Search

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) proposes the use of the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa to standardize the classification of introduced species (IS) based on their environmental impact. The IUCN invoked the precautionary principle (PP) via 2 rules: the impact assigned to a taxon must be the maximum recorded impact across different impact assessments, and when the main driver of environmental damage is unclear, it must be assumed to be caused by the IS. The validity of PP is conditioned on the degree of emergency that warrants urgent decisions and on the scientific evidence demonstrating the advantages of applying a preventive measure. The application of an impact classification system does not arise in the context of an emergency that requires management; it occurs before the decision‐making phase. Thus, PP should not be used in early steps of the risk analysis process. The IUCN also did not provide enough scientific basis to justify the use of PP. Instead, the PP rules appear to be rooted primarily in the ethical value system underlying conservation science. Conservationists assign intrinsic value to native species by virtue of their roles and relationships within ecological and evolutionary systems and processes; thus, individuals introduced in new environments not only cease to have value because they are no longer part of that natural diversity and lack those links with the rest of the ecosystem, but they become a threat to what conservationists value most. The consequence of this belief is that all introduced taxa will have an impact at some level, suggesting that values justify the PP rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The precautionary approach to fisheries management advocates for risk‐averse management strategies that include biological reference points and account for scientific uncertainty (i.e. process, model and observation uncertainty). In this regard, two approaches have been recommended: (a) biomass reference points to safeguard against low stock biomass, and (b) uncertainty buffers that reduce the catch limit as a function of the scientific uncertainty. This study compares the effectiveness of these two precautionary approaches in recovering over‐exploited fish stocks. We evaluate the performance of more than 80 harvest control rules (HCRs) within a stochastic management strategy evaluation (MSE) framework for three stocks with contrasting life‐history parameters and under various levels of scientific uncertainty. The results show that both approaches reduce the risk of overfishing at the expense of expected yield. This risk‐yield trade‐off strongly depends on the HCRs, life‐history parameters of the species, as well as the level of the scientific uncertainty. Nevertheless, some combinations of biomass threshold and limit reference points as well as uncertainty buffers lead to a more favourable risk‐yield trade‐off than other rules. This study elucidates the multiple factors affecting the effectiveness of management strategies and highlights key features of HCRs for precautionary fisheries management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite aiming to make conservation science and practice more effective, many conservationists default to excessive precaution, advocating conservative actions—or even inaction. The field suffers from an understandable aversion to unintended consequences, especially for approaches involving biotechnology and "next‐generation" interventions. We call this default precautionary attitude among conservationists the ethos of restraint and argue for replacing it with an ethos of responsible conservation action. Loosening the ethos of restraint will require (a) more holistically accounting for comparative risks, benefits, and costs of novel approaches; (b) gathering more data on their consequences; (c) engaging in dialogue about intended consequences and conservation values; and (d) pursuing adaptive implementation strategies. Adopting an ethos of responsible conservation action requires grasping that precaution and proaction are not diametrically opposed attitudes. Instead, we must decide what level of precaution or proaction is warranted, and what to do, on a case‐by‐case basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: Donor selection criteria (DSC) are a vital link in the chain of supply of Substances of Human Origin (SoHO) but are also subject to controversy and differences of opinion. Traditionally, DSC have been based on application of the precautionary principle. Materials and methods: From 2017 to 2020, TRANSPOSE (TRANSfusion and transplantation PrOtection and SElection of donors), a European research project, aimed to identify discrepancies between current DSC by proposing a standardized risk assessment method for all SoHO (solid organs excluded) and all levels of evidence. Results: The current DSC were assessed using a modified risk assessment method based on the Alliance of Blood Operators' Risk‐based decision‐making framework for blood safety. It was found that with limited or diverging scientific evidence, it was difficult to reach consensus and an international standardized method for decision‐making was lacking. Furthermore, participants found it hard to disregard their local guidelines when providing expert opinion, which resulted in substantial influence on the consensus‐based decision‐making process. Conclusions: While the field of donation‐safety research is expanding rapidly, there is an urgent need to formalize the decision‐making process regarding DSC. This includes the need for standardized methods to increase transparency in the international decision‐making process and to ensure that this is performed consistently. Our framework provides an easy‐to‐implement approach for standardizing risk assessments, especially in the context of limited scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food allergy is a major public health concern with avoidance of the trigger food(s) being central to management by the patient. Food information legislation mandates the declaration of allergenic ingredients; however, the labelling of the unintentional presence of allergens is less defined. Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the risk of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. In its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies as there is no standardized approach to applying PAL. Foods with a PAL often do not contain the identified food allergen while some products without a PAL contain quantities of common food allergens that are capable of inducing an allergic reaction. Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) was an EU‐funded project that aimed to improve the management of food allergens by the food industry for the benefit of people with food allergies. Within iFAAM, a clinically validated tiered risk assessment approach for food allergens was developed. Two cross‐stakeholder iFAAM workshops were held on 13‐14 December 2016 and 19‐20 April 2018. One of the objectives of these workshops was to develop a proposal to make PAL effective for consumers. This paper describes the outcomes from these workshops. This provides the basis for the development of more informative and transparent labelling that will ultimately improve management and well‐being in consumers with food allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which discusses the study regarding the precautionary principles in massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) for trauma patients. It mentions the survey stating that trauma centers in the U.S. are maintaining thawed group A plasma to supplement AB plasma to be use as the initial resuscitation of trauma patients whose ABO status is unknown. It also expreses the public health issue within the transfusion community.

We distinguish among three types of actions that can be taken to alleviate the consequences of natural disasters: precautionary efforts (made ex ante), relief efforts (made in the immediate aftermath of a disaster), and recovery efforts (made ex post). We argue that recognizing this distinction lessens many of the problems that the literature attributes to government intervention and hence expands the scope of government action following disasters. Relief is less likely than recovery to generate over-supply by the government and over-reliance by victims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]