EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA); Scientific Opinion on principles for deriving and applying Dietary Reference Values

This Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA) deals with the general principles for development and application of Dietary Reference Values (DRVs). These quantitative reference values for nutrient intakes for healthy individuals and populations are based on health criteria. Derived from DRVs, nutrients goals and recommendations take into account other criteria such as food composition or dietary habits, and may be used for assessment and planning of diets. It is proposed to derive the following DRVs: 1) Population Reference Intakes (PRI), 2) Average Requirement (AR), 3) Lower Threshold Intake (LTI), 4) Adequate Intake (AI), 5) Reference Intake ranges for macronutrients (RI). Nutrient requirements differ with age, sex and physiological condition. The Panel proposes to define the age ranges used for each nutrient on a case-by-case basis depending on the available data. For the age group < 6 months requirements are considered to be equal to the supply from breast- milk, except in those cases where this does not apply. Separate reference values will be established for pregnant and lactating women. Interpolation or extrapolation between population groups will be used in instances where no data are available for defined age and sex groups

Conducting Science in Disasters: Recommendations from the NIEHS Working Group for Special IRB Considerations in the Review of Disaster Related Research.

Research involving human subjects after public health emergencies and disasters may pose ethical challenges. These challenges may include concerns about the vulnerability of prospective disaster research participants, increased research burden among disaster survivors approached by multiple research teams, and potentially reduced standards in the ethical review of research by institutional review boards (IRBs) due to the rush to enter the disaster field. The NIEHS Best Practices Working Group for Special IRB Considerations in the Review of Disaster Related Research was formed to identify and address ethical and regulatory challenges associated with the review of disaster research. The working group consists of a diverse collection of disaster research stakeholders across a broad spectrum of disciplines. The working group convened in July 2016 to identify recommendations that are instrumental in preparing IRBs to review protocols related to public health emergencies and disasters. The meeting included formative didactic presentations and facilitated breakout discussions using disaster-related case studies. Major thematic elements from these discussions were collected and documented into 15 working group recommendations, summarized in this article, that address topics such as IRB disaster preparedness activities, informed consent, vulnerable populations, confidentiality, participant burden, disaster research response integration and training, IRB roles/responsibilities, community engagement, and dissemination of disaster research results. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP237

The Ambulatory Pediatric Association Fellowship in Pediatric Environmental Health: A 5-Year Assessment

Background: Evidence is mounting that environmental exposures contribute to causation of disease in children. Yet few pediatricians are trained to diagnose, treat, or prevent disease of environmental origin. Objectives: To develop a cadre of future leaders in pediatric environmental health (PEH), the Ambulatory Pediatric Association (APA) launched a new 3-year fellowship in 2001—the world’s first formal training program in PEH. Sites were established at Boston Children’s Hospital, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, George Washington University, University of Cincinnati, and University of Washington. Fellows are trained in epidemiology, biostatistics, toxicology, risk assessment, and preventive medicine. They gain clinical experience in environmental pediatrics and mentored training in clinical research, policy development, and evidence-based advocacy. Thirteen fellows have graduated. Two sites have secured follow-on federal funding to enable them to continue PEH training. Discussion: To assess objectively the program’s success in preparing fellows for leadership careers in PEH, we conducted a mailed survey in 2006 with follow-up in 2007. Conclusions: Fifteen (88%) of 17 fellows and graduates participated; program directors provided information on the remaining two. Nine graduates are pursuing full-time academic careers, and two have leadership positions in governmental and environmental organizations. Ten have published one or more first-authored papers. Seven graduates are principal investigators on federal or foundation grants. The strongest predictors of academic success are remaining affiliated with the fellowship training site and devoting <20% of fellowship time to clinical practice. Conclusion: The APA fellowship program is proving successful in preparing pediatricians for leadership careers in PEH

Development of a program logic model and evaluation plan for a participatory ergonomics intervention in construction

BACKGROUND: Intervention studies in participatory ergonomics (PE) are often difficult to interpret due to limited descriptions of program planning and evaluation. METHODS: In an ongoing PE program with floor layers, we developed a logic model to describe our program plan, and process and summative evaluations designed to describe the efficacy of the program. RESULTS: The logic model was a useful tool for describing the program elements and subsequent modifications. The process evaluation measured how well the program was delivered as intended, and revealed the need for program modifications. The summative evaluation provided early measures of the efficacy of the program as delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate information on program delivery may lead to erroneous conclusions about intervention efficacy due to Type III error. A logic model guided the delivery and evaluation of our intervention and provides useful information to aid interpretation of results

An integrated theoretical framework to enhance resource efficiency, sustainability and human health in agri-food systems

The absence of integrated decision-making across the agri-food system is arguably the single biggest obstacle to global food security and breaking through it is perhaps our biggest challenge. To date little research has been done which takes a fully integrated view to address this global challenge. Integrated decision making implies change across all parts of the diverse agri-food system, requiring an integrated assessment of all the processes involved from the ecology of the land through to nutrition and health. To address this research need, we propose a theoretical framework for integrated solutions based upon mapping of whole agri-food systems, their quantitative analysis based on enhanced life cycle assessment, the use of emergent data to catalyse viable and commercially attractive innovation and the free access of data to all stakeholders and in particular consumers as the principle engine for change. This integrated framework is conceptualised through theoretical development building from prior research. This theoretical framework involves an iterative methodology of four overlapping steps (Map, Analyse, Visualise and Share), namely the MAVS cycle. It gives a transparent advanced methodology and collaborative decision support to all stakeholders across the agri-food ecosystems. We hypothesize that this framework would provide a mechanism to break down the current barriers that prevent the integrated solutions absolutely necessary for global food security. We also theoretically position the perspective that it would break the “four walls” of information that reside within each organisation, fostering an open system that encourages a more democratized agri-food system, in which sustainability and resource efficiency are embedded

Hypertension, snoring, and obstructive sleep apnoea during pregnancy: a cohort study

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109590/1/bjo12885.pd

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of iron compounds (E1) as feed additives for all species: Ferrous sulphate monohydrate based on a dossier submitted by Kronos International, Inc.

Ferrous sulphate monohydrate is safe when supplied up to a maximum iron content per kilogram complete feedingstuff of 450 mg for bovines and poultry, 500 mg for ovines, 600 mg for pets, and 750 mg for other species/categories, except horses and fish; for piglets up to one week before weaning a maximum of 250 mg Fe/day is considered safe. Because of insufficient data on horses and fish, as a provisional measure, the current value (750 mg Fe/kg) could be maintained. The values for total dietary iron for pigs, ovines, horses, fish and other species/categories (except poultry, bovines and pets) are in line with those currently authorised. Iron from ferrous sulphate monohydrate is unlikely to modify the iron concentration in edible tissues and products of animal origin. Consumer exposure in the EU is not associated with a risk of excess iron intake to the general population. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel does not foresee any concern for consumer safety resulting from the use of ferrous sulphate monohydrate in animal nutrition, provided that the maximum iron content in complete feedingstuffs is respected. Ferrous sulphate monohydrate is irritant and corrosive to the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. The additive contains up to 109 mg Ni/kg. Nickel is a dermal and respiratory sensitiser, and inhalation may cause lung cancer. Thus, handling the additive poses a risk to the user/worker. Considering the high concentration of iron and sulphur in soil and water, the supplementation of feed with the additive is not expected to pose an environmental risk. Ferrous sulphate monohydrate is an effective iron source for all animal species and categories. The FEEDAP Panel recommends that the currently authorised maximum iron content in complete feed be reduced for bovines and poultry from 750 to 450 mg Fe/kg, and for pets from 1250 to 600 mg Fe/kg