The “EU chemicals strategy for sustainability” questions regulatory toxicology as we know it: is it all rooted in sound scientific evidence?

Bats show responses to anthropogenic stressors linked to changes in other ecosystem components such as insects, and as K-selected mammals, exhibit fast population declines. This speciose, widespread mammal group shows an impressive trophic diversity and provides key ecosystem services. For these and other reasons, bats might act as suitable bioindicators in many environmental contexts. However, few studies have explicitly tested this potential, and in some cases, stating that bats are useful bioindicators more closely resembles a slogan to support conservation than a well-grounded piece of scientific evidence. Here, we review the available information and highlight the limitations that arise in using bats as bioindicators. Based on the limited number of studies available, the use of bats as bioindicators is highly promising and warrants further investigation in specific contexts such as river quality, urbanisation, farming practices, forestry, bioaccumulation, and climate change. Whether bats may also serve as surrogate taxa remains a controversial yet highly interesting matter. Some limitations to using bats as bioindicators include taxonomical issues, sampling problems, difficulties in associating responses with specific stressors, and geographically biased or delayed responses. Overall, we urge the scientific community to test bat responses to specific stressors in selected ecosystem types and develop research networks to explore the geographic consistency of such responses. The high cost of sampling equipment (ultrasound detectors) is being greatly reduced by technological advances, and the legal obligation to monitor bat populations already existing in many countries such as those in the EU offers an important opportunity to accomplish two objectives (conservation and bioindication) with one action.

Download Full-text

Prediction of delayed mortality using vitality scores and reflexes, as well as catch, processing, and post-release conditions: evidence from discarded flatfish in the Western Baltic trawl fishery

ICES Journal of Marine Science ◽

10.1093/icesjms/fsy129 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 76 (1) ◽

pp. 330-341 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

S B M Kraak ◽

A Velasco ◽

U Fröse ◽

U Krumme

Keyword(s):

Scientific Evidence ◽

Handling Time ◽

Fishing Ground ◽

High Survival ◽

Trawl Fishery ◽

Fishing Vessels ◽

Reflex Action ◽

Delayed Mortality ◽

Catch Composition ◽

The Eu

Abstract The EU discard ban and its high-survival exemption exposed our lack of scientific evidence on discard survival in the fisheries. Discard survival is known to be highly variable and influenced by numerous factors, including conditions during the catch, on-board the fishing vessels, and post-discard. Therefore, obtaining unambiguous results in discard survival experiments is challenging. We conducted the first systematic year-round discard survival study of flatfish in the Western Baltic Sea on-board a commercial stern trawler under realistic fishing conditions (13 monthly hauls from May 2015 to May 2016) to test whether delayed mortality can be predicted by vitality scores and reflex action mortality predictor (RAMP) scores in combination with variable conditions during catch, processing, and post-release. The factors vessel type, gear, haul duration, fishing ground, depth, handling time, and processing procedures were kept constant as much as possible. On-board, live individual flatfish were tested for vitality and the presence of reflexes for RAMP, then “discarded” and kept in cages on the bottom of the seafloor for about a week after which the delayed mortality was determined. The proportions of “discarded” plaice, flounder, and dab that were dead after being kept in the cages ranged from 5% to 100%, 0% to 96%, and 33% to 100%, respectively. Higher mortalities occurred in summer-autumn when air and water temperatures were higher, catches smaller, and catches contained smaller proportions of roundfish. Relationships between RAMP scores and mortality probabilities varied substantially across the monthly trials. Indeed, in addition to RAMP or vitality scores and individual reflexes, the factors air and water temperature and catch weight and catch composition were significant in logistic GLMs explaining delayed mortality. Cross-validations indicated that delayed mortality could be predicted by these models with a reasonable accuracy. Nevertheless, the presence of possible confounding effects calls for caution in inferring causality and extrapolating the conclusions on predictability.

Download Full-text

Organic Dairy Cattle: Do European Union Regulations Promote Animal Welfare?

Animals ◽

10.3390/ani10101786 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (10) ◽

pp. 1786

Author(s):

Eugénie Duval ◽

Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk ◽

Benjamin Lecorps

Keyword(s):

Dairy Cattle ◽

Animal Welfare ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Conventional Farming ◽

Organic Dairy ◽

High Standards ◽

Vague Language ◽

On Farm ◽

The Eu

Animal welfare is an emerging concept in EU law; with the advent of specific regulations intending to protect animals. The approach taken by European lawmakers is to provide “minimum standards” for conventional farming; argued by some as failing to adequately protect animals. In contrast, the EU organic farming regulations aim to “establish a sustainable management system for agriculture” and promote “high animal welfare standards”. The first aim of this review was to identify key areas where there are clear improvements in quality of life for dairy cattle housed under the EU organic regulations when compared to the conventional EU regulations. Using the available scientific evidence, our second aim was to identify areas where the organic regulations fail to provide clear guidance in their pursuit to promote high standards of dairy cattle welfare. The greater emphasis placed on natural living conditions, the ban of some (but unfortunately not all) physical mutilations combined with clearer recommendations regarding housing conditions potentially position the organic dairy industry to achieve high standards of welfare. However, improvements in some sections are needed given that the regulations are often conveyed using vague language, provide exceptions or remain silent on some aspects. This review provides a critical reflection of some of these key areas related to on-farm aspects. To a lesser extent, post farm gate aspects are also discussed

Download Full-text

Unspoken SPS-Plus and SPS-Minus Aspirations: Biotechnologies in EU and US Trade Agreements

European Journal of Risk Regulation ◽

10.1017/err.2021.37 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-20

Author(s):

Filippo FONTANELLI

Keyword(s):

Scientific Evidence ◽

Trade Agreements ◽

The European Union ◽

External Trade ◽

Trade Restrictions ◽

Don't Ask Don't Tell ◽

The Us ◽

The World ◽

The Eu ◽

Restrictive Policy

In the World Trade Organization (WTO), the US approach to science-based risks and trade restrictions prevailed over that of the European Union (EU). The EU, dissatisfied with the margin of action available when “relevant scientific evidence is insufficient”, largely kept intact its internal practice on marketing and importing genetically modified (GM) crops and GM-containing products. The goal of this article is to ascertain whether these regulatory preferences of the US and the EU translate into their post-Biotech external trade efforts. US and EU preferential trade agreements are scanned for rules on trade in biotechnology goods or the use of precautionary elements in regulation. It transpires that neither bloc systematically tries (or manages) to bend trade agreements to accommodate its defensive or offensive trade interests in this field. Among the possible reasons for this apparent inertia are the US confidence in the WTO baseline and the EU preference for a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to its trade-restrictive policy in this area.

Download Full-text

The Politicisation of Evaluation: Constructing and Contesting EU Policy Performance

Politische Vierteljahresschrift ◽

10.1007/s11615-019-00212-7 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 60 (4) ◽

pp. 663-679 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Paul J. Stephenson ◽

Jonas J. Schoenefeld ◽

Frans L. Leeuw

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Political Science ◽

Policy Design ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

The European Union ◽

Special Issue ◽

Governance System ◽

Research On Evaluation ◽

Policy Performance ◽

The Eu

AbstractAlthough systematic policy evaluation has been conducted for decades and has been growing strongly within the European Union (EU) institutions and in the member states, it remains largely underexplored in political science literatures. Extant work in political science and public policy typically focuses on elements such as agenda setting, policy shaping, decision making, or implementation rather than evaluation. Although individual pieces of research on evaluation in the EU have started to emerge, most often regarding policy “effectiveness” (one criterion among many in evaluation), a more structured approach is currently missing. This special issue aims to address this gap in political science by focusing on four key focal points: evaluation institutions (including rules and cultures), evaluation actors and interests (including competencies, power, roles and tasks), evaluation design (including research methods and theories, and their impact on policy design and legislation), and finally, evaluation purpose and use (including the relationships between discourse and scientific evidence, political attitudes and strategic use). The special issue considers how each of these elements contributes to an evolving governance system in the EU, where evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in decision making.

Download Full-text

Green Building Rating Systems and the New Framework Level(s): A Critical Review of Sustainability Certification within Europe

Energies ◽

10.3390/en13010066 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 66 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Antonio Sánchez Cordero ◽

Sergio Gómez Melgar ◽

José Manuel Andújar Márquez

Keyword(s):

Residential Buildings ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Green Building ◽

Assessment Method ◽

The European Union ◽

Rating Systems ◽

Indicator Framework ◽

The Difference ◽

Sustainability Assessments ◽

The Eu

Increasing problems regarding pollution and climate change have long been demonstrated by scientific evidence. An important portion of carbon emissions are produced by the building sector. These emissions are directly related not only to the building’s energy consumption, but also other building attributes affecting the construction and operation of existing buildings: materials selection, waste management, transportation, water consumption, and others. To help reduce these emissions, several green building rating system (GBRSs) have appeared during the last years. This has made it difficult for stakeholders to identify which GBRSs could be more suitable to a specific project. The heterogeneity of the GRBS scenario requires the creation of a transparent and robust indicator framework that can be used in any country within the European Union (EU), which is a common EU framework of core sustainability indicators for office and residential buildings Level(s) with the goal to provide a solid structure for building sustainability certification across all countries of the EU. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the most common GBRSs within the EU: Building Research Establishment Assessment Method (BREEAM), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB), Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE), and Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED), and a bottom up comparison of the influence in the final score produced by the indicators stated by Level(s). The indicators studied show a different influence of Level(s) indicators on every GBRS, where LEED and BREEAM were most affected while HQE and DGNB were less so. This paper demonstrates the heterogeneity of current GRBSs in the EU scenario and the difference between sustainability assessments, where DGNB seems to be more aligned to the current EU framework. Finally, the paper concludes with the need to work to achieve alignment between the GBRS and Level(s).

Download Full-text

Re the article “Incorporating potency into the EU classification for carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity” by Hennes C et al. (Regulatory toxicology and Pharmacology, 70 (1024), 457–67)

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology ◽

10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.02.008 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 72 (3) ◽

pp. 702

Author(s):

J.R. Kelsey ◽

P. Davison

Keyword(s):

Reproductive Toxicity ◽

Regulatory Toxicology ◽

The Eu

Download Full-text

An Integrated Approach to Current Trends in Organic Food in the EU

Foods ◽

10.3390/foods8050144 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (5) ◽

pp. 144 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ionel Bostan ◽

Mihaela Onofrei ◽

Anca Florentina Gavriluţă (Vatamanu) ◽

Carmen Toderașcu ◽

Cristina Mihaela Lazăr

Keyword(s):

Scientific Evidence ◽

Organic Food ◽

Integrated Approach ◽

Legal Framework ◽

Policy Framework ◽

Current Trends ◽

Regulation Policy ◽

Food Market ◽

Organic Food Consumption ◽

The Eu

The objective of this paper is to summarize an extensive bibliographical search by presenting the retrospective of EU organic food from the point of regulation, policy framework, trends and challenges. We also make a critical review of existing scientific evidence regarding European trends in organic food consumption and production and we identify research gaps for future comprehensive assessments of the policy and legal framework. This review has indicated the importance of the two pillars, namely regulation and policy, highlighting not only the need for solid restrictions regarding organic food production, however also the need to support food safety and consumer confidence in the growing organic food market.

Download Full-text

Lessons Learned From Coaching Postsecondary Students With Traumatic Brain Injury

Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups ◽

10.1044/2019_persp-19-00092 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 88-96

Author(s):

Mary R. T. Kennedy

Keyword(s):

College Students ◽

Traumatic Brain Injury ◽

Brain Injury ◽

Sense Of Self ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Sudden Onset ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Speech Language Pathologists ◽

The Brain ◽

Exhaustive List

Purpose The purpose of this clinical focus article is to provide speech-language pathologists with a brief update of the evidence that provides possible explanations for our experiences while coaching college students with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Method The narrative text provides readers with lessons we learned as speech-language pathologists functioning as cognitive coaches to college students with TBI. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather to consider the recent scientific evidence that will help our understanding of how best to coach these college students. Conclusion Four lessons are described. Lesson 1 focuses on the value of self-reported responses to surveys, questionnaires, and interviews. Lesson 2 addresses the use of immediate/proximal goals as leverage for students to update their sense of self and how their abilities and disabilities may alter their more distal goals. Lesson 3 reminds us that teamwork is necessary to address the complex issues facing these students, which include their developmental stage, the sudden onset of trauma to the brain, and having to navigate going to college with a TBI. Lesson 4 focuses on the need for college students with TBI to learn how to self-advocate with instructors, family, and peers.

Download Full-text

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 12-13

Author(s):

LuAnn Haley ◽

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Complex Concept ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Compensation Claims ◽

Recent Edition ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Download Full-text