Bayan Magiliw

Next month we will see a significant shake-up in courts across Australia’s eastern seaboard. Three chief justices – Tom Bathurst, of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Catherine Holmes, of the Supreme Court of Queensland, and Helen Murrell of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory – are all due to retire.

To date, two replacements have been announced. Andrew Bell is to be sworn in as chief justice in NSW on March 5, followed by Lucy McCallum in the ACT on March 8. The announcement of the Queensland chief justice is imminent.

Read more: No selection criteria, no transparency. Australia must reform the way it appoints judges

What is the role of a chief justice?

The appointment of a chief justice is always an important occasion. A chief justice is sometimes called the “first among equals”, referring to the fact that they don’t hold authority over other judges in the court.

But this doesn’t capture fully the role of the chief justice. Increasingly, eras in judicial history and decision-making are discussed by reference to their judicial leader. An example is the discussion of “the Mason court” and its decisions on Indigenous and constitutional rights during the 1990s.

This is in part a reflection of the key role a chief justice can play as an intellectual leader and in the creation of court culture. It also reflects that it is often the chief justice who speaks publicly for the court, including to the media. They will often respond to controversies involving the court, such as delay, misconduct or other shortcomings of judicial officers.

Chief justices also perform key administrative functions in the court. These include the allocation of cases, engaging with the government about court reform and budgets and, of course, consulting on judicial appointments.

Chief justices will often act as a spokesperson for the court. Darren England/AAP

How do we appoint chief justices?

Chief justices are appointed by the same process as other judges.

This means their appointment is at the discretion of the executive government. The cabinet acts on the advice of the attorney-general.

To appoint a judge to the High Court, the Commonwealth attorney-general must first consult with state attorneys-general. In the states and territories, there is no requirement for an attorney-general to consult before appointment.

In practice, though, the attorney-general would generally seek input from the head of jurisdiction (if appointing a new chief justice, that would be the outgoing chief justice), as well as professional bodies representing barristers and solicitors.

This remains the process at the Commonwealth level. It was also the approach adopted most recently in New South Wales.

Some jurisdictions have recently experimented with a more transparent appointment process. In Queensland, following the highly criticised appointment of Tim Carmody as chief justice in 2014 on the basis he was unsuited to be appointed to the position, the government adopted a Protocol for Judicial Appointments.

This includes an expression-of-interest process and a judicial appointments advisory panel. The panel provides the attorney-general with a shortlist of candidates. The shortlist must be based on six criteria set out by the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA):

intellectual capacity

personal qualities (including, for instance, integrity and independence of mind)

an ability to understand and deal fairly

authority and communication skills

efficiency

leadership and management skills, particularly in the court, but also relating to those external to the court such as the legal profession.

The Queensland protocol also requires the panel to consider “opportunities for promoting diversity in the judiciary”.

However, these experiments with more open appointment processes have rarely been secured through legislative or constitutional reform. This leaves them vulnerable to being shelved by future governments. Indeed, when the Abbott government came to power in 2013 it quietly abandoned a Labor-initiated federal reform of the late 2000s.

Whether a process for appointment is fluid and secret or transparent and consultative depends greatly on how governments understand the essential attributes of a “good” judge in a diverse democratic society.

What should a government look for in a chief justice?

Is there anything, then, that governments should be looking for specifically in a chief justice? We have written elsewhere that the chief justice has distinctive relationships with the government, the legislature, the media and the public, the profession and the academy. This means they are uniquely placed, and obliged, to protect and promote judicial values in the court they lead.

When well-established principles such as judicial independence and impartiality come under threat, from the government or elsewhere, the chief justice must defend them. A prominent recent example was when Victorian Chief Justice Marilyn Warren issued a public defence of the court in 2017 after federal government ministers attacked the impartiality of her court, particularly in criminal sentencing of terrorist offenders.

In 2017, then-Victorian Chief Justice Marilyn Warren defended the court against accusations of impartiality. Melbourne Law School

Chief justices can also advance emerging values, such as a commitment to robust accountability for judges who misbehave, or to increase diversity and transparency on the bench.

How can the process be improved?

The AIJA’s criteria for appointing a judge require chief justices to display various “authority and communication” and “leadership and management” skills. But does a chief justice require something more?

We say yes. They must be individuals who can provide intellectual leadership and contribute constructively to the collegiality of the court. These characteristics are no doubt important, but they will largely be met through the existing criteria.

Chief justices must also bring to the role an institutional sensitivity and a reform mindset that allows them to respond to and anticipate contemporary challenges to the court.

Recently, this has included the need for courts to respond quickly to the COVID-19 pandemic to maintain access to justice and uphold the open court principle. It has also included responding appropriately to public revelations, and administrative findings, of sexual harassment by judicial officers.

Read more: Appointing Australia’s highest judges deserves proper scrutiny

In this respect, High Court Chief Justice Susan Kiefel has been widely commended for the personalised understanding she showed to those women who brought complaints of sexual harassment against former High Court judge Dyson Heydon. In response, she implemented an administrative inquiry into the conduct and a subsequent review of the judicial workplace, focusing particularly on the vulnerable position of judicial associates.

If a government is truly committed to the traditional and modern values of the court system, it should be seeking an individual who can defend the institution from unwarranted attacks, as well as recognise and respond to genuine criticism and shortfalls of the institution.

These attributes should not be left to chance, but should be set out and candidates’ experience considered against them. It is only in this way the judiciary will retain the confidence of the public.

Explainer: how are chief justices appointed and how can the process be improved?

Source: Article Updates PH

Explainer: how are chief justices appointed and how can the process be improved? Next month we will see a significant shake-up in courts across Australia’s eastern seaboard. Three chief justices – Tom Bathurst , of the Su...

In the 1970s, low-carb diets were all the rage. The Dr Atkin’s Diet Revolution book claimed carbohydrate restriction was a “high calorie way to stay thin forever”.

Carbohydrates are found in breads, cereals and other grains, fruit, vegetables and milk. They’re also in ultra-processed fast foods, cakes, chips and soft drinks.

These days, low-carb diets are promoted as a weight-loss solution, to beat heart disease and as better for diabetes. But how do these claims match up with the latest research?

Read more: Health Check: what’s the best diet for weight loss?

A new review of the evidence found long-term low-carb dieters lost just under a kilo more weight than other dieters. However the review concluded there was no evidence low-carb diets have any additional health benefits.

In fact, if you’re on a low-carb diet, you’ll need to pay closer attention to what you eat to make sure you get enough essential vitamins, minerals, dietary fibre and other phytonutrients.

What did the reviewers investigate?

The Cochrane review included 61 randomised controlled trials (the highest level of evidence) with almost 7,000 adults with excess body weight. About 1,800 had type 2 diabetes. People in the healthy weight range were not included.

The reviewers compared weight-loss diets that varied in carbohydrate content:

lower carbohydrate diets. This included very low-carb or ketogenic diets (less than 50g of carbs a day or less than 10% of your total energy from carbs) and low-carb diets (50-150g of carbs per a day, or less than 45% of total energy from carbs)

“balanced” carbohydrate diets (150+ grams of carbs a day, or 45-65% of your total energy from carbs).

Here’s an example comparing how a very low-carb, low-carb and balanced carb one-day meal plan might look. The portion sizes differ between the meals to keep the total kilojoules about the same. Note, the reviewers grouped the first two low carb diet categories together. Author provided

What did they find?

The reviewers found that among adults with excess body weight (but who didn’t have type 2 diabetes), those following lower-carb diets for 3-8.5 months lost, on average, one kilogram more weight than those on balanced carb diets.

However, when they ensured restrictions in energy intake were the same in both groups, by providing the food or meal plans, the difference was about half a kilogram.

In longer-term weight-loss interventions lasting one to two years, the average difference in weight-loss between those on low-carb versus balanced carb diets was just under one kilogram.

There isn’t a great different in weight-loss outcomes between those on low-carb diets and those on balanced carb diets. Shutterstock

The average weight lost by groups on any weight-reducing diet varied greatly across the trials from less than one kilogram in some, up to about 13kg in others.

The studies in adults with type 2 diabetes found greater initial weight loss on low-carb diets compared to balanced carb diets: 1.3kg over three to six months. However, in longer interventions that lasted between one to two years, there was no difference.

In the small group of studies that included a maintenance period at the end of the weight-loss intervention, there were no differences in weight-loss in adults either with or without type 2 diabetes.

There were no significant differences in other health measures, including blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar control or risk of constipation. And they found no important clinical differences in results based on the extent of participants’ carb restriction.

Overall, the review shows that whether you prefer a lower carb or a balanced carb eating pattern, both can work for weight loss.

Read more: Do ketogenic diets help you lose weight?

Nutrients to monitor on a low-carb diet

Carbohydrate is a macronutrient. Your body uses it to produce energy to fuel your muscles, brain, lungs and other vital processes.

Healthy foods with carbs – breads, cereals and other grains, fruit, vegetables and milk – are packed with other important nutrients, especially dietary fibre, thiamine, calcium and folate.

Without careful planning, a low-carb diet could also be lower in these nutrients. So how can you ensure you’re consuming enough? Here’s what to look out for – and some lower- and higher-carb options.

Dietary fibre is needed to keep your bowel function regular and promote growth of healthy bacteria in your colon.

Lower carb sources: spinach, fresh and frozen mixed berries, almonds, cauliflower

Higher carb sources: wholegrain bread, apples, chick peas, sweet potato.

Chick peas are high in fibre. Shutterstock

Thiamin or vitamin B1 is needed to supply energy to your body’s tissues and is used to metabolise carbohydrates.

Lower carb sources: trout, tuna, sunflower seeds, beef, yeast extracts

Higher carb sources: brown rice, black beans, wholemeal bread, yoghurt.

Read more: Phytonutrients can boost your health. Here are 4 and where to find them (including in your next cup of coffee)

Calcium is needed for strong bones.

Lower cab sources: hard cheese, canned salmon with small bones, almonds, firm tofu

Higher carb sources: yoghurt, milk, soft cheese.

Folate is essential for growth and is used to manufacture DNA, your genetic code. Adequate intakes are especially important for women, as folate is needed to prevent neural tube defects in infants during pregnancy.

Lower carb sources: green leafy vegetables, avocado, broccoli, peanuts

Higher carb sources: wholemeal bread (Australian bread-making flour is fortified with folic acid), fortified wholegrain cereals, brown rice, oranges.

Ultimately, if you love carbs and want to lose weight, you can. Plan to lower your kilojoule and carb intake by not eating ultra-processed, energy-dense, nutrient-poor (junk) foods, while still eating carbohydrates from healthy foods.

If you’d like to learn more about weight loss, you can enroll in our free online course The Science of Weight Loss – Dispelling Diet Myths which begins on February 23.

Do low-carb diets help you lose weight? Here’s what the science says

Source: Article Updates PH

Do low-carb diets help you lose weight? Here’s what the science says In the 1970s, low-carb diets were all the rage. The Dr Atkin’s Diet Revolution book claimed carbohydrate restriction was a “ high calorie w...

We’ve all been there (and perhaps even done it): a quick glance in the rear-view mirror shows the vehicle behind is too near our bumper, an aggression designed to make us drive faster or move over.

It is not only unpleasant, but highly dangerous. A Queensland study found being tailgated is one of the most stressful driving experiences . This is no surprise considering tailgating is among the top five complaints of road users.

So , what is being done to prevent this behaviour on our roads?

Based on the statistics, you can assume current countermeasures are not effective in preventing tailgating behaviours. For example , over 500, 000 motor-vehicle collisions and injuries globally have now been attributed to not maintaining a safe following distance.

In Queensland, Australia, over 7, 000 injuries and fatalities were attributed to tailgating between 2019 and 2020. However , only 3, 120 drivers received an infringement notice for the behaviour in this period.

Read more: Road rage: why normal people become harmful on the roads

How can tailgating be stopped?

Our research applied three deterrence-based theories used in road safety to examine whether current countermeasures are effective in preventing tailgating.

A total of 887 Queensland licensed drivers completed an online survey (55% male and an average age of 49 years). An alarming 98% of participants reported having tailgated sooner or later, highlighting how common the behaviour is on Queensland roads. Consistent with previous research , males and younger drivers reported the highest levels of tailgating.

Our research made these findings (based on three deterrence-based theories):

drivers who believe the results for tailgating (that is, the fine and demerit points) are high, are less likely to engage in the behaviour

drivers who frequently tailgate (but are not caught) are more likely to continue the behaviour

those who know of family or friends who have been caught for tailgating are less inclined to engage in the behaviour

those who think tailgating increases their risk of injury are less likely to want to engage in the behaviour

drivers who feel guilty for tailgating are less likely to take part in the behaviour

those who believe the chances of being caught for tailgating are low are more likely to continue engaging in the behaviour.

Therefore , some current countermeasures for tailgating can be effective. Of particular interest is the finding that individuals who know of someone receiving a fine for tailgating are less likely to tailgate.

And information can spread widely, so someone being fined for tailgating may also deter friends and family from doing it.

However , some findings highlight that there is undoubtedly room for improvement. These findings include:

drivers believe there is a low chance of being caught for tailgating

people frequently avoid detection.

Importantly, the findings suggest that legal sanctions can be improved by increasing drivers’ perceptions that they’ll be caught for tailgating.

Our findings also suggest that increasing the penalties (fines and demerit points) for tailgating may not of necessity improve the deterrent effect, whilst the current penalty is already considered effective.

Read more: Speeding drivers keep breaking what the law states even after fines and crashes: new research

Where to now?

There are two main actions that could increase drivers’ perceptions of the likelihood of being caught for tailgating. These include the utilization of cameras that can capture this behaviour, and additional police operations to detect the practice.

In the UK, there are police operations to detect phone use while driving that use larger vehicles to see what other drivers are doing more easily. UK police also encourage drivers to send in dash-cam footage of drivers violating road rules. Such measures may also be ideal for capturing tailgating.

The findings also identify that the chance of injury and sense of guilt associated with tailgating are associated with less frequent engagement in this behaviour. So , those who tailgate frequently likely do not feel much guilt about doing so plus don’t think about the risk of injury related to crashing. Therefore , campaigns that target these factors is another area to consider for preventing tailgating.

Taken together, the research findings highlight that tailgating remains a pervasive problem. Both legal and non-legal factors have to be part of efforts to counter this behaviour.

Tailgating may seem minor, but it is stressful for other drivers and dangerous. We must look at ways to curb this behaviour.

Tailgating is stressful and dangerous. Our research examines ways it might be stopped

Source: Article Updates PH

Tailgating is stressful and dangerous. Our research examines ways it might be stopped We’ve all been there (and perhaps even done it): a quick glance in the rear-view mirror shows the vehicle behind is too near our bumper, an...

Many might choke at the suggestion Big Oil could play a key role in saving the climate. But, culpability for past actions aside, it is worth considering how fossil fuel interests might be recruited to combat global warming.

International commitments to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 leave less than three decades to achieve monumental change. A healthy dose of pragmatism will be essential.

Allowing time for new technologies to emerge might not be enough. Consumers will be reluctant to switch from familiar fossil fuels to untried or inconvenient new technologies with limited infrastructure – even if they are cheaper.

By the same token, new fuel infrastructures will not become competitive unless they achieve scale, meaning existing infrastructures will enjoy scale-related cost advantages unless sufficient users migrate to the new technologies.

Breaking this cycle is as much an economic challenge as a technological one. Harnessing the massive infrastructure and resources of the fossil fuel industry could be one way to meet that challenge.

Would it be better to repurpose existing infrastructure than build from scratch? Shutterstock

Accelerating net-zero targets

History shows the mass market adoption of new technologies is driven by their convenience and cost-effectiveness compared to what they replace. And large vested interests can be key to rolling out the required infrastructures.

For example, canals and railways in industrial revolution Britain were not built for ordinary travellers. They were sponsored by industrialists wanting more cost-effective transport options.

Read more: COP26 leaves too many loopholes for the fossil fuel industry. Here are 5 of them

A recent study I authored on transitioning to net-zero emissions in transport and other sectors highlighted another (perhaps unexpected) solution: repurposing existing fossil fuel supply chains and infrastructures to supply low- or zero-emission fuels.

This could represent an affordable way to transition more rapidly to net-zero than by building entirely new infrastructures.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are already on the road in some countries. Shutterstock

The hydrogen alternative

Central to any viable solution is certainty. For instance, vehicle buyers face the risk of choosing a new technology that fails to take off, or opting for one that is displaced by another.

Electric vehicles (EVs) are a case in point. At the turn of the 20th century they challenged both steam and fossil fuel vehicles (FFVs) in the race to replace the horse, until they were eclipsed by FFVs.

Read more: For hydrogen to be truly ‘clean’ it must be made with renewables, not coal

Modern EVs have taken an early lead in replacing FFVs, despite a less-than-ideal environmental footprint. But major carmakers in Japan, Europe and China are actively exploring rival clean technologies, with hydrogen the most likely contender.

Hydrogen technology is perhaps as developed now as EVs were a decade ago, and is rapidly improving. It’s not inconceivable that EVs could be displaced, given the ability of hydrogen to fuel heavy transport, aviation and shipping.

Hydrogen might ultimately fuel all transport and much industry, affording it important scale advantages.

Adaptation and affordability

In practice, hydrogen would be transported in modified gas networks and likely distributed through new or existing petrol stations. It could be made using renewable electricity to split water, or from natural gas with carbon dioxide emissions from manufacturing captured and stored in depleted gas fields.

A recent Californian study predicts hydrogen produced using renewable electricity will reach price parity with existing fuels this decade.

Toyota and Hyundai have already released consumer hydrogen cars, and New Zealand recently imported its first hydrogen-powered truck. Hydrogen refuelling infrastructure is also emerging both locally and globally.

Promisingly, hydrogen combustion vehicles are already under development, raising the possibility of retro-fitting existing FFVs to run on hydrogen (just as FFVs were converted to run on natural gas after oil price shocks in the 1970s).

This could substantially reduce the cost of replacing New Zealand’s 3.5 million private vehicles with low-emissions alternatives – an unavoidable challenge in decarbonising transport.

Read more: Electric cars won’t save the planet without a clean energy overhaul – they could increase pollution

Managed market solutions

Why would fossil fuel companies make the necessary clean energy investments? Because they see it as sufficiently profitable compared to the alternatives.

Rather than abandoning much of their existing assets and switching to electricity generation and distribution to profit from a transition to EVs, they could repurpose their considerable assets and resources to produce and distribute hydrogen (or some other clean fuel).

Fossil fuel companies could be assured of playing a key role in the transition if governments picked a winner among competing clean technologies – but this would be politically hazardous.

Read more: Oil companies are thinking about a low-carbon future, but aren’t making big investments in it yet

Usefully, there is another approach that avoids those risks: franchise bidding – a much-used policy tool that replaces competition in markets with competition for markets.

Under this approach, governments would plan fossil fuel reductions over time, but auction a monopoly right to develop a clean energy alternative. That right would be time-limited and subject to performance standards and pricing oversight.

Creating a monopoly right allows economies of scale. Critically, vehicle manufacturers and buyers, fuel manufacturers and infrastructure investors can be confident they are not investing in the “wrong” technology – they all know the way forward.

Efficiency and equity

Furthermore, auctioning the monopoly right means governments avoid the political hazards of picking a winner. And proceeds from such an auction could be used to subsidise clean vehicle uptake or conversion of existing vehicles to clean fuels.

Finally, an auction can induce parties to participate when they might otherwise prefer no new technologies to emerge at all. Confronted with the prospect of owning a declining technology while a competitor enjoys the monopoly right to build the new one, winning the auction would look like the least-worst future.

Read more: What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

Fossil fuel companies should have a substantial head start in winning such an auction, given their highly developed infrastructures, massive balance sheets and skilled workforces.

They could also ensure a more orderly transition away from fossil fuels to clean ones, since they would manage the supply of both.

And whether fossil fuel companies or other clean energy suppliers win, by holding a franchise-bidding auction the net-zero transition in transport is achieved more quickly, efficiently and equitably.

Harnessing the fossil fuel industry to combat climate change? It’s more than a pipe dream

Source: Article Updates PH

Harnessing the fossil fuel industry to combat climate change? It’s more than a pipe dream Many might choke at the suggestion Big Oil could play a key role in saving the climate. But, culpability for past actions aside, it is worth...

People choose certain foods or change their diets for a range of reasons: to improve their health, lose weight, save money or due to concerns about sustainability or the way food is produced.

Consider the trend towards low-fat products in the 1980s and low-carb diets in the 1990s, and now, the rise in plant-based protein products and ready-to-eat meals.

But before you abandon your traditional food choices, it’s important to consider the nutritional trade-offs. If you’re replacing one food with another, are you still getting the vitamins, minerals and other nutrition you need?

In a recent paper, I sought to raise awareness of nutritional differences between foods by producing a new index specific to Australia. It aims to help Australians make better informed dietary choices and get the nutrients recommended for good health.

Before you abandon your traditional food choices, it’s important to consider the nutritional tradeoffs. Shutterstock

Nutrients: are we getting enough?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes tables showing the usual intake of selected nutrients across the population. The tables also show the proportion of Australians whose usual nutrient intake is below what’s known as the “estimated average requirement”.

While Australian adults eat in diverse ways, they generally get enough of some nutrients regardless of their diets.

For example, most people seem to obtain adequate niacin (Vitamin B3) and phosphorus. And the tables suggest 97% of Australians get enough vitamin C.

However, inadequate intake of calcium, magnesium, vitamin B6 and zinc is common.

Around two-thirds of Australian adults consume less calcium than what’s recommended (which ranges from 840 to 1100 mg/day depending upon age). Worryingly, 90% of women aged over 50 don’t get enough calcium.

Inadequate zinc intake is most prevalent among Australian men – more than half aged over 50 consume below recommended levels.

So what about free sugars? These include added sugars and the sugar component of honey and fruit juices, but exclude natural sugars in intact fruit, vegetables and milk.

It’s recommended Australians limit free sugars to less than 10% of dietary energy intake. However, almost 50% of Australian adults exceed this recommended limit.

Read more: Don’t drink milk? Here’s how to get enough calcium and other nutrients

Worryingly, 90% of women aged over 50 have calcium intake beklow what is recommended. Shutterstock

Paying attention to under-consumed nutrients

Every food has a different nutrient composition. And as the Australian Dietary Guidelines show, we should eat a variety of foods to stay healthy.

We should pay particular attention to foods that are important sources of nutrients for which large numbers of Australians are not getting enough. If possible, Australians should seek to include more of these foods in their diet.

At the same time, foods with free sugars should be eaten only in moderation.

The new food index I produced seeks to help Australians achieve this. It provides an overall nutrient composition score tailored to the Australian dietary context.

The index includes eight vitamins (B1, B2, B3, B6, B12, Folate, A and C), eight minerals (calcium, phosphorus, zinc, iron, magnesium, iodine, selenium and molybdenum), along with protein and free sugars.

These 18 elements are weighted in proportion to the extent of inadequate or excessive intake in Australia. A higher score is better than a lower score.

So, the index scores foods highly if they are low in free sugars, and rich in the elements many Australians need more of – calcium, magnesium, vitamin B6, zinc and vitamin A.

Foods containing few nutrients but added sugar score very low. For example, a chocolate chip cookie weighing 35 grams scored 0.004 and a sugar-sweetened cola-flavoured beverage scored below zero.

Foods containing few nutrients but added sugar score very low in the index. Matt Dunham/AP

Swapping foods may not achieve like-for-like

The index can be used to compare foods that might be considered substitutes in pursuit of a diet that’s healthier, more affordable or better for the environment.

In the case of dairy foods, 250ml of full cream milk scored 0.160, and reduced-fat milk almost as high at 0.157.

The index shows the potential nutritional trade-offs when choosing dairy alternatives. A 250ml serving of calcium-fortified oat beverage scored 0.093. Without calcium fortification, the score fell to 0.034.

Looking at meat, 100g of raw lean diced beef scored 0.142. An equivalent serving of plant-based burger made from pea protein, with many added vitamins and minerals, scored almost the same at 0.139. This shows plant-based alternatives are not necessarily less nutrient dense.

The index also shows the different nutritional needs of women and men. For example, the scores for two large eggs were higher for women (0.143) than men (0.094). This reflects, in part, the greater prevalence of inadequate iron intake among younger women.

Read more: How Australia can boost the production of grains, while lowering its carbon footprint

Packaging on unprocessed foods doesn’t usually include nutrition information. Shutterstock

Understanding trade-offs

To date, comprehensive nutritional information about foods eaten in Australia has been found only in databases used by scientists and nutrition professionals.

For the average consumer, packaging on unprocessed foods – such as fruits and vegetables, fresh meats and some cheese – doesn’t usually include nutrition information.

Consumers can consult the nutrition information panel when buying processed foods, but only some nutrients are shown.

I hope my research may prompt manufacturers produce more nutrient-dense foods or those formulated to meet the nutrient needs of a particular subgroup.

In future, I hope the index will also be translated into a user-friendly format or app that everyday Australians can consult, to ensure their changing food preferences result in a healthier choice.

Read more: Meat and masculinity: why some men just can’t stomach plant-based food

How to make your diet more sustainable, healthy or cheap – without giving up nutrients

Source: Article Updates PH

How to make your diet more sustainable, healthy or cheap – without giving up nutrients People choose certain foods or change their diets for a range of reasons: to improve their health, lose weight, save money or due to concern...