We propose the FoodSmart City framework as a transdisciplinary avenue to promote sustainable seafood consumption. We argue that a change in human seafood consumption towards eating at lower trophic levels may be helped by discovering forgotten cultural practices and tapping into locally-sourced marine resources. We set out a framework of knowledge exchange and production between academia, businesses, and civil society to promote and assist healthy and ecologically sustainable living using digital tools and intangible cultural heritage while engaging with innovative chefs (...) and educationalists. The framework targets Dublin City, Ireland, but may potentially be replicated in other contexts. (shrink)

Nossa Igreja, em São Paulo e no Brasil, tem urgente necessidade de uma nova geração de leigos, bem preparados para atuarem em todos os campos da vida social e cultural da sociedade; leigos e leigas com a consciência clara de serem discípulos de Cristo, conhecedores da fé, da moral e da doutrina social da Igreja, capazes de tomarem posição, como cidadãos católicos, sem medo de assumirem sua identidade e sua adesão à Igreja no mundo pluralista, no qual vivemos; este, não (...) deve ser o espaço onde nós calamos nossa voz ou nos eximimos de dar nossa contribuição, talvez temerosos diante de vozes e testemunhos diferentes dos nossos; no espaço plural e democrático, todos podem afirmar e defender suas convicções e colocá-las a serviço da convivência social O Cardeal Odilo Pedro Scherer é Arcebispo de São Paulo e Grão Chanceler da Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo. (shrink)

This paper discusses two paradigms of risk communication that guide strategies for communicating food safety issues. Built on the principles of social utility and paternalism, the first paradigm heavily relies on science and technical experts to determine food safety regulations and policies. Risk communication, in this context, is a unidirectional process by which experts from the industry or government regulatory agencies inform or alert potentially affected publics about the hazards they face and the protective actions they can take. However, public (...) trust and confidence in government and industry have considerably declined. Experts are being questioned about the objectivity of their assessments of risks. Policy makers are being challenged on such risk management decisions as tolerance guidelines, food labeling laws, and emergency warning systems. Concomitantly, some segments of the public, especially consumer advocates and environmental groups, are demanding increased input into the decision making process as they call for the recognition of lay perceptions and interpretations of risk as a legitimate counterpart to technically-assessed risk. Hence, instead of the linear, persuasion-oriented communication process, there are evolving efforts to shape risk communication into a more dialogical, interactive, and democratic exchange of information among different stakeholders (i.e., technical experts, government policy makers, industry, interest groups, and the general public). Reflecting a more Jeffersonian approach, this second paradigm argues that decisions about food safety are so complex and multi-dimensional that they must not be left to experts alone.However, both paradigms present ethical dilemmas. Determining the risks and relative safety of foods is not a totally objective and concise process. Since it involves social, economic, political, and personal values, how can the public not be involved in the exchange of ideas and information concerning food risks and safety? On the other hand, can we afford to let public opinion govern decisions pertaining to food risks and safety without consideration for the merits of scientific risk assessment? This paper raises questions regarding some assumptions of these two risk communication paradigms, and explores and discusses some of the salient ethical questions inherent in each framework. (shrink)