Related Articles

6 Comments

  1. 1
    Avatar

    Rosemary Stanton

    So did the government decide to leave out the public health and nutrition people, or just not see them as important? Or did the food industry representatives set the agenda and request minimal representation from those connected with health and nutrition?

    Australia’s record in trading some foods leaves a lot to be desired. For example, our practice of exporting chicken ‘backs’ and lamb flaps to Pacific Island countries with little regard for what these fatty off-cuts do for the weight and health of those who receive them (see report of a dialogue between the food industry and health sector on imported and processed food, Sydney, Nov 2008, available at http://www.dhi.gov.au/…/Adding%20value%20to%20Pacific%20Islands%20Foods%20Meeting%20...)

    Australia is also exporting an increasing array of processed junk foods to Asia.

    These issues need the perspective of those with knowledge and expertise in health. But would they be welcome?

    Rosemary Stanton

    Reply
  2. 2
    Avatar

    SEstrada

    I think that we should not lose sight on the findings of the PMSEIC report. This is critical, given the position of the Productivity Commission on decreasing rural R&D funding (http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/rural-research/). There are very valuable insights on the PMSEIC report that are at risk of being lost in the controversy.

    I wrote a summary in my blog, for those interested: http://www.food-chain.com.au/events/?p=902

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2020 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey