Análisis cualitativo de los factores que inciden en la adopción de tecnología en pequeños y medianos productores de yerba de la provincia de Misiones

Ponencia presentada en la VIII Jornadas Interdisciplinarias de Estudios Agrarios y Agroindustriales. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 31 de octubre al 1 de noviembre de 2013La Provincia de Misiones concentra más de 5000 pequeños y medianos productores de yerba mate, en su mayoría, con bajos niveles de productividad evidenciados en brechas de rendimiento que alcanzan el 180% en relación al potencial. El presente trabajo, que forma parte del Proyecto de INTA. Estrategias de intervención para mejorar el acceso a la tecnología en el sector productor, procura identificar los factores que inciden en la adopción de tecnología en la producción misionera de yerba. Para ello se trabajó mediante enfoque cualitativo a través de grupos focales con productores. La tradición, herencia, identidad, el orgullo y la generación de recursos para el sustento familiar definen el vínculo entre los productores y la actividad. Sin embargo, factores como la escasez de mano de obra calificada, los requisitos legales de condiciones y de formalización del trabajo temporario, el precio percibido por el producto, los desequilibrios en la comercialización y la escasez de capital desmotivan y generan preocupación sobre el futuro. Asimismo, la costumbre, falta de información y desconfianza condicionan la innovación. Por último, vale señalar que las razones identificadas en el presente trabajo brindan información valiosa para el diseño de líneas específicas de intervención que impliquen un claro esfuerzo interinstitucional.Fil: Giancola, Silvana Inés. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Instituto de Economía y Sociología; Argentina.Fil: Mayol, M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul; Argentina.Fil: Aiassa, J. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul; Argentina.Fil: Di Giano, Silvina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Instituto de Economía y Sociología; Argentina.Fil: Lavecini, Valeria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul; Argentina.Fil: Salvador, María Laura. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias; Argentina.Fil: Da Riva, Mariano Danilo. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias; Argentina

Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworks

The workshop titled “Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworks” was co-organized by the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and hosted by EFSA at its headquarters in Parma, Italy on October 2 and 3, 2019. The goal was to explore integration of systematic review with mechanistic evidence evaluation. Participants were invited to work on concrete products to advance the exploration of how evidence-based approaches can support the development and application of adverse outcome pathways (AOP) in chemical risk assessment. The workshop discussions were centered around three related themes: 1) assessing certainty in AOPs, 2) literature-based AOP development, and 3) integrating certainty in AOPs and non-animal evidence into decision frameworks. Several challenges, mostly related to methodology, were identified and largely determined the workshop recommendations. The workshop recommendations included the comparison and potential alignment of processes used to develop AOP and systematic review methodology, including the translation of vocabulary of evidence-based methods to AOP and vice versa, the development and improvement of evidence mapping and text mining methods and tools, as well as a call for a fundamental change in chemical risk and uncertainty assessment methodology if to be conducted based on AOPs and new approach methodologies (NAM). The usefulness of evidence-based approaches for mechanism-based chemical risk assessments was stressed, particularly the potential contribution of the rigor and transparency inherent to such approaches in building stakeholders’ trust for implementation of NAM evidence and AOPs into chemical risk assessment

Weighing evidence and assessing uncertainties

Methodologies for integrating (weighing) evidence and assessing uncertainties are of utmost importance to ensure that scientific assessments are transparent, robust and fit for purpose to support decision-makers. One of the key challenges remains the development of harmonised methodologies for both weighing scientific evidence and assessing uncertainties in the food safety area mainly because of the multidisciplinary and complex nature of the topics involved. The breakout session 'Weighing evidence and assessing uncertainties' was held at the EFSA 2nd Scientific Conference 'Shaping the Future of Food Safety, Together'. This paper aims at summarising the contributions of this breakout session and formulates recommendations to further support the development of harmonised methodologies and practical applications for weighing evidence and analysing uncertainty in key areas of food safety, including chemical risk assessment, microbiological risk assessment and environmental risk assessment

Applicability and feasibility of systematic review for performing evidence-based risk assessment in food and feed safety

Food and feed safety risk assessment uses multi-parameter models to evaluate the likelihood of adverse events associated with exposure to hazards in human health, plant health, animal health, animal welfare, and the environment. Systematic review and meta-analysis are established methods for answering questions in health care, and can be implemented to minimize biases in food and feed safety risk assessment. However, no methodological frameworks exist for refining risk assessment multi-parameter models into questions suitable for systematic review, and use of meta-analysis to estimate all parameters required by a risk model may not be always feasible. This paper describes novel approaches for determining question suitability and for prioritizing questions for systematic review in this area. Risk assessment questions that aim to estimate a parameter are likely to be suitable for systematic review. Such questions can be structured by their "key elements" [e.g., for intervention questions, the population(s), intervention(s), comparator(s), and outcome(s)]. Prioritization of questions to be addressed by systematic review relies on the likely impact and related uncertainty of individual parameters in the risk model. This approach to planning and prioritizing systematic review seems to have useful implications for producing evidence-based food and feed safety risk assessment

Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare

The document provides methodological guidance to assess risks for animal welfare, considering the various husbandry systems, management procedures and the different animal welfare issues. The terminology for the risk assessment of animal welfare is described. Risk assessment should not be carried out unless the relevant welfare problem is clearly specified and formulated. The major components of the problem formulation are the description of the exposure scenario, the target population and the conceptual model linking the relevant factors of animal welfare concern. The formal risk assessment consists of exposure assessment, consequence characterisation, and risk characterisation. The systematic evaluation of the various aspects and components of the assessment procedure aims at ensuring its consistency. All assumptions used in problem formulation and risk assessment need to be clear. This also applies to uncertainty and variability in the various steps of the risk assessment. The choice between qualitative, semi-qualitative or quantitative approaches should be made based on the purpose or the type of questions to be answered, data, and resource availability for a specific risk assessment. Quantitative data should be used whenever possible. Positive effects on welfare (benefit) could be handled within the framework of risk assessment if the analysis considers factors as having both positive and negative effects on animal welfare. The last section details the main components of risk assessment documentation