highest proportions of cardiometabolic deaths were estimated to be related to excess sodium intake, insufficient intake of nuts/seeds, high intake of processed meats, and low intake of seafood omega-3 fats.

Meaning  Suboptimal intake of specific foods and nutrients was associated with a substantial proportion of deaths due to heart disease, stroke, or type 2 diabetes.

Abstract

Importance  In the United States, national associations of individual dietary factors with specific cardiometabolic diseases are not well established.

Objective  To estimate associations of intake of 10 specific dietary factors with mortality due to heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes (cardiometabolic mortality) among US adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A comparative risk assessment model incorporated data and corresponding uncertainty on population demographics and dietary habits from National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (1999-2002: n = 8104; 2009-2012: n = 8516); estimated associations of diet and disease from meta-analyses of prospective studies and clinical trials with validity analyses to assess potential bias; and estimated disease-specific national mortality from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Exposures  Consumption of 10 foods/nutrients associated with cardiometabolic diseases: fruits, vegetables, nuts/seeds, whole grains, unprocessed red meats, processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), polyunsaturated fats, seafood omega-3 fats, and sodium.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Estimated absolute and percentage mortality due to heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes in 2012. Disease-specific and demographic-specific (age, sex, race, and education) mortality and trends between 2002 and 2012 were also evaluated.

Results  In 2012, 702 308 cardiometabolic deaths occurred in US adults, including 506 100 from heart disease (371 266 coronary heart disease, 35 019 hypertensive heart disease, and 99 815 other cardiovascular disease), 128 294 from stroke (16 125 ischemic, 32 591 hemorrhagic, and 79 578 other), and 67 914 from type 2 diabetes.

See for full text

The authors, from Cambridge University and two US institutions, said that their results should help to “identify priorities, guide public health planning and inform strategies to alter dietary habits and improve health”.

In an editorial, Noel Mueller and Lawrence Appel, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said: “Policies that affect diet quality, not just quantity, are needed … There is some precedence, such as from trials of the Mediterranean diet plus supplemental foods, that modification of diet can reduce cardiovascular disease risk by 30 per cent to 70 per cent.”

Keeping your kidneys healthy

It is important to maintain a healthy weight for your height. The food you eat, and how active you are, help to control your weight.

Healthy eating tips include:

  • Eat lots of fruit, vegetables, legumes and wholegrain bread and rice.
  • At least once a week eat some lean meat such as chicken and fish.
  • Look at the food label and try to choose foods that have a low percentage of sugar and salt and saturated fats.
  • Limit take-away and fast food meals.

Exercise regularly

It’s recommended that you do at least 30 minutes of physical activity most days of the week  – exercise leads to increased strength, stamina and energy.

The key is to start slowly and gradually increase the time and intensity of the exercise. You can break down any physical activity into three ten-minute bursts, which can be increased as your fitness improves

Drink plenty of fluids and listen to your thirst.

If you are thirsty, make water your first choice. Water has a huge list of health benefits and contains no kilojoules, is inexpensive and readily available.

Sugary soft drinks are packed full of ‘empty kilojoules’, which means they contain a lot of sugar but have no nutritional value.

Some fruit juices are high in sugar and do not contain the fibre that the whole fruit has.

The role of the kidneys is often underrated when we think about our health.

In fact, the kidneys play a vital role in the daily workings of your body. They are so important that nature gave us two kidneys, to cover the possibility that one might be lost to an injury.

We can live quite well with only one kidney and some people live a healthy life even though born with one missing. However, with no kidney function death occurs within a few days!

The kidneys play a major role in maintaining your general health and wellbeing. Think of them as a very complex, environmentally friendly, waste disposal system. They sort non-recyclable waste from recyclable waste, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, while also cleaning your blood.

Most people are born with two kidneys, each one about the size of an adult fist, bean-shaped and weighing around 150 grams each. The kidneys are located at both sides of your backbone, just under the rib cage or above the small of your back. They are protected from injury by a large padding of fat, your lower ribs and several muscles.

Your blood supply circulates through the kidneys about 12 times every hour. Each day your kidneys process around 200 litres of blood. The kidneys make urine (wee) from excess fluid and unwanted chemicals or waste in your blood.

Urine flows down through narrow tubes called ureters to the bladder where it is stored. When you feel the need to wee, the urine passes out of your body through a tube called the urethra. Around one to two litres of waste leave your body each day as urine.

Resource Library

Kidneys are the unsung heroes of our bodies and perform a number of very important jobs:

  • Blood pressure control – kidneys keep your blood pressure regular.
  • Water balance – kidneys add excess water to other wastes, which makes your urine.
  • Cleaning blood – kidneys filter your blood to remove wastes and toxins.
  • Vitamin D activation – kidneys manage your body’s production of this essential vitamin, which is vital for strong bones, muscles and overall health.

All this makes the kidneys a very important player in the way your body works and your overall health.

NACCHO Aboriginal #kidneysfirst Health #KHW17: International research finds food subsidies and taxes improve dietary choices

marmot

The global food system is causing a staggering toll on human health. And this is very costly, both in terms of real healthcare expenses and lost productivity.

Our findings suggest that subsidies and taxes are a highly effective tool for normalizing the price of foods toward their true societal costs. 

This will not only prevent disease but also reduce spiraling healthcare costs, which are causing tremendous strain on both private businesses and government budgets.”

Senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., Dr.P.H., dean of the Friedman School

kidney-week

Here are some sobering facts on #obesity from a report by @KidneyHealth as we mark #KidneyHealthWeek
bit.ly/2mrsBRJ
#KHW17

2025

#Kidneyfirst Aboriginal Health Key points

risk

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely to have end stage kidney disease and be hospitalised or die with chronic kidney disease than non-Indigenous people.4

The greater prevalence of chronic kidney disease in some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is due to the high incidence of traditional risk factors, including diabetes, high blood pressure and smoking, in addition to higher levels of inadequate nutrition, alcohol abuse, streptococcal throat and skin infection, poor living conditions and low birth weight, which is linked to reduced nephron development.4

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience a higher burden of disease; two and a half times that of non-Indigenous people.

A large part of the burden of disease is due to chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, chronic respiratory disease and chronic kidney disease.

This higher burden can be reduced by identifying chronic disease earlier and through the management of risk factors and the disease itself. See more about the management of risk factors here.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that lowering the cost of healthy foods significantly increases their consumption, while raising the cost of unhealthy items significantly reduces their intake.

Food subsidies and taxes significantly improve dietary choices

Interventions that alter food prices can improve people’s diets, leading to more healthy choices and fewer unhealthy choices

While everyone has a sense that food prices matter, the magnitude of impact of food taxes and subsidies on dietary intakes, and whether this varies by the food target, has not been clear. For the review, a team of researchers identified and pooled findings from a total of 30 interventional and longitudinal studies, including 11 that assessed the effect of higher prices (taxation) of unhealthy foods and 19 that assessed the effect of lower prices (subsidies) of healthy foods.

The findings were published in PLOS ONE on March 1.

“To date, evidence on effectiveness of fiscal policies on diet has mostly come from cross-sectional studies, which cannot infer causality. This is why we evaluated studies that examined the relationship between food price and diet over time,” said co-first author Ashkan Afshin, M.D., former postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy at Tufts University and now at the University of Washington. “Our results show how 10 to 50 percent changes in price of foods and beverages at checkout could influence consumers’ purchasing behaviors over a relatively short period of time.”

In the pooled analysis, each 10 percent decrease in price of fruits and vegetables increased their consumption by 14 percent, and each 10 percent decrease in price of other healthy foods increased their consumption by 16 percent. A change in price of fruits and vegetables was also associated with body mass index (BMI): for every 10 percent price decrease, BMI declined by 0.04 kg/m2.

Conversely, each 10 percent price increase of sugar-sweetened beverages and unhealthy fast foods decreased their consumption by 7 percent and 3 percent, respectively. Every 10 percent price increase in unhealthy foods and drinks was associated with a trend toward lower BMI (per 10 percent price increase: -0.06 kg/m2), but this did not achieve statistical significance.

By merging findings from 23 interventional and 7 prospective cohort studies, the researchers evaluated relationships between the change in the price of specific foods or beverages and the change in their intake. Studies evaluated people’s reported intake or data on sales of foods and beverages. The study populations included children, adults, or both; and countries included the United States, the Netherlands, France, New Zealand, and South Africa. Price change interventions were conducted in various settings such as cafeterias, vending machines and supermarkets. The findings were centrally pooled in a meta-analysis.

Co-first author is Jose Penalvo, Ph.D., M.Sc., Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy at Tufts University. Additional authors on this study are Liana Del Gobbo, Ph.D., Stanford University School of Medicine; Jose Silva, M.D., Boston Medical Center; Melody Michaelson, M.Sc., Tufts University School of Medicine; Martin O’Flaherty, M.D., Ph.D., University of Liverpool; Simon Capewell, M.D., D.Sc., University of Liverpool; Donna Spiegelman, D.Sc., Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and Goodarz Danaei, M.D., D.Sc., Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

This work was supported by awards from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (HL098048, HL115189) and from The New York Academy of Sciences’ Sackler Institute for Nutrition Science. For conflicts of interest disclosure, please see the study.

Afshin, A., Penalvo, J., Del Gobbo, L., Silva, J., Michaelson, M., O’Flaherty, M., Capewell, S., Spiegelman, D., Danaei, G., Mozaffarian, D. (2017, March 1). The prospective impact of food pricing on improving dietary consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172277

About the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University

The Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University is the only independent school of nutrition in the United States. The school’s eight degree programs – which focus on questions relating to nutrition and chronic diseases, molecular nutrition, agriculture and sustainability, food security, humanitarian assistance, public health nutrition, and food policy and economics – are renowned for the application of scientific research to national and international policy.