National Food Policy Working Group



Thank God! Food policy is finally catching up with food science...Today the National Food Policy Working Group was formed to advise Government  on food policy.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig said in this FoodMag release: “We are interested in seeking views from key industry representatives about how the Government can support industry growth and productivity.”


Though I have high hopes for this advisory committee, I'd have had more hope if  Ludwig had said something like "We are interested in seeking views from key industry representatives about how the Government can support the growth of healthy food industries, and gain a balance between food economics, food technologies and toxicology." - but hey, it's early days.


Members of the National Food Policy Working Group from FoodMag
• Michael Luscombe – Managing Director and CEO Woolworths
• Michael Byrne – CEO Linfox Logistics
• Dr Alastair Robertson – Deputy Chief Executive of CSIRO
• Terry O’Brien – Managing Director Simplot Australia
• Simone Tully – CEO of OBE Organics
• Jock Laurie – President National Farmers’ Federation
• Janine Allis – CEO Boost Juice
• Kate Carnell – CEO Australian Food and Grocery Council
• Malcolm Jackman – CEO Elders Ltd
• Nick Stace – CEO Choice (Australian Consumers Association)
• Alison Watkins – Managing Director and CEO Graincorp
• Jeff Lawrence – ACTU Secretary
• Dr Peter Williams – Associate Professor of Nutrition and Dietetics at University of Wollongong

Members of the National Food Policy Working Group from FoodMag

Labels: , , , , ,

Review: "The Farmers' Nightmare" by Ranald Moore in Quadrant Magazine Sep/10

I eat crops, do you eat crops? Yes. You do. Everyone does. So shouldn't we be hearing more debate around farming culture in Australia? And more from the farmers themselves?

Ranald Moore makes a very valid argument in his opinion piece for Quadrant that the issues around why farmer Peter Spencer climbed up a pole and went on hunger strike weren't given as much media attention as the stunt itself. Moore uses the example of Peter Spencer to launch the trajectory of his piece on land clearing restrictions and the pressures they are placing on farmers. Moore argues convincingly that the restrictions which see that land not farmed regularly is locked up for "de facto national parks without any cost to the public purse" are damaging to farmers and the food market. Ranald goes on to talk about the bristling tension between government and farmers, and points to the Green-Left movement as historically being ideologically opposed to farmers and their naughty non-sustainable ways. As histrionic as Moore's writing can be in places, he's got a real point: are farmers getting the right sort of support from government? And are farmers the ones having to pay the "full cost of meeting Australia's emissions targets"?
Clearly the old agricultural paradigms aren't a smoothly oiled machine...we're still churning out food at a rate which means we are still able to export it, but is it at a rate sustainable for farmers and the world? Or do farmers here, like almost everywhere else, need more support than they're getting?

As interesting as this piece is, it is a very one sided opinion, which does not take into account environmental impacts of clearing, such as soil degredation and salination, or loss of diversity. It is a good sounding board for what some farmers have concerns about in a time in which it is particularly frustrating and difficult to make a living from agriculture, and at a time when every man and his dog is fearful over 'food security', and in which productivist and commercial values are espoused over all others. It's part of a larger debate too, over how much power landowners really have in their possession of land, and between autonomy versus community-based ideology. So cheers Mr Moore, for making me think hard about an issue that should very definitely be debated openly in the social arena!


Snake says - for the best opinion, form your own. Read around!
If you want more information on these topics you can subscribe to Quadrant (or to us!), or see the links below.

Or leave your own opinions for others to see and respond to by commenting!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

GM "Frankenfoods" - monsters or misunderstood?

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) got a lot of press in the late 90s and early 2000s, but it's rarer to see them in the media now. I remember a time when my mum wouldn't let us eat foods with high soy content, and would check with fried food outlets if they used rapeseed or canola oil before she ordered anything for fear of ingesting Genetically Modified foods. I thought she was nuts. Hot chips are hot chips right?
Nope.

What is a GM Food? Genetically Modified foods are those which have had alterations made to their genetic material in order to make them more economically viable (meaning they have in-built insect repellants, extra 'flavour', increased resistance to disease, increased tollerance for climate differentiations etc). Think back to the 1999 Simpsons episode about 'Tomacco', a tomato-tobacco genetic cross and you'll understand the fears that were and still are (quite legitimately - a tomato with nicotine content actually has been created by Rob Bauer!) held about GM foods.

(I am not the author of this great image.
this person is)


Opinions, opinions
There are many opposing views held about GM foods, even between scientific researchers - in fact it's an issue which seems to polarise them! It's difficult for consumers to tell what's going on, who's making claims and which claims are 'true' - the companies like MonSanto, Du Pont, Bayer etcetera etcetera making the GM products? The economists and sociologists who believe third world countries who are given GM foods in the form of aid are being used as guinea pigs? The scientists who say that GM crops are no more invasive than the unmodified crop? The media who uses the rhetoric of science-fiction like 'Frankenfoods' to portray GM foods? Or those who say that GM foods will be the only way of keeping up with food demands especially in poverty-stricken areas and farmland areas affected by climate change?

Consumer knowledge, regulation and flipping Salmon
Possibly, in the words of Mulder, 'The truth is out there,' but in the meantime, it's up to the consumer to make up their own minds. In Australia all GM foods must pass pre-market approval and be labelled under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, and currently it's only crops like soy, canola, potatoes, wheat, rice etc that have been allowed into Australia. (How do you label a potato as a GM food by the way? They don't have stickers on them like apples do!) But in the US right now, the Food & Drug Administration is considering the approval of a GM farmed Salmon with a growth hormone spliced from another species of Salmon. This would be the first GM animal to be available on the market, and it raises even more questions of environmental sustainability: what happens if the farmed fish escape and breed in the wild? Would their added growth hormone give them a competitive advantage over Wild Salmon? How well-tested is the GM Salmon for human consumption over long periods of time? Why is the Food and Drug Administration (which tends to suggest that a genetic 'enhancement' is a 'drug') the only regulatory body for this technology which has been around for more than a decade? You can read an article on GM Salmon here and make up your own mind!

Want to know what Genetically Modified Foods are approved for use in Australia? See a list from the Australia/NZ Food Standards Government website here


Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,