Challenges in measuring indicators of progress for the Atlantic Action Plan

The EU Atlantic Action Plan (AAP) has recently been updated and revised to support ‘blue growth’ along Europe’s western coastal regions. The revisions reflect recent challenges facing the Atlantic Arc maritime economies including the Covid-19 crisis, Brexit and the new requirements of the European Green Deal. This new revision, termed AAP 2.0, also addresses some of the weaknesses highlighted in the original Atlantic Action Plan particularly regarding identifying indicators that may be used to measure progress in the achievement of the Plan’s objectives. Using a database with comparable marine socio-economic data across the Atlantic regions, a number of indicators are identified that may be used to monitor progress of the AAP 2.0. Recent trends and spatial distributions across the Atlantic Arc region are shown for these indicators. The challenges in measuring progress are also highlighted, including where some AAP objectives and associated indicators may conflict with other EU policy aims and where the current monitoring framework can be bolstered with the inclusion of new indicators

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF); Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 08, Revision 5 (FGE.08Rev5): Aliphatic and alicyclic mono-, di-, tri-, and polysulphides with or without additional oxygenated functional groups from chemical groups 20 and 30

<p>The CEF Panel of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate 80 flavouring substances in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 08, Revision 4, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Since the publication of the last revision of this FGE, the EFSA has been requested to evaluate additional toxicological data submitted for two flavouring substances, one substance 2,5-dihydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-1,4-dithiane [FL-no: 15.006], which support the evaluation of the candidate substance 2,5-dihydroxy-1,4-dithiane [FL-no: 15.134] and one on the candidate substance spiro(2,4-dithia-1-methyl-8-oxabicyclo[3.3.0]octane-3,3’-(1’-oxa-2’-methyl)-cyclopentane) and spiro(2,4-dithia-6-methyl-7-oxabicyclo[3.3.0]octane-3,3’-(1’-oxa-2’-methyl)-cyclopentane) [FL-no: 15.007], which have been included in the present revision of FGE.08. For the substances methyl methanethiosulphonate [FL-no: 12.159], 2-methylbutane-2-thiol [FL-no: 12.172], 2-methylpropane-2-thiol [FL-no: 12.174], ethyl-2-mercapto-2-methyl propanoate [FL-no: 12.304] and 2,4,4-trimethyl-1,3-oxathiane [FL-no: 16.057] there is an indication of a genotoxic potential in vitro. Therefore, without further genotoxicity data, the Panel concluded that the Procedure could not be applied to these five substances. For four substances, 3-mercaptooctanal [FL-no: 12.268], 3-mercaptodecanal [FL-no: 12.269], methanedithiol diacetate [FL-no: 12.271] and 3,5-dimethyl-1,2-dithiolane-4-one [FL-no: 12.295] no data on use as flavouring substances in Europe are available and no intake figures could be calculated, which preclude the evaluation of the four substances using the Procedure. The remaining 71 substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that 59 substances do not rise safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. For 12 substances [FL-no: 12.093, 12.094, 12.097, 12.100, 12.112, 12.116, 12.120, 12.164, 12.167, 12.199, 15.102 and 15.125], evaluated through the Procedure, no appropriate NOAEL was available and additional data are required. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and for three substances, information on the specifications is lacking.</p&gt

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Benefits from visiting a 'dark tourism' site: The case of the Jeju April 3rd Peace Park, Korea

This research examines visitor experiences at a contemporary dark tourism site: the April 3rd Peace Park on Jeju Island, South Korea, a site commemorating and memorializing one of the most destructive episodes in modern Korean history. The study employed quantitative and qualitative research methods, with 46 semi-structured interviews forming the basis of a questionnaire, and 407 valid questionnaires obtained for data analysis. The implications of the findings are firstly that ‘obligation’ remains a key motivation for a visit, with a number of subsequent visitor benefits also identified. Secondly, that a benefit-based approach provides an effective framework for comprehending visitor experiences in dark tourism contexts. And thirdly, that a ‘hot interpretation’ of visitor experiences in dark tourism contexts remains particularly valid for comprehending visitor experiences, and in turn, for effectively designing and managing dark tourism sites within Asia and more generally

A method for estimating the state-wide economic significance of national park tourism: The case of Queensland

This study devises a methodology to measure the economic significance of national park tourism, which is applied to the State of Queensland, Australia. Development of a methodology to provide this information is important to demonstrate the attraction of national parks to tourism and to provide a basis for government decisions on allocating funds for national park management. A strategic national park sampling logic was developed to allow surveys to be conducted in a stratified, representative sample of the over 500 Queensland parks. Data on expenditure by tourists were analyzed (employing sensitivity and risk analysis) to find the "national park-generated" component of tourist expenditure directly attributable to the attractions of the national parks. A deliberately conservative approach was taken to address the economic information needs of State Treasury Departments, which are responsible for allocating funding to park management authorities. The contribution to the gross state product (GSP) was estimated at $345 million annually, representing 4.9% of tourism's contribution to GSP, or five times the current annual government expenditure on national park visitor management in the State of Queensland. Recommendations for some improvements to the methodology were developed based on the study conducted