Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Health debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 2024

Public Health and the Commercial Determinants of Health: Discussion

Apologies have been received from Senator Frances Black. Before we go to the main item on today's agenda, the minutes of the committee meeting of 7 February 2024 have been circulated to members for consideration. Are they agreed? Agreed.

The purpose of the meeting is for the joint committee to consider public health and commercial determinants of health. This meeting will be divided into two sessions. The joint committee will first meet the Minister of State with responsibility for public health, well-being and the national drugs strategy, Deputy Hildegarde Naughton, following which we will meet the Irish Health Promotion Alliance and Dr. Norah Campbell. To commence the committee's consideration of this matter, I am pleased to welcome from the Department of Health, Deputy Hildegarde Naughton, Minister of State, Ms Louise Kissane, principal officer in the food and environmental health unit, and Ms Catherine Curran, assistant principal for health and well-being.

I will read a note on privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the longstanding parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory with regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the longstanding parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, if any member attempts to participate from outside the precincts, he or she will be asked to leave the meeting. I will ask any members participating via MS Teams that, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

To commence our consideration of public health and commercial determinants of health, I invite the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, to make her opening remarks. I believe it is her first attendance. She is very welcome to the committee.

I thank the Chair. I was here two weeks ago as well.

No problem. Good morning. I thank the committee for the invitation to address it about public health and the commercial determinants of health. I was here two weeks ago with the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, to discuss the Department of Health's 2024 Estimates process and I mentioned some of our key Healthy Ireland initiatives on that occasion. The committee indicated that it would like to hear more about obesity measures and those relating to the commercial determinants of health, so I have returned today to provide those updates.

Healthy Ireland supports a range of initiatives across Government Departments, agencies and civil society. The Healthy Ireland vision is for a healthy Ireland where everyone can enjoy physical and mental health and well-being to their full potential, where well-being is valued and supported at every level of society and is everyone's responsibility.

The Healthy Ireland Strategic Action Plan was published in May 2021 and sets out the priorities until the end of 2025. Among the policies contained in the plan include the national physical activity plan, the national sexual health strategy, the national mental health promotion plan and the national obesity policy action plan. Cross-sectoral collaboration is a core factor in the implementation of Healthy Ireland and is driven by the principle that good health and well-being benefit us all and are everyone’s responsibility.

This is recognised across Government. It is worth noting that the Departments of the Taoiseach and Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform are leading the Government well-being framework, to which we are contributing, and have introduced well-being, equality and green budgeting initiatives, all of which support national health and well-being.

Today’s discussion focuses on public health and the commercial determinants of health. Members will be familiar with World Health Organization guidance on commercial determinants of health, which defines these as “the private sector activities that affect people’s health, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively”. Commercial determinants can impact a wide range of risk factors - such as smoking, alcohol use, air quality, obesity and physical inactivity - and health outcomes, including non-communicable diseases, cancer, mental and physical health.

I would like to first highlight two particular examples from the World Health Organization list of risk factors, where successive governments have driven policy reform over many years. As members will all be aware, Ireland became the first country in the world to implement legislation creating smoke-free enclosed workplaces in 2004. The introduction of this measure was based on the clear and unequivocal evidence about the effects of smoking on both smokers and non-smokers alike. The Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products) Act 2023 continues to build on the progress made to reduce smoking rates. This important legislation prohibits the sale of tobacco products and nicotine inhaling products to those aged under 18. Legislation is also being developed to further regulate tobacco and nicotine inhaling products.

Data from our Healthy Ireland survey shows that tobacco use has reduced from 23% in 2015 to 18% in 2022 and 2023. By way of comparison, the smoking rate in the 1980s was estimated at about 35% which indicated that significant progress has been made.

We know that alcohol consumption is a major cause of disease, disability and death. In 2019, an estimated 4.8% of all deaths here and 5.2% of disability-adjusted life years were attributable to alcohol, according to Global Burden of Disease data. The Public Health (Alcohol) Act was enacted in 2018 with 28 of the 31 provisions now commenced. The Act seeks to address the high volumes and harmful patterns of consumption of alcohol prevalent in Ireland through a suite of measures, including minimum unit pricing, the regulation of advertising and sponsorship, the display of products in mixed retail outlets, and the regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol. In the past year, the Minister has signed into law the Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 2023, provided for under section 12 of the Act and commenced the broadcast watershed provision of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act, which will come into effect in 2026 and 2025 respectively.

A Healthy Weight for Ireland, Ireland’s Obesity Policy and Action Plan, more commonly known as OPAP, was published in 2016 and runs to 2025. Why do we need an obesity policy and action plan? The figures speak for themselves. The WHO European Regional Obesity Report published in 2022, found that just under 59% of adults and 8% of children under the age of five in the World Health Organization European area were living with overweight and obesity. Ireland ranked 11th out of 51 countries, with obesity and overweight rates that were slightly above the European region average.

Over one quarter of adults live with obesity. This figure is based on international data from 2016. We know from more recent studies, such as our Healthy Ireland Survey 2022, that these rates remain reasonably stable, but worryingly high. Almost one in five primary-school children is living with overweight or obesity according to the WHO Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative, COSI, from 2020. This figure is concerning, particularly given the negative mental and physical impact that living with overweight and obesity can have on a child and the long-term negative health impacts if this persists into adulthood. The figures for prevalence of obesity and overweight among children had stabilised in the COSI fifth round data compared with the previous survey. Work on the COSI sixth round is being finalised and we expect the report to be published in the coming months.

All recent literature setting out policy options stress the need for a multi-sectoral approach, given the many factors, including commercial determinants, that contribute to overweight and obesity. These include genetic predisposition, unhealthy diet from an early age, level of education and low physical activity levels, and ubiquitous access to low-cost, high-fat, sugar and salty processed foods which are marketed across all platforms, targeting children in particular.

It is worth noting that the WHO has stated that obesity is complex, with multifaceted determinants and health consequences, which means that no single intervention can halt the rise of this growing epidemic. The health consequences of living with obesity include increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes and reduced mobility to name but a few.

What are we doing about addressing obesity and overweight here in Ireland? The obesity policy and action plan is a ten-step programme to address obesity. It includes actions on health promotion, education and prevention of overweight and obesity, and actions to manage and treat obesity within our health services. It also involves close collaboration with a number of Departments. State agencies, all-island bodies and external stakeholders are key to driving this agenda. The Department is supported by a significant body of work managed through the healthy eating active living programme and the national clinical programme for obesity in the HSE, and also by Safefood and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.

Ireland has made progress under the obesity plan, with highlights including the development of resources, communications campaigns and programmes to address health promotion, healthy eating and obesity prevention. Clinical guidelines for the management of obesity, a model of care for the treatment of obesity in the health services are additional key elements in treating this disease. A critical element of prevention, reduction and supporting those living with obesity in Ireland is, as I mentioned earlier, addressing the environment around us and not just targeting individual behavioural change.

I would like to briefly reference three areas under our plan that address the commercial determinants of health. Changing the food environment is recognised as a key policy action for helping prevent overweight and obesity. We published a “Roadmap for Food Product Reformulation in Ireland” in 2021. Food reformulation means improving the nutritional content of commonly consumed processed foods and drinks, reducing calorie content and targeting nutrients such as saturated fat, sugar and salt, to ensure a healthier food supply. The roadmap sets targets for the reduction of calories and sugar by 20% and salt and saturated fat by 10% between 2015 and 2025, across a range of food products.

The food reformulation task force is a strategic partnership between Healthy Ireland and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. It was established to implement the roadmap and to work with industry to both drive and monitor progress. In an ideal world, consumers would like to eat more healthily, while continuing to enjoy their favourite foods. Food reformulation has the potential to make this a real possibility. Food reformulation is currently a voluntary initiative. Needless to say, if targets remain unmet by 2025, we will need to consider further options, including mandatory food reformulation.

Under the obesity plan, a commitment was given to develop proposals for a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks. In 2018, the Department of Finance introduced the sugar-sweetened drinks tax. This tax has been in operation for more than five years. Initial indications show positive impacts, particularly in terms of encouraging drinks producers to reduce sugar content to fall below key tax thresholds, essentially driving wider product reformulation. The Department has commissioned an evaluation of the tax, which is ongoing. We expect it to be complete in April 2024 and we hope to publish shortly thereafter.

The World Health Organization identifies restrictions on the marketing of food and drink considered unhealthy or harmful to children as a key policy tool in addressing the obesity epidemic. Work at EU level through the joint action Best-ReMaP, to which Ireland contributed, has resulted in a range of published resources on restricting marketing of unhealthy foods to children and adolescents.

This will help to inform policy development at national level. The establishment of Coimisiún na Meán represents a significant opportunity to drive the obesity policy. The standards and practices that can be addressed through regulatory codes and rules developed by Coimisiún na Meán include the advertisement of certain foods and beverages to children, as well as follow-on formula. Officials in my Department have commenced engagement with an coimisiún on this matter. An coimisiún is currently developing the first online safety code to address particularly harmful content, such as risk to life content, on digital platforms targeting children. The Department of Health made a submission to the consultation on this online safety code and we understand the coimisiún will be undertaking a review of a number of codes, including the children's commercial communications code, starting later this year. We will work with an coimisiún and other stakeholders to contribute to this review.

The obesity policy and action plan comes to a close at the end of 2025 and we are already turning our thoughts to the development of a successor policy. As part of the mid-term review of the plan, we asked the World Health Organization to identify a suite of policy options on nutrition for Ireland. Many of the options are already under way. A number of options, including some related to commercial determinants of health, are being examined and are likely to be a key feature in the next plan. Significant work on building an evidence base is under way in the WHO. Our officials participate in a number of its networks, including on salt and calorie reduction and marketing unhealthy foods to children, as well as a network of focal points for nutrition and obesity. Sharing experience, best practice and international expertise and emphasising the importance of concerted action is very welcome. I am happy to take any questions members may have.

The Minister of State is very welcome to the committee. I thank her for the comprehensive opening statement. It is very welcome that the percentage of people smoking regularly has been reduced to 18%. We have done quite well in leading the way at European level in terms of the smoking ban. I am concerned about the proliferation of vaping, however. I spoke to the Australian minister for disability last summer. In Australia, a person must have a prescription to buy a vape. It has taken a zero tolerance approach to vaping. I know the Oireachtas recently brought in legislation on vaping and the Minister at the time committed to further action in dealing with the scourge of these vape shops on all towns, villages and cities. It is clear there is an issue with them. When can we expect further legislation on this matter? If the Minister of State does not have an answer now, I ask her to revert to us on the matter.

I refer to collaboration with NGOs and sporting organisations. It is clear they have a major role to play in supporting, encouraging and actioning Healthy Ireland. I have no doubt there is an understanding among sports organisations that it needs to be a priority. In one way, people who are involved in sport probably do not suffer from obesity, but it is about reaching those who are not involved. As community-based organisations, clubs and other organisations have a responsibility to reach out. In particular, there are GAA clubs in every town, village and parish in the country. What engagement have the Minister of State and her officials had with the GAA?

The percentage of obesity and lack of physical activity is probably far higher among people who have disabilities. Traditionally, people with disabilities have not been very active. That is changing, but it is not changing fast enough. More often than not, people who have various forms of disabilities suffer from a lack of physical activity. Has the Department engaged with the National Disability Authority to come up with templates and toolkits? Has it engaged with disability NGOs to see if there is collaboration at that level to address this issue?

I thank the Senator for his questions. I will start with the question relating to further regulation of tobacco and nicotine inhaling products. As he is aware, we have banned the sale of vapes for under-18s. In January, we had a public consultation process which closed at the end of that month. It was set up to help to inform further legislation which will be required on this issue. We sought the views of people and stakeholders on the display of nicotine inhaling products in shops, flavours, which has been a very controversial issue, the appearance of nicotine-inhaling products and their packaging, proxy sales of tobacco and nicotine-inhaling products, smoking in outdoor dining areas, extending smoke-free restrictions to vaping, increasing the age of sale for tobacco products and taxation of vaping liquids. That latter measure falls within the remit of the Department of Finance. That work is ongoing within the Department and legislation in that regard will be going through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I welcome the views of members in that regard.

When Healthy Ireland was set up back in 2015, it had a budget of €5 million. In the most recent budget, I secured an additional €2.3 million for the programme. To date, we have a budget of €16.3 million for Healthy Ireland. I have travelled the length and breadth of the country visiting local communities and local authorities to see what they are doing in the roll-out of Healthy Ireland projects and initiatives. There is fantastic work happening throughout the country, which is why I was very committed to increasing the funding. The Senator referred to walking trails and the GAA. The Ireland Lights Up GAA campaign is being expanded. I allocated extra funding last year for walking trails around GAA pitches because an earlier call for proposals was oversubscribed. This campaign will benefit those who may not be taking part in Gaelic games, such as grandparents or parents who are dropping kids off to sports or matches, but who will be able to use the facilities, which will be lit up and safe. There was significant buy-in from local communities. It was not just for the GAA. A fundamental part of the funding is that it is for the whole community. In the budget just gone, I included a provision of €1 million for outdoor walking trails. Again, we will be looking at devising a call, not just for GAA but also for other groups throughout the country, to facilitate walking tracks, as well as outdoor swimming infrastructure. The is the uptake of sea swimming, particularly during Covid, has been remarkable. There is a lack of simple infrastructure required by local communities throughout the country and we are drawing up proposals in that regard.

The Senator referred to our engagement with disability groups. A new national physical activity plan is being developed and is due later this year. It will include disability and mobility. The Department of Health and the Department of sport will have wider consultation on that plan. On physical activity pathways, I provided extra funding of €105,000 to help people living with chronic disease. That is further funding in that space.

Today, Ash Wednesday, is national no smoking day. I praise the 19,000 people who engaged with the HSE last year on its quit smoking programme. It was a great success and the uptake of the programme has been very positive. Medicines such as nicotine replacement therapy are now available for free. It is important that we get that message out to people.

They have significantly helped people to quit smoking. We know that, unfortunately, 100 people every week are admitted to hospital and 1,000 people per week pass away because of smoking-related harm. We have made really good strides but today is a good day to remind people about the services available across the country. It is great to see the number of people engaging with the HSE helpline. Again, I secured €1.82 million in the budget to continue the roll-out of the quit smoking programme.

I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive response to all my questions. I wish everyone who is trying to give up smoking today the very best and encourage people to engage with the supports and the services available

Well done and I think we all agree with that. There is support and help available for people who are trying to give up smoking and I urge them to engage with local services. Deputy Shortall is next.

Good morning, Minister of State and her officials. I thank her for her presentation.

I recall that the Minister of State was one of the 14 members of the Committee on the Future of Healthcare that produced the Sláintecare report so she is very familiar with the kind of issues that were of concern to that committee. The eventual report that was produced contained five chapters and the first chapter was on the population health profile. We, on that committee, spent a lot of time talking about the fact that while everybody admits and agrees that we need to place a much greater focus on health promotion, and prevention, it generally is only talk and we do not put in place the kind of resources that are needed to focus on health promotion, and prevention. That is why the first chapter of the report related to this area. Unfortunately, it has not worked out that this is a prominent area in health. With all due respect to Deputy Naughton who is the Minister responsible for health promotion, when one looks at the allocation that has been made to this whole area out of a budget of €23 billion it is fairly measly to say that she has a budget of €16.3 million. I recognise that the Minister of State got an additional allocation but it does not represent the kind of importance that should attach to this area. Again, what we are seeing is a focus on the expensive elements so the treatment of people rather than the prevention of disease. That is regrettable and underlines the fact that we have such a long way to go.

The Minister of State has talked about the idea of health in all policies. Ill-health prevention must very much be a cross-cutting all-of-government issue and strategy. Can she outline how she operates with other Ministers who have a relevant role to play in this area? I mean from the point of view of, say, agriculture, sport, transport and education so a whole lot of different areas. What is the mechanism for getting people on board and sticking with the strategy?

The budget extends beyond €16.3 million and that is just for Healthy Ireland. We have a health and well-being programme as well, Safefood Ireland and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland so calculating the total spend is difficult. Let us consider Healthy Ireland alone. It started with a budget of €5 million and now has over €16 million. Plus, I secured extra funding for the last budget for health in what was a difficult budget. I agree with what Deputy Shortall said about prevention.

Regarding my working with different Departments, I engage with local authorities through Healthy Ireland. I engage with the GAA so one could say that is under the Department of sports, but I want to expand my engagement into other sporting organisations. All of the strategies have a cross-government approach. Indeed, when I was in the Department of Transport, in my last remit, there was a significant rolling out of walking and cycling facilities across the country. The Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Humphreys, and her Department are considering outdoor recreation schemes. All of what I have said shows that it is not just the Department of Health.

Do we need to do more? Absolutely. Every single Department is part of that. Earlier I mentioned in my opening statement the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform and how it is rolling out the workplace strategy. This is something that continues to be an all-of-government approach and certainly my door is open. The Department of Health has legislative responsibility for the food information to consumers, FIC, regulation. The Department is co-ordinating a cross-government approach and engaging with the commission through appropriate channels. As the Deputy will know, we are also working with Coimisiún na Meán, which is under the remit of the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, around advertising and marketing, targeting children as well.

I heard the Minister of State say that. Earlier she mentioned in her opening statement the ubiquitous promotion and advertising of unhealthy food and the shocking fact that 20% of primary school children have been categorised as obese. Given the fact that there is massive spending on the promotion of unhealthy food, does she not think that emphasis should be on cutting this off at the pass rather than trying to counteract very effective and very well resourced promotional campaigns and advertisements, which children cannot avoid? Does she not think that she needs to tackle that at source rather than try to counteract it by using mild enough messages that are put out through Healthy Ireland?

The Minister of State has referenced the progress that has been made with smoking. However, at a certain point, the then Minister for Health, Deputy Micheál Martin, stopped this thing about smoking cessation programmes and advertising that encouraged people to give up smoking. He actually introduced the law that changed that and made it very difficult for people to smoke. That was a big challenge. He took on the industry. Does the Minister of State not think that the same kind of approach is needed now in respect of the fast food industry, in particular?

The Deputy has posed a very important question about how we target the marketing for young people and, as she said, cut it off at source. The best way to do that right now is through Coimisiún na Meán. Officials within Coimisiún na Meán are working on that. Coimisiún na Meán was established in 2023 following the enactment of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022. It is developing codes of online safety and, as part of that work, the Department of Health will work with them on that.

The OSMR Act states that codes and rules "may prohibit or restrict ... the inclusion in programmes or user-generated content of commercial communications ... considered by the Commission to be the subject of public concern in respect of ... public health interests of children, in particular infant formula, follow-on formula or foods or beverages which contain fat," and have high amounts of salt.

I heard the Minister of State say that. It is not happening though. That is the reality.

The engagement is happening now.

It is not happening. We have serious issues with obesity and the downstream effects of that, and cost, are absolutely enormous.

My question is about the commercial determinants of health, which is what this session is about. It is a relatively new concept. The Minister of State will be familiar with the very heavy lobbying that is done by all of the vested interests that work against population health. Would she consider commissioning a report on the impact of the commercial determinants of health within this country and examine the whole panoply of lobbying that goes on behind the scene?

The Deputy has said "it is not happening". In 2023, Coimisiún na Meán was established. My officials have already met officials from Coimisiún na Meán about this matter. This will be the regulation and the law around targeting the marketing, and specifically targeting young children, so it is happening right now. The latest meeting of officials took place two weeks ago and I felt it was important to state that.

The targets are very unambitious.

I am just stating the fact of where we are. Coimisiún na Meán has just been established.

Officials in the Department are now engaging with it. We could not have engaged with it a year ago because it was not-----

I do not think that is an excuse. The Department allowed-----

It is not an excuse. It is a fact.

The Department allowed ten years for reductions in salt and sugar and the targets that were set were extremely ambitious. We need to move on this.

There has been work on reformulation with the industry and I can talk to the Deputy separately about that. My officials are now engaging with An Coimisiún na Meán in respect of the targeting of young children with high salt and high fat and are dealing with those areas.

Following on from the issue Deputy Shortall raised, the next speaker who will appear before the committee is an academic who has done a great deal of work on the issue of the commercial detriments of health, which is an important issue because it concerns relationships with commercial actors and how their actions impact on people's health, health outcomes, equity and so on. It is an interesting and important item of work. I did not see any reference to that area in the Minister of State's opening statement. Has Healthy Ireland or the Department looked at this area? Do they have a remit for it and have they done any work in this area?

We are working on a number of areas here, one of which is food reformulation. Currently, in Ireland, that is voluntary. A task force established in 2021 was given a mandate to drive the delivery of the food reformulation roadmap to 2025. A significant volume of work has been done by that task force in engaging with industry, educating it on food reformulation and working with, for example, Teagasc and Enterprise Ireland to support businesses in their reformulation journey. Another key aspect of the work is establishing a baseline to enable the monitoring of food reformulation and the ongoing monitoring of a range of products.

An evaluation of the work of that reformulation task force will be undertaken at the end of the fourth year. The impact of the reduction in nutrient targets, the improved quality of the nutritional composition of packaged and processed foods, and engagement with the food industry will form part of that-----

With respect, it is much bigger and deeper than all that. It probably would have been better if we had invited in the academic before the Minister of State, but she will get a copy of her opening statement and can read that. What the academic is talking about is much deeper than any of the responses we have so far got from the Minister of State.

We can all measure any action plan or action of the Government by the outcomes. What evidence of success can the Minister of State outline in respect of obesity? What is the evidence of the current model working? The criticism, as I understand it, from those who say we need to put as great a focus, if not more, on the commercial detriments of health is that we put a huge part of the focus on the individual and what he or she needs to do. That is important, given that we have to do all that and Healthy Ireland does a lot of that through leaflets and other promotions, but if we are not dealing with the structural issues that create a lot of the inequity, the health inequality and other structural issues, health promotion and individual action will not cut it. Can the Minister of State point out evidence of the success of the current model? How does she define success and what metrics does she use? We met an expert in the North, when we went to Derry last week, who is one of the lead researchers in obesity. He was quite critical of the health services North and South, across the island, in terms of our ability to deal with this issue, the resources put into it and so on. One issue he was talking about related to how we measure success and what metrics are used, and I do not understand what they are in our case.

There is the reformulation, which will be reviewed, and the sugar-sweetened drinks tax, on which we will be getting feedback in respect of how it has worked-----

I am talking about evidence for-----

I am coming to that.

I might put the question differently. What is the evidence of the success in decreasing the levels of obesity and the impact that is having on people?

The rates have stabilised but, with the rising population, obesity continues to be a problem. Our officials work with the WHO to look at obesity rates throughout Europe. The Deputy is correct to say it is not just up to the individual. Obesity is a complex area, so we are looking at educational and promotional campaigns and how even our policy and legislation-----

What metrics does the Department use to measure success or a lack of it?

It is very difficult to measure success in respect of that. That is the short answer.

The experts are telling us, however, that it is not as difficult as the Minister of State is suggesting. How are we ever meant to have a sense of whether a strategy is working if we cannot measure its success or failure?

We know the rates have stabilised, including for children, but with the population increasing, it does and will remain a problem. Nevertheless, we work with our international counterparts in the context of best practice and evidence-based figures for this.

I am not convinced of that at all. It is understandable, however. When I look at preventative healthcare, issues such as obesity and what Healthy Ireland does, I am not at all critical. Much good work is done on health promotion. There are a lot of leaflets, information on websites and encouragement of what individuals should do, but my point is that alone will not address the problem. The Minister of State has mentioned reformulation a number of times but that is just one area. A great deal more needs to be done. I ask her to listen to what is said in the next session and to read the opening statement, which has been sent to us. There needs to be a much deeper understanding within the Department of the commercial determinants of health, as is also the case in Healthy Ireland. Whatever action plan we have, we have to be able to provide evidence of its success and evidence that we are measuring success in the area, but I do not believe we are doing anywhere near enough in that regard. That is not to take away from what I see as good work in the other areas, but a great deal more can be done in this area. I am not going to take up more time but I will make that observation and request to the Minister of State and her officials.

It is a complex area and research is key, which is being carried out an ongoing basis in respect of this, but the Deputy is correct to say we need to improve data collection. There are a number of campaigns and it is not just one area. A multimedia campaign, for example, will begin in mid-April, involving the roll-out of media on many social media outlets. It is to raise awareness regarding the food that surrounds all of us and get people to re-evaluate the food that is marketed to us and the omnipresence of unhealthy food choices at every turn. Moreover, the campaign will use compelling cases to educate the public on the harm and impact of the food environment.

On the wider issue of obesity itself, there are sometimes misconceptions about obesity and what can cause it. It is not just about exercising more and eating less. We rolled out some very good evidence-based campaigns targeting 24- to 34-year-olds last year, which highlighted how stress levels and getting enough sleep can affect a person's weight. This is new information for a lot of people. I agree it is not just one area. It is about eating healthily, exercising more, looking at GP practices, raising awareness among all our stakeholders, informing the public and having debates such as we are having today throughout the Oireachtas to raise awareness about the significant impacts on our health. It is not just about food and exercise. It is also about genetics and many other issues that affect people's weight and can cause them to be overweight.

I thank the Minister of State. Professor Alexander Miras is the academic we met in Ulster University. He indicated they are looking to identify a hormone that affects appetite suppression, which he said is psychological.

He mentioned the fact there was co-operation, North and South, and the challenge we are facing from obesity as a society on this island. I call Deputy Kenny.

This is very interesting subject matter. My first question relates to the lobbying industry. It is a very powerful industry and very insidious. Has the Minister of State been lobbied by any food or alcohol companies since she was appointed to her current position?

I met with Alcohol Action Ireland and IBEC on the alcohol legislation. In fact, I met with IBEC after the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, had signed the regulation for the labelling. I believe it is important to speak to all sides. However, the Deputy can see from the legislation that we have brought through in regard to alcohol and tobacco that while the lobbies are very powerful, it has not had an impact on our legislation. I also met IBEC on food reformulation.

That is part of the Government process in regard to lobbying, which I understand. As I said, these companies are quite powerful and influential, not only in Government circles but also in terms of the societal aspects.

The figures around alcohol are shocking. Some 5% of all deaths in Ireland are due to alcohol-related illness, which equates to 1,600 people a year or at least four or five people a day. It is extraordinary. Has minimum unit pricing had any effect on the availability of cheaper alcohol, particularly in supermarkets?

The quick answer is that we do not know yet and we will have to let it bed in for a number of years to see the impact of it. I agree with the Deputy that we have an issue in this country with alcohol consumption, including foetal alcohol syndrome and all of those areas, which is why it is so important. Again, it is about raising awareness and letting people have information around the effects of alcohol, particularly if they are pregnant. That is why the labelling legislation was so important. People have a choice about what they do but it is about making an informed decision, which is the key in this regard.

Does the Minister of State believe that further legislation may be needed, particularly on the advertisement of alcohol? In recent years, there has been more regulation around that but the way alcohol is associated with sport is insidious and it is the same with gambling. The association with sport is widespread and can have a huge pull factor in people behaving in ways they would not normally behave. Does the Minister of State have an opinion on advertising and, in particular, alcohol?

With regard to alcohol, we are the only country in the EU that has brought in labelling regulation, which is to inform people and raise awareness around the harmful effect of alcohol by informing consumers of the content and the health risks associated with it. We are leading the way in that regard but if further legislation is required, we always have to be open to that and wait for the evidence. We have certainly stepped ahead compared to other European countries.

With regard to the broadcast watershed, on 13 November last year, the Minister for Health commenced the provision in the Public Health (Alcohol) Act, section 19 of which restricts the hours permitted for advertising alcohol products on television and radio to reduce children's exposure to alcohol advertisements. The provision will come into operation on 10 January 2025. The measures on labelling and the broadcast watershed are two measures that are actually coming.

That is welcome. However, the facts around deaths are shocking. I want to raise the issue of the sugar sweetened drinks tax, which was introduced more than six years ago. The aim of that tax was to put a financial penalty on drinks companies to stop them promoting very high sugar drinks. While I will not name the brands, some of these drinks have a very high sugar content. What impact has that tax had on companies that sell high sugar beverages?

The measure has been in place for approximately five years, as the Deputy said. The initial indications are that the tax has had a positive effect. The indicators are that drinks producers are encouraged to reduce the amount of sugar content in their products, and studies in the UK would support those indications. Last August, the Department issued a request for tender for an external evaluation of the tax to determine the extent to which it is delivering the intended public policy and health policy objectives. This includes examining if the consumption of sugar sweetened drinks has fallen either by reducing the amount of those drinks consumed or maybe where consumers are switching to healthier choices. It also includes assessing whether the industry has reformulated products to reduce the levels of added sugar in the drinks products within the tax thresholds. That contract was awarded in September of last year. The evaluation is happening at the moment and we expect it to be completed in April of this year. The Department will then publish it.

I know it is a difficult question but is it possible to give a figure for the money that was generated from this tax in the past five years?

I understand it is €30 million.

That is for the lifetime of the tax.

It is €30 million annually.

That is €30 million from the drinks companies.

That is interesting. That is €150 million. Has it been ring-fenced?

My final question is on the commercial determinants, which is the issue under discussion. We speak about the social determinants of society. My interpretation of a commercial determinant is that for commercial companies, profit trumps public health. We see this every day with fast food, vaping and many things that some of us will partake in. We have the terms “sportwashing” and “greenwashing”, but there is a type of “foodwashing” going on regarding how food is marketed to people, particularly in supermarkets. If people go into a supermarket, it is psychological warfare as soon as they walk into the place in terms of the kinds of products they buy and so on. With regard to the determinants around the commercial aspect, are there any guidelines on the main motors that drive this, particularly for fast food? Some of these companies are very profitable and they target young people in particular with the products they sell. Are there guidelines or is there possible future legislation, in particular around fast food and young people?

The Deputy raises a very important area around the appearance of something that looks healthy in our supermarkets but is it actually healthy? It is a big area that we need to examine. Again, education and awareness will be part of it but through the reformulation review and how that has worked, we will also consider, for example, the need for mandatory legislation in this area. Research is ongoing in respect of food reformulation through the task force. At the moment, there are voluntary codes of conduct around the marketing of food and also, as I said, through work that is ongoing around this through Coimisiún na Meán. It will be a broad spectrum of approaches in raising awareness and educating people around what is healthy food, the packaging and even placement within supermarkets.

We are all tempted at the checkout when we have done our healthy food shop and then see high fat, high sugar, high salt goods there. I am certainly open to this. Education and awareness are key and are a very big part of it, but there are the voluntary codes. The process through Coimisiún na Meán is going to be another area where we look at this.

I thank the Minister of State. I need to move on. I call Deputy Durkan.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and apologise for arriving late. It was a morning of meetings and more meetings. I welcome the Minister of State and her colleagues to the committee. I wish them well in their work ahead.

A few things are important in relation to health promotion. We must undertake this endeavour in the schools for starters. It must become trendy. It is not trendy enough now to eat carefully or to be within a desirable weight. I know there are ads that bring this aspect to attention but I do not think it is impacting to the extent it should. As well as that, a wide variety of healthy foods are available in shops and supermarkets today but I do not think enough is done to promote the value of such healthy foods. For example, there is a campaign across the globe now to eat no meat, drink no milk and so on and so forth. The only thing this is going to lead to is brittle bone disease at a later stage of life. We do not want this either. First of all, there is a real need for a concentrated campaign through the schools and on television to focus on young people and the effects such an approach can have on them in a very short time. It is all beneficial. Care should be taken to ensure that the food being promoted is healthy food and that it will have a beneficial impact. To what extent can we improve on this?

I would be the last person in the world to comment negatively concerning people in this regard. I shed weight once upon a time. I did not have to but I did it once upon a time. I lost 4 stone in two months, which was fairly rapid. Everybody said it would go back on again. No, it did not because the crucial issue is portions and how much we eat of a thing. Everywhere we go, we see huge portions of food being served to people, those young, middle-aged and older. I cannot see the need for this at all. It is only habit anyway. We eat more, and as a result of eating more, we want to eat more because more space is being created for the need. We should, therefore, concentrate on the young people for starters.

There is a problem with young people nowadays in respect of inaction and sitting on the couch looking at television and eating fast foods and so on. The fast foods themselves are not always damaging; again, it is the portions. We can look at fast food that has, for instance, meat in it, such as beef. It is not going to kill anybody. The problem is the amount of it. It is the same in relation to all takeaways, etc. This is a major industry these days. To what extent can we improve targeting the likely victims of unhealthy food? I ask this because they will have difficulty with various diseases in future unless they arrest the level to which they consume unhealthy food.

I think Deputy Durkan is right. It is important to say that a healthy diet does not exclude any food group, but it does mean we need to be eating more fruit and vegetables. It is also important to turn to what the Department of Education is doing through the SPHE and well-being programmes. We have the Food Dudes programme, where children are introduced to healthy eating and get packages of fruit and vegetables. Incredible Edibles is another programme as well. The FSAI is also working on food-based guidelines for teenagers. These are being developed now. The Deputy, therefore, is absolutely right that this type of policy needs to be targeted at children. This is one of the areas we are working on here at the moment. Additionally, at EU level, Ireland is working with 15 other member states on resources around marketing for children. It is an EU-co-ordinated approach using the WHO nutrient profile model, NPM, for the identification of foods not permitted for marketing to children. I refer to looking at those specific kinds of foods. Work is also being done on codes of practice to reduce unhealthy food marketing. A report on a pilot EU-wide harmonised and comprehensive monitoring protocol for unhealthy food marketing is also being worked on.

The Deputy is absolutely correct that this is around ensuring we are raising awareness of healthy eating from a very young age and it is very important to get into the schools to do this. The Food Dudes programme is run through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We also have our schools meals programme as well. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, has rolled this out and expanded it across the country. All these areas contribute to getting the message out about what healthy eating is. It is important to say that we must enjoy food as well. It is not about taking out specific food groups but, as the Deputy said, portions and healthy eating.

If we were to compare ourselves here with other jurisdictions right across Europe, how is this same situation being handled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.? These are countries that have a high standard of living. How are they managing to encourage and create what I referred to earlier as a trendiness around healthy eating and having a normal weight, etc.?

Portugal has a very good example. That country has legislated for marketing restrictions. It is another country we are working with at EU level and looking at how that approach has worked, how it is being bedded in and at the evidence of the impact in this regard. The Commission is also working on setting nutrient profiles and front-of-pack labelling. This work is being led by a cross-departmental group, including representatives drawn from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. There are several areas involved and much cross-departmental work happening in this regard as well.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine can and must promote its own sector. It is in its interest and that of the economy for it to do so. The more nutritious foods, however, are the ones we should try to support in a way that impacts young people while also being attractive to them. I say this because I am not so sure the message telling young people to eat more vegetables resonates all the time. I have only ten seconds left, however. It is only eight now, as the clock counts down.

The more the Deputy looks at the clock, the more time will fly.

The point is that I think we need to do a little bit more in concentrating on the things that will have a quick and ongoing impact, while at the same time making healthy eating attractive.

Yes. I take that point. In Spain, for example, 38% of children are overweight or obese. Every European country is grappling with this issue and this is why working at an EU level will be important. Education awareness is key and what the schools are doing is extremely important. I refer to perhaps looking at expanding this aspect as well. The marketing and packaging area is another important one. Food that is clearly not healthy is marketed and advertised as if it were a healthy product. Work in this area will also be very important.

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I welcome the Minister of State. I thank her for her work in this area and for securing the initial funding in the budget. On the tobacco control policy, the Minister of State's opening statement referred to data from the Healthy Ireland survey and the welcome reduction in tobacco use from 23% in 2015 to 18% in 2023. The question now is how can we go further and what cohort makes up this 18%. Obviously, there are people who have been addicted throughout their lives, before they ever knew of the health risks of smoking. While we need to encourage and support those people, I am particularly concerned regarding new smokers and young people starting smoking for the first time.

The Healthy Ireland 2023 survey stated that 18% of the population aged 15 or over are current smokers,14% smoke daily and 4% said they smoke occasionally.

According to the health behaviour in school-aged children study from 2018, 11% of children between ten and 17 years have tried smoking. That marked a decline of 5% from 16% in 2014. According to the European schools project on alcohol and other drugs in Ireland, 32% of 15- and 16-year-olds had tried smoking and 14% were current smokers.

Initiatives such as the quit smoking programme are really important to get that message out. Some people do not know that nicotine replacement medicine is free of charge. The uptake has increased. People are contacting the helpline and the programme has helped a significant number of people to quit smoking and kick the habit. We need to continue with those initiatives.

Our legislation on vaping is important. Vapes help people to get off smoking. The evidence would say that for smokers, it is better to vape. Vaping is one of the ways of trying to quit smoking. We are looking at all the evidence around it.

Tobacco-Free Ireland has set a target to reduce smoking levels to less than 5% of the population by 2025. This is underpinned by two strategies, namely, the protection of children and the denormalisation of smoking. Those are the two areas we need to look at. There is a public consultation around vaping. The attractiveness of vape packaging, flavours and colours will feed into that. That is ongoing work within the Department.

The Minister of State mentioned the wide range of risk factors in relation to health, specifically smoking, alcohol use, air quality, obesity, physical inactivity, non-communicable diseases, cancer, and mental and physical health. Is there any data on the health impact of drugs? There are, I am sure, thousands of daily recreational drug users who would say there are no impacts at all. Perhaps that is the case, although I am not sure. Is there data on the impact on health of drug use?

The Health Research Board regularly produces information on that. We know it is not good to take drugs. The national drugs strategy addresses harm reduction and helping those in addiction. We all know the devastating effects of addiction, not only on those who are in addiction but on their families and the communities across the country that are devastated. That is why the work of the Citizens' Assembly on Drugs Use is so important. I hope this is only the start of the conversation around drug use in Ireland. Drugs are in every town and village, as the Deputy and most people in the country know. We need to have an honest conversation about how we help people in addiction. I secured an extra €6 million in the budget for that purpose.

We are also looking at recovery. For some people, recovery might not mean getting off drugs completely. It might mean reducing the amount of drugs they use. We have very good expertise on that issue in this country.

I can come back to the Senator with figures on the specific harms caused by cocaine, cannabis, etc. This is definitely an issue that we need to address and education will be a big part of that. I secured €1.5 million for education programmes around drug use. That funding will only be given to groups where there is evidence that they are able to reach key cohorts within society to get the message out there. The HSE is doing a lot of work on this, for example, at the Electric Picnic festival. University College Cork has a very good programme, a night-time awareness campaign that engages with students on their drug use. It is about reducing harm and giving them information. A multifaceted approach is being taken, including on the criminal side where there can be absolutely no tolerance of people supplying drugs, gangland crime, etc. We have seen significant efforts by An Garda Síochána in cracking down on drug crime but we must also ensure we have a health-led approach. I am currently working on a health diversion programme. I will revert to the Senator on his specific question.

I am wondering whether drugs should be included in that group of factors that impact on health. Perhaps that will be considered in future.

"Operation Transformation", which I have watched from time to time, has a role at the start of each year in trying to motivate people to get active. There was concern about body-shaming, which is always a difficult issue. There is nothing more heartening than to see videos of people who are striving to lose weight or have been on a successful journey to lose weight. It is great to see the change in their appearance and mood and everything else that goes with it. The Minister of State will have seen on Instagram a video from New York in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, in which everybody is thin. That may be of its time. How important are education and income level in the choices that people have to make in relation to healthy eating? I listened to a documentary about the UK's poorest town, which showed that level of income is an important determinant of people's ability to eat. People did not have a choice. They were not considering going out and buying fruit, vegetables and such like because they could not afford to do so. They bought fish and chips and things like that every day because it cost £3 in the local chipper. How important are income level and education in terms of healthy eating and health lifestyles?

We have a programme called Sláintecare healthy communities, which focuses on disadvantaged areas because we know that, as in other countries, people who experience social disadvantage or lower levels of educational attainment tend to have poorer quality diets. A number of interventions have been designed to help target and help people in those areas. There is a nutrition education cooking intervention programme, which involves healthy food made easy. This was introduced in response to a body of research that highlighted a link between food preparation, food skills and food choices. We had two programmes operating in various areas of the country, primarily Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare, Offaly, Meath, Westmeath and Louth where there was a dedicated HSE resource. Further funding was provided through the healthy Ireland framework, which brought the budget to €450,000 in 2019. The primary aim of the programmes is to address health inequalities.

I hear what the Senator is saying. The affordability of healthy choices is important. It comes back to the location of many of these fast-food outlets. Where would people living in certain buy more fruit and vegetables? Where are the shops located? These are all issues we need to look at. Last year, additional funding was secured to recruit 19 community food and nutrition workers with a remit to build capacity, knowledge and skills across communities, along with local authorities and local statutory and voluntary partners. These will improve the food environment and address food poverty in local areas. The Senator is correct that this is a concern and an area we need to continue to invest in.

I thank the Minister of State.

I thank the Minister of State and the Department for the work they are doing. We were talking about obesity and messaging earlier. I was looking at a social media post by a cardiologist, Dr. Paddy Barrett, who was saying there is quite a misunderstanding about weight loss and nutrition, and that while people are talking about cutting back on food, it is not planned and, therefore, there is a problem as regards the messaging. Is enough being done on nutrition, protein requirements and, at the same time, how people can lose weight? I wonder how we will get that message across in schools about the importance of nutrition and protein and working towards reducing weight.

The Deputy is right. There is a great deal of misinformation around what is healthy food. A great deal of work is being done within the Department to get the message out there to people who want to cut back on or improve their diet in some shape or form. There is also misinformation about obesity in general. Often, the individual is blamed and people say that he or she is overweight because of his or her diet, full stop. That is not true, though, and we have rolled out campaigns targeted at certain age groups, particularly young people, about the importance of stress levels and, importantly, sleep. It is comforting to hear that it is not just about exercising more and eating less and that there are other factors involved. The Department is working to get more information out about healthy food.

The Minister of State mentioned how one in five children in primary school is obese. If so, there needs to be messaging, not only to students, but also to parents. How do we communicate this to parents as well? Obviously, we are not succeeding in that regard.

Unfortunately, everything comes back to the education system, but schools are doing good work in the form of physical activity and getting kids active. Healthy Ireland is investing a great deal of money in local communities. What is particularly good about this funding is that it is not just going to projects that blanket the country. Rather, it goes into towns and villages in every local authority area and every region. I was on Achill Island, where funding was needed for a programme for people who were inactive as a result of Covid or who were not getting out and were afraid to do so because they had had hip replacements or had been ill, including with chronic illnesses, and did not have the confidence to get active again. There was specific-----

Coming back to the issue of primary schools, is there a programme about messaging parents? Messaging is happening in the schools, but what about messaging parents directly through the schools?

Healthy eating guidelines have been developed for schools. We have the school meals programme within schools. We also have campaigns around healthy eating. It is important to target the schools. Sometimes, children are the best messengers and take home the message about healthy eating and what constitutes a balanced diet. Schools have the SPHE and well-being programmes. In terms of recycling, who are the leaders? It is not the parents and grandparents, but the children coming home and talking about how to recycle. The same approach works for healthy eating. If we can get the message into schools, the children will bring it home. There are no better communicators.

I have encountered another issue. A number of times, GPs have told me about people attending their practices with children who are totally overweight and about how there is a reluctance to have that discussion with the parents. I have heard from GPs about parents moving practices because the GPs raised the issue. What are we doing to help GP practices get the message across to parents as well?

We provide training through the RCSI. The Deputy is right about this being a sensitive issue, and we have to be mindful of the stigma. We also have children’s services for weight management and treatment. It comes down to training healthcare professionals – there is a roll-out of such training – in how to manage situations like a GP having to talk to parents.

We went through a difficult time during Covid, but we now need to focus more. We are lucky in Ireland. People might criticise the health system, but our life expectancy is one of the best across Europe. We cannot just sit at that point, though. We need to do more to help people deal with this situation.

I wish to touch on the matter of drinking at home. We had a great deal of information 25 or 30 years ago because the vast majority of people then drank in pubs, hotels and so on. Now, the majority of drinking is done at home. In a pub or hotel, there is a measure. At home, there is no measure. Are we doing enough about the issue of home drinking and the dangers involved?

The Deputy is right. I am even hearing from people in the arts that, since Covid, people are not going to the theatre as much. People are engaging in different types of activity and their patterns have changed. Staying at home and drinking may be an issue. We need to do more about this topic. I would be open to suggestions from members. We have to look at how people socialise now. It always comes down to awareness campaigns and education programmes, but the Deputy is correct about people socialising differently and about our response to same. Minimum unit pricing will help.

On messaging, sports organisations have been successful in advising players that it is not only a question of exercise and training for matches, it is also about nutrition programmes, what food they should be eating and so on. We do not seem to have translated that into our schools or out among the public. Sports clubs have done a good job on the issue, so perhaps we could learn from them.

Yes, and maybe we could do more, but schools have the SPHE programme, healthy eating initiatives and the school meals programme. If members have ideas or suggestions, I would be open to them. The schools are doing good work, but we cannot rest on our laurels. The facts are there in terms of the number of children who are obese and overweight. It is not just up to the education system, though, but to the wider environment, including sports clubs, the Department of Transport putting facilities in place for people to walk, cycle or scoot to school, and planning by local authorities as well.

I thank the Minister of State.

This is a large area. We have probably only touched on a small part of it. We could discuss the food people get in hospital after having serious operations. Even if they were healthy, they would not be able to eat some of the food offered in a number of our public hospitals.

I am glad that some members touched on the question of poverty. The mortality rate of someone who is poor is twice that of someone who is wealthy. Most of us have disadvantaged areas in our constituencies. In the local shop, there will be brown food, processed food, two-for-ones, sugary food, etc. We might touch on this issue with the next group that will appear before us. It poses a major challenge, which is why we were asking about the role of companies. The Minister of State mentioned a task force that had been set up, a reduction of 10% in saturated fat between 2015 and 2025, a reduction in our salt, sugar and caloric intake, etc. Are we on track to meet those targets? The roadmap will end in 2025. Is there a sense of how it stands now?

We have not touched on the fact that there are many people out there who do not know how to cook. Twenty years ago, I visited a group of young mothers in Brookview in my constituency. They discussed basic issues like nursing their children, but also boiling eggs, how to cook and simple things like that. I was shocked by the number of people who did not know how to cook. For many families, this is intergenerational.

People were talking about processed food, takeaways and so on. If your parents are in that lifestyle, it more than likely you are going to be in that lifestyle. It is very hard to break that cycle and the only way to do so is through education. That is how any lifestyle changes come about. We need to inform people, tell them and show them. There is an idea of a nanny state telling people to do this or that. The simplest way is to try to convince people there are alternatives there. It is about giving people alternatives, sampling other foods and showing them how to cook them.

Another thing was highlighted in the trip to the North. In many cases, we talk about people who are overweight and there could be medical or other reasons for it. When people look for support, it is not there in many cases. We did not touch today on the idea of people travelling abroad to try to get help for their weight, and we have heard about all the problems that exist. On a previous occasion when the Minister of State was before the committee, I mentioned a constituent of mine who is termed "obese". He lost one leg. It is a genetic matter. He recently lost the other leg and to get a prosthetic for his second leg, he needed to lose weight. He was told that to get into an obesity clinic, he would have to wait for between five and seven years. I spoke to the Minister for Health and he got the same reply. He was told it would take six years. I spoke to the Taoiseach, who said it was totally unacceptable. I got the same response, which was that it is a matter for the Minister for Health. We are saying there is help out there and there is, but the idea that someone would have to wait for five or seven years to get into a clinic is absolutely appalling in a supposedly modern country in the 21st century. There is a lot we can do.

I have touched on large areas relating to poverty, what we eat and what is on sale in shops, but the main thing is that we need to change people's attitudes to food by showing them that there are alternatives and showing them the basics of how to cook and move towards a healthier lifestyle. There is no reason why anyone should be hungry in this country but there are children who are going to bed hungry at night time. A lot of that is down to the fact that people do not know how to cook. There are simple things you can do with vegetables but many people do not know what to do in that regard. I have raised a couple of issues there on which the Minister of State might come back. I will allow Deputy Shortall to come back in at the end.

I thank the Chair. He raised an important point around cooking and people's ability. Sometimes people and families are time poor with both parents working. Through the Sláintecare healthy communities initiative, there are programmes to help people within certain communities around the country. They are designed in particular to help mothers to prepare meals. The issue in the roll-out of that initiative is often access to cooking facilities. On the reformulation, the roadmap will end in 2025 and there will be an evaluation thereafter of its impact. Work is ongoing in the meantime.

The Cathaoirleach mentioned bariatric services, and I know the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, alluded to them in his presentation to the committee. As the committee knows, services were set up in 2023 under the HSE bariatric plan with a view to offering 500 outpatient appointments, some 200 inpatient surgeries and 400 clinical validations. As of last December, 45.5 whole-time equivalent staff had been recruited. I understand the HSE met its target last year and, in fact, delivered 6% more activity than planned. CHOs 5 and 7 commenced multidisciplinary team services for managing obesity in children in 2023. I know that the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, indicated when he was here that he will be requesting a full report on waiting lists. I understand he will be sharing that with the committee.

I noticed that the Minister of State used a phrase a few times over the course of the morning, which is that education and awareness are key. I must say that I am not aware of any great body of evidence to indicate that they are. When one thinks about the vast sums of money that various vested interests in the alcohol, tobacco, fast-food and gambling industries spend on advertising, it is hard to see how health awareness messages or campaigns could counter them. We also know, of course, that some of those industries are providing educational programmes in schools. Drinkaware, for example, was providing to schools material about drinking. It took a long time for the Minister to put a stop to that. The same is now happening in our schools in respect of gambling.

I accept that this is a new area. We have talked a lot this morning about the social determinants of health, and they are very strong. We were hoping to have a session today on the commercial determinants of health, which are a different thing altogether relating to the undue influence of big business on health policy. It is a new area.

I do not know if the Minister of State is aware that the entire annual report of the chief medical officer, CMO, in Wales last year related to the commercial determinants of health, shaping our health and how commercial interests influence our choices and behaviours. I ask the Minister of State to give some thought to the following. Given that this is a new area, very little work has been done in this country at a departmental or official level. Will the Minister of State give some thought to commissioning a report on the commercial determinants of health in this country in order that we can assess the strength of those determinants and what can be done to counter them?

I thank the Deputy. I am here today to listen to the contributions of Deputies and for them to feed into our work so I will certainly take the Deputy's point on board. I hear what she is saying about industry, its campaigning and marketing and the force behind it. I mentioned educational awareness, which is important. We have targeted campaigns, such as the healthy weight campaign and the new safe food campaign. There are considerable resources online. Our obesity policy and action plan, OPAP, is already a systems-based plan. We have a ten-point plan that includes the wider environment. I do take on board what the Deputy is saying. We need to be prepared for marketing and the targeting of children, the presentation of food as healthy, for example, or whatever it is, and how we target that. The work with Coimisiún na Meán will form part of that. I am certainly open to the suggestions of the committee because I know it has regular contributors. I say that to the Chair. I am completely open to any feedback.

In case people might get the impression I am anti-vegetable, I am not. However, one of the things I have noticed because I am very conscious of these things, despite what people might think, is that a vegetable carries a certain taste and sometimes in the cooking, that taste is altered. That does not do anything for anybody, I can tell you. Perhaps I am odd but I certainly like the original taste of the vegetable concerned. I am not changed around by somebody adding something to it, which changes it around, and telling us that is what everybody likes nowadays. I do not think that contributes at all.

We are supposed to enjoy our food. That is no harm. I mentioned that I went on a strict diet once upon a time and it became really boring after a while. That is defeating the purpose of it so we have to try something else. I emphasise the need for smaller portions. It works.

I again thank the Minister of State for her engagement with the committee on public health and the commercial determinants of health.

Sitting suspended at 11.10 a.m. and resumed at 11.16 a.m.

I am pleased to welcome from the Health Promotion Alliance Ireland, Ms Janis Morrissey, chair, Dr. Sheila Gilheany, member, and CEO of Alcohol Action Ireland, and Dr. Liz O'Sullivan, member, and programme chair of the BSc in public health nutrition at TU Dublin; and Dr. Norah Campbell.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory with regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invited Ms Morrissey to make her opening remarks on behalf of the Health Promotion Alliance Ireland.

Ms Janis Morrissey

I thank the Cathaoirleach for this opportunity. Health Promotion Alliance Ireland is here to talk about chronic disease prevention. We have had another winter of waiting lists and trolley queues. The health service is increasingly challenged by the burden of chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia and respiratory conditions. These conditions place a significant strain on the healthcare system and the economy. Chronic diseases account for 76% of all deaths annually, 40% of admissions and 75% of bed days. Our population is ageing and growing. Our healthcare system will never be able to cope with the demand. We do not do health well in Ireland. We have an illness service, not a health service.

A major solution is staring us in the face. These chronic diseases are largely preventable. They are mostly caused by five common risk factors - poor diet, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, smoking and obesity. We know what needs to be done, yet little meaningful action has been taken to address the drivers of these leading causes of death and disability. The Healthy Ireland framework was a whole-of-government plan with the goal of addressing the wider determinants of health, but this vision has not been realised. Sláintecare stated it would have a strong emphasis on prevention and public health. When published, it seemed like a godsend to finally shift us from dealing with the latest trolley crisis and the symptoms of ill health to tackling their causes. Why has this been neglected? How often is chronic disease prevention discussed in this committee? Everyone from the Taoiseach to the Secretary General in the Department of Health has spoken of disease prevention, but too often when Government or officials talk about health promotion, they mean an awareness campaign, which is simply not enough. Prevention does not just mean campaigns or early detection of disease. It also means stopping these preventable diseases developing in the first place.

This is called primary prevention. To address the causes of chronic disease a major shift to primary prevention is required. We are all products of our environment - the circumstances in which we are born, live and age - so we need to invest in policy measures to tackle the environmental drivers of chronic disease rather than solely focusing on those already ill.

Primary prevention issues are largely ones of political choice. Decisions around areas such as smoking and obesogenic environments are made here in this building. We need to change the narrative away from waiting lists, away from campaigns that focus on individual behaviours and shift our thinking entirely.

This approach to preventing chronic disease would save thousands of lives each year and protect our stretched health service. It includes preventive strategies addressing the core determinants of health, that is, the social, economic, environmental and commercial conditions in which the risk of chronic disease emerges, such as restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy food to children.

A focus on primary prevention is recognised by the WHO as a "best buy’" being highly cost-effective, evidence-based, and yielding a significant return on investment. For example, multiple alcohol

control measures in Norway based on these "best buys" resulted in a 37% reduction in alcohol consumption per head of population compared with Ireland.

To address the lack of focus on primary prevention, the Irish Heart Foundation has established Health Promotion Alliance Ireland, an all-island coalition with a shared interest in advocating for

major policy change to promote the primary prevention of chronic disease. It comprises more than 20 leading organisations, including my colleagues here today from Alcohol Action Ireland and TU Dublin as well as prominent medical and health bodies. The vision of the Alliance is "a future without preventable chronic disease". We can play a constructive role in supporting efforts and building political consensus to reduce the burden of chronic disease on the health service.

One goal of the Alliance is to highlight the impact of harmful tactics by vested interests that are used to delay the adoption of health policy. There has been an increased focus on this area in the last

decade and it is termed the "commercial determinants of health". We have witnessed an over-reliance on individual responsibility to improve health. Smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol consumption and poor diet are often characterised as lifestyle risk factors for disease. We need to move beyond this lazy language of lifestyle. It frames health at an individual level - effectively blaming individuals for making irrational decisions that are detrimental to their health. While individuals may have a level of responsibility for their health, the language of lifestyle perpetuates a disproportionate focus on the need for individuals to change their unhealthy lifestyle as opposed to system-level change to support healthier choices. This talk of educating people on healthy lifestyles is straight from the industry playbook and feeds into commercial interests. How can you expect someone to eat a healthy diet just because they occasionally hear a radio ad when they are constantly subjected to a well-resourced onslaught of targeted marketing of readily available, cheap ultra-processed food? How can people have a choice when the odds are stacked against them?

All Government Departments influence the nation’s health. While health promotion has a junior Ministry, health should be an integral part of all relevant policy areas. Much of the action that is needed to address the commercial determinants of health falls outside of the Department of Health entirely, but the Department deals with the negative consequences of corporate influence on other Department’s policies.

In Ireland, we will shortly mark 20 years since the introduction of the workplace smoking ban. This ambitious initiative improved everybody’s health and proved the Government’s ability to stand up to the big tobacco lobby. We welcome the Minister’s recent actions on tobacco and e-cigarettes which will have a massive lasting impact on public health. Now the Government needs to repeat this brave action with other sectors, which all use the same corporate playbook to oppose any progressive health policy.

Preventing chronic disease is a political choice. Waiting lists will continue to soar unless there is greater political will to implement chronic disease prevention policies which are more effective, more equitable and more cost-efficient than targeting individuals.

Health Promotion Alliance Ireland calls on the committee to take two actions. The Healthy Ireland framework will end next year. We call for a review of its impact in terms of addressing the determinants of health. We urge commitment to a renewed ambitious focus, not targeting individuals with education, but brave policy responses to address the structural drivers of chronic disease. Second, we call for this committee to examine how health is influenced by corporate entities and how vested interests are handled in health policymaking.

I invite Dr. Norah Campbell to make her opening remarks.

Dr. Norah Campbell

I am normally used to boring my students or fellow researchers about this, so I am really grateful for this opportunity which I feel is so important because I am trying to communicate that a lot of international research is being done in this field and it is very different from what the committee may already know about health policy and population health. Traditionally, governments have tended to focus on the final routes to ill health. That means examining an individual’s consumption of an unhealthy product and using clinical treatment, education or behavioural change to do these interventions.

Since the 1980s, there has been a second way or paradigm of health because governments began to think about these really powerful ways in which an environment shapes and constrains individual’s behaviours. They began to focus on marketing and advertising and working with industries to enact corporate social responsibility.

I have been asked here today to give members an overview of a third paradigm - the commercial determinants of health. This is a term being used to account for the many ways commercial activity shapes population health by capturing health policymaking. There is a large body of recent research spanning epidemiology, business studies and policy studies that is mapping these commercial pathways, and proposing policies that can effectively address them. This work is focused on the causes of causes of disease.

I will start by saying that businesses are the lifeblood of this country and commerce is a fundamental indicator of a thriving community. Commerce safeguards health through, for example, providing us with essential medicines, eliminating trans-fats from our diets and giving us work and material wealth. Some businesses have disproportionately negative effects on human health. In March last year, The Lancet, which is a really conservative medical journal, calculated that at least one third of global deaths are attributable to just four industries: the tobacco industry; the ultra-processed food industry; the alcohol industry; and the fossil fuels industry. It is important to note that these industries are dominated by a small number of large companies with distribution power and budgets for policy and public norm shaping. It is also important to note that every country faces pressure from these commercial actors due to their disproportionate resources to shape what is known as the knowledge environment.

Their commercial activities are designed to make their products as cheap, readily available and desirable as possible. That is their mission. Research has shown how their supply chains, product design, packaging and their distribution directly increase the risks for poor health through smoking, air pollution, alcohol use, and obesity.

More subtly and profoundly, commercial actors influence public policy on health, by influencing how health problems are famed in the media, through lobbying key government departments and policymakers and through shaping preferences and cultural norms. For example, they shape how health problems are understood - for example, that obesity can be solved by just simply building health literacy and exercise, that alcoholism is a predominantly genetic disease and only infects a minority, or that vaping is an effective smoking cessation tool and nothing else.

The tasks of public affairs departments, PR firms and industry lobby groups are to work to prevent or weaken regulation on their client's behalf. That is their sole mission. They do this chiefly by promoting forms of self-regulation with policymakers. These political activities disproportionately shape this country's trade policies and our finance and investment flows. This in turn shapes health by further proposing and normalising unhealthy commodities.

Commercial determinants shape and drive inequalities. These commercial determinants impact citizens who are not profiting from the product or service that causes harm to their health and are instead faced with the burdens of these harms.

In other words, risk is not spread evenly. Young people and the poor are more vulnerable to those determinants. Anyone who walks around Ireland today will have no problem seeing that disparity. I also argue, however, that governments are vulnerable groups. The graph I included shows that governments are in this vicious cycle of smaller state budgets and absorbing the increasingly high health externalities of commercial actors, which are recording record market growth.

There are three important realities about population health I need to tell the committee about. The first, and this is collated from research on the commercial determinants of health, is that treatment will never solve the problem. Research shows that 50% of good health is dependent on socioeconomic factors, including salary, family support and the safety of the community people live in. Approximately 50% of people's good health is attributable to that. There is an idea that behavioural change has this massive impact but approximately 30% of good health is attributable to behaviour, and only 20% is attributable to people’s access to healthcare. We need to keep that in mind. The "treatment trap’" is a term used to describe how governments have been forced to focus on the urgent and visible wins in healthcare, such as hospital beds and GP provision, while being left under-resourced and depleted to deal with upstream prevention policies.

The commercial determinants of health paradigm realises that governments need a small number of structural changes rather than large numbers of small changes. I am here to say that every little does not help. It creates noise and distracts from making the couple of big changes that harmful industries would actually worry about. The paradigm shift is from treatment to prevention. This perspective asks that policymakers position health interventions along a continuum. It is not about doing all of this together and tackling big things and small things at once, but rather a continuum of doing upstream things first and then downstream things, and measuring the efficacy of these interventions. It is about moving away from interventions that place high demands on individuals, such as people educating themselves, becoming health literate, behavioural change campaigns, and this kind of nudge ideology. These are not effective. They have been shown to be ineffective compared with structural, fiscal and pricing changes and distribution access. In the treatment role, government is mopping up an increasing spill, while in the prevention role, it is turning off the tap.

The profit imperative is a natural law. I work in a business school, where I have been for the past 17 years. I am a beneficiary of business but companies make choices in the production, price setting and targeted marketing of products to make them maximally available, convenient, seductive and cheap. That is not the fault of any individual working in these organisations. It is their fiduciary responsibility and a professional norm. I do not think you would ever meet a manager who wakes up in the morning and says, "I cannot wait to make another child overweight" or "I cannot wait to make another woman dependent on daily alcohol consumption." That is just not the way it works. The operating space of these industries is determined by government incentive and disincentive. These are structural instruments that are only at the disposal of government.

A paradigm shift is happening. The unit of analysis has changed and health is more about tax, and subsidy, pricing and distribution changes, than it is about physiology.

I will not delay this time because I have to be elsewhere. I thank our guests for their contributions, their contribution to the health of the nation in general and their analysis.

We have simple ways of looking at these things. The main issues have been set out, including alcohol, eating and overeating, which is a big issue, the practices that have led to most ill health and the need to alleviate the burden on our hospitals as we proceed in future. What do the witnesses believe would be the single most important move that could be made now to encourage people to be mindful of their health in the short and long term? I am talking about young people starting off in life and so on. What is the biggest single factor?

Dr. Norah Campbell

I do not subscribe to the paradigm of overeating. It is about the overproduction rather than the overconsumption of food. That is the commercial determinant, which is focused much more on the commercial actors and their activities. What is really needed is to use fiscal instruments, such as taxation, and move subsidies to improve health outcomes. It is about this term "health in all policies", and asking what it means and what metrics are being used to measure it. For me, it is to understand that the idea of conflict of interest is not about corruption or bribery. Everyone is influenced by the commercial determinants of health. We are influenced by their framing and the ways in which they create regulatory chill. That is the term that is used. These determinants put health policymakers off much more upstream measures by putting the focus on individual responsibility, empowered choice, walking trails and this kind of thing. This makes policymakers, such as the Deputy, very scared of going upstream and tackling where the structural change actually needs to be made.

Dr. Sheila Gilheany

The Commission on Taxation and Welfare, which reported last year, was tasked with examining how effectively good health is promoted in Ireland. It was asked to present relevant reforms to advance and incentivise that goal. It came back with a very clear message - health taxes on unhealthy products were recommended.

I will take that back to the issue of alcohol because that is the issue I know most about. Excise duties on alcohol have not changed in the past ten years. They have remained the same, which effectively means that their value is now 15% lower than they were when they were last changed. There is no mechanism I can detect by which the Department of Health inputs into Department of Finance thinking on excise duties. We see a mechanism around tobacco for public health purposes. A clear goal has been set by Tobacco Free Ireland, which reports proudly that the Minister for Finance increased taxation on a packet of cigarettes by a certain amount in each budget. That has been done every year but there is no pressure from the Department of Health or, as far as I can see, a mechanism by which this would be influenced.

We see many examples of this policy incoherence, where multiple other Departments bring forward legislation or policies that have a direct impact on the Department of Health and health budgets, and alcohol takes up 11% of our healthcare budget, yet those other Departments are doing things that do not allow for good health in their policymaking. The Minister previously referred to the Public Health (Alcohol) Act, which is very welcome. It passed in 2018 but is still not fully implemented. In fact, it is a long way off being implemented with regard to restrictions on advertising and the content of that. These are modest measures but at the same time the Department of Justice is seeking to increase alcohol availability by increasing licensing trading hours. That is a complete policy mismatch. It makes no sense whatsoever. When we talk to the Department of Health about that, the response is that it is a matter for the Department of Justice, but it is not. It is a matter for the whole of the Government. We are calling on the committee to take note of this, ask how we can change the paradigm and make it that it is not just about what the Department of Health does but what the whole of the Government does.

Ms Janis Morrissey

The Deputy asked what one thing to encourage people would be. A major view of the alliance is that it is not about encouraging and imploring people to change.

We know the evidence does not support that. Instead, it is about changing the political culture around what actually causes this ill-health in the first place, and taking the pressure off individuals. As I said in my opening statement, how can we expect somebody to eat a healthy diet because they hear a radio ad or see a poster, when there is a huge power imbalance between the agency of an individual against the might of industry? It is about reverting the balance in looking at what is actually driving ill health and what are those social, economic and commercial drivers that are causing ill health, and about having that cohesive view and concerted effort across government all pulling in the one direction.

I would not necessarily agree entirely with Ms Morrissey. I believe that people do have concern, needing to do the right thing in certain circumstances. In the previous part of the meeting we spoke about colour coding the danger areas and so on, insofar as diet is concerned. I believe that is effective and can concern people about their future and the future of their health. I believe they are concerned about that and they will react to it in their own interests. A visit to some of our hospitals - for instance, those treating diabetes and amputations - can be quite graphic when it comes to advertising what the alternatives are and that should and can be used effectively as well.

Ms Janis Morrissey

On colour coding, food labelling is a really important element but if a person is someone who is of low literacy levels and does not have the wherewithal to even look at a food label, and if the person is thinking about what he or she can afford today to feed the family, they are the factors that come to the fore not what is written on the label. A label is a much smaller part of the solution here.

I will come in again later.

I welcome all our witnesses. We have very limited time, so I just want to put a number of questions first to Dr. Campbell and then Dr. Gilheany. I am not looking for everybody to answer them and I will not get through some of the questions I have.

My first observation on the opening statements is that we obviously need to simplify this message as best we can for people. We need a layperson's understanding of what we mean by the commercial determinants to health. Some of it has been laid out. My take away from what has been said in all of the opening statements is that we are putting too much focus on education and too much focus on individual responsibility but not enough focus on what we call the structural changes, which are those power imbalances and so on. Dr. Campbell gave a number of examples of physical change, pricing change, and distribution change. I have two questions on that. Will Dr. Campbell give us very practical examples of what more can be done in those areas that would make a difference?

My second question is about something Dr. Gilheany mentioned, but I will also put this question to Dr. Campbell first for her view. Does Dr. Campbell believe there are sufficient mechanisms or metrics within the Department of Health and Healthy Ireland to measure a lot of the structural interventions that are necessary? Some of them may not even be happening but some, such as the sugar tax, are examples of positive interventions. Is enough of that measurement being done? These are my two questions: the layperson's understanding of what is meant by the commercial detriments of health, and advice Dr. Campbell would give around practical measures that can be taken right now that would tackle some of those power imbalances. I will then come back to Dr. Gilheany.

Dr. Norah Campbell

I thank the Deputy for the two question. I always try to say to people that when considering the causes of disease we look at the full range of commercial activities in these health harming products. Most of us tend to see marketing and advertising and focus on how can we restrict marketing and advertising. It is absolutely a part of it but really with commercial determinants of health we are trying to look at all of the activities across what is known as the value chain. Consider the case of food, for example, where we have farmers who make food; manufacturers who process it; brands that package it; retailers that distribute it; and the consumers who consume it. Then there are the State and private agencies that dispose of the materials afterwards. This is all the value chain. There are also insurance agencies and so on but they are second tier. When we look across that chain one thing we notice really quickly when we follow the profit pools of who is benefiting from a system, which is quite frankly not working, is we start to see very evidentially that the profit pool in this country is in manufacturing and the ultra processing of the food. The top three ultra processed food producers in this country had a combined revenue of over €15 billion last year. It really put into focus that the idea is big farmers are the ones somehow profiting from this, when it is not.

On practical interventions it is a really important to note that with commercial determinants of health, we are trying to say there is a difference between upstream and downstream. Research all over the world is showing that a small number of upstream interventions are so much more efficacious than downstream ones. Consider distribution for example. Setting up green zones of 500 m, 200 m, and 50 m around schools where certain products are not available has been shown to be more effective than a campaign in schools about how to eat healthily. Using a subsidy structure to subsidise fruit and vegetables is much more efficacious than using the subsidy structure to use taxpayers' money to support health-harming industries like ultra-processed food, breast milk substitutes, and alcohol. These are the two practical areas: changing the subsidy structure; and changing the distribution and the proximity people have from these.

A lot of people earlier today spoke about tobacco. We can absolutely see there has been a big decrease in the numbers of smokers in this country and around the world. It is not because of education campaigns, posters and behavioural nudges. None of those worked ever. The only things that shifted the index of disease downwards were tobacco controls that were top down.

I must cut in because of time. I apologise. I have a related question. One of the issues raised by Dr. Campbell today is the need for us to look at fiscal levers, taxation, and other fiscal measures and tools we can use to shift that power imbalance. What additional practical measures would Dr. Gilheany advocate that would make a difference in this space?

Dr. Sheila Gilheany

The control in marketing is extremely important, along with control in prices and control in availability. These are the three pillars the WHO calls their "best buys" to really make a shift. When we look at advertising-----

My question is, in what areas? Obviously, there has been some progress in measures around nicotine, alcohol and sugar. Will Dr. Gilheany give us examples of areas where we need to do more?

Dr. Sheila Gilheany

I have to come back to alcohol because more has to be done. In 2021 the industry spent €150 million on alcohol advertisement. The HSE alcohol programme spent about €65,000 so we can see the massive difference there. I am not asking that the alcohol programme would spend €150 million, it would make more sense to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising we can see. There needs to be coherence in this. Reference was made earlier to Coimisiún na Meán and the online codes. There was discussion about the Department of Health engaging with the commission around inputting into those codes. That is very valuable but they are not inputting about alcohol and the online targeting of children and young people, and indeed vulnerable people, in many ways with online marketing. There is a need for policy coherence. I would advocate for an office for alcohol harm reduction within the Department of Health that would take a view right across all Departments and provide advice on what needs to be done across these different Departments. That is one thing. A second thing that is needed is proper collation of the evidence around us.

There was a question earlier about minimum unit pricing and how effective it is or otherwise. We are not looking properly or gathering the data on this. The previous Minister for Health had set up the public health alcohol research group, which reported to him and provided advice on what needed to be done. There has been no response yet on what is going to happen in this regard. Other countries publish indicators every year on how many people die as a result of alcohol. We have not had an update on the number of such deaths since 2017, which was the last time the number of deaths was measured and published. That is just one example. We know that approximately 1,500 beds are used every night in the context of alcohol illness but we do not have a measurement, on a flashboard or some such device, indicating we changed our policy and are now seeing such a trend. We do not have such mechanisms. They need to be put in place. The structural changes needed will help politicians drive the change that is needed. Instead of these, we have an industry with a massive amount of contact with the politicians and policymakers who effectively write the policies put into place. Somehow it is all seen as a partnership and regarded as great. It is not; it is very damaging to health.

The witnesses are very welcome. I thank them for their presentations and the work they are doing in this area to raise awareness of a phenomenon many people are not aware of.

Dr. Campbell talked about the framing. Could she explain exactly what she means by that? What are the industries' strategies to frame in a way that counters public health messages?

Dr. Norah Campbell

I will be very quick. Framing is one of the big prongs of research in this area. It simply means how health problems are understood. When you set up a health problem by saying obesity is a physiological disease and that it is beneficial to educate people on it, empower people and give them healthy choices, the solution invariably becomes very much an individual one. Research internationally has shown that industries frame problems and do so in three ways. One method is through policy partnership. The industries have a seat at the policy table, and they are working really hard to frame the problem so its solutions will be very much downstream and made to be downstream. We have television programmes on how to lose weight that are sponsored by supermarkets. This frames the solution offered as the route to losing weight. We know that the science shows that this is completely not the case. The main thing I have seen in the literature is that when any of the industries is faced with regulation or a regulatory threat, it does two things, one of which is to position itself as the problem-solver. The implication is that it is needed at the table to solve the problems. These problem-solvers work towards strategic delay. We have had a reformulation strategy in this country since 2017, not 2021. In 2017, it was run by the industry lobby. We still do not have figures on its so-called success metrics. The reports were launched by the Taoiseach at the time and the initiatives were entirely self-run by the industry.

The second prong is known to involve the creation of policy dystopia. If I am a lobbyist working for the food industry, alcohol industry or tobacco industry, including the vaping industry, I am told to create certain messages. One is that the policy threatens employment. That is a really big one. There is no research that supports that. Another big message is that the policy is regressive. Other messages are that smugglers will increase illicit trade, the policy acts beyond its jurisdiction, there is not enough evidence to keep on gathering evidence, and the cost of compliance and monitoring will be too high such that compliance should be left to the industry. Yet another is that the problem is complex and multifactorial, meaning we all need to sit down and have another big think about the matter. This is known in the literature as policy dystopia. We can see this lobbying playbook every single every single time politicians interact with industry representatives. It pertains to the alcohol and ultra-processed food industries. Historically, this has been the case. When the committee members see and embrace these discourses, they should know that they are being framed by industry.

I thank Dr. Campbell. When Dr. Gilheany was talking about lobbying, I could not help remembering my experience in 2012 with the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill. At that stage, the CMO was adamant there would be no industry representatives on the working group. They were kept out completely. As a Minister of State at the time, I did not meet any of them, but I will say that every other Minister was lobbied by them. The lobbying concerned everything from agriculture - in the context of food exports - to business. IBEC and Diageo representatives were in all the time. They lobbied by means of every mechanism possible. Does Dr. Gilheany believe there is a need to tighten up lobbying regulations in this area? We have made some progress in recent years but lobbyists are getting around it. There seems to be a cohort of people who move seamlessly from being ministerial advisers to being lobbyists for big business. Is there a need to change or tighten up the law in this area?

Dr. Sheila Gilheany

I am glad we have the lobbying register. That is something but it is minimal given what is actually needed. It is quite easy to hide behind it because one can say a meeting was reported, but that may be all. Sometimes, the minutes do not really cover what is required. People may meet under one hat or for one issue and are able to raise another at the meeting, or they may bring more people to the meeting than will be reported in the lobbying register. This actually involves other industries. The first point is that the lobbying register should be much more expensive than it is.

Also, there is probably a need for laws on advisers and politicians going to work for industry. There needs to be a much longer cooling-off period. To me, it is unacceptable that an adviser to a Minister can walk straight into an industry that benefits directly from that Minister's actions. Therefore, there is a considerable need to curtail this activity or, at the very least, observe it and understand it much better.

Let me give the Deputy an example. In the past year, the lobbying returns concerning the Sale of Alcohol Bill show there were eight meetings at senior level between industry representatives and either the Minister for Justice or senior officials. There was only one meeting with a public health advocate, namely, us. I am referring only to meetings at a very senior level and I am not counting all the meetings that would have taken place at principal officer level, for example. At many times, the latter meetings are the most effective because the principal officers are the ones really working on the policies. The scale of the lobbying gives an indication of the power imbalance.

I can understand how a Minister and top officials are comforted when they hear all the time the message that things will be grand and that sales will be good for employment and excellent for the economy. While I understand they will not want to hear the voice of doom and gloom from Alcohol Action Ireland, the State will ultimately end up picking up the bill for not legislating or regulating properly in this area.

We know the solutions that work. One of the most frustrating things about this is that we can point to multiple countries that have implemented good policies in this area, resulting in much better health outcomes. Norwegians drink 37% less per capita than people in Ireland. They are drinking at a level that would apply if we were all drinking according to the HSE's low-risk drinking guidelines. Norwegians are not inherently different from us. They do not have massively different genes. What is different is that they have a complete ban on alcohol advertising, high rates of tax on alcohol products and limits relating to availability.

It is not prohibition. It is just putting a bit of restriction on what is there and it works.

I thank the witnesses. It has been really interesting. I recall when I was in the Union of Students of Ireland, we disaffiliated from Drinkaware because we recognised that it did not make sense for a drinks company to be leading off on this. It was highly controversial when we did it more than ten years ago. It caused a furore at the time. It is very interesting hearing the witnesses talking today and being able to give ourselves a pat on the back to recognise that we were right at the time.

I am struck by the fact that someone mentioned that a lot of the things are tinkering around the edges. I often wonder about and I have an enormous number of questions about the impact of television shows. We have "Ireland's Fittest Family" and "Operation Transformation" and all these others that filter out into the wider community. We have "Operation Transformation"-style things in schools, for example. They are possibly considered as being very well-meaning and giving opportunities and inspiration to people. Is there any evidence that, not only are these tinkering around the edges and are not really meaningful drivers of change, but they could be detrimental? We hear a lot from groups on the issues of disordered eating or intuitive eating about the impact that "Operation Transformation" and other things that tinker around the edges can have, particularly on young people. Perhaps some of these things can have the complete opposite result of what is intended. I know this point is a bit more micro than some of the bigger levers we were talking about. Is there any evidence to show that these pieces that tinker around the edges are detrimental and are doing the complete opposite of what we are hoping to do?

Ms Janis Morrissey

As the Senator said, this tinkering around the edges very much perpetuates the message that individuals need to do more, have better willpower and be stronger. It blames individuals for being the products of their environment. Children are growing up with this message and are being exposed to a flood of marketing as well. They are getting one message that they are not doing enough, yet they are being consistently exposed to highly well resourced marketing for junk food and other harmful products. There is a huge mismatch here and we are doing our young people a disservice by exposing them to this messaging in schools and in the wider community. We have a duty of care for young people. We need to protect them from these harmful messages. It is not about them as individuals. Yes, education is important but the imbalance of the corporate messaging around individualism needs to be addressed. Messaging like people just need a bit more information or parent need to be better parents, is wholly inappropriate and really ignores the weight of evidence on the impact of corporate tactics.

Perhaps we are straying a little here again but these programmes are on our national broadcaster. They are freely available. Advertisements are run, sometimes even from Government, and they are allowed into our schools. Does this area need much more regulation because some of these advertisements are potentially quite harmful? That would take an enormous shift in thinking among educators and the powers that be who decide what is broadcast on our TVs. Should more be done in this regard?

Ms Janis Morrissey

Everything is very well intentioned but we can see that there is certainly a lack of focus on the type of material circulated in schools. Drinkaware has been referred to. There is no regulation or oversight by the Department of what materials are circulated in schools or what messaging they perpetuate. We need to see leadership from the Department of Education regarding how corporate entities engage with schools. This would include the types of messages they give, logos on materials and how they sponsor things. It goes back to the idea of soft power. Helping schools and children helps the corporate image. We need to look at the reasons corporates are doing particular activities.

Dr. Norah Campbell

Two years ago, a large study was done in global brain science on the idea of nudge messaging and this type of small, incremental educative changes. This idea has bee really embraced by many governments and health departments, in particular, across the world. Two people involved in nudge messaging wrote the study, which is really interesting. It shows across area after area that nudge messaging has had very low, negligible or null effects. One of the authors ended up coming to Trinity College to talk about the study. One of the things I found really interesting was that they said that not only had they spent a decade on nudge marketing, it had been a message that is very consonant with the goals of commerce. A person can be made into a very busy fool when they are focusing on downstream individual issues while in our heart of hearts we know that it is much more about structural changes. That is where the research is around the those small behavioural changes at the moment.

One of the things that is even worse and links to the Senator's question, is that when individuals hear nudge messaging, they become resistant to subsequent structural messaging. If, for example, a farmer is messaged on doing certain individual biodiversity arrangements on his farm, he will subsequently become more resistant to structural changes because he is in the nudge paradigm. This is where it is really interesting that nudge messaging has not just been inefficacious in bringing change but it can actually contribute to resistance to structural change because people are embracing ideas such as individual willpower or going on an effective diet. Those are really problematic messages.

I welcome the witnesses. It is important to state that life expectancy has increased in Ireland. More importantly, the healthy and disability-free life expectancy has increased and is higher than the EU average. We all want to see that continue to grow. This is through the work of advocacy groups for healthy lifestyles. It is also connected to Government initiatives and legislation and the support of the majority of Opposition Deputies.

Ms Morrissey has said that the solution is staring us in the face and that these chronic diseases are largely preventable. She mentioned the five common risk factors as poor diet, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, smoking and obesity. Ms Morrissey makes it sound as if solving those problems would be easy. This concerns me because I do not think it would be. The number of smokers has dropped, but 18% of people are still smokers in Ireland. Government and the political system has engaged in different ways. Taxes on cigarettes have increased by 50 cent in every budget for the past number of years. We have also had initiatives on plain packaging and the distribution of cigarettes, health warnings, the ban on advertising and tackling the issue of vaping. What exactly could be done to reduce the 18% figure? I assume that none of the people in the 18% bracket are unaware of the health implications. At this stage, they must all be aware that smoking impacts on health. What exactly, short of outlawing cigarettes, can be done? Even that would not work because a black market would spring up. I do not think anyone would advocate a complete ban. What can be done to reduce the 18% figure to 2%, 3% or 5%?

Ms Janis Morrissey

I certainly did not mean to imply that it would be easy, but there is an opportunity because of the commonality of those five risk factors across a range of chronic diseases. Rather than thinking about tackling cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia or respiratory conditions, there is a huge opportunity in front of us to look at those five areas. Addressing them with meaningful policy measures will have real benefits in terms of all of those preventable diseases I mentioned.

For example, 80% of premature heart disease and stroke is preventable, while 40% of cases of cancer can be addressed by taking these actions. There is that commonality of risk factors. As regards smoking, significant strides have been made but 18% is a failure. Our target is 5% in 2025, next year. In terms of where we go from here, it is looking at initiatives such as Tobacco 21 and considering why children start smoking. We need to protect them better and stop them starting to smoke. There is awareness in the context of people who are already smoking but we need to get to the root cause. We can take inspiration from other areas, such as the measure proposed in New Zealand to ban young people from accessing cigarettes in the first place. We need to keep building. We lost a significant amount of momentum. The workplace smoking ban was a fantastic achievement, but it was brought in 20 years ago and we have lost a lot of momentum since then. We have been a laggard in Europe in terms of addressing e-cigarettes. We very much welcome the developments recently announced by the Minster in terms of gaining ground in that area. It comes back to policy measures, such as looking at the marketing and pricing all of those common drivers. No matter what the harmful product is, whether it is tobacco, alcohol or unhealthy food, the drivers are very similar. It comes back to having a political culture of understanding and acting on those drivers rather than relying on people to be more educated or to inform themselves.

Okay. I am not sure I agree with Ms Morrissey but she is more knowledgeable in those areas than I am. I knew an individual - he has since passed away, Lord have mercy on him - who gave up cigarettes after he woke with a coughing fit. It was a harsh lesson and I am sure it impacted on his longevity. People who started smoking in the 1950s or 1960s were not aware of the dangers. A certain brand of cigarettes was advertised as the brand your doctor would recommend or something like that. That was the advertising at the time. One could understand that people started to smoke then. Nowadays, however, everybody knows the dangers. I do not know the solution. I do not think it will be easy. Perhaps Dr. Campbell knows the solution.

Dr. Norah Campbell

I have the solution; everyone can just stop now. There is a need to understand there is a lost generation in this context. What we really need to do is stop the uptake of smoking in the first place. New Zealand, for example, has proposed legislation that will make it illegal for anyone born after 2009 to buy cigarettes. That will ratchet up year on year, such as for those born after 2010 or 2011, and, over time, the illegality of cigarettes expands. That is probably the only effective method. There are more problems relating to addiction, however, such as in the case of alcohol. Research published three months ago in the British Medical Journal shows that ultra-processed food has addictive qualities as well. Addiction is widespread. We are an addicted population, rather than one with incidences of hardcore smokers. A kind of sunset clause on tobacco is the most efficacious thing I have seen to get it done.

Dr. Liz O'Sullivan

On people knowing what is good for them, particularly as regards tobacco, young children taking up smoking may have some sense of it but their capacity to understand the long-term implications is not the same as the capacity of an adult to know those implications. In the context of what adults may know, however, and the helpfulness of public health messaging, everybody is largely aware that we should be consuming a minimum of five portions of fruit or vegetables per day. The formal recommendation is for five to seven portions, but people will parrot the idea of five a day. According to our national adult nutrition survey carried out from 2008 to 2010, the average intake in the population was approximately two and a half portions a day. According to the most recent data, from 2021 to 2022, that figure is now up to approximately three and a half portions a day. That increase comes through the course of ten years. The adult population is now consuming, on average, three and a half portions of fruit and vegetables when the education piece or the messaging in respect of five a day is universal. People simply knowing what is good and what they should do is not enough. We talked a lot about poverty and inequity. Simply knowing is not good enough if things like subsidies for fruits, vegetables and the more helpful food products are not available, we are subsidising the wrong things and foods that have a lower health profile are much more ubiquitous and affordable.

On the issue of subsidies, one of the current challenges is that, according to a farmer spokesperson I heard recently speaking on the price of vegetables, the multiples are undercutting the cost for a farmer to actually grow those vegetables. That has to be put into the equation.

To get back to a point I made earlier to the Minister of State, some people have no experience of eating vegetables or fish, for example. I know lots of families who have never eaten fish and do not like it. Their fish is the fish they get in the chipper or wherever. They do not like the taste or smell of it but they have no experience of it. That is the point I am making. How do you bring people on board with the policy without education or giving them that experience? You can subsidise vegetables until they cost nearly nothing but if people are not going to eat them, you are wasting your time.

It is a similar issue when it comes to the pricing of cigarettes. Are people giving them up because of their cost? The price of cigarettes goes up in every budget but smokers are addicted to cigarettes and find it difficult to give them up in spite of campaigns or the pricing. There will always be an element who use cigarettes. There is a role for education, though "education" may not be the right word. It is about giving people the necessary experience. To go back to the issue of young mothers, many of them did not know how to cook and had never been taught how to cook. Their parents might not have been able to cook. I know families who are in that situation. If you go to their local shop, however, you will see two-for-one deals on brown food, as it is called, such as pizza and other processed, instant or microwaveable food. It is a significant challenge, particularly for poor people. If we try to promote products that are more expensive, we will lose the battle, particularly in respect of those who are poor. They do not see any alternative to feed their families.

Dr. Liz O'Sullivan

The Cathaoirleach is making a key point relating to the commercial determinants of health. If the foods that are available and accessible through local smaller shops are the less desirable ones, that is a massive challenge. The response to that is not education. I am not saying there is no place for education but simply telling a person who is working multiple jobs, may not have access to a car and may only have access to a small local shop not to consume X, Y or Z or giving them education on an optimal diet is not going to be of any help when they go to the supermarket. The cheapest and most accessible products available there for them will not necessarily be the options in respect of which we have provided education. The Cathaoirleach has made a great point in support of regulating the commercial entities.

I am conscious that no one should be going hungry but those who are living in a hotel room with their family and have access only to a kettle are reliant on processed food, takeaway food and so on. I am conscious of the proportion of Irish people who are stuck in that situation.

Dr. Liz O'Sullivan

In addition, focusing on education, ultimately places the blame for not changing on the person in question, such as the young parent who has a family.

If you tell people what they should be doing but they are not able to implement those changes because of the structure and environment in which they live, that places the blame on them. That is not conducive to change or helpful. We want to veer away from that and not focus on blaming individuals for poor health choices.

I thought of a couple of points as I was listening earlier. I wish to make sure I have them correct in my head. The witnesses can correct me where I am wrong, which is usually the case. We are talking about primary prevention, part of which is selling. We all probably become hospital-centric, at times, when we think about being healthy and looking after ourselves. We think in individual scenarios that we will train more, eat better and do whatever is necessary. I get the point that we cannot rely in an awful lot of circumstances on individual behaviour. It is always beneficial when people partake in best practice. It is also about the environment. I think Dr. Campbell said that 50% of the basis of your health is your socioeconomic setting - everything from family to environment and the resources you have - 30% is behaviour and 20% is access to healthcare. I think she used the phrase "health in all policy". Then, we are down to what we can do. We spoke about commercial detriment, It is a fact that industry has sold itself and pushed us in a particular way as we look at dealing with this issue. It is either a matter of hospital-centric thinking in dealing with disease or of trying to push people into the best individual behaviour. It has not been particularly successful, it would be fair to say.

In the examples the witnesses used, they spoke about green zones and proximity. We all understand, particularly when talking about alcohol, that if it was discovered today, it would be banned outright but prohibition probably does not work across the board. We could have a long conversation on drugs but today is not the day for that. There needs to be proper interaction with the commission on taxation and between health and finance in getting down to basics. It is about marketing, prices and availability and how we deal with that. There were some really strong points about how the alcohol industry can put its €150 million against the €65,000 the State will pony up in some way, shape or form.

There are two things for us to consider - that we have to sell to people what the big wins are and the easiest way to implement this. On some level, we all want to get those big wins. They are not only great for society; they are great for government coffers regarding the amount of money we end up spending. We need workable solutions. When we are discussing subsidies, it probably means a long conversation with the European Commission and whoever else. For this to happen, some of it needs to happen at a wider European level. It is about the information we need from the point of view of selling the argument and where we can introduce the big wins that make people healthier, which in turn means we spend less and get more bang for our buck.

Dr. Liz O'Sullivan

Cross-departmental and cross-governmental collaboration and having policies that are in agreement with one another are important. We do not need to just look at subsidies that will help consumers to buy certain things; we need to look at government activities and how they subsidise various industries. Based on a 2021 article in the Irish Examiner, through Enterprise Ireland, the Irish taxpayer gave subsidies of more than €13 million from 2014 on to the infant formula industry. The infant formula industry is booming in Ireland. There is Department of Health and HSE guidance around breastfeeding, yet there is consistent marketing and advertising of the infant formula industry. The Department of agriculture encourages farmers to return to dairying, an outcome of which is infant formula. We need to acknowledge, across all areas of government, how policies or practices may be in competition with one another.

We deal with every issue in a silo.

Dr. Sheila Gilheany

The Government has invested about €42 million in the alcohol industry over the past decade by means of grants and investments through NTMA in the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund. There needs to be a framework for the whole of government on how it interacts with industries that make unhealthy products. For example, the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, through the NTMA, has a policy of not investing in the tobacco industry or the fossil fuel industries, which came about from a 2018 Act. However, it invests in alcohol. That is because there is nothing to say not to do it. This is where it comes back to needing a framework.

Another example of where I see unhealthy industries inserting themselves and becoming the solution to the problem is the Food Vision 2030 policy, which is all about sustainable food and how it can be better. It was about food but it had three representatives from the alcohol industry, including the chair of Diageo in Ireland. That tells you how important it regarded making sure it was included in this. It is then effectively seen as being in a partnership with the Government but it is not a food; it is alcohol. In some of the recommendations, there was stuff about labelling and it said labelling is great and all very well but let us make sure it does not interfere with our commercial practices. I was attuned to that because we are very aware of labelling issues around alcohol. Somehow, this industry was considered important enough to be invited to be part of the group that put together that policy. We have to start looking at why we invite an unhealthy industry to make policy across government. It needs to be looked at in every shape and form, for example with regard to investment and grants. Enterprise Ireland gave a grant of €7.5 million to Diageo to construct a new sustainable plant to make its products. Alcohol is a barrier to 14 of the sustainable development goals. Why on earth would our Government give any sort of investment to so-called sustainable alcohol? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. There is a need for a proper framework.

Dr. Norah Campbell

We need to go back and question that partnership model. Over the past 20 years of two decade-long obesity plans, has it worked? What are the indications that this paradigm works? I have done a lot of work on food reformulation and its history. It is an example of policy substitution. There is no such thing as healthy reformulated food. You can reformulate to take out nutrients of concern but you are not making that food healthy. What happens is that there is industry-leading food reformulation and, at the same time, norm-setting - if you have foods that are low in salt, sugar and fat, you should be grateful as a population. We know that reformulated food has a displacing effect. You eat fewer wholefoods when you eat autoprocessed foods. We congratulate ourselves on the targets we may or may not meet on reformulated foods without looking at the history and asking how we ended up in a conversation about making foods nominally or minimally less harmful than they are now. We need to look at things like policy substitution, regulatory chill and where we are disempowered in policy-making. That is everywhere in all of these industries - they have captured policy-making.

It is that same idea and framework. However, it is a real framework and the targets we are setting are not just subsets where we are missing the point of the idea, which is that we are all eating healthier.

Dr. Norah Campbell

We are not eating healthier and we never will in a reformulated-----

It is also what the Cathaoirleach has said, which is the idea that we are facilitating and not just hammering people in lower socioeconomic brackets.

I would like to think we have started a conversation. I know members would like to come in again, and I would also like to ask more questions. It is something we can maybe return to in the future, but this has been a useful engagement. I thank the representatives of the Health Promotion Alliance Ireland and Dr. Norah Campbell for their engagement with the committee.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.30 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 February 2024.
Top
Share