Hungry for change: the Sydney Food Fairness Alliance

The Sydney Food Fairness Alliance is one of a growing number of nascent food movements in Australia to have emerged out of concern for the country’s food future, as well as the deleterious effect the present food system is having on its citizens’ health and the continent’s fragile environment. The Alliance’s structure and activities clearly position it as a new social movement (NSM) engaged in collective action on a specific issue, in this instance, food security/justice, and operating outside the political sphere while aiming to influence and affect societal change. Food security as a human right lies at the heart of the Alliance’s philosophy, and equitable, sustainable food policies for New South Wales are a core focus of its advocacy work. The authors argue that the Alliance is a distinctive food movement in that it positions itself as an \u27umbrella\u27 organization representing a wide range of stakeholders in the food system. This chapter reflects on the values, achievements, issues of concern, strengths and weaknesses, and future of the Sydney Food Fairness Alliance. This resource is Chapter 8 in \u27Food Security in Australia: Challenges and Prospects for the Future\u27 published by Springer in 2013

Broadcast Localism and the Lessons of the Fairness Doctrine

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes a laissez-faire policy toward speech and the press. The Framers of the Bill of Rights worried that the self-interest of politicians fostered suppression of speech. In contrast, some constitutional theorists have argued that the Constitution empowers, rather than restricts, the federal government to manage speech in order to attain the values implicit in the First Amendment. The government managed broadcast speech for some time, in part through the Fairness Doctrine, which was said to promote balanced public debate and "an uninhibited marketplace of ideas." The history of the Fairness Doctrine confirms the validity of the concerns of the Framers of the First Amendment, because federal officials and their agents used and sought to use the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics of three presidencies. Broadcasters adapted to the Fairness Doctrine by avoiding controversial speech, thereby chilling public debate on vital matters. The Federal Communications Commission is proposing to manage broadcast speech by imposing localism requirements, including content requirements and advisory boards to oversee managing stations. This proposal limits the editorial independence of license holders to serve the public interest. The history of the Fairness Doctrine suggests that federal officials who make and enforce such policies are more concerned with limiting political debate than they are with advancing local concerns or the public interest. Like the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC's localism initiative poses the risk of restricting speech. Our unhappy experience with the Fairness Doctrine suggests that imposing localism mandates on broadcasters is unlikely to serve the public interest in constitutional propriety and uninhibited political debate

How to Solve AI Bias

© 2020 The Author(s). This an open access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Bias in AI is a topic that impacts machine learning and artificial intelligence technology that learns from datasets and its training data. While gender discrimination and chatbots showing bias have recently caught people’s attention and imagination, the overall area of how to correct and manage bias is in its infancy for business use. Further, little is known about how to solve bias in AI and how there could potent for malicious misuse at large scale. We explore this area and propose solutions to this problem.Non peer reviewe

Balancing and integrating basic values in the development of organic regulations and standards: proposal for a procedure using case studies of conflicting areas

The basic aim of the report is to develop a procedure for the integration of the ethical value base of organic farming into standards and regulations. For this it is necessary to identify the core ethical value of organic production, consider their coherence and relate them to existing practice of organic food and farming. Ethical values are per se in need of interpretation. It is therefore also necessary to consider the process of decision-making, when aiming to achieve a coherent integration of such values in the structure of a standard or regulation. In line with the European Action Plan for organic food and farming from 2004 the Project EEC 2092/91 (Organic) Revision supports the idea that delegating a larger role to values and basic principles will help to harmonise the rules, provide room for flexibility in implementation and to simplify the European Regulation for organic production. It is important to include basic values in standards and regulations, because organic farming is value based and all actors/stakeholders have value expectations, including consumers who the regulation wants to protect. Standards and regulations form the basis of a virtual contract between the consumer and the producers. By following the practices set out in the standards, producers give a promise to the consumer to deliver on additional ethical values, beyond the legal minimum standards for conventional agriculture and food. The growing and globalised organic market and the involvement of large companies have resulted in renewed interest in the values and principles of organic farming. There has been concern that the organic food and farming sector is becoming more conventionalised, and has lost touch with its basic values. Thus it will no longer function effectively as a real alternative to general agriculture for consumers, producers and also for policy makers. The report analyses what core ethical value are associated with organic agriculture and should therefore be considered for inclusion in a regulation. This value base is contrasted with the existing Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 and with examples of current practice of organic agriculture in Europe. The implications of including ethical values in the structure of a regulation for decisionmaking are considered. Following on from the European Action Plan a process of total revision of the EU regulation on organic production is underway. A new European Regulation for organic production was adopted by the European Council of Ministers in June 2006 and will come into force in Jan 2009. The text of the near final proposal from December 2006 has been considered in several sections of the report. The report finishes with some conclusions and recommendations for the EU Commission and other standard setting bodies regarding the choice and roles of values in organic standard, the rules for decision-making processes in relation to integrating values, and regarding the ongoing revision of the organic regulation in Europe