The George Institute for Global Health made a submission to the inquiry on definitions of meat and other animal products by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Our submission made several observations and recommendations to the committee, noting that in Australia over recent decades, the consumption of meat has decreased and meat alternatives have increased, such as plant-based and synthetic protein products.

The George Institute believes more research should be undertaken to better understand the impact of product labelling by manufactured plant-based or synthetic protein brands on sales of meat products. We support the continued use of meat-based descriptors for plant-based or synthetic protein products, and recommend regulatory improvements including a requirement that meat-based descriptors can only be used if the label also clearly states that it is a meat-free product.

We understand manufactured plant-based or synthetic protein products may have immediate and long-term social and economic impacts on primary industries, such as livestock producers and individuals across regional, rural and remote areas. We believe there is opportunity for primary industries to increase farming and agriculture practices towards ingredients found in plant-based meat alternatives to reduce reliance on imported ingredients.

Research by The George Institute shows heavily manufactured protein products can be high in sodium. These products are also ultra-processed, potentially linking them to higher rates of obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease. However, The George Institute notes there is little research into the specific links between manufactured protein products and health outcomes. On the other hand, meat products continued to be consumed in excess in Australia. Reducing population intakes of meat, in particular processed meat, is important for improving the health of Australians. These manufactured plant-based or synthetic protein products can provide variety and nutritional support for people who follow a vegetarian or vegan diet or those looking to reduce their meat intake for health, environmental, ethical or financial reasons.

We believe placement of manufactured plant-based or synthetic protein products in retail settings, such as supermarkets, could also have an impact on the Australian meat category brand investment. We recommend that the placement of these products in the retail environment should be considered as a factor when setting policies around these products.

The George Institute believes the impact of meat on planetary health should be considered within this inquiry due to the major contribution of meat consumption to global warming. The George Institute’s FoodSwitch app, a mobile app that provides simple nutrition information on a scanned product and suggesting healthier alternatives to 'switch' to, now includes a ‘Planetary Heath Rating’. This rating reveals the greenhouse gas emissions of different categories of foods and beverages in an easy-to-interpret ‘star rating’ (based on the current Health Star Rating System). This information will further empower consumers to make better choices when they shop.

The George Institute for Global Health responded to the draft recommendations from the Primary Health Reform Steering Group on the Australian Government’s Primary Health Care 10 Year Plan.

We believe primary health care should be at the heart of the Australian health system. It needs to be of high value, integrated, equitable and patient-centred. It should be readily available and accessible for people across their life course, responding to acute needs at critical life stages and proactive in the intervening periods to promote health and well-being.

As the report acknowledges, in Australia there is a growing burden on individuals in the health system with chronic conditions, with many conditions largely preventable. The current system is not “fit for purpose” and a business-as-usual approach to primary health care is not an option.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of primary health care, and its need to be innovative, agile and better prepared to ensure safe and secure connectivity between individuals, their families and the primary health care workforce. Although the pandemic has exposed many of our health system weaknesses, it has also highlighted extraordinary potential to rapidly address those weaknesses. What previously was thought to be a decades long process has been achieved in months. The momentum gained from such agility must not be lost and we strongly believe this mindset needs to be at the core of the proposed primary health care reforms.

In responding to the recommendations by the Primary Health Reform Steering Group, The George Institute believes there is an opportunity to establish an Australian Primary Health Care Innovation and Translation Institute. This would be similar to the United States Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which is a government-led innovation initiative that is continuously developing and testing new service delivery models and has a mandate to scale and spread the most promising innovations nationally.

We look forward to the final report to the Minister for Health, Hon Greg Hunt MP, followed by action by the Federal Government

The George Institute for Global Health and The Australian Human Rights Institute have jointly prepared a submission to assist the Australian Parliament's Human Rights Sub-Committee prior to its upcoming public hearing for the inquiry into women and girls in the Pacific.

This submission relates to our recent work on the implementation of women’s health rights in the Pacific. This work seeks to improve the health of women and girls worldwide, including in the Pacific, through the development of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Implementation Map on Women’s Health. The Map is a unique tool that measures government responses to CEDAW recommendations on women’s health across 30 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

It is a collaboration between the George Institute for Global Health and the Australian Human Rights Institute and is led by Dr Janani Shanthosh.

The George Institute has contributed to the public consultation of Policy Guidance for Menu Labelling in Australia and New Zealand. The consultation was set by Food Standards Australia New Zealand in response to ongoing concerns about inconsistency in national menu labelling regulations. Inconsistency of menu labelling can impact consumers’ ability to select healthier food choices.

The George Institute has previously suggested and continues to recommend the following reforms in menu labelling:

• Extend menu labelling to vending machines.
• Close known loopholes in legibility requirements in some jurisdictions.
• Ensure legislation is sufficiently flexible to accommodate new opportunities created by digital menus, self-service kiosks and online ordering systems, including those operated by third party delivery agents.
• Extend labelling requirements to incorporate interpretive elements such as the Health Star Rating.
• Invest in robust monitoring and evaluation, examining outcomes on both consumer behaviour and food business reformulation.

Improve synergies between menu labelling activities, the Healthy Food Partnership, and the Health Star Rating System to maximise their combined public health impact.

The George Institute, together with public health and consumer organisations, are calling for the Australian Government to prioritise the health of Australians and New Zealanders as they consider reforms to our food regulatory system

The George Institute has considerable concerns with the Draft Regulatory Impact Statement as it fails to recognise and address the key issue consistently raised by public health organisations – that our food regulatory system does not meet its primary goal of protecting public health, particularly long-term health and preventable diet-related disease.

The system requires reform, but this must be done in a way that supports the health and wellbeing of the community. Unfortunately, the proposals within this Draft Regulatory Impact Statement would seriously undermine future efforts at protecting public health.

The George Institute strongly recommends that the Review acknowledge the cost of inaction on diet-related disease and put public health measures first. This priority will help ensure that our food regulatory system is equipped to effectively protect the community, prevent diet-related disease and promote a resilient and productive population into the future.

With a growing global population and increasing urbanisation, cities are facing huge pressures in terms of population density, transport, air quality, access to opportunities for physical activity, and climate change. We urgently need to adopt policies that address these issues and the threats to safety and health the present. 

The Stockholm Declaration signed at the 2020 Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety states that global leaders have a shared responsibility to protect road users from crash forces beyond the limits of human injury tolerance. This requires a focus on safe speeds, including: 

• ZERO SPEEDING: use of effective speed management approaches, and
• 30 KM/H: mandating a 30 km/h speed limit in urban areas to prevent serious injuries and deaths to vulnerable road users when human errors occur.

The benefits of lower urban speed limits go well beyond saving lives and reducing injuries from road traffic collisions. This policy brief outlines six compelling co-benefits which support progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). There is growing evidence of the link between lowered urban speed limits and:

• The prevention of road traffic injuries, notably to pedestrians and cyclists (SDG targets 3.6, 11.2)
• The promotion of physical activity through more active transport (walking or cycling) and the prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) as a result (SDG target 3.4)
• The improvement of air quality and a reduction in related short- and long-term health issues as a result, while also addressing a major contributor to climate change (SDG targets 3.9, 11.6, 13.2) 
• Increased social connectivity and access to goods and services (SDG target 10.2)
• Enhanced equity, as a result of focusing on the safety and health concerns of the most vulnerable in our communities, and 
• Economic gains for businesses and governments. 

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to setting and enforcing urban speed limits of 30 km/h or less, policymakers should consider implementing: 

• National policies that prioritise walking and cycling;
• National policies that invest in and promote public transport as an alternative to private vehicles; 
• National and sub-national policies that encourage planning of liveable urban spaces;
• Education programmes and social marketing to increase public demand for safer speeds;
• Monitoring and evaluation of the impact of walking and cycling policies.

Read the full policy paper here (PDF 949 KB)

The Barisal Drowning Reduction Project – Bhasa is a multi-stakeholder approach to drowning reduction within a sub-region of Bangladesh.

It is estimated that 321,000 drowning deaths occur globally each year. That is a global drowning rate of one person every 80 seconds. More than 90% of drownings occur in low and middle income countries (LMICs). However, little is known about the impact of drowning on communities, both socially and economically. In this document, we report on the findings of a household population-based cross-sectional survey to understand the burden and context of fatal drowning in the Barishal division of Bangladesh. We investigated drowning cases by demographic characteristics and features of the drowning event. We also report on the qualitative findings, which helped us understand the context, beliefs and behaviour that influence water safety practices in the Barishal division.

Read the full project report (PDF 17 MB)

Falls are a growing and under-recognised public health issue. Every year more than 684,000 people die as a result of a fall, and 172 million more are left with short- or long-term disability. The vast majority of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. 

In June 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Consultation on Falls Prevention and Management met in Geneva where it agreed to the need for an evidence-informed guide on the prevention and management of falls, which is suitable for practitioners, program managers and decision-makers whose portfolios may affect falls outcomes.

In response, the WHO commissioned researchers from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Injury Prevention and Trauma Care at The George Institute for Global Health and UNSW School of Population Health to conduct a review of high-quality global evidence on falls prevention. The resulting Evidence Synthesis report describes the rapid evidence review process undertaken to identify and quality appraise relevant studies, and assess the level of evidence to support various falls prevention strategies for five key population groups:

1. Children and adolescents

2. People in occupational settings

3. Community dwelling older adults

4. Older people living in residential care facilities

5. Older people receiving care in hospitals 

The Evidence Synthesis report, along with a global end-user survey and extensive input from global falls experts, formed the background to the World Health Organization report, Step Safely: strategies for preventing and managing falls across the life-course, to which the researchers were also major contributors. Step Safely was released on 27 April 2021.     

The George Institute for Global Health is pleased to contribute to the consultation on the draft National Preventive Health Strategy.  The George Institute strongly supports the development and implementation of the Strategy. We believe this Strategy is a meaningful step towards an impactful prevention agenda in Australia that will result in better health outcomes.

We particularly wish to congratulate the Government on its commitment to spend 5% of total health expenditure on prevention by 2030, and the development of a ‘Blueprint for Action’. The George Institute’s recommendations in the submission seek to further strengthen and enhance what is already a thorough and well-prepared document.