There are increasing calls internationally for the development of regulation and policies related to the rapidly growing nanotechnologies sector. As part of the process of policy formation, it is widely accepted that deliberative community engagement processes should be included, enabling publics to have a say about nanotechnologies, expressing their hopes and fears, issues and concerns, and that these will be considered as part of the policy process. The Australian Federal and State governments have demonstrated a commitment to these ideals, undertaking (...) a number of public engagement activities in recent years. However, despite promises that these community engagement activities will enable policy makers to identify complex and contested community attitudes, and that these will be included as part of the policy making process, a closer look at Australia’s engagement activities reveals something quite different. Through an analysis of a number of Australia’s nano-engagement activities, this paper demonstrates the limits of public engagement related to the development of nanotechnology related policies and regulation in Australia. Our analysis reveals the extent to which industry interests have captured policy makers and regulators, dissenting voices have been excluded from engagement processes, and engagement processes have not connected with actual policy making activities. Reflecting on these limits, this paper concludes with recommendations for improving public engagement processes related to nanotechnologies in Australia. (shrink)

This paper examines regulatory responses to the presence of previously undetected and unlabelled nanoparticles in the Australian food system. Until 2015, the Australian regulatory body Food Standards Australia New Zealand denied that nanoparticles were present in Australian food. However, and despite repeated claims from Australia’s food regulator, research commissioned by civil society group Friends of the Earth has demonstrated that nanoparticles are deliberately included as ingredients in an array of food available for sale in Australia. This paper critically examines how (...) nanoparticles have come to be integrated into Australia’s food system under the radar of Australia’s food regulator. Our case study of FSANZ—including its responses to the civil society-led science that determined the existence of nanoparticles in Australian food—raises a number of important questions about the governance of risk in relation to emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. In this paper, we argue that FSANZ’ response to the presence of nanotechnology in Australia’s food system is an example of ‘governing with ignorance’. This is demonstrated via the denial and dismissal of science claims as a basis for limited regulatory intervention. FSANZ’ response intersects with the centrality of commercial interests in shaping science research and commercialisation, alongside the ‘hands off’ approach to regulation that is characteristic of neoliberal governance approaches. We conclude by arguing that in the current food governance framework, and alongside a paucity of impact science, civil society plays a vital role in attempts to democratise the Australian food system. (shrink)

Public concern over environmentalquality and food safety has culminated in thedevelopment of markets for “green” foods – foodsthat are variously construed as fresh, chemical-free,nutritious, natural, or produced in anenvironmentally-sustainable manner. Understanding theemergence of “green” foods is dependent on analysisboth of the ways in which foods are produced andprocessed, and of the meanings that are attached tothem at each stage of their production,transformation, and consumption. The notion of “green”foods is thereby understood here as a fluid andcontestable signifier that myriad actors involved (...) inthe production/consumption cycle may attempt to shapefor their own purposes. This paper explores corporate capital's recent attempts, through certification logosand advertising, to signify the “healthiness” andenvironmental virtues of organically-produced foods inAustralia and New Zealand. These attempts have not,however, been universally successful either in termsof gaining consumer interest, or in gaining agreementsbetween farmers, certifying organizations, andcapitalist firms over the meaning of “organic” and thepractice of “sustainable” agriculture. The experienceof corporate involvement in the organics industry isillustrative of yet-to-be-resolved processes ofreflexive modernization. As food production andtransformation continues to produce environmental andsocial risks, the question of just what makes food“green” will continue to be a source of social conflict. (shrink)