GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

In 2012, genetically engineered (GE) crops were grown by 17.3 million farmers on over 170 million hectares. Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years. Prior to commercialization, GE crops go through an extensive regulatory evaluation. Over one hundred regulatory submissions have shown compositional equivalence, and comparable levels of safety, between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. One component of regulatory compliance is whole GE food/feed animal feeding studies. Both regulatory studies and independent peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE crops can be safely used in animal feed, and rDNA fragments have never been detected in products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) derived from animals that consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GE feed, some groups are calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies and studies in target livestock species for the approval of GE crops. It is an opportune time to review the results of such studies as have been done to date to evaluate the value of the additional information obtained. Requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies would sharply increase regulatory compliance costs and prolong the regulatory process associated with the commercialization of GE crops. Such costs may impede the development of feed crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics and durability, particularly in the local varieties in small and poor developing countries. More generally it is time for regulatory evaluations to more explicitly consider both the reasonable and unique risks and benefits associated with the use of both GE plants and animals in agricultural systems, and weigh them against those associated with existing systems, and those of regulatory inaction. This would represent a shift away from a GE evaluation process that currently focuses only on risk assessment and identifying ever diminishing marginal hazards, to a regulatory approach that more objectively evaluates and communicates the likely impact of approving a new GE plant or animal on agricultural production systems

The provision of family planning services by general practitioners A social survey in Wessex

Quality Measures in Family Planning Steering GroupSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m00/28118 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Quality measures in family planning services Summary report and recommendations by the Regional Steering Group

Quality Measures in Family Planning Steering GroupSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m00/28120 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

The provision of family planning services by family planning clinics A social survey in Wessex

Quality Measures in Family Planning Steering GroupAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m00/28117 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Health visiting and refugee families: issues in professional practice

AIM: This paper reports on the perceptions of experienced health visitors working with refugee families in Inner London. BACKGROUND: Women who are refugees and asylum seekers in the United Kingdom are more likely to experience depression than either non-refugee women or male asylum seekers. Health visitors provide a universal public health service to all women on the birth of a child, or with children aged under five, and as such are well placed to identify emotional and mental health problems of women who are refugees. Despite successive waves of refugees to the United Kingdom in the 20th century, there are no empirical studies of health visiting practice with this vulnerable group. There is also no body of evidence to inform the practice of health visitors new to working with asylum seekers and refugees. METHODS: An exploratory study was undertaken in Inner London in 2001. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 13 health visitors experienced in working with women and families who are refugees. FINDINGS: A range of structural challenges was identified that mediated against the development of a health-promoting relationship between health visitors and refugee women. With refugee families, who were living in temporary accommodation, health visitors were prioritizing basic needs that had to be addressed: in addition, they prioritized the needs of children before those of women. Health visitors were aware of the emotional needs of women and had strategies for addressing these with women in more settled circumstances. Health visitors considered themselves ill-prepared to deal with the complexities of working with women in these situations. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies issues for further exploration, not least from the perspective of refugee women receiving health visiting services. Health visitors in countries receiving refugee women are framing their work with these women in ways that reflect Maslow's theory of a hierarchy of needs. This study suggests ways that public health nursing practice could be improved, and identifies issues for further study