Search

Europe, considered as a unitary (or so presumed) construction, has a hybrid and swinging nature. What it keeps the European Union together today is the Euro and its rules; but it is also what divides it, or at least what puts it in tension. The flower of the States’ sovereignty lost a petal – the monetary sovereignty – but it didn’t become anything else: neither a federal sovereignty, nor a set of institutions capable of producing a unitary political will, within the EU. The European Union is not a unitary subject, and it is crossed by multiple political spaces. There are the spaces of the States, marked by physical and juridical walls; there is the NATO space; there are different frontiers: frontiers of hospitality regimes, human rights frontiers, but also the frontier between Euro and the other monetary spaces.

The current pandemics is not the wellspring of a single conflict between men and nature, but of manifold inter-human conflicts. The Covid-19 and the fight against it cannot overcome the conditionings and the spatial determinations which articulate our life on this planet, but rather are partially dependent on such determinations and to a certain extent intensify them. The pandemic cannot escape geopolitics and geoeconomics, nor does it allow us to escape these dimensions. The oxymoron ��geo-pandemics��, which combines a parceled spatiality with the world-wide spread of the infection, is the result of this dynamics, and suggests that the current pandemics is not a natural fact, but a social, political, economic and cultural one, which involves a confrontation between East and West, North and South, public and private realms. Space ��� understood as a system of spatially situated differences of political and economic power, scientific knowledge and organizational capacities ��� remains a crucial dimension for the fight against Covid-19. ��Geo-healthcare�� is the differentiated answer to this challenge., Semestrale di studi e ricerche di geografia, N. 2 sup (2021): Geografie in mutamento. Covid 19 e la metamorfosi del mondo

Following a request from five European Nordic countries, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was tasked to provide scientific advice on a tolerable upper intake level (UL) or a safe level of intake for dietary (total/added/free) sugars based on available data on chronic metabolic diseases, pregnancy-related endpoints and dental caries. Specific sugar types (fructose) and sources of sugars were also addressed. The intake of dietary sugars is a well-established hazard in relation to dental caries in humans. Based on a systematic review of the literature, prospective cohort studies do not support a positive relationship between the intake of dietary sugars, in isocaloric exchange with other macronutrients, and any of the chronic metabolic diseases or pregnancy-related endpoints assessed. Based on randomised control trials on surrogate disease endpoints, there is evidence for a positive and causal relationship between the intake of added/free sugars and risk of some chronic metabolic diseases: The level of certainty is moderate for obesity and dyslipidaemia (> 50-75% probability), low for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes (> 15-50% probability) and very low for hypertension (0-15% probability). Health effects of added vs. free sugars could not be compared. A level of sugars intake at which the risk of dental caries/chronic metabolic diseases is not increased could not be identified over the range of observed intakes, and thus, a UL or a safe level of intake could not be set. Based on available data and related uncertainties, the intake of added and free sugars should be as low as possible in the context of a nutritionally adequate diet. Decreasing the intake of added and free sugars would decrease the intake of total sugars to a similar extent. This opinion can assist EU Member States in setting national goals/recommendations.