Safety and efficacy of VevoVitall\uae (benzoic acid) as feed additive for pigs for fattening

The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of VevoVitall\uae (benzoic acid) as a zootechnical feed additive for pigs for fattening. The additive is currently authorised for pigs for fattening with the effect of \u2018urinary pH decrease\u2019 at the minimum and maximum use of 5,000 and 10,000 mg/kg complete feed, respectively. The current application intends to support the use of the additive with the specific effect of \u2018improvement of performance parameters\u2019 at the minimum dose of 3,000 mg additive/kg complete feed, and keeping the same other conditions as for the use already authorised. The FEEDAP Panel assessed already the safety of the product when used in pigs for fattening in 2007 and 2017. The Panel confirms its former assessments that VevoVitall\uae used as a feed additive in pigs for fattening at the maximum level of 10,000 mg/kg is considered as safe for pigs for fattening, consumers of food derived from pigs fed the additive and the environment. VevoVitall\uae does not pose a risk by inhalation to users and is not a skin sensitiser but is a skin irritant and a severe eye irritant. Based on the results of three efficacy studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that VevoVitall\uae has the potential to increase the performance in pigs for fattening at the level of 3,000 mg/kg complete feed

Category reviews as market-shaping events

This paper examines a series of category review meeting between manufacturers of fast-moving consumer goods and retailers as instances of market-shaping. Our point of departure is that markets are performed and shaped by multiple calculative agencies whose encounters are organized in routine fashion. Our empirical case focuses on the presentations of manufacturers of non-alcoholic beverages to one retailer during the annual cycle of reviews and negotiations that punctuate the implementation of exchange routines between these actors. Each presentation draws on a range of arguments, data, metrics, as well as ways of defining and segmenting the category to propose strategies that either reinforce the status quo or overturn well-established conventions. Category reviews illustrate both the negotiated and distributed character of market practices as well as their paradoxical character, at once dependent on stable institutional arrangements whilst continuously undermining the foundations of that stability

The making of a petrol station and the "on-the-move consumer": classification devices and the shaping of markets

This paper addresses the issue of classification devices and their role in the shaping of markets. We depart from the notion that markets are shaped by multiple calculative agencies and examine how particular forms of calculation are made viable and sustainable. Classification devices, we argue, are the infrastructure that makes calculation possible and sustain particular forms of economic ordering. We illustrate these notions with an empirical, longitudinal study of a fuel retail company and its initiative to re-classify its network of petrol stations across Europe. Our study focuses on the extensive and protracted negotiations over what constitutes appropriate or relevant categories and the multiple perspectives that can be employed to define petrol station types. We illustrate how a store typology plays an important role in making assemblages of ideas (e.g. consumer-on-the-go), objects (e.g. store planograms), and managerial roles (e.g. category managers) coalesce around particular constellations of practices and impact upon the outline of markets

Market futures/future markets: Research directions in the study of markets

What do marketing scholars need to know about markets? The quote above places markets at the heart of marketing theory. Yet many commentators have lamented the scant attention paid to markets in marketing and argued for the need to better understand this central facet of the subject (Araujo et al., 2008; Vargo, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2006). We share this view and outline issues and research opportunities against the backdrop of recent contributions proposing a practice approach to markets (Araujo et al., 2010; Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2007; Storbacka and Nenonen, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2011). A central tenet in this tradition is the idea that working markets are always in the making; that they are the continuous results of market practices. Paraphrasing Vargo and Lusch (2004): markets are not, they become. In this process of becoming, markets take on multiple forms as a result of practical efforts by many different actors to shape economic exchanges, establish rules for their performance, and represent such exchanges as markets. The observation that economic theories (including marketing) contribute to shape markets by influencing these practical efforts (Callon, 1998) introduces a complication in our study of markets and presents a reflexive challenge for marketers studying the shaping of markets