One of the values that TABLE has attempted to hold since its days as the Food Climate Research Network is that of impartiality: we try to fairly reflect different views regardless of our own position, and arrange events/debates in a way that doesn’t pre-suppose a conclusion or favour one participant over the other.
However, we are aware that a claim to actually being impartial may be unrealistic: our work is inevitably influenced by the networks and cultures of which TABLE staff members are part of, as well as our own views on how the food system should function.
We have had many internal discussions about the tensions between the ideal of impartiality and the reality of trying to implement it. In the spirit of transparency, we have now uploaded a short reflection to our website where we expand on our views on what it means to try to be impartial, knowing that we can never fully reach impartiality.
You can read it here: What do we mean by the word ‘impartiality’? | TABLE Debates
We would very much welcome your comments and thoughts.