Conflicts Of Interest On Regional Fishery Management Councils: Corruption Or Cooperative Management?

When Congress created the Regional Fishery Management Councils under the Magnuson Act, it was felt that user groups with an interest in the resource would act in a manner which would protect that resource and ensure the future health of our fisheries.... Now, rightly or wrongly, many people feel the Councils and their members are acting unfairly. If this perception of unfairness is correct, then Congress definitely must take strong action to rectify this problem ... even if it comes down to only a matter of perception. Congress, in enacting the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MFCMA), created a unique system for the regional management and conservation of U.S. fishery resources. Central to this system are eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. Comprised of those most knowledgeable about and interested in the fisheries, the Regional Councils promised to be an innovative solution to the conservation of common fishery resources, potentially incorporating the economies of cooperative management into the U.S. fisheries management scheme. However, upon implementation of the MFCMA, the problems facing U.S. fisheries changed. Competition among U.S. fishermen replaced concern over foreign fishing. The decisions of the Regional Councils increasingly involved economic allocation. In addition, as the MFCMA was amended over time, certain checks on Council power eroded. The original Congressional delegation of authority to manage fisheries, once carefully balanced between the Secretary of Commerce and the Councils, became heavily concentrated in the Councils. The Regional Councils, comprised of individuals making economic decisions about scarce resources which could benefit them personally, with few checks on their authority and little oversight, were viewed in a new light. The public and user groups not represented on the Councils quickly noted the conflicts of interest inherent in the system and denounced them as improper. Many now perceive the Councils as corrupt. The subject has been a matter of great debate, prompting numerous congressional hearings. Legislative solutions are now before Congress. Allegations that the interested Councils were making improper management decisions peaked during the battle between the Alaskan onshore processors and Washingtonian factory trawlers in the early 1990s. When the North Pacific Fishery Management Council decided to allocate a percentage of the catch in certain fisheries to vessels serving the onshore processors, the measure was decried as the Shoreside Preference Amendment by the factory trawlers. Allegations of improper and interested behavior by Council members were made and eventually resulted in an investigation by the Inspector General into Council behavior. In addition, a congressional hearing was held to look into this investigation and to explore solutions to the Council conflict dilemma. This Comment will explore the problem now facing Congress and will evaluate the proposed solutions now being debated in the two Houses. Initially, the concept of cooperative management, one possible theoretical justification for the existing Council system, will be discussed. Next, the original management system put in place by the MFCMA will be examined. This section will be followed by an explanation of how the power structure behind that system has evolved over time. The problems created by the present imbalance in the Council power structure will then be illustrated by a case study of the allegations made regarding the Council in the North Pacific. Finally, possible solutions to the problem, contained in two bills currently before Congress, will be evaluated in light of the potential of the MFCMA to create a system of cooperative management of the nation\u27s fisheries

Vietnamese Fishermen Ass\u27n v. California Department Of Fish And Game: Should Regional Fishery Councils Determine EEZ Preemption Of State Laws?

In 1976, Congress enacted the Magnuson Fishery Management Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), creating a national program for the conservation and management of U.S. fishery resources. The Act established regional management councils to manage all fisheries located in waters beyond the states\u27 marine boundaries. Under the MFCMA, state authority in federal waters is limited to the regulation of state-registered vessels. Since the passage of the Magnuson Act, several states have attempted to exercise this authority and regulate fishing activity outside of their territorial waters. These attempts have raised fundamental questions concerning the limits of permissible state authority under the Magnuson Act. In its decision in Vietnamese Fishermen Ass\u27n of America v. California Department of Fish & Game, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California joined a line of decisions narrowly interpreting the extent of state authority over fisheries in federal waters. The court held that extra-territorial enforcement of a California ban on gillnetting for rockfish was preempted by federal groundfish regulations allowing such gillnetting in those waters. This casenote will argue that there are two problems with the decision. The first problem lies in the court\u27s reduction of the role of state fisheries management by finding an actual conflict by implication at a time when all management agencies should be working together to protect fish stocks. The second problem arises from the decision of the court to give deference to an unappealable consistency determination by a body containing inherent conflicts of interest. These problems reflect the court\u27s failure to properly balance its analysis under the Supremacy Clause with fundamental concerns stemming from the concepts of federalism and due process. As a result, the court unjustifiably prevented a state from protecting a fishery in which it had a legitimate interest

Vietnamese Fishermen Ass\u27n v. California Department Of Fish And Game: Should Regional Fishery Councils Determine EEZ Preemption Of State Laws?

In 1976, Congress enacted the Magnuson Fishery Management Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), creating a national program for the conservation and management of U.S. fishery resources. The Act established regional management councils to manage all fisheries located in waters beyond the states\u27 marine boundaries. Under the MFCMA, state authority in federal waters is limited to the regulation of state-registered vessels. Since the passage of the Magnuson Act, several states have attempted to exercise this authority and regulate fishing activity outside of their territorial waters. These attempts have raised fundamental questions concerning the limits of permissible state authority under the Magnuson Act. In its decision in Vietnamese Fishermen Ass\u27n of America v. California Department of Fish & Game, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California joined a line of decisions narrowly interpreting the extent of state authority over fisheries in federal waters. The court held that extra-territorial enforcement of a California ban on gillnetting for rockfish was preempted by federal groundfish regulations allowing such gillnetting in those waters. This casenote will argue that there are two problems with the decision. The first problem lies in the court\u27s reduction of the role of state fisheries management by finding an actual conflict by implication at a time when all management agencies should be working together to protect fish stocks. The second problem arises from the decision of the court to give deference to an unappealable consistency determination by a body containing inherent conflicts of interest. These problems reflect the court\u27s failure to properly balance its analysis under the Supremacy Clause with fundamental concerns stemming from the concepts of federalism and due process. As a result, the court unjustifiably prevented a state from protecting a fishery in which it had a legitimate interest

Conflicts Of Interest On Regional Fishery Management Councils: Corruption Or Cooperative Management?

When Congress created the Regional Fishery Management Councils under the Magnuson Act, it was felt that user groups with an interest in the resource would act in a manner which would protect that resource and ensure the future health of our fisheries.... Now, rightly or wrongly, many people feel the Councils and their members are acting unfairly. If this perception of unfairness is correct, then Congress definitely must take strong action to rectify this problem ... even if it comes down to only a matter of perception. Congress, in enacting the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MFCMA), created a unique system for the regional management and conservation of U.S. fishery resources. Central to this system are eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. Comprised of those most knowledgeable about and interested in the fisheries, the Regional Councils promised to be an innovative solution to the conservation of common fishery resources, potentially incorporating the economies of cooperative management into the U.S. fisheries management scheme. However, upon implementation of the MFCMA, the problems facing U.S. fisheries changed. Competition among U.S. fishermen replaced concern over foreign fishing. The decisions of the Regional Councils increasingly involved economic allocation. In addition, as the MFCMA was amended over time, certain checks on Council power eroded. The original Congressional delegation of authority to manage fisheries, once carefully balanced between the Secretary of Commerce and the Councils, became heavily concentrated in the Councils. The Regional Councils, comprised of individuals making economic decisions about scarce resources which could benefit them personally, with few checks on their authority and little oversight, were viewed in a new light. The public and user groups not represented on the Councils quickly noted the conflicts of interest inherent in the system and denounced them as improper. Many now perceive the Councils as corrupt. The subject has been a matter of great debate, prompting numerous congressional hearings. Legislative solutions are now before Congress. Allegations that the interested Councils were making improper management decisions peaked during the battle between the Alaskan onshore processors and Washingtonian factory trawlers in the early 1990s. When the North Pacific Fishery Management Council decided to allocate a percentage of the catch in certain fisheries to vessels serving the onshore processors, the measure was decried as the Shoreside Preference Amendment by the factory trawlers. Allegations of improper and interested behavior by Council members were made and eventually resulted in an investigation by the Inspector General into Council behavior. In addition, a congressional hearing was held to look into this investigation and to explore solutions to the Council conflict dilemma. This Comment will explore the problem now facing Congress and will evaluate the proposed solutions now being debated in the two Houses. Initially, the concept of cooperative management, one possible theoretical justification for the existing Council system, will be discussed. Next, the original management system put in place by the MFCMA will be examined. This section will be followed by an explanation of how the power structure behind that system has evolved over time. The problems created by the present imbalance in the Council power structure will then be illustrated by a case study of the allegations made regarding the Council in the North Pacific. Finally, possible solutions to the problem, contained in two bills currently before Congress, will be evaluated in light of the potential of the MFCMA to create a system of cooperative management of the nation\u27s fisheries

Associations between systolic interarm differences in blood pressure and cardiovascular disease outcomes and mortality

Systolic interarm differences in blood pressure have been associated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. We undertook individual participant data meta-analyses to (1) quantify independent associations of systolic interarm difference with mortality and cardiovascular events; (2) develop and validate prognostic models incorporating interarm difference, and (3) determine whether interarm difference remains associated with risk after adjustment for common cardiovascular risk scores. We searched for studies recording bilateral blood pressure and outcomes, established agreements with collaborating authors, and created a single international dataset: the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference - Individual Participant Data (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration. Data were merged from 24 studies (53 827 participants). Systolic interarm difference was associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: continuous hazard ratios 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02–1.08) and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02–1.11), respectively, per 5 mm Hg systolic interarm difference. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality increased with interarm difference magnitude from a ≥5 mm Hg threshold (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01–1.14]). Systolic interarm differences per 5 mm Hg were associated with cardiovascular events in people without preexisting disease, after adjustment for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00–1.08]), Framingham (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01–1.08]), or QRISK cardiovascular disease risk algorithm version 2 (QRISK2) (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06–1.18]) cardiovascular risk scores. Our findings confirm that systolic interarm difference is associated with increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events. Blood pressure should be measured in both arms during cardiovascular assessment. A systolic interarm difference of 10 mm Hg is proposed as the upper limit of normal

Meeting the challenges facing wheat production: The strategic research agenda of the Global Wheat Initiative

Wheat occupies a special role in global food security since, in addition to providing 20% of our carbohydrates and protein, almost 25% of the global production is traded internationally. The importance of wheat for food security was recognised by the Chief Agricultural Scientists of the G20 group of countries when they endorsed the establishment of the Wheat Initiative in 2011. The Wheat Initiative was tasked with supporting the wheat research community by facilitating collaboration, information and resource sharing and helping to build the capacity to address challenges facing production in an increasingly variable environment. Many countries invest in wheat research. Innovations in wheat breeding and agronomy have delivered enormous gains over the past few decades, with the average global yield increasing from just over 1 tonne per hectare in the early 1960s to around 3.5 tonnes in the past decade. These gains are threatened by climate change, the rapidly rising financial and environmental costs of fertilizer, and pesticides, combined with declines in water availability for irrigation in many regions. The international wheat research community has worked to identify major opportunities to help ensure that global wheat production can meet demand. The outcomes of these discussions are presented in this paper

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Higher arm versus lower arm systolic blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from the the INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference—Individual Participant Data Collaboration. METHODS: One-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared. RESULTS: We analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P CONCLUSIONS: Using BP from higher instead of lower reading arms reclassified 12% of people over thresholds used to diagnose hypertension. All prediction models performed better when using the higher arm BP. Both arms should be measured for accurate diagnosis and management of hypertension.</p

Higher Arm Versus Lower Arm Systolic Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Outcomes: a Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From the INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference-Individual Participant Data Collaboration. METHODS: One-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared. RESULTS: We analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P<0.001). Higher arm BP models fitted better for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events (all P<0.001). Higher arm BP models better predicted cardiovascular events with Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores (both P<0.001) and reclassified 4.6% and 3.5% of participants respectively to higher risk categories compared with lower arm BPs). CONCLUSIONS: Using BP from higher instead of lower reading arms reclassified 12% of people over thresholds used to diagnose hypertension. All prediction models performed better when using the higher arm BP. Both arms should be measured for accurate diagnosis and management of hypertension. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: CRD42015031227.The article is available via Open Access. Click on the 'Additional link' above to access the full-text.Published version, accepted version, submitted versio

Higher arm versus lower arm systolic blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from the INTERPRESS-IPD collaboration

Background: Guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference—Individual Participant Data Collaboration. Methods: One-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared. Results: We analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P&lt;0.001). Higher arm BP models fitted better for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events (all P&lt;0.001). Higher arm BP models better predicted cardiovascular events with Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores (both P&lt;0.001) and reclassified 4.6% and 3.5% of participants respectively to higher risk categories compared with lower arm BPs). Conclusions: Using BP from higher instead of lower reading arms reclassified 12% of people over thresholds used to diagnose hypertension. All prediction models performed better when using the higher arm BP. Both arms should be measured for accurate diagnosis and management of hypertension. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: CRD42015031227