Acrylates in artificial nails-Results of product analyses and glove penetration studies.

BACKGROUND: Artificial nail materials are mixtures that are prone to contain several sensitizing (meth)acrylates. It is not known whether the listing of (meth)acrylates is correct in these products' packages. Protective gloves suited for nail work are needed. OBJECTIVES: To analyse (meth)acrylates in gel nail and acrylic nail products chemically and to compare the results with the information in the product labels, and to study penetration of artificial nail materials through selected disposable gloves. METHODS: We analysed 31 gel nail products and 6 acrylic nail products for their (meth)acrylate content by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). We tested the penetration of two nail products through three disposable gloves: nitrile rubber, neoprene rubber and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). RESULTS: Altogether 32/37 products contained (meth)acrylates. In all of them, there was discrepancy between the listed (meth)acrylates and those discovered in the analysis. The commonest (meth)acrylates were hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA, 20/37 samples) and hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA, 9/37 samples), but many of the product packages failed to declare them. Isobornyl acrylate (IBA) was discovered in nine gel nail products. The neoprene glove could withstand nail gel for 20 min and thin nitrile glove and PVC glove for 5 min. Acrylic nail liquid penetrated through disposable gloves quickly. CONCLUSIONS: Labelling of artificial nail products was notably incorrect on most products. Requirements for product labelling must be updated so that the risk of sensitization associated with artificial nail products is clearly indicated. Disposable gloves can probably be used short-term in gel nail work, whereas disposable gloves do not protect the user from acrylic nail liquids.

Addressing a critique of the TEASI framework for invasive species risk assessment.

We address criticism that the Transport, Establishment, Abundance, Spread, Impact (TEASI) framework does not facilitate objective mapping of risk assessment methods nor defines best practice. We explain why TEASI is appropriate for mapping, despite inherent challenges, and how TEASI offers considerations for best practices, rather than suggesting one best practice.

TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices.

Some alien species cause substantial impacts, yet most are innocuous. Given limited resources, forecasting risks from alien species will help prioritise management. Given that risk assessment (RA) approaches vary widely, a synthesis is timely to highlight best practices. We reviewed quantitative and scoring RAs, integrating > 300 publications into arguably the most rigorous quantitative RA framework currently existing, and mapping each study onto our framework, which combines Transport, Establishment, Abundance, Spread and Impact (TEASI). Quantitative models generally measured single risk components (78% of studies), often focusing on Establishment alone (79%). Although dominant in academia, quantitative RAs are underused in policy, and should be made more accessible. Accommodating heterogeneous limited data, combining across risk components, and developing generalised RAs across species, space and time without requiring new models for each species may increase attractiveness for policy applications. Comparatively, scoring approaches covered more risk components (50% examined > 3 components), with Impact being the most common component (87%), and have been widely applied in policy (> 57%), but primarily employed expert opinion. Our framework provides guidance for questions asked, combining scores and other improvements. Our risk framework need not be completely parameterised to be informative, but instead identifies opportunities for improvement in alien species RA.

Anything left for animal disease insurance? A choice experiment approach.

Animal disease insurance plays only a minor role in public activities related to animal diseases in animal production in Europe, and the current situation is likely to persist as long as producers place strong faith on public compensation schemes. In this study, we undertook a farm survey in Finland employing a choice experiment to study the willingness to pay for animal disease insurance products. We found that producers' willingness to pay for animal disease insurance is relatively low, even if consequential losses are covered. However, attributes of the insurance products which increased the likelihood of the producer wishing to purchase the product in a statistically significant manner were identified. The most important attribute was a low deductible. Using latent class analysis, four classes of producers were identified, those who were (1) not interested, (2) weakly interested or (3) strongly interested in insurance, and additionally, (4) a group who emphasised biosecurity measures but was not willing to purchase insurance. Those primarily interested in insurance were typically young, well-educated producers from large farms, and they already had a good level of biosecurity on their farms. However, the majority of the respondents preferred not to purchase insurance. The analysis suggests that commercial production animal disease insurance may need to be subsidised or otherwise made more attractive to producers, and even so, many producers might consider it unnecessary.

Heterogeneous risk perceptions: the case of poultry meat purchase intentions in Finland.

This study focused on the heterogeneity of consumer reactions, measured through poultry meat purchase intentions, when facing three cases of risk. The heterogeneity was analysed by latent class logistic regression that included all three risk cases. Approximately 60% of the respondents belonged to the group of production risk avoiders, in which the intention to purchase risk food was significantly lower than in the second group of risk neutrals. In addition to socio-demographic variables, the purchase intentions were statistically associated with several attitude-based variables. We highlighted some policy implications of the heterogeneity. Overall, the study demonstrated that risk matters to consumers, not all risk is equal, and consumer types react somewhat differently to different types of risk.

Measuring the costs of biosecurity on poultry farms: a case study in broiler production in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Farm-level biosecurity provides the foundation for biosecurity along the entire production chain. Many risk management practices are constantly in place, regardless of whether there is a disease outbreak or not. Nonetheless, the farm-level costs of preventive biosecurity have rarely been assessed. We examined the costs incurred by preventive biosecurity for Finnish poultry farms. METHODS: We used a semi-structured phone interview and obtained results from 17 broiler producers and from 5 hatching egg producers, corresponding to about 10% of all producers in Finland. RESULTS: Our results indicate that the average cost of biosecurity is some 3.55 eurocent per bird for broiler producers (0.10 eurocent per bird per rearing day) and 75.7 eurocent per bird for hatching egg producers (0.27 eurocent per bird per rearing day). For a batch of 75,000 broilers, the total cost would be €2,700. The total costs per bird are dependent on the annual number of birds: the higher the number of birds, the lower the cost per bird. This impact is primarily due to decreasing labour costs rather than direct monetary costs. Larger farms seem to utilise less labour per bird for biosecurity actions. There are also differences relating to the processor with which the producer is associated, as well as to the gender of the producer, with female producers investing more in biosecurity. Bird density was found to be positively related to the labour costs of biosecurity. This suggests that when the bird density is higher, greater labour resources need to be invested in their health and welfare and hence disease prevention. The use of coccidiostats as a preventive measure to control coccidiosis was found to have the largest cost variance between the producers, contributing to the direct costs. CONCLUSIONS: The redesign of cost-sharing in animal diseases is currently ongoing in the European Union. Before we can assert how the risk should be shared or resort to the 'polluter pays' principle, we need to understand how the costs are currently distributed. The ongoing study contributes towards understanding these issues. The next challenge is to link the costs of preventive biosecurity to the benefits thus acquired.

Diversifying meat consumption patterns: consumers' self-reported past behaviour and intentions for change.

This study analysed meat consumption patterns among Finnish consumers, considering both stated past changes and intended future changes. Consumer segments with different patterns of and reasons for change were identified. Latent class analysis revealed six consumer clusters that formed three major cluster blocks. The first block, comprising 48% of the consumers, had established consumption patterns and no intentions to change them. In the second block, with 13% of the consumers, consumption patterns had already shifted towards more vegetables and less meat. The third block, with 39% of the consumers, was identified to be in the middle of a change with a general tendency to reduce the use of meat and increase the use of vegetables. Although the environmental effects of meat and animal welfare issues were important reasons for change in some clusters, healthiness was the most salient stated reason for changing consumption habits.

Impact of risk aversion and disease outbreak characteristics on the incentives of producers as a group to participate in animal disease insurance-A simulation.

The participation of agricultural producers in financing losses caused by livestock epidemics has been debated in many countries. One of the issues raised is how reluctant producers are to participate voluntarily in the financing of disease losses before an outbreak occurs. This study contributes to the literature by examining whether disease losses should be financed through pre- or post-outbreak premiums or their combination. A Monte Carlo simulation was employed to illustrate the costs of financing two diseases of different profiles. The profiles differed in the probability in which the damage occurs and in the average damage per event. Three hypothetical financing schemes were compared based on their ability to reduce utility losses in the case of risk-neutral and risk-averse producer groups. The schemes were examined in a dynamic setting where premiums depended on the compensation history of the sector. If producers choose the preferred financing scheme based on utility losses, results suggest that the timing of the premiums, the transaction costs of the scheme, the degree of risk aversion of the producer, and the level and the volatility of premiums affect the choice of the financing scheme.