The main criticism is the NFP is in fact a 'National Food Industry Plan' favouring the big corporate producers and suppliers in our food chain: yes, think processed and packaged foods. Environment, health, and [true] sustainability are not well considered, analysed, or put in context outside 'Industry' agenda.
You may also know the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) are being re-written; not yet released, but I hear December 2012. Last week I received a call for consultation on one part of the guidelines: The ADGs from an Environmental Lens.
The ADG Environmental Lens, while it feels a bit of an afterthought in the process of the ADG review, I am pleased it is on the table and up for comment. And I have commented, as instructed, and, in detail. And, needs to be on the table of the NFP - yes I made that suggestion.
But reading this stuff (NFPs and ADGs) makes me feel like I am in a parallel universe! I mean, I probably am in a parallel universe....a universe where politeness is ditched in favour of getting to the point. And as the representative of this universe.....BIG GAPS TO FILL...
Two simple suggestions:
1. NFP committee to have equal representation from independent health, environmental, and sustainability experts.
At the NFP decision-making table, industry representation with its corporate agenda ($ for stakeholders) is to be balanced with direct and equal input from organisations with agendas about health, access and equity, environment and sustainability. If our government is genuinely committed to Australia's sustainable environmental and economic capacity, the experts in these 'advocacy' areas should not be relegated to the 'consultation process' as adequate involvement.
2. Build models for economic/environmental impact and generate evidence
Surely we are smart enough to build models to demonstrate the potential environmental and economic impact of the strategies being proposed by the NFP, by the Food Alliance, and other submissions? Each policy suggested could be plugged in to 'a' model to begin to generate an evidence-base for decision-making. The results from the modelling need to be made publicly available.
These two suggestions are easily achievable. And can have a significant positive impact for Australia on our environment, economy, and health, and then sustainability of these. The NFP, if these suggestions are implemented, will place Australia as a leader in 'how to' achieve a Global Food Plan. These suggestions are about being accountable, inclusive, transparent, just, and fair. Let's do this better. And yes, use some evidence!
Epilogue
What about a 'mapping of the geographical and geological profile of Australia' to know what to grow and where with the least environmental impact....then, import only the staples that are not environmentally sustainable for us to produce ourselves. Is this an epilogue?...not sure but an analysis as simple as this is not even in the NFP. Even a year 10 project would have started with this 'mapping'.
Tips du jour
1. We are smart enough to generate evidence, lets do it, and use it
2. 'Consultation' is not equal to being at the table where decisions are being made [let's not pretend it is]
3. Who you have at the decision-making table reflects whether government truly subscribes to the terms of 'good' governance (being accountable, inclusive...etc)
Other blogs by me
[Series] Are dietitians effective?
Heads up GPs, we can save $billions together
Heads up GPs, we can save $billions together
[Other stuff]
