Scientific Risk Assessment Research Articles

Food and Environmental Risk Assessment of Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize NK603 for Food Uses, Import and Processing under Directive 2001/18/EC (Notification C/ES/00/01)

Food and Environmental Risk Assessment of Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize NK603 for Food Uses, Import and Processing under Directive 2001/18/EC (Notification C/ES/00/01)

Food/feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 59122 x NK603 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/20)

Food/feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 59122 x NK603 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/20)

Final Health and Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Maize 59122

Final Health and Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Maize 59122

Final Health and Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Maize MON 89034

Final Health and Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Maize MON 89034

Food/Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect Resistant Genetically Modified Maize MON810 for Cultivation, Seed Production, Import, Processing and Feed Uses under Directive 2001/18/EC (Notification C/F/95/12/02)

Food/Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect Resistant Genetically Modified Maize MON810 for Cultivation, Seed Production, Import, Processing and Feed Uses under Directive 2001/18/EC (Notification C/F/95/12/02)

Food/Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 59122 x 1507 x NK603 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/21)

Food/Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 59122 x 1507 x NK603 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/21)

Food, Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Glufosinatetolerant Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape T45 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing Under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (Application EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/25)

Food, Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Glufosinatetolerant Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape T45 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing Under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (Application EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/25)

Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 1507 x 59122 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/NL/2005/15)

Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 1507 x 59122 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/NL/2005/15)

Food/Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 1507 x 59122 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/NL/2005/15)

Food/Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 1507 x 59122 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/NL/2005/15)

Food/Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 1507 x NK603 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/UK/2004/05)

Food/Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect-resistant and Herbicide-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 1507 x NK603 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (EFSA/GMO/UK/2004/05)

Scientific justification and risk assessment requirements for the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in WTO law

Scientific justification and risk assessment requirements for the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in WTO law

Health care providers ethical use of risk assessment to identify and prevent terrorism

Summary The rise in terrorist acts around the world has called for greater attention for health care professionals to predict and report those who may commit such violence in order to prevent them from occurring. This article compares actions taken in Europe and the U.S. around the violation of confidentiality that occurs when providers are mandated to disclose personal health care information should an individual be reasonably suspected of using violence to harm him or herself or others, which is the usual standard used to make such a disclosure. The questions explored are 1) whether it is possible to make an accurate prediction of future use of violence; 2) if so, what are the potential outcomes of such disclosures; and 3) what are the ethical concerns for the health care profession in general as well as the individual professional? To answer these questions, health care professors from Italy and the U.S. compare the legal system requirements with the ability to predict who will commit future violence using scientific research on risk assessment by mental health professionals. Prediction of future violence using clinical interview methods alone has been found to be wrong more often than right prompting the development of structured interviews and “actuarials” using data from researching violent offenders (Shapiro et al., 2018). Comparison with their use in various legal settings in the U.S. and potential to identify a radicalized individual in a terrorist cell under the European Prevent Act is explored. Ethical considerations of whether the science of risk assessment yields sufficiently high enough accuracy to warrant violation of the patient's privacy are explored. Does the violation of human rights especially in those where the predictions are inaccurate create an ethical crisis in health care as some have suggested in the U.S. around psychologists interrogating and treating detained terrorists or the E.U. mandate under “Prevent” to deradicalize those known to be captured by terrorist communities? And finally, the article questions whether mandatory reporting of those at risk of further violence actually stops and prevents terrorist acts from occurring at all.

The Regulation of Trans Fats in Food Products in the US and the EU

The regulation of trans fats sets an interesting precedent for the regulation of other legal but harmful food ingredients, such as salt, sugar and saturated fat. In this paper, we distinguish three regulatory measures to reduce such ingredients in food and population intakes: the labelling of an ingredient, a limit on the amount of the ingredient in food products and a ban on the production technology that creates the ingredient. We will compare the regulations promulgated in the US and in the EU to reduce trans fats in food and population intakes. This comparison will identify a common focus on scientific risk assessment and precautionary action but a different orientation towards regulating the internal market and towards producer interests. The comparison also lays bare differences in the regulatory systems of the US and the EU that may inspire US and EU regulators to reflect on possible improvements for future fights against legal but harmful food ingredients.

Principles and practices of risk assessment in mental health jail diversion programs.

Eligibility criteria for participation in mental health jail diversion programs often specify that, to be diverted, a candidate must not pose a level of threat to public safety that cannot be managed in the community. Risk assessment tools were developed to increase consistency and accuracy in estimates of threat to public safety. Consequently, risk assessment tools are being used in many jurisdictions to inform decisions regarding an individual's appropriateness and eligibility for mental health jail diversion and the strategies that may be successful in mitigating risk in this context. However, their use is not without controversy. Questions have been raised regarding the validity and equity of their estimates, as well as the impact of their use on criminal justice outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the science and practice of risk assessment to inform decisions and case planning in the context of mental health jail diversion programs. Our specific aims include: (1) to describe the process and components of risk assessment, including differentiating between different approaches to risk assessment, and (2) to consider the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs. We anchor this review in relevant theory and extant research, noting current controversies or debates and areas for future research. Overall, there is strong theoretical justification and empirical evidence from other criminal justice contexts; however, the body of research on the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs, although promising, is relatively nascent.

Environmental Risk Assessment of Glufosinate-Tolerant Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape T45 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (Application EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/25)

Environmental Risk Assessment of Glufosinate-Tolerant Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape T45 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (Application EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/25)

Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect Resistant Genetically Modified Maize MON810 for Cultivation, Seed Production, Import, Processing and Feed Uses under Directive 2001/18/EC (Notification C/F/95/12/02)

Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect Resistant Genetically Modified Maize MON810 for Cultivation, Seed Production, Import, Processing and Feed Uses under Directive 2001/18/EC (Notification C/F/95/12/02)

Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape MON 88302 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (Application EFSA/GMO/BE/2011/101)

Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape MON 88302 for Food and Feed Uses, Import and Processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (Application EFSA/GMO/BE/2011/101)

Environmental Risk Assessment of Glufosinate-Tolerant Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 x RF3 for Import, Processing and Feed Uses under Directive 2001/18/EC (Notification C/BE/96/01)

Environmental Risk Assessment of Glufosinate-Tolerant Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 x RF3 for Import, Processing and Feed Uses under Directive 2001/18/EC (Notification C/BE/96/01)

Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect Resistant Genetically Modified Maize MON 89034 for Cultivation (EFSA/GMO/BE/2011/90)

Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment of Insect Resistant Genetically Modified Maize MON 89034 for Cultivation (EFSA/GMO/BE/2011/90)

Assessment of genetically modified maize MIR604 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-013).

Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐013 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect‐resistant genetically modified maize MIR604, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MIR604 considered for renewal is identical to the corrected sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐013 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MIR604.