Search results

To say that humans have a profound relationship with the food they produce and eat is a mere truism. What is new derives from the recognition that in Western cultures, over time, our deep relationship with food has been replaced by a scientistic version of what we eat, and what we should eat. In many ways, this has dis-enchanted our relationship with food, in that it has rendered food as the sum total of a calculus based on vitamins, minerals, and energy content. The movements that are now growing around food – ethical, plant based, provenance aware – speak to new understandings of food which acknowledge that food is actually more than its sum of parts. These new movements share a common goal and that is to seek a re-enchantment with food. This article, which speaks very much from an anglo-tradition, discusses this ways in which dis- and re-enchantment of food has developed.

This book explores the links between food and democracy.℗ℓ It addresses how democratic principles can be used to shape our food system and takes a practical ℓ́ℓhow-toℓ́ℓ approach to using democratic processes to regain control of the food we eat. It also highlights what food democracy looks like on the ground and how individuals, communities and societies can be empowered to access, cook and eat healthy food in ways that are sustainable. Food democracy, as a concept, is a social movement based on the idea that people can and should be able to actively participate in shaping the food system rather than being passive spectators.℗ℓ The book is useful for university and advanced TAFE courses that cover topics examining food in health sciences, social sciences and other areas of study. It is also relevant to health practitioners, nutritionists, food advocates, policy makers and others with a keen interest in exploring an alternative to the industrial food system known as ℓ́ℓBig Food.ℓ́ℓ.

S'intéresser à l'optimisation de soi dans le cadre professionnel permet de faire émerger des perspectives critiques en termes de formation, de pratique et de politique. Dans le domaine de la santé, il a ainsi été souligné que l'autogestion, la responsabilité individuelle et l'optimisation de soi étaient devenues des objectifs pour la prévention, le traitement et le care . En revanche, les manières dont les professionnels de santé s'optimisent eux-mêmes ont été moins étudiées. L'utilisation de la méthode de conversation « à tour de rôle » nous permet ici d'opérer un véritable coming out qui mêle, à travers le récit de nos parcours respectifs, nos expériences passées de professionnels de santé où nous étions confrontés quotidiennement à l'optimisation de soi, et nos réflexions actuelles d'universitaires sur l'injonction à la responsabilité individuelle.

Abstract Background Due to the multifaceted aspect of child malnutrition, a comprehensive approach, taking social factors into account, has been frequently recommended in health literature. The Alma-Ata declaration explicitly outlined comprehensive primary health care as an approach that addresses the social, economic and political causes of poor health and nutrition. Iran as a signatory country to the Alma Ata Declaration has established primary health care since 1979 with significant progress on many health indicators during the last three decades. However, the primary health care system is still challenged to reduce inequity in conditions such as child malnutrition which trace back to social factors. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of the Iranian health stakeholders with respect to the Iranian primary health care performance and actions to move towards a comprehensive approach in addressing childhood malnutrition. Health stakeholders are defined as those who affect or can be affected by health system, for example health policy-makers, health providers or health service recipients. Methods Stakeholder analysis approach was undertaken using a qualitative research method. Different levels of stakeholders, including health policy-makers, health providers and community members were interviewed as either individuals or focus groups. Qualitative content analysis was used to interpret and compare/contrast the viewpoints of the study participants. Results The results demonstrated that fundamental differences exist in the perceptions of different health stakeholders in the understanding of comprehensive notion and action. Health policy-makers mainly believed in the need for a secure health management environment and the necessity for a whole of the government approach to enhance collaborative action. Community health workers, on the other hand, indicated that staff motivation, advocacy and involvement are the main challenges need to be addressed. Turning to community stakeholders, greater emphasis has been placed on community capabilities, informal link with other social sectors based on trust and local initiatives. Conclusion This research provided a picture of the differences in the perceptions and values of different stakeholders with respect to primary health care concepts. The study suggests that a top-down approach, which still exists among health policy-makers, is a key obstacle that delays, and possibly worse, undermines the implementation of the comprehensive strategy codified by the Alma-Ata Declaration. A need to revitalise primary health care to use its full potential and to combine top-down and bottom-up approaches by narrowing the gap between perceptions of policy makers and .

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ; Background: Due to the multifaceted aspect of child malnutrition, a comprehensive approach, taking social factors into account, has been frequently recommended in health literature. The Alma-Ata declaration explicitly outlined comprehensive primary health care as an approach that addresses the social, economic and political causes of poor health and nutrition. Iran as a signatory country to the Alma Ata Declaration has established primary health care since 1979 with significant progress on many health indicators during the last three decades. However, the primary health care system is still challenged to reduce inequity in conditions such as child malnutrition which trace back to social factors. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of the Iranian health stakeholders with respect to the Iranian primary health care performance and actions to move towards a comprehensive approach in addressing childhood malnutrition. Health stakeholders are defined as those who affect or can be affected by health system, for example health policy-makers, health providers or health service recipients. Methods: Stakeholder analysis approach was undertaken using a qualitative research method. Different levels of stakeholders, including health policy-makers, health providers and community members were interviewed as either individuals or focus groups. Qualitative content analysis was used to interpret and compare/contrast the viewpoints of the study participants. Results: The results demonstrated that fundamental differences exist in the perceptions of different health stakeholders in the understanding of comprehensive notion and action. Health policy-makers mainly believed in the need for a secure health management environment and the necessity for a whole of the government approach to enhance collaborative action. Community health workers, on the other hand, indicated that staff motivation, advocacy and involvement are the main challenges need to be addressed. Turning to community stakeholders, greater emphasis has been placed on community capabilities, informal link with other social sectors based on trust and local initiatives. Conclusion: This research provided a picture of the differences in the perceptions and values of different stakeholders with respect to primary health care concepts. The study suggests that a top-down approach, which still exists among health policymakers, is a key obstacle that delays, and possibly worse, undermines the implementation of the comprehensive strategy codified by the Alma-Ata Declaration. A need to revitalise primary health care to use its full potential and to combine top-down and bottom-up approaches by narrowing the gap between perceptions of policy makers and those who provide and receive healthrelated services is crucial.

© 2009 Javanparast et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ; Background Due to the multifaceted aspect of child malnutrition, a comprehensive approach, taking social factors into account, has been frequently recommended in health literature. The Alma-Ata declaration explicitly outlined comprehensive primary health care as an approach that addresses the social, economic and political causes of poor health and nutrition. Iran as a signatory country to the Alma Ata Declaration has established primary health care since 1979 with significant progress on many health indicators during the last three decades. However, the primary health care system is still challenged to reduce inequity in conditions such as child malnutrition which trace back to social factors. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of the Iranian health stakeholders with respect to the Iranian primary health care performance and actions to move towards a comprehensive approach in addressing childhood malnutrition. Health stakeholders are defined as those who affect or can be affected by health system, for example health policy-makers, health providers or health service recipients. Methods Stakeholder analysis approach was undertaken using a qualitative research method. Different levels of stakeholders, including health policy-makers, health providers and community members were interviewed as either individuals or focus groups. Qualitative content analysis was used to interpret and compare/contrast the viewpoints of the study participants. Results The results demonstrated that fundamental differences exist in the perceptions of different health stakeholders in the understanding of comprehensive notion and action. Health policy-makers mainly believed in the need for a secure health management environment and the necessity for a whole of the government approach to enhance collaborative action. Community health workers, on the other hand, indicated that staff motivation, advocacy and involvement are the main challenges need to be addressed. Turning to community stakeholders, greater emphasis has been placed on community capabilities, informal link with other social sectors based on trust and local initiatives. Conclusion This research provided a picture of the differences in the perceptions and values of different stakeholders with respect to primary health care concepts. The study suggests that a top-down approach, which still exists among health policy-makers, is a key obstacle that delays, and possibly worse, undermines the implementation of the comprehensive strategy codified by the Alma-Ata Declaration. A need to revitalise primary health care to use its full potential and to combine top-down and bottom-up approaches by narrowing the gap between perceptions of policy makers and those who provide and receive health-related services is crucial.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ; There is both empirical and theoretical research supporting the idea that consumers' interaction with food labelling impacts on their trust in the food system and its actors. This paper explores the process by which consumers' interpretation of, and interaction with, labelling results in the formation of trust related judgements. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 24 Australian consumers were conducted. Theoretical sampling was used to gather a wide range of consumer perspectives. Real food packages were used as prompts for discussion in interviews, with one interview section requiring participants to examine particular products while thinking aloud. Process and thematic coding were used in transcript analysis. Labelling was seen by participants as a direct and active communication with 'labellers'. The messages communicated by individual label elements were interpreted more broadly than their regulatory definitions and were integrated during the process of making sense of labelling. This enabled participants to form trust related judgements through interaction with labelling. Finally, product and consumer characteristics varied participants' judgements about the same or similar label elements and products. Divergence in consumer and regulatory interpretations of labelling creates a situation where labelling may be both fully compliant with all relevant legislation and regulation, and still be perceived as misleading by consumers. This suggests that the rational frameworks that policy seeks to overlay on consumers when considering food labelling regulation may be hindering consumer belief in the trustworthiness of labellers. Policy must recognise the different, yet equally legitimate, ways of interpreting labelling if it is to foster, and not undermine, consumer trust in the food system generally.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ; Consumer trust in food system actors is foundational for ensuring consumer confidence in food safety. As food labelling is a direct communication between consumers and food system actors, it may influence consumer perceptions of actor trustworthiness. This study explores the judgements formed about the trustworthiness of the food system and its actors through labelling, and the expectations these judgements are based on. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 24 Australian consumers were conducted. Theoretical sampling focussed on shopping location, dietary requirements, rurality, gender, age and educational background. The methodological approach used (adaptive theory) enabled emerging data to be examined through the lens of a set of guiding theoretical concepts, and theory reconsidered in light of emerging data. Food labelling acted as a surrogate for personal interaction with industry and government for participants. Judgements about the trustworthiness of these actors and the broader food system were formed through interaction with food labelling and were based on expectations of both competence and goodwill. Interaction with labelling primarily reduced trust in actors within the food system, undermining trust in the system as a whole. Labelling has a role as an access point to the food system. Access points are points of vulnerability for systems, where trust can be developed, reinforced or broken down. For the participants in this study, in general labelling demonstrates food system actors lack goodwill and violate their fiduciary responsibility. This paper provides crucial insights for industry and policy actors to use this access point to build, rather than undermine, trust in food systems.

This article contributes to the sociology of relationships by exploring the moral imperatives that shaped perceptions and negotiations of family life during lockdowns in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified dominant discourses from an online qualitative story completion task and situate these in relation to emerging literature on the impact of pandemic-related restrictions on domestic relationships, gender relations, and labour division. We argue that discourses of family connection, clean and tidy homes, and the commodity of time operated as moral imperatives. These imperatives simultaneously offered opportunities for enrichment and agency, as well as operating as unobtainable benchmarks that constrained people's sense of wellbeing. In this analysis we explore how COVID-19 lockdown stories offer new ways of understanding the interplay between displaying and doing 'family life' where gender and labour relations are performed, reinforced and challenged.

Abstract Background Deliberative engagement techniques and citizens' juries are touted as means of incorporating the public into policy decision-making, managing community expectations and increasing commitment to public health policy. This paper reports a study to examine the feasibility of citizens' juries as a means of collecting data to inform public health policy related to food regulation through evaluation of the conduct of a citizens' jury. Methods A citizens' jury was conducted with a representative sample of 17 South Australians to explore their willingness to consider the proposition that food and drink advertising and/or sponsorship should be banned at children's sporting events. Results The results showed that, in relation to the central proposition and evaluation data from the jury, opinion on the proposition remained comparatively stable. Most jurors indicated that they thought that food and drink sponsorship and/or advertising at children's sporting events would have little or no effect on altering children's diet and eating habits, with the proportion increasing during the jury process. Jurors were given evaluation sheets about the content of the jury and the process of the citizens' jury to complete at the end of the session. The evaluation of the citizens' jury process revealed positive perceptions. The majority of jurors agreed that their knowledge of the issues of food and drink sponsorship in children's sport had increased as a result of participation in the citizens' jury. The majority also viewed the decision-making process as fair and felt that their views were listened to. One important response in the evaluation was that all jurors indicated that, if given the opportunity, they would participate in another citizens' jury. Conclusions The findings suggest that the citizens' jury increased participant knowledge of the issue and facilitated reflective discussion of the proposition. Citizens' juries are an effective means of gaining insight into public views of policy and the circumstances under which the public will consider food regulation; however a number of issues need to be considered to ensure the successful conduct of a citizens' jury.

© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). ; Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) estimates that Australians experience 5.4 million incidents of food poisoning each year, making food safety a significant public health issue. This paper describes and analyses the importance placed by Australians on the role of the agencies and actors that regulate the safety and quality of food. A computer assisted telephone interviewing survey addressing aspect of food safety was administrated to a random sample of 1,109 participants across all Australian states (response rate 41.2%). Only 44.6% of participants viewed the monitoring of food safety and quality as 'Very important', with greatest significance placed upon personal monitoring (76.0%) and the role of the Federal government (51.1%). The media (22.5%) and local council (32.4%) were viewed as the least important agents. When data were combined to create an index of general monitoring, participants under 30; respondents in outer regional areas; and men identified food monitoring as less important; while respondents from households with 5 or more members viewed food monitoring as more important than respondents from smaller households.

Obesity prevention is an urgent public health priority that requires action at multiple levels. Collaboration between academics, policy and practice is necessary to ensure best-practice implementation. A national knowledge translation and exchange (KT) platform, the Collaboration of Community-based Obesity Prevention Sites (CO-OPS), was delivered and evaluated over three years (2013–15). A mixed-methods evaluation used communications and website data, knowledge-brokering data, event evaluations, interviews and tracer searches to assess process (reach, delivery, quality, cost, uptake) and impact (use of tools/resources, networking, improvements in practice). Results included: 1) average 27% yearly membership growth (330 new members per year) in response to KT activities including tailored communications, stakeholder engagement, knowledge brokering and networking opportunities; 2) sustained website use with approximately 1200 visits/month and 73% unique visitors; and high access to networking and professional development information (120 hits/month), and best practice guidelines (60 hits/month); 3) higher uptake of face-to-face interactive strategies (for example, workshops) than online interactive strategies (for example, knowledge broker service) and higher uptake of passive KT (for example, website resources) than interactive KT strategies (for example, workshops); 4) the KT function of CO-OPS was clearly valued, and appeared to address a gap in implementation. A central coordinating KT platform provided support for best practice and exchange opportunities to a broad network of practice, policy and academic professionals. Simple KT strategies such as tailored, targeted online resources were useful for practice, whilst more intensive KT strategies were important for network engagement. Findings are applicable to other information-sharing networks where professionals address complex public health problems.