Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

It rarely takes long before new media technologies are turned to the task of creating pornography. This was true of the printing press, photography, and the earliest days of the internet. It’s also true of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

Face-swapping tech has been around for more than a decade. It almost immediately gave rise to “deepfakes” – fake, yet convincing images and videos of people.

Generative AI has supercharged the spread of deepfake pornography, making it easier than ever to fabricate explicit pictures and videos of others.

And it’s not just celebrities who are victimised. Deepfake nudes of classmates and teachers are rife in schools around the world, sometimes targeting children as young as 11. Image-based abuse is widespread, and victims say the law doesn’t offer enough protection.

So what does the law say about this? And even when not illegal, is it ever ethical to use this technology for one’s private fantasies?

Deepfake pornography and the law

In 2024, Australia amended its criminal code to explicitly include AI-generated porn in the law against distributing sexual material of others without their consent. As a result, digitally manipulated sexual imagery of others now falls within the same legal category as genuine photographs or video footage.

There are gaps in this legislation. Most notably, the relevant offence prohibits transmitting such material via a carriage service (such as the internet). But there is no standalone offence for creating such material. Only sharing is explicitly prohibited.

There is some ambiguity here. Many AI tools used to create sexual imagery are online services. To use them, you send data to the service, which then sends sexual imagery back. It’s unclear whether this counts as “transmitting” sexual material in the relevant legal sense.

Also, the offence requires that the person distributing the sexual material is either aware the target did not consent to its distribution, or is reckless as to whether they consented. But what, exactly, does “reckless” mean?

If Neera created deepfake pornography of Julian without even considering whether he would consent, this would be reckless. But what if Neera claimed that she (wrongly) assumed Julian wouldn’t mind because the footage isn’t a true depiction of him? Would this count as “reckless” in the relevant legal sense? This, too, remains unclear.

Legal doesn’t make it ethical

As the law doesn’t clearly prohibit private creation and use of deepfake pornography, individuals must make their own moral choices.

Moreover, the law has only a limited impact on how people behave online. Internet piracy is known to be illegal but remains widespread, presumably because people are aware they probably won’t be punished for it and don’t think piracy is a serious moral wrong.

By contrast, many people have the strong intuition that even private use of deepfake pornography is wrong. But it’s surprisingly difficult to articulate why. After all, far fewer people morally condemn others for having private sexual fantasies of celebrities, acquaintances or strangers.

If private fantasies are not seriously wrong, is computer-assisted fantasising any different?

The case for privacy

Most commonly, deepfake pornography has been described as a privacy violation. It’s easy to see the appeal of this view. AI outputs appear to depict, in concrete form, what somebody looks like unclothed, or engaged in sex.

Some victims report a sense that others have “seen them naked”, or that the outputs feel like “real images”. This seems more invasive of privacy than an image held only in someone’s imagination.

However, there is a problem with the privacy argument.

AI tools can swap a person’s face onto existing porn footage or generate entirely new imagery from patterns learned during training. What they can’t do is depict what the person is actually like. The deepfakes look convincing because most human bodies are roughly similar in ways that matter for sexualised imagery.

This matters because sexual privacy concerns information that is particular to us – such as identifying details about our bodies, or how we express ourselves sexually.

Assumptions we make based on generic facts about humans are different. You can violate someone’s privacy by sharing specific details from their sexual history. You can’t violate their privacy by announcing they probably have nipples, and probably sometimes have sex.

This distinction is not trivial. AI “nudify” apps offer the fantasy that the AI tool allows access to another person’s body without their consent. And if we think deepfake porn is offering genuinely personal information about its targets, that makes the deepfakes more harmful. It’s a misconception that shouldn’t be encouraged.

It’s still morally wrong

We are not suggesting that private creation of deepfake pornography is morally benign.

It might not violate a person’s privacy, and it might not break the law. But people also have a broader interest in how they’re depicted and seen by others. Deepfake porn is vivid and can be visually convincing. If someone sees such imagery of you, their view of you can be distorted more than if they were just fantasising in their head.

It is also well established that many people find others viewing deepfaked sexual depictions of them psychologically and emotionally ruinous. That alone is sufficient reason to condemn the use of these tools.

While powerful in some respects, AI tools can’t reveal the genuinely private aspects of our sexual lives. But their use for deepfake porn remains a small-minded and morally unjustifiable act of disrespect.

Neera Bhatia has previously received funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council for an unrelated project.

Julian Koplin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Non-consensual AI porn doesn’t violate privacy – but it’s still wrong – https://theconversation.com/non-consensual-ai-porn-doesnt-violate-privacy-but-its-still-wrong-275095

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/13/non-consensual-ai-porn-doesnt-violate-privacy-but-its-still-wrong-275095/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Townsend, Lecturer in War Studies, UNSW Sydney

Nearly two years after the Australian government was first notified that war graves in Gaza and surrounding areas had been damaged as a result of conflict, new evidence has confirmed the extent of destruction.

In a recent update, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission – the intergovernmental body responsible for commemorating all Commonwealth war dead from the two world wars – has confirmed damage to both the Gaza War Cemetery and Deir El Balah War Cemetery is “extensive”.

And a recent Guardian report outlined new evidence indicating the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) “bulldozed” graves in the Gaza War Cemetery’s southern corner.

This includes the graves of Australian and British personnel who died in the two world wars. It has been reported that the graves of up to two dozen New Zealanders are also affected, along with Canadians killed during peacekeeping operations in the 1950s and ‘60s. Reports indicate that Indian plots have also been heavily damaged.

The Guardian reported that:

After being shown satellite images of the cemetery, the Israel Defence Forces said that it had been forced to take defensive measures during military operations.

“At the relevant time, the area in question was an active combat zone,” an army spokesperson said.

More broadly, the fate of these sites highlights the continued risk to war graves in modern conflict zones.

Anzacs in Gaza

The Gaza War Cemetery contains more than 3,400 Commonwealth burials.

The news that more than 250 Australians are interred in Gaza may surprise some Australians.

Yet, Australians have a long history of military service in the region, from the world wars to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As part of British efforts to push Ottoman Turkish forces out of Palestine, for instance, Australian mounted troops (cavalry) fought in three major battles in Gaza between March and November 1917.

The second battle was particularly costly. In three days, the British suffered more than 6,000 casualties, 500 of whom were killed, including more than 100 Australians. These Australians were buried across the two cemeteries in what is now the Gaza Strip.

Australian forces later returned to the Middle East in the second world war.

While Gaza was not the site of fighting this time around, it was the location of the Australian theatre headquarters, which oversaw Australian operations in the region. It was also home to several hospital units.

This means many of the Australians buried in the area’s two war cemeteries died because of accident, injury or illness, not in battle.

Among the burials at Gaza War Cemetery are 23 New Zealanders. A further 13 New Zealanders are interred at Deir El Belah War Cemetery.

A broader challenge

The destruction of war graves in Gaza has rightly received global attention. But this isn’t the first time Australian and Commonwealth war dead have been dragged into contemporary conflicts.

If we look first at Gaza, the two war cemeteries were damaged in both 2006 and 2009 amid fighting in the area.

The damage caused by the 2006 operations saw the Israeli government financially compensate the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

But this issue is not unique to Gaza, nor to the Middle East. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission cares for more than 1.1 million separate graves across more than 23,000 locations, in 150 countries and territories.

Some of these are in active conflict zones, or otherwise volatile areas. This includes sites in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia. Each of these is classed as a “challenging location”. Access is often restricted or prohibited, and many sites are at risk of damage through fighting or vandalism.

For instance, Iraq’s Habbaniya War Cemetery, where three Australian airmen are interred, was “severely damaged” during the two Gulf wars. Only in 2020 could the Commonwealth War Graves Commission finish reconstruction of the cemetery.

In 2012, war cemeteries at Benghazi in eastern Libya were desecrated twice. This included hundreds of plots, with 50 Australian headstones damaged in one incident.

Further east, Yemen’s Maala Cemetery was damaged during fighting between 2014 and 2015. Located in a particularly dangerous area, the cemetery – where 11 Australians are buried – remains off-limits and mostly destroyed.

In other instances, the danger is so great that locations are used to commemorate casualties interred elsewhere. An example is the Mogadishu African War Cemetery in Somalia, where political instability forced the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to erect memorial headstones at Kenya’s Nairobi War Cemetery.

War cemeteries will remain in danger

Given ongoing conflict and instability in Yemen, Somalia and Gaza, it is unlikely any restorative works will be possible any time soon.

And the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s chief of staff, Peter Francis, acknowledged in October 2024 that cemetery rebuilding would not be prioritised as part of reconstruction in Gaza, given the scale of destruction across the broader Gaza Strip.

There is also the financial factor, with reconstruction of the Gaza War Cemetery alone estimated to cost around £5 million (about A$9.6 million). The figure is likely much higher now, given the scale of destruction since this 2024 estimate.

All this reflects the difficulties the Commonwealth War Graves Commission encounters in trying to mark, record and maintain graves and commemorative sites.

As troubling as this situation is, particularly for affected families, it is a difficult reality: war cemeteries will remain in danger amid active unrest and conflict.

Nicole Townsend is a director of the Second World War Research Group, which is a non-paid, voluntary academic role.

– ref. The damaged Gaza War Cemetery highlights ongoing risk to soldier graves in conflict zones – https://theconversation.com/the-damaged-gaza-war-cemetery-highlights-ongoing-risk-to-soldier-graves-in-conflict-zones-275536

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/13/the-damaged-gaza-war-cemetery-highlights-ongoing-risk-to-soldier-graves-in-conflict-zones-275536/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Bedford, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names, images and voices of deceased people.

Today marks 18 years since then prime minister Kevin Rudd’s apology to more than 27,000 Stolen Generation survivors for policies that “inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss”.

The ripple effects of taking thousands of children from their families continue today.

Many Indigenous Australians – like me – grew up in families where at least one relative was removed as a child. Some never saw their families again.

I’ve spent six months researching different states and territories’ redress schemes, and what’s worked best.

That research shows the compensation available varies hugely, depending on which state or territory survivors were taken from. This is especially true in Queensland, the only state without any redress scheme.

I presented the results of at the National Indigenous Legal Conference late last year. I’m sharing those findings now, ahead of formal publication, because too many survivors are growing old waiting for action.

What redress has there been so far?

Apart from Queensland, every other state and territory has offered some financial and non-financial forms of compensation for Stolen Generations survivors. Some schemes – New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania – are closed to new applications.

Many survivors and their families have said practical forms of redress had often made the biggest difference to their lives. These included:

• finally learning some of their own language, such as in Victoria’s scheme
• undertaking cultural healing activities, such as in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory
• and authorities personally acknowledging harm to individuals, such as in Western Australia, the ACT and NT.

Money alone cannot repair the harms done to survivors. Those harms include the devastating impacts of losing contact with family, suffering racial discrimination, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and being stripped of cultural, economic and potential native title rights.

But financial compensation still matters. The amounts survivors can apply for vary across different state and territory schemes, ranging from $30,000 in South Australia to $100,000 in Victoria.

One state is yet to act

Queensland remains the only state without any redress scheme. Yet the 2021 census showed the state is home to more than one in four Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia.

In 2024, Queensland’s Liberal National government repealed the Path to Treaty Act and abandoned the state’s truth and healing inquiry. The government has stressed it’s “committed to practical reconciliation”.

For Queensland survivors, there’s no more time to wait for practical action on a redress scheme.

What’s worked and what’s missing

Balancing the schemes’ financial and non-financial aspects, my analysis concluded Victoria and Tasmania have delivered the most positive redress schemes.

For example, Tasmania’s scheme allows children of Stolen Generations survivors who have died to apply for payments. This reflects the hard reality that taking a child from their family has multigenerational effects.

A longer version of my research will be published in an academic journal later this year. My make 14 recommendations for best practice redress schemes, including:

• removing arbitrary closing dates
• allowing survivors’ descendants to apply
• funding for practical cultural restoration, such as to learn languages or reconnect to Country
• and offering financial compensation on par with Victoria’s $100,000 for those taken as a child by compulsion, duress or undue influence.

That amount of money is far less than a court has previously ruled was a fair reflection of the damages done.

One survivor’s story

On Christmas Day 1957, 13-month-old Bruce Trevorrow was sick with stomach pain and diarrhoea.

His family didn’t have a car and lived hours from Adelaide children’s hospital. His father was caring for three older siblings, so asked neighbours to take his baby on the long drive.

In the weeks and months that followed, his parents pleaded for news of their boy. As his mother wrote to the Aboriginal Protection Board:

I am writing to ask if you will let me know how baby Bruce is and how long before I can have him home

The board wrote back, saying her son was “making good progress”. But he had been fostered to a white family, just a fortnight after being admitted to hospital.

By the time Trevorrow saw his family again, years later, his father was dead.

In 2007, South Australia’s Supreme Court awarded the 50-year-old Trevorrow $775,000 in damages and interest.

Trevorrow died less than a year later.

‘Are you waiting for us to die?’

A 2025 report, “Are You Waiting For Us to Die?”, found just 6% of the 1997 Bringing Them Home inquiry’s recommendations to support Stolen Generations survivors and families had been implemented.

As Healing Foundation chair and Kungarakan man Steve Larkin said last year:

Nearly 30 years since its tabling, survivors are passing away at a rapid rate.

Survivors’ medical, psychological and care needs are becoming more acute with age.

Additionally, some can resist needed aged care services, due to fears of institutionalisation. Places at Aboriginal-controlled aged care centres, run with cultural care and sensitivity, are very limited.

We need more meaningful reform for the remaining Stolen Generation survivors, before it’s too late.

Narelle Bedford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As Stolen Generations survivors ‘pass away at a rapid rate’, some still await official redress – https://theconversation.com/as-stolen-generations-survivors-pass-away-at-a-rapid-rate-some-still-await-official-redress-272180

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/13/as-stolen-generations-survivors-pass-away-at-a-rapid-rate-some-still-await-official-redress-272180/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dylan Hicks, Lecturer & Movement Scientist / PhD Sports Biomechanics, Flinders University

When New Zealand runner Sam Ruthe crossed the line to break the under-18 indoor mile world record last week at Boston University, he became the 11th fastest indoor miler of all time.

By clocking the distance in 3 minutes and 48.88 seconds (3:48.88) he also became the youngest male to break the 3:50 mark in the mile – aged 16 years and 294 days.

Not only was this an unbelievable performance for a 16-year-old, it was also his first time on an indoor (banked) track.

When you also account for the 50-hour travel time from his hometown Tauranga to Boston, and subsequent jetlag, the run becomes even more extraordinary.

Yet it was another example of an emerging trend in middle-distance running, from 800 to 3000 metres: teenagers looking increasingly comfortable on the world stage.

Ruthe isn’t alone. Australia’s Cam Myers (aged 19) has continued to build on his performances from last season, recently running a world under-20 indoor mile record in New York, to become the second all-time fastest in that age group.

Between Ruthe and Myers, performances like this have many athletics fans wondering, how are these young athletes already so good?

The answer goes beyond early specialisation or simply “running more”. Research increasingly points toward how middle-distance running performance actually emerges, not just how much mileage is done in training.

The importance of ‘running economy’

In running, aerobic capacity – called “VO2 max”, the maximum volume of oxygen consumed for energy production – obviously matters. But in middle-distance running it is rarely what separates good athletes from the great ones, like Ruthe and Myers.

What typically matters is the athlete’s running economy (or efficiency), which describes how much energy is required to run at a steady pace well below their maximum aerobic capacity.

Research suggests athletes with good running economy use less energy (and therefore less oxygen) than runners with poor economy, while running at the same speed.

Further studies also highlight athletes who have similar VO2 max values can still differ by up to 30% in running economy. That difference alone can translate into large performance gaps at race pace.

The biomechanical edge

Several factors appear to influence an athlete’s running economy, especially in reducing the energetic cost to the runner.

One of the key factors is effective production and transmission of ground reaction forces – the force the body applies into the ground and receives back with each step – along with muscle stiffness.

Additionally, biomechanical traits such as lighter body mass, efficient limb proportions and optimal torso-to-leg ratios further enhance running economy.

For developing athletes like Ruthe, these characteristics appear to reduce the mechanical demands of repeated ground contacts.

Also, shorter contact times between the foot and ground, and greater use of “elastic” energy (the storage and recoil of energy in the Achilles tendon), allow speed to be sustained with less muscular effort.

This was potentially enhanced further on the Boston University track, which is widely regarded as one of the world’s fastest indoor (or “short”) tracks.

When combined with sound training, this may explain why some younger athletes such as Ruthe appear “senior-ready” much earlier than expected.

Shoe technology is improving

Another factor quietly shaping modern performances is footwear technology. (Ruthe is sponsored by Nike.)

Advances in carbon-plate design and midsole foam in “super spike” running shoes have reduced the metabolic cost of running by improving energy return and mimimising energy loss during ground contact.

Evidence suggests modern super spikes can improve performance and enhance step length (with no reduction in step frequency) by 1–2%. In a 1500-metre race, this equates to about a 15-metre advantage at the elite level.

Importantly, although super spikes are available to anyone, the benefits don’t appear to affect all athletes equally.

Lighter runners tend to compress modern foams more optimally, meaning a greater proportion of stored energy is returned during push-off in each step.

For younger athletes who already move efficiently, and are generally lighter than senior athletes, the shoes can amplify traits they already possess.

This doesn’t mean technology is a subsitute for talent, more that it rewards efficiency. This appears to be the case with Ruthe.

Where to next?

Whenever a young middle-distance runner breaks records, especially all the way from New Zealand, comparisons follow.

Norwegian star, 25-year-old Jakob Ingebrigtsen is the obvious reference point. He also ran world-class times across a range of distances as a teenager.

Before becoming an Olympic champion (1500-metres Tokyo 2021, 5000-metres Paris 2024), Ingebrigtsen ran his first 4-minute mile at 16 years and 250 days. Ruthe achieved this feat an entire year earlier.

Still, history reminds us that early excellence does not guarantee senior dominance. Many promising athletes disappear – not because they lacked talent, but because the system around them asked too much, too soon.

But according to Ruthe’s coach: “He trains like a 16-year-old, not like a fully professional.”

Nonetheless, while not training like a full pro, Ruthe has just been announced he will join Myers and Paris Olympics 1500-metre gold medallist Cole Hocker in the prestigious Bowerman Mile at the 2026 Prefontaine Classic in July.

New Zealand has a small but storied middle-distance history shaped by Olympic champions Peter Snell and John Walker. Ruthe’s recent performances have quickly elevated him into that lineage.

Despite his age, improved coaching knowledge, biomechanical understanding and technology are likely allowing his innate talent to express itself earlier.

The real story is that his performance invites us to rethink how middle-distance success emerges. Today’s best young athletes aren’t just fitter, they are more efficient, more economical and better supported to move well.

And in middle-distance running, athletes like Ruthe remind us that moving well often outweighs doing more.

Dylan Hicks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How far can teenage Kiwi running star Sam Ruthe go? What science and history tell us – https://theconversation.com/how-far-can-teenage-kiwi-running-star-sam-ruthe-go-what-science-and-history-tell-us-275214

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/13/how-far-can-teenage-kiwi-running-star-sam-ruthe-go-what-science-and-history-tell-us-275214/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Lawrence, Professor of Public Health Nutrition, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University

If you’ve ever read a food label and come away feeling more confused, you’re not alone.

Since 2014, Australian shoppers have relied on the Health Star Rating scheme to help them choose which foods to eat. This system ranks food products on a scale from half a star to five stars, to help consumers compare the nutritional value of similar types of food.

This system is far from perfect. Nevertheless, Australia’s food ministers are meeting today to consider making it mandatory, with the aim of helping Australians eat more healthily.

Should we mandate a flawed system? And is there an alternative?

How does the current system work?

The Health Star Rating system was designed to help consumers make healthier eating choices, by providing accessible and relevant nutrition information.

The current system uses an algorithm that claims to assess how healthy or unhealthy a certain food product is. To do this, it looks at the nutritional value of some of the product’s ingredients, then rates it on a scale of half a star to five stars.

The system is currently voluntary. This means food companies are not obliged to include Health Star Ratings on their products. However those that do are encouraged to do so across their full product range.

A flawed system

The existing system is controversial for two main reasons.

1. What’s healthy?

First, it’s not an objective way of measuring how healthy a food is.

Over the past decade, some food companies have appeared to use the Health Star Ratings as a marketing tool. This is especially the case among companies that produce ultra-processed and discretionary foods such as breakfast cereals, muesli bars and protein drinks.

Under the current system, it is possible for companies to manipulate the Health Star Ratings algorithm. This involves replacing so-called “risk nutrients” with synthetic ingredients.

For example, a company may replace sugar with certain sweeteners, or fats with emulsifiers and gums. They might also add new ingredients such as fibre powders that improve their scores without making the product any healthier.

A study from 2020 found about three quarters of ultra-processed foods that display stars do so with at least 2.5 or more stars, giving them a “healthy” pass mark.

As a result, consumers often try to make healthier choices by swapping one lower-rated ultra-processed food for another higher-rated one. Unfortunately, they do not realise they are still consuming an unhealthy food.

There is no such thing as a healthy ultra-processed food.

2. It’s confusing

Second, it is a confusing system. Consumers find the current system difficult to navigate.

A 2024 report found only just over half (52.3%) of participants agreed the Health Star Rating system was accurate and honest. Less than half (41.3%) thought it had a good reputation.

Could this flawed system become mandatory?

Possibly. In 2020, food ministers from around Australia agreed to consider making the system mandatory if fewer than 70% of products were using it by 2025.

The latest data shows just 37% of products have a Health Star Rating. This has dropped by 4% since 2019.

The government’s push to mandate the Health Star Rating system appears to have divided the public health community.

Various organisations and practitioners have sent letters to food ministers, both supporting and opposing the proposal.

Those in favour of mandating the current system acknowledge the system is not perfect, but believe it is better than having no system.

Those who oppose this move would prefer to scrap the existing scheme and start from scratch. They point out that after 12 years of continual tweaks to the system and reassurances that it will improve, the health star ratings system is still fundamentally flawed. Food companies may still manipulate the algorithm, and consumers will remain in the dark. Another concern is instituting a flawed system would make it even harder to introduce a better one in the future.

So, is there an alternative?

Yes – warning labels.

Using simple statements or symbols, warning labels are designed to inform consumers if a food product is high in fat, sugar or salt. In future, they may also indicate whether a product is an ultra-processed food.

Several countries are already using warning labels. In Mexico, for example, consumers have embraced this system and have changed their food purchasing behaviours to be more in line with healthy eating recommendations.

In the past few months, countries including Canada and the United States have moved towards adopting the warning label approach.

And just this week, the Indian Supreme Court asked the country’s food standards agency to consider developing warning labels. Before this, India was on track to adopt a version of the Health Star Rating system.

A global study published in late 2025 suggests warning labels are the most effective way to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods. This is compared to other ranking-style labelling schemes such as Health Star Ratings.

Given its design and governance flaws, mandating the current health star rating system would be a mistake. Fortunately, there is a better option. Other countries have adopted a warning label system, with promising results. Now it is time for Australia to do the same.

Mark Lawrence receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Previously he has received funding from the World Health Organization and the Australian Research Council.

Christina Mary Pollard received funding from Healthway for ‘Food Law, Policy and Communications to Improve Public Health’ Research Into Practice Grant; and Building Capacity for Public Health Advocacy. Christina Mary Pollard is on the board of Foodbank WA.

– ref. Australia’s food labelling system isn’t working – here’s how we can fix it – https://theconversation.com/australias-food-labelling-system-isnt-working-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275673

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/13/australias-food-labelling-system-isnt-working-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275673/