The labor market regimes of Denmark and Norway – one Nordic model?

The literature on the Danish and Norwegian labor market systems emphasizes the commonalities of the two systems. We challenge this perception by investigating how employers in multinational companies in Denmark and Norway communicate with employees on staffing changes. We argue that the development of ‘flexicurity’ in Denmark grants Danish employers considerably greater latitude in engaging in staffing changes than its Nordic counterpart, Norway. Institutional theory leads us to suppose that large firms located in the Danish setting will be less likely to engage in employer–employee communication on staffing plans than their Norwegian counterparts. In addition, we argue that in the Danish context indigenous firms will have a better insight into the normative and cognitive aspects to flexicurity than foreign-owned firms, meaning that they are more likely to engage in institutional entrepreneurialism than their foreign owned counterparts. We supplement institutional theory with an actor perspective in order to take into account the role of labor unions. Our analysis is based on a survey of 203 firms in Norway and Denmark which are either indigenous multinational companies or the subsidiaries of foreign multinational companies. The differences we observe cause us to conclude that the notion of a common Nordic model is problematic

Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Quinoline Yellow (E 104) as a food additive:Question No EFSA-Q-2008-223

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of Quinoline Yellow (E 104). Quinoline Yellow has been previously evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1975, 1978 and 1984, and the EU Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1984. Both committees established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 0-10 mg/kg body weight (bw). Studies not evaluated by JECFA and the SCF included a chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with a reproductive toxicity phase in rats and a study on behaviour in children by McCann et al. from 2007. The latter study concluded that exposure to a mixture of colours including Quinoline Yellow resulted in increased hyperactivity in 8- to 9-years old children. The Panel concurs with the conclusion from a previous EFSA opinion on the McCann et al. study that the findings of the study cannot be used as a basis for altering the ADI. The Panel notes that Quinoline Yellow was negative in in vitro genotoxicity as well as in long term carcinogenicity studies. The Panel concludes that the currently available database on semi-chronic, reproductive, developmental and long-term toxicity of Quinoline Yellow, including a study in rats not apparently taken into consideration by JECFA or the SCF, provides a rationale for re-definition of the ADI. Using the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg bw/day provided by the chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with a reproductive toxicity phase carried out in rats and applying an uncertainty factor of 100 to this NOAEL, the Panel establishes an ADI of 0.5 mg/kg bw/day. The Panel notes that at the maximum levels of use of Quinoline Yellow, refined intake estimates are generally well over the ADI of 0.5 mg/kg bw/day

Re‐evaluation of propane‐1,2‐diol alginate (E 405) as a food additive

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of propane‐1,2‐diol alginate (E 405) when used as a food additive. The Panel noted that absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) data on propane‐1,2‐diol alginate gave evidence for the hydrolysis of this additive into propane‐1,2‐diol and alginic acid. These two compounds have been recently re‐evaluated for their safety of use as food additives (EFSA ANS Panel, 2017, 2018). Consequently, the Panel considered in this opinion the major toxicokinetic and toxicological data of these two hydrolytic derivatives. No adverse effects were reported in subacute and subchronic dietary studies with propane‐1,2‐diol alginate. The available data did not indicate a genotoxic concern for propane‐1,2‐diol alginate (E 405) when used as a food additive. Propane‐1,2‐diol alginate, alginic acid and propane‐1,2‐diol were not of concern with respect to carcinogenicity. The Panel considered that any adverse effect of propane‐1,2‐diol alginate would be due to propane‐1,2‐diol. Therefore, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of the food additive E 405 is determined by the amount of free propane‐1,2‐diol and the propane‐1,2‐diol released from the food additive after hydrolysis. According to the EU specification, the concentration of free and bound propane‐1,2‐diol amounts to a maximum of 45% on a weight basis. On the worst‐case assumption that 100% of propane‐1,2‐diol would be systemically available and considering the ADI for propane‐1,2‐diol of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the Panel allocated an ADI of 55 mg/kg bw per day for propane‐1,2‐diol alginate. The Panel concluded that exposure estimates did not exceed the ADI in any of the population groups from the use of propane‐1,2‐diol alginate (E 405) as a food additive. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the authorised use levels

Nordic consumers and the challenge for sustainable housing

In the Nordic countries, housing is one of society's greatest users of resources. Making housing more sustainable will call for changes in buildings, management routines and residents' habits, each having its possibilities as well as a built in resistance against change. Households might play a key role in this change, directly as consumers, but also indirectly and jointly as pressure groups towards real estate owners, managers and local society. Making housing more sustainable can be seen as society's 'sustainability challenge' to the housing consumers. In this paper, the extent of this challenge is discussed for the households of the Nordic countries, for different types of ownership and building etc. Its realization is seen in a ten-year perspective and in relation to the acquisition, maintenance, operation and use of the dwellings. Preliminary results indicate that a move to a new dwelling will give the household an opportunity to influence many aspects of its environmental impacts, but that moving will have little direct effect on the environmental performance of the built environment as a whole. Furthermore, that the activities of daily living have a potential for improvement without the inertia of reconstructing the building stock. In the end, however, co-operation between households and other stakeholders of the building sector is often a prerequisite for change. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. and ERP Environment.