Volume 199 - Issue 7
Australia’s dietary guidelines and the environmental impact of food “from paddock to plate”
Author: Alexandra McManus
Med J Aust 2013; 199 (7): 457. || doi: 10.5694/mja12.11846
Published online: 7 October 2013
Published online: 7 October 2013
To the Editor: Selvey and Carey infer that the consumption of imported seafood by Australian consumers is evidence that Australian seafood production is unsustainable.1 However, trade in canned and frozen seafood is extensive because these products are stable and because of the comparative advantage of production between countries. The same process results in Australia’s reliance on imported electronics, clothes and cars - it does not ...
To the Editor: Selvey and Carey1 cite an article by Srinivasan and colleagues2 to support their claim that “Forty per cent of Australia’s managed fish stocks have been deemed overfished”. However, the data in that article were misquoted from the Australian Government’s Fishery status reports 2006, which actually stated that 14 of the 97 fish stocks reviewed were overfished3 — 14%, not 40%. More recent evidence from the 2012 review of 150 fish stocks showed that only two (1.3%) were at risk of overfishing, and plans were already in place for their effective recovery.4
Australian fisheries are among the best managed in the world.4 Based on this evidence, Australia should be commended for its rigorous and vigilant commitment to the effective and sustainable management of our fish stocks.
Selvey and Carey also mention the lack of comment about “the environmental impact of the food supply” in the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) draft Australian dietary guidelines.5 I would argue that the role of the NHMRC in this instance is to provide advice and guidance on adequate and optimal human nutritional intake based on the best available evidence. Evidence-based dietary guidelines and health recommendations should not be compromised, or their currency lost, by the question of whether sufficient grain, fruits, vegetables, meat or fish can be produced to meet the recommendations for a given population. While this is a vitally important question, it is the role of others with appropriate expertise and knowledge of current evidence to comment on how the recommended dietary needs of populations can be met while considering sustainability and the environmental and ecological impacts of food production.
Competing interests
The Centre of Excellence for Science, Seafood and Health (CESSH) is an independent research centre that has several current projects funded through the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre. The comments contained in this letter are independent of any of the bodies from which the CESSH has successfully gained research funding.
References
- Selvey LA, Carey MG. Australia’s dietary guidelines and the environmental impact of food “from paddock to plate”. Med J Aust 2013; 198: 18-19. 0_CHDDFIDF
- Srinivasan UT, Watson R, Sumaila UR. Global fisheries losses at the exclusive economic zone level, 1950 to present. Marine Policy 2012; 36: 544-549. 0_i1142868
- Larcombe J, McLoughlin K, editors. Fishery status reports 2006: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2007. 0_i1142870
- Flood M, Stobutzki I, Andrews J, et al. Status of key Australian fish stocks reports 2012. Canberra: Australian Government Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, 2012. http://www. fish.gov.au/Pages/SAFS_Report.aspx (accessed Aug 2013).
- National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian dietary guidelines incorporating the Australian guide to healthy eating: providing the scientific evidence for healthier Australian diets. Draft for public consultation. Canberra: NHMRC, 2011. http://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/files/consultations/n55draftaustraliandietary guidelinesconsultation111212.pdf (accessed Aug 2013).