From the editor
Over the years, Field Exchange has had its fair share of criticism to which the editorial team have always tried to respond positively. More often than not, we publish critical views in the letters section. It's probably true to say that the ENN are in some way reassured by critical emails and letters as it shows that readers care enough about the publication to write in. In this issue of Field Exchange, we publish a number of letters (see letters section) which we have actively solicited in response to criticisms (published in FEx 23 and 24). These concern a purported bias by Field Exchange to publish articles on 'high technology foods' like RUTF, as well as a potential conflict of interest for the ENN in accepting funding from private sector companies involved in production of foods like RUTF. Further input and views from our readers on these issues would be most welcome.
Read the full editorial