Search

The latest evidence suggests that multi-hazards and their interrelationships (e.g., triggering, compound, and consecutive hazards) are becoming more frequent across Europe, underlying a need for resilience building by moving from single-hazard-focused to multi-hazard risk assessment and management. Although significant advancements were made in our understanding of these events, mainstream practice is still focused on risks due to single hazards (e.g., flooding, earthquakes, droughts), with a limited understanding of the stakeholder needs on the ground. To overcome this limitation, this paper sets out to understand the challenges for moving towards multi-hazard risk management through the perspective of European stakeholders. Based on five workshops across different European pilots (Danube Region, Veneto Region, Scandinavia, North Sea, and Canary Islands) and an expert workshop, we identify five prime challenges: i) governance, ii) knowledge of multi-hazards and multi-risks, iii) existing approaches to disaster risk management, iv) translation of science to policy and practice, and v) lack of data. These challenges are inherently linked and cannot be tackled in isolation with path dependency posing a significant hurdle in transitioning from single- to multi-hazard risk management. Going forward, we identify promising approaches for overcoming some of the challenges, including emerging approaches for multi-hazard characterisation, a common understanding of terminology, and a comprehensive framework for guiding multi-hazard risk assessment and management. We argue for a need to think beyond natural hazards and include other threats in creating a comprehensive overview of multi-hazard risks, as well as promoting thinking of multi-hazard risk reduction in the context of larger development goals.

In our increasingly interconnected world, natural hazards and their impacts spread across geographical, administrative, and sectoral boundaries. Due to the interrelationships between multi-hazards and socio-economic dimensions, the impacts of these types of events can surmount those of multiple single hazards. The complexities involved in tackling multi-hazards and multi-risks hinder a more holistic and integrative perspective and make it difficult to identify overarching dimensions important for assessment and management purposes. We contribute to this discussion by building on systemic risk research, especially the focus on interconnectedness, and suggest ways forward for an integrated multi-hazard and multi-risk framework that should be beneficial in real-world applications. In this paper, we propose a six-step framework for analyzing and managing risk across a spectrum ranging from single- to multi- and systemic risk.

Background and purpose: Two previous “Patterns Of Practice” surveys (POP I and POP II), including more than 4000 patients affected by prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1980 and 2003, established a “benchmark” Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report (POP III) updates the previous studies. Methods: Data on clinical management and outcome of 2525 prostate cancer patients treated by EBRT from 2004 to 2011 were collected and compared with POP II and, when feasible, also with POP I. This report provides data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management, and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. Results: More than 50% of POP III patients were classified as low or intermediate risk using D’Amico risk categories as in POP II; 46% were classified as ISUP grade group 1. CT scan, bone scan, and endorectal ultrasound were less frequently prescribed. Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image guided radiotherapy (IGRT), and hypofractionated RT were more frequently offered during the study period. Treatment was commonly well tolerated. Acute toxicity improved compared to the previous series; late toxicity was influenced by prescribed dose and treatment technique. Five-year overall survival, biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and disease specific survival were similar to those of the previous series (POP II). BRFS was better in intermediate-and high-risk patients treated with ≥ 76 Gy. Conclusions: This report highlights the improvements in radiotherapy planning and dose delivery among Italian Centers in the 2004–2011 period. Dose-escalated treatments resulted in better biochemical control with a reduction in acute toxicity and higher but acceptable late toxicity, as not yet comprehensively associated with IMRT/IGRT. CTV-PTV margins >8 mm were associated with increased toxicity, again suggesting that IGRT—allowing for ti

Nanotechnology has the potential to innovate the agricultural, feed and food sectors (hereinafter referred to as agri/feed/food). Applications that are marketed already include nano-encapsulated agrochemicals or nutrients, antimicrobial nanoparticles and active and intelligent food packaging. Many nano-enabled products are currently under research and development, and may enter the market in the near future. As for any other regulated product, applicants applying for market approval have to demonstrate the safe use of such new products without posing undue safety risks to the consumer and the environment. Several countries all over the world have been active in examining the appropriateness of their regulatory frameworks for dealing with nanotechnologies. As a consequence of this, different approaches have been taken in regulating nano-based products in agri/feed/food. The EU, along with Switzerland, were identified to be the only world region where nano-specific provisions have been incorporated in existing legislation, while in other regions nanomaterials are regulated more implicitly by mainly building on guidance for industry. This paper presents an overview and discusses the state of the art of different regulatory measures for nanomaterials in agri/feed/food, including legislation and guidance for safety assessment in EU and non-EU countries

Nanotechnology can contribute to the development of innovative applications in the agriculture, food and feed sector by e.g. enabling improved delivery of nutrients or increased efficacy of agrichemicals. It is expected that applications will increase in the near future and may therefore become a relevant source of human exposure to nanomaterials (NM). To gain more up-to date information, RIKILT and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) were commissioned by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to prepare an inventory of currently used and reasonably foreseen applications of NM in agriculture and food/feed production and carried out a review of regulatory aspects concerning NM in both EU and non-EU countries. An analysis of the information records in the inventory shows that nano-encapsulates, silver and titanium dioxide are the most frequent type of NM listed and that food additives and food contact materials are the most frequent types of application. A comparison between marketed applications and those in development indicates a trend from inorganic materials (e.g. silver) towards organic materials (nano-encapsulates, nanocomposites). Applications in novel food, feed additives, biocides and pesticides are currently mostly at a developmental stage. The review of EU and non-EU legislation shows that currently a few EU legal acts incorporate a definition of a nanomaterial and specific provisions for NM, whereas in many non-EU countries a broader approach is applied, which mainly builds on guidance for industry.

Bringing together topic-related European Union (EU)-funded projects, the so-called “NanoSafety Cluster” aims at identifying key areas for further research on risk assessment procedures for nanomaterials (NM). The outcome of NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10, this commentary presents a vision for concern-driven integrated approaches for the (eco-)toxicological testing and assessment (IATA) of NM. Such approaches should start out by determining concerns, i.e., specific information needs for a given NM based on realistic exposure scenarios. Recognised concerns can be addressed in a set of tiers using standardised protocols for NM preparation and testing. Tier 1 includes determining physico-chemical properties, non-testing (e.g., structure–activity relationships) and evaluating existing data. In tier 2, a limited set of in vitro and in vivo tests are performed that can either indicate that the risk of the specific concern is sufficiently known or indicate the need for further testing, including details for such testing. Ecotoxicological testing begins with representative test organisms followed by complex test systems. After each tier, it is evaluated whether the information gained permits assessing the safety of the NM so that further testing can be waived. By effectively exploiting all available information, IATA allow accelerating the risk assessment process and reducing testing costs and animal use (in line with the 3Rs principle implemented in EU Directive 2010/63/EU). Combining material properties, exposure, biokinetics and hazard data, information gained with IATA can be used to recognise groups of NM based upon similar modes of action. Grouping of substances in return should form integral part of the IATA themselves.Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/17435390.2013.802387

BACKGROUND: To assess the risk of all nanomaterials (NMs) on a case-by-case basis is challenging in terms of financial, ethical and time resources. Instead a more intelligent approach to knowledge gain and risk assessment is required. METHODS: A framework of future research priorities was developed from the accorded opinion of experts covering all major stake holder groups (government, industry, academia, funders and NGOs). It recognises and stresses the major topics of physicochemical characterisation, exposure identification, hazard identification and modelling approaches as key components of the current and future risk assessment of NMs. RESULTS: The framework for future research has been developed from the opinions of over 80 stakeholders, that describes the research priorities for effective development of an intelligent testing strategy (ITS) to allow risk evaluation of NMs. In this context, an ITS is a process that allows the risks of NMs to be assessed accurately, effectively and efficiently, thereby reducing the need to test NMs on a case-by-case basis.For each of the major topics of physicochemical characterisation, exposure identification, hazard identification and modelling, key-priority research areas are described via a series of stepping stones, or hexagon diagrams structured into a time perspective. Importantly, this framework is flexible, allowing individual stakeholders to identify where their own activities and expertise are positioned within the prioritisation pathway and furthermore to identify how they can effectively contribute and structure their work accordingly. In other words, the prioritisation hexagon diagrams provide a tool that individual stakeholders can adapt to meet their own particular needs and to deliver an ITS for NMs risk assessment. Such an approach would, over time, reduce the need for testing by increasing the reliability and sophistication of in silico approaches.The manuscript includes an appra

The recent definition and submission of WFD-compliant River Basin Management Plans required large efforts of water managers and highlighted a number of data, knowledge and methodological gaps that need to be fulfilled during the next management cycle. The complexity of the WFD implementation process calls for easy-to-use, reliable and scientifically sound decision support tools that consider relevant aspects of the basin of concern. For this purpose, a Decision Support System (DSS) for risk-based assessment and management of river basins was developed within the EU MODELKEY project. The MODELKEY DSS allows assessing the chemical and ecological status of water bodies by applying both the One-Out All-Out principle, suggested by the WFD, and a novel Integrated Risk Assessment (IRA) methodology, developed within the project. In this paper, main results obtained by DSS application to two large European rivers, i.e. Elbe and Danube, are presented and discussed, based on a set of biological, chemical and physico-chemical indicators, which have been evaluated in relation to available reference conditions. The WFD ecological and chemical status assessment as well as analysis of intermediate results was strongly affected by the methods used to derive reference conditions, the applied indicators, and the methods used to aggregate indicators results. Minimally disturbed conditions (MDC) are the best choice as reference conditions, being characterized by generally high index values (good status) for all biological indices. Where MDC are not available, historical conditions could be a good substitute; they should be preferred to least disturbed sites (in particular when the river is generally impaired as the Danube River).