Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 4: β-Lactams: amoxicillin and penicillin V

The specific concentrations of amoxicillin and penicillin V in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for amoxicillin, whilst for penicillin V no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 8: Pleuromutilins: tiamulin and valnemulin

The specific concentrations of tiamulin and valnemulin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tiamulin, while for valnemulin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 5: Lincosamides: lincomycin

The specific concentrations of lincomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of lincomycin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for lincomycin.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 11: Sulfonamides

The specific concentrations of sulfonamides in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were identified for three sulfonamides: sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole and sulfamerazine. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 7: Amphenicols: florfenicol and thiamphenicol

The specific concentrations of florfenicol and thiamphenicol in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for florfenicol was estimated. However, due to the lack of data, the calculation of the FARSC for thiamphenicol was not possible until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for florfenicol, whilst for thiamphenicol no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. For florfenicol, it was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC, whereas for thiamphenicol, the recommendation was to generate the data required to fill the gaps which prevented the FARSC calculation.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 3: Amprolium

The specific concentrations of amprolium in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for amprolium, it was not possible to conclude the assessment. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of amprolium in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. The lack of antibacterial activity at clinically relevant concentrations for amprolium suggests that further studies relating to bacterial resistance are not a priority.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 13: Diaminopyrimidines: trimethoprim

The specific concentrations of trimethoprim in non-target feed for food-producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for trimethoprim was estimated. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for trimethoprim.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 12: Tetracyclines: tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline

The specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Les défis et enjeux du changement vers le développement durable (l'analyse stratégique des muséums nature de Montréal)

Longtemps, les institutions muséales scientifiques étaient considérées comme une empreinte de la société, un lieu élitiste, un lieu où seule la science avait son mot à dire. Aujourd'hui, les acteurs des musées se diversifient et sont soumis à des pressions sociales, économiques et environnementales complexes dont ils n'avaient pas à faire face jusqu'à présent. Certains musées de sciences ont ainsi inscrit dans leur nouvelle mission les termes de développement durable. Mais l'introduction récente de cette notion dans les musées de science suscite des débats. Contrairement à l'environnement, le développement durable ne se présente plus comme uniquement une notion à vulgariser dans les expositions, il s'inscrit aussi comme un nouveau système de gestion. Dans cette éventualité du changement, des logiques commerciales, environnementales, culturelles, scientifiques et sociales se trouvent confrontées modifiant l'identité propre des musées de sciences. Cette recherche vise donc à répondre à la question suivante : Quels sont les défis et les enjeux pour les musées scientifiques d'aller vers le développement durable ? Les objectifs de la recherche sont de comprendre les mécanismes qui régissent le fonctionnement des institutions muséales scientifiques, de développer une contribution critique sur les conséquences du changement vers le développement durable et de déterminer l'apport méthodologique de la sociologie des organisations pour la muséologie.Science museums were long considered the preserve of the well-to-do of societies past, elitist places where science was the only consideration. Today, there is a broader range of museum stakeholders and their institutions are subject to complex and previously unknown social, economic and environmental pressures. Some science museums have recently included sustainable development in their new missions, but not without generating some controversy. For sustainable development, unlike the environment, is no longer just a concept to be explained to visitors through exhibitions ; it is also a new system of management. This kind of change challenges established commercial, environmental, cultural, scientific and social paradigms, and alters the very identity of science museums. The goal of this research project, then, is to answer the question: What are the challenges and issues involved for science museums that opt for sustainable development? The goals of the project are to understand the mechanisms governing the operation of science museums, to engage in a critical discussion on the consequences of the shift toward sustainable development and to determine the methodological contribution of organisational sociology for museology.PARIS-Museum Hist.Naturelle (751052304) / SudocSudocFranceF

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: Is a screening for differential diagnoses necessary?

International audienceObjective: To evaluate the benefit of performing a screening for differential diagnoses by hepatobiliary ultrasound and viral serologies, in case of suspected intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP).Methods: Retrospective single-center study in a tertiary maternity unit, including all women with a suspected ICP between January 2012 and September 2018. The primary outcome was the differential diagnosis rate obtained through initial screening. We described women characteristics, symptoms, and blood results that led to ICP suspicion. We evaluated the rate of differential diagnosis established by the initial screening. We described the population of women presenting with an ICP differential diagnosis.Results: The study included 254 women. Prevalence of differential diagnosis was 2 %. ICP was suspected in more than 50 % of cases in third trimester of pregnancy (79.5 %). Women presented with pruritus in 90.9 % of cases. Bile acid levels were between 20 and 40 μmol/L in 56.3 % of cases and above 40 μmol/L in 12.2 % of cases. The screening to rule out differential diagnosis of ICP was performed in half of the cases. When performed, the screening did not lead to the diagnosis of any differential disease.Conclusion: In this cohort, among the 254 women, one (0.4 %) would have been wrongly diagnosed with ICP if the initial screening for differential diagnosis had not been performed. Screening for differential diagnosis does not seem to provide any benefit regarding the management of suspected ICP and could therefore only be performed in case of atypical clinical presentation of ICP, resistance to treatment or persisting abnormal liver function tests in the postpartum period