Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I join with the Chairman in welcoming the representatives from the Nutrition and Health Foundation the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management, and Mr. White. They are all very welcome. I do not have many questions to ask.

There is no question but that Mr. Trevor White's contribution has challenged us. That merits some further consideration and, no pun intended, we need to chew on it. It is not a bad thing to be challenged. I welcome that. The representatives should not think, in terms of any of their cases, that by not asking questions we are not interested. We are deeply interested in all they have outlined.

I welcome the Nutritional Health Foundation's representative, Dr. Cullen. I will not address the issues Mr. White raised regarding the composition of the foundation or the way one accesses it. However, I note that in the circulated pre-meeting text there is a significant food and beverage industry representation. There is a 2:3 ratio from the point of view of the food and beverage industry to non-industry partners. I have a minor concern about the presentation, although I am encouraged by several of the points in it.

Reference was made to prioritisation. It is all to do with perception. The NHF chooses two groups to prioritise in the context of childhood obesity - pregnant women and children. It helps to make the point that was made in the contrary presentation by Mr. White because it is important that the food and beverage industry have priority consideration in the matters under address. It does place the priority responsibility on the individual. We are all challenged by an array of different pressures in modern life choices. Time is a big factor and affordability is another issue. This does not apply only to the choices we make about the foodstuffs we purchase in supermarkets or convenience stores.

It is not an issue for me whether research and development incentives for the industry are the carrot or the stick but incentives must be put in place for the industry to make better choices in the component parts of their products. Are there alternatives to the ingredients used in the manufacture of products aimed at the food shelves of our supermarkets? Can we examine the notion of encouraging research and development into alternative ingredients that are less threatening to our general health, with a particular focus on obesity in young people?

Deputy Dowds referred to the sugar tax proposal. It is important that everything is measured. It is not that sugar is bad for people. Sugar creates energy and is an essential ingredient in many products. The issue is the excessive employment of sugar in many products that are currently available, and there needs to be an identification of what is normal, reasonable or acceptable and where the excess needs to be confronted. That is where we should focus some attention.

I know from my role as a Dáil Deputy over the past number of years - I am not attacking the leisure industry - that a fact of life in these ever-straitened economic times is that more and more families cannot afford access to leisure facilities and activities because of prohibitive costs. Families in my constituency have made a conscious effort to encourage their young children's participation in a variety of physical activities, and I acknowledge there are cheap or no-cost alternatives, but it is difficult in these times when some children can enjoy access to certain activities and others cannot. This contributes to the sense of inequality in our society. As Dr. Cullen pointed out, it leads to a similar choice to that between a healthy but costly food option and an unhealthy but less expensive option. The expense issue features not only in our food choices but in all other choices life offers and, for many, these cannot be offered because they cannot afford them.