The Urban Research Program is offering an honours scholarship worth $1250 for a student interested in undertaking their honours project in 2010.
This scholarship will be made available to an honours student to examine critical questions related to the future of food and agriculture in Australia. Research questions for this project could include: challenges and prospects for securing urban Australia’s food supply, with a case study of south-east Queensland; strategies of urban-based food movements; policy and planning for food security; and the impacts of climate change for urban food security.
Honours students will become a member of the newly formed Food Research Group, housed within the Urban Research Program at Griffith University. The Food Research Group will hold regular meetings and seminars, all of which will support students in their research.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Please contact Kristen Lyons to apply.
kristen.lyons@griffith.edu.au
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Summer Intern at Friends of the Earth
Use your summer break productively!
Are you interested in the protection of our environment and promoting the rights of communities?
Friends of the Earth Australia (FoEA) is currently seeking volunteers for an exciting new project working on an emerging environmental issue. So why not join us in the office and put your University skills into action for the protection of our planet.
Please contact Derec or Daisy on (07) 3846 5793 to discuss how you can be involved with Friends of the Earth whilst learning real-life campaigning skills.
Are you interested in the protection of our environment and promoting the rights of communities?
Friends of the Earth Australia (FoEA) is currently seeking volunteers for an exciting new project working on an emerging environmental issue. So why not join us in the office and put your University skills into action for the protection of our planet.
Please contact Derec or Daisy on (07) 3846 5793 to discuss how you can be involved with Friends of the Earth whilst learning real-life campaigning skills.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A support event for the 350.org International Day of Action Saturday 24th October
Griffith University, Nathan
Climate Action Day
Thursday 22 October 2009
11am – 4pm
Community Centre grassed area outside the Nathan Post Office
Speakers:
Assoc Prof Carla Catterall,
Assoc Prof Darryl Jones
Climate 4 change
GU student speakers
Information stalls
Free Movie and Discussion “The Age of Stupid”
'The Age of Stupid' is the new cinema documentary from the Director of 'McLibel' and the Producer of the Oscar-winning 'One Day in September'. Stars Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite as an old man living in the devastated world of 2055, watching 'archive' footage from 2008 and asking: why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?
For more info see http://www.350.org/actions
Climate Action Day
Thursday 22 October 2009
11am – 4pm
Community Centre grassed area outside the Nathan Post Office
Speakers:
Assoc Prof Carla Catterall,
Assoc Prof Darryl Jones
Climate 4 change
GU student speakers
Information stalls
Free Movie and Discussion “The Age of Stupid”
'The Age of Stupid' is the new cinema documentary from the Director of 'McLibel' and the Producer of the Oscar-winning 'One Day in September'. Stars Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite as an old man living in the devastated world of 2055, watching 'archive' footage from 2008 and asking: why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?
For more info see http://www.350.org/actions
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Food Politics Students on 4ZZZ radio
To tune in to radio coverage of our field trip Skip Dipping, and students reflections on this experience, check out 'The Paradigm Shift on Food' podcast. Congratulations to all those students who were interviewed, you provided some thoughtful reflections on our night out!
http://theparadigmshift.podbean.com/.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Consumption Atlas
Check out the new ACF Consumption Atlas to see how your suburb measures up against the rest of the country in terms of greenhouse pollution, water use and eco-footprint.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/consumptionatlas/
http://www.acfonline.org.au/consumptionatlas/
Skip Dipping 2009
In a record turn out, around 30 students and friends headed out on Tuesday 15th September to get a first hand insight into the level of waste being produced by Brisbane supermarkets and other food retailers. Over an hour and a half, a convoy of 7 vehicles (a sight to behold in itself) collected enough food to cook up a three course meal . . . a delicious potato and tomato curry, salad, served with freshly toasted turkish bread with avocado, and fruit salad for dessert. We were able to wash it all down with soft drinks also procured from the bin! Looking forward to hearing more from those who also shared in this adventure, please share your thoughts here.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Time for Technology Democracy
Here are my thoughts on the recent antics by the Federal Government to 'engage' the public around highly controversial technologies, including genetic engineering and nanotechnologies.
Democratic governments chant public engagement as the cornerstone of sound political decision making. This mantra was heard in Western Australia last week, at an address by Senator the Hon Kim Carr to the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy. In his speech, Carr described the Federal Labor Government’s commitment to social democratic processes. He claimed this commitment to social democracy as a vital process for ensuring policy-making agendas move beyond economic priorities to consider a broader range of social, cultural and political issues. Carr himself admitted that despite Federal Government commitment to these ideals, there is still “a long way to go” to realise these. Casting a critical eye over recent attempts at public engagement related to Australia’s emerging technologies indicates we are even further from technology democracy than Carr and his Department would like to admit.
The Australian Government’s repeated commitment to technology democracy – including commitments to engage the public as part of the policymaking cycle – looks more like smoke and mirrors than real social democracy. Communities are being kept in the dark, they are being given little opportunity to have their say about highly controversial technologies, meanwhile industry continues to roll out new technologies – virtually unregulated, untested and unlabelled.
Lets consider the Federal Government’s recently announced ‘National Enabling Technologies Strategy’ to explore the paradox between Carr’s promises and actual policymaking processes. To clarify, the Federal Government has labelled biotechnologies and nanotechnologies as ‘enabling technologies’. Both these areas of science are highly controversial, raising as they do multiple and diverse social, health, economic, ethical and environmental issues.
Given the highly controversial nature of biotechnology and nanotechnology, it is not surprising the National Enabling Technologies Strategy makes a stated commitment to engage the public as part of the policy process. However, in reality this public engagement is simply not happening. As a result, Australians will have little opportunity to contribute to the development of policy related to these new technologies –despite the profound impacts they are likely to present for all Australians.
I would like to turn to the specific impacts associated with nanotechnologies – or the ‘science of the small’. Nanoparticles and nano-processes are being widely incorporated across the health, energy, military, food and agriculture sectors, amongst others. Given the diversity of these applications, Australians are already being exposed to nanotechnologies, with products derived from nanotechnology found in hundreds of sunscreens, cosmetics, clothes, paints, household appliances, building materials and other products many of us use every day.
These applications introduce new health and environment risks to which we all face exposure, with recent research demonstrating some ‘nanomaterials’ present similar health risks to asbestos, even causing mesothelioma in test mice.
Despite persisting concerns about safety risks, there is still no nano-specific safety assessment in place for any of these products. In addition, most Australians have heard little to nothing about this new technology. Making things worse, nano-products are not labelled. This denies consumers the capacity to make an informed choice about whether they wish to buy nano-products, and denies workers the right to know whether they face occupational exposure. These circumstances also limit the extent to which Australians will be able to develop their ‘nano-literacy’ – or diverse and critical understandings of nanotechnologies. Surely supporting the development of Australia’s nano-literacy will be a central component for ensuring technology democracy?
As a recent participant in the hastily organised ‘stakeholder’ consultation for National Enabling Technologies Strategy, it appears there is little interest in democratic processes. Rather, it appears Government has been swept of its feet by the promises of these new technologies, and is reticent to let democratic processes stand in the way in their roll out. A couple of specific criticisms of this stakeholder process demonstrate this.
Firstly, the organisers of this event have refused to make public minutes from consultations, or submissions made to the consultation – as is standard practice in most inquiries. It is also revealing that in recent meetings held around Australia as part of this process, three times as many consultations have been organised for the nanotechnology and biotechnology industries compared to those for public interest groups.
At a time of unprecedented climate, food, financial, energy and ecological crises, there is an obvious and even urgent need to embrace new approaches and technologies. However the interests and values of the community, not simply those of industry and the research community, must inform decision-making about which technologies we support through investment and commercialisation.
The transformative power of the new nano- and biotechnologies, coupled with the scale of the challenges we face, require that we take the democratisation of science seriously. We need a new way of thinking about science and technology which allows those who are affected by the technology to have a say in its development, and which allows the development of technology to be shaped by the needs and aspirations of the community — not the other way around.
(published in Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Brisbane Times 3 September 2009)
Democratic governments chant public engagement as the cornerstone of sound political decision making. This mantra was heard in Western Australia last week, at an address by Senator the Hon Kim Carr to the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy. In his speech, Carr described the Federal Labor Government’s commitment to social democratic processes. He claimed this commitment to social democracy as a vital process for ensuring policy-making agendas move beyond economic priorities to consider a broader range of social, cultural and political issues. Carr himself admitted that despite Federal Government commitment to these ideals, there is still “a long way to go” to realise these. Casting a critical eye over recent attempts at public engagement related to Australia’s emerging technologies indicates we are even further from technology democracy than Carr and his Department would like to admit.
The Australian Government’s repeated commitment to technology democracy – including commitments to engage the public as part of the policymaking cycle – looks more like smoke and mirrors than real social democracy. Communities are being kept in the dark, they are being given little opportunity to have their say about highly controversial technologies, meanwhile industry continues to roll out new technologies – virtually unregulated, untested and unlabelled.
Lets consider the Federal Government’s recently announced ‘National Enabling Technologies Strategy’ to explore the paradox between Carr’s promises and actual policymaking processes. To clarify, the Federal Government has labelled biotechnologies and nanotechnologies as ‘enabling technologies’. Both these areas of science are highly controversial, raising as they do multiple and diverse social, health, economic, ethical and environmental issues.
Given the highly controversial nature of biotechnology and nanotechnology, it is not surprising the National Enabling Technologies Strategy makes a stated commitment to engage the public as part of the policy process. However, in reality this public engagement is simply not happening. As a result, Australians will have little opportunity to contribute to the development of policy related to these new technologies –despite the profound impacts they are likely to present for all Australians.
I would like to turn to the specific impacts associated with nanotechnologies – or the ‘science of the small’. Nanoparticles and nano-processes are being widely incorporated across the health, energy, military, food and agriculture sectors, amongst others. Given the diversity of these applications, Australians are already being exposed to nanotechnologies, with products derived from nanotechnology found in hundreds of sunscreens, cosmetics, clothes, paints, household appliances, building materials and other products many of us use every day.
These applications introduce new health and environment risks to which we all face exposure, with recent research demonstrating some ‘nanomaterials’ present similar health risks to asbestos, even causing mesothelioma in test mice.
Despite persisting concerns about safety risks, there is still no nano-specific safety assessment in place for any of these products. In addition, most Australians have heard little to nothing about this new technology. Making things worse, nano-products are not labelled. This denies consumers the capacity to make an informed choice about whether they wish to buy nano-products, and denies workers the right to know whether they face occupational exposure. These circumstances also limit the extent to which Australians will be able to develop their ‘nano-literacy’ – or diverse and critical understandings of nanotechnologies. Surely supporting the development of Australia’s nano-literacy will be a central component for ensuring technology democracy?
As a recent participant in the hastily organised ‘stakeholder’ consultation for National Enabling Technologies Strategy, it appears there is little interest in democratic processes. Rather, it appears Government has been swept of its feet by the promises of these new technologies, and is reticent to let democratic processes stand in the way in their roll out. A couple of specific criticisms of this stakeholder process demonstrate this.
Firstly, the organisers of this event have refused to make public minutes from consultations, or submissions made to the consultation – as is standard practice in most inquiries. It is also revealing that in recent meetings held around Australia as part of this process, three times as many consultations have been organised for the nanotechnology and biotechnology industries compared to those for public interest groups.
At a time of unprecedented climate, food, financial, energy and ecological crises, there is an obvious and even urgent need to embrace new approaches and technologies. However the interests and values of the community, not simply those of industry and the research community, must inform decision-making about which technologies we support through investment and commercialisation.
The transformative power of the new nano- and biotechnologies, coupled with the scale of the challenges we face, require that we take the democratisation of science seriously. We need a new way of thinking about science and technology which allows those who are affected by the technology to have a say in its development, and which allows the development of technology to be shaped by the needs and aspirations of the community — not the other way around.
(published in Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Brisbane Times 3 September 2009)
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Monsanto's GM seeds fail in Africa
The latest evidence that Green Revolution technologies will not address the global food crisis - Monsanto's genetically engineered corn seeds fail in South Africa. At least 82,000 hectares of genetically engineered corn seeds planted in South Africa have failed to produce hardly any seeds.
This failure has led to renewed calls for a complete ban on GM crops and food in South Africa. The African Centre for Biodiversity in Johannesburg is demanding an urgent government investigation and a complete ban on GM foods. Meanwhile, Monsanto is offering to pay compensation to those farmers who bought the seeds. Such compensation, however, will not assist the many smallscale farmers who were freely given the Monsano owned seeds. These smallholder farmers will be left to deal with the ecological and economic fall out of Monsanto's actions on their own.
While the Alliance for a Green Revolution is driving a high-tech future for food production in Africa, stories like this point to the absolute limits of relying on magic bullets like genetic engineering.
This failure has led to renewed calls for a complete ban on GM crops and food in South Africa. The African Centre for Biodiversity in Johannesburg is demanding an urgent government investigation and a complete ban on GM foods. Meanwhile, Monsanto is offering to pay compensation to those farmers who bought the seeds. Such compensation, however, will not assist the many smallscale farmers who were freely given the Monsano owned seeds. These smallholder farmers will be left to deal with the ecological and economic fall out of Monsanto's actions on their own.
While the Alliance for a Green Revolution is driving a high-tech future for food production in Africa, stories like this point to the absolute limits of relying on magic bullets like genetic engineering.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Organic Food - Public Forum Thurs 13 August
Where: Eco-Centre, Griffith University, Nathan
When: Thursday 13 August, 6pm (with free locally grown organic refreshments starting at 5.30pm).
This forum will provide information about Organic food. What it is and how it's grown. How is it different from food grown with synthetic chemicals? Is it really better for us and it is better for the environment? What issues is the worldwide organic industry facing? There will be organic produce to examine and food to taste with locally grown organic food provided.
Speakers
Email: L.Malcolm@griffith.edu.au
Phone: (07) 373 57992
Reply before: 11 August 2009
When: Thursday 13 August, 6pm (with free locally grown organic refreshments starting at 5.30pm).
This forum will provide information about Organic food. What it is and how it's grown. How is it different from food grown with synthetic chemicals? Is it really better for us and it is better for the environment? What issues is the worldwide organic industry facing? There will be organic produce to examine and food to taste with locally grown organic food provided.
Speakers
- Dr Kristen Lyons is a Senior Lecturer with the Griffith University School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences.
- Marg Will the General Manager of the organic certification body Organic Food Chain will provide an insiders look at the organic industry in Australia and worldwide, as well as international legislative requirements.
- Les Nichols, an organic farmer from Sandy Creek Organic Farm will share his wealth of experience and knowledge about organic farming.
Email: L.Malcolm@griffith.edu.au
Phone: (07) 373 57992
Reply before: 11 August 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Greenpeace Activists Shut Down Coal Export Terminal
Climate change is already having profound impacts on the ability of our Pacific neighbours to ensure food security.
Read more or show your support by visiting
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/
Read more or show your support by visiting
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Response to the Courier Mail's 'Organics No Better For You' (30 July)
It is alarming to read the extent to which Australian journalists have bitten of, swallowed and regurgitated recent findings from the UK Food Standards Agency that report organic food ‘no better for you’ (see Courier Mail, 31/7/2009 p. 20).
In some respects it is not surprising the UK Food Standards Agency have reached this conclusion: they are hardly an advocate for sustainable agriculture; and their analysis is incomplete, excluding as it does the largest comparative study of organic and conventional foods, funded by the European Union. The results of this EU funded research over a 4 year period (that is notably absent from the UK FSA study) reported that organic food had significantly higher nutrient levels, including 20 – 40 % higher levels of anti-oxidants, higher levels of Vitamin C, higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc, as well as substantially higher levels of compounds that boost health and combat disease. The conclusiveness of these results led research coordinator Carlo Leifert to state that the health benefits are so striking that moving to organic food was the equivalent of eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables every day!
While the UK Food Standards Agency – and supported by a flurry of journalists – have made some negative statements regarding the nutrient content of organic food, we are sadly often left hungry when it comes to coverage of the broader environmental and health benefits associated with organic food and agriculture. Organic farming systems are environmentally beneficial in a number of ways, for example by increasing biodiversity, avoiding the use of harmful agricultural chemicals, re-building soil health as well as carbon sequestration. Organic farming also provides a range of social benefits, including for farmers in the developing world, where organics provides new marketing options and financial security. By focusing on a narrow debate around the nutritional content of organic food, we miss consideration of these broader issues. It is this broad range of social and environmental issues – not simply nutrient content – that shapes Australian’s decisions about what they eat. It would be useful if public debates were expanded to reflect on these.
Dr Kristen Lyons
Senior Lecturer, School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences
Griffith University
In some respects it is not surprising the UK Food Standards Agency have reached this conclusion: they are hardly an advocate for sustainable agriculture; and their analysis is incomplete, excluding as it does the largest comparative study of organic and conventional foods, funded by the European Union. The results of this EU funded research over a 4 year period (that is notably absent from the UK FSA study) reported that organic food had significantly higher nutrient levels, including 20 – 40 % higher levels of anti-oxidants, higher levels of Vitamin C, higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc, as well as substantially higher levels of compounds that boost health and combat disease. The conclusiveness of these results led research coordinator Carlo Leifert to state that the health benefits are so striking that moving to organic food was the equivalent of eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables every day!
While the UK Food Standards Agency – and supported by a flurry of journalists – have made some negative statements regarding the nutrient content of organic food, we are sadly often left hungry when it comes to coverage of the broader environmental and health benefits associated with organic food and agriculture. Organic farming systems are environmentally beneficial in a number of ways, for example by increasing biodiversity, avoiding the use of harmful agricultural chemicals, re-building soil health as well as carbon sequestration. Organic farming also provides a range of social benefits, including for farmers in the developing world, where organics provides new marketing options and financial security. By focusing on a narrow debate around the nutritional content of organic food, we miss consideration of these broader issues. It is this broad range of social and environmental issues – not simply nutrient content – that shapes Australian’s decisions about what they eat. It would be useful if public debates were expanded to reflect on these.
Dr Kristen Lyons
Senior Lecturer, School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences
Griffith University
Saturday, August 1, 2009
World Vision uncovers Global Food Crisis - Wednesday night at UQ
World Vision is hosting nation wide events on 'The Global Food Crisis Uncovered'.
visit http://gallery.worldvision.com.au/wva/youth/20090727/stir.BrisInvitation.asp for details of this Wednesday's event.
Amanda Lang.
visit http://gallery.worldvision.com.au/wva/youth/20090727/stir.BrisInvitation.asp for details of this Wednesday's event.
Amanda Lang.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Special Edition of Monthly Review
Here is a link to the Monthly Review special edition on Agriculture and Food in Crisis: Conflict, Resistance and Renewal http://www.monthlyreview.org/
Re-thinking Industrial Agriculture
In our introduction to food politics this week, we began by thinking about the changes that have occurred across agriculture and food systems as an outcome of agro-industrialisation and the uptake of scientific and technological innovations (including hybrid seeds, harvest and plough machinery, and more recently remote sensing and genetically engineered seeds). While pre-industrial agriculture can be characterised by small scale, mixed (polyculture) and subsistence production, industrial agriculture occurs on a large scale, is often based on monoculture production, and has integrated farmers into a global cash economy. In this context, many farmers end up buying most of the food they eat, while the crops they grow are destined for distant markets. At the same time however, a growing number of movements are re-thinking ideas around scale, diversity and markets. Permaculture is one example, see http://www.ipcon.org/ for details of the permaculture movement in Africa. Does permaculture share similarities with Indigenous culinary cultures, or peasant based agriculture?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Welcome to Food Politics!
This site has been set up to help communicate some of the latest research, issues and campaigns related to food politics. It's starting small, but please look around, share your thoughts, ideas and experiences. Fingers crossed, with everyone's input over the next few months this site will grow to become something useful to students, researchers and publics.
Looking forward to the journey!
This site has been set up to help communicate some of the latest research, issues and campaigns related to food politics. It's starting small, but please look around, share your thoughts, ideas and experiences. Fingers crossed, with everyone's input over the next few months this site will grow to become something useful to students, researchers and publics.
Looking forward to the journey!
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
