Official Control in Slaughter and Game Handling: Expectations and Prerequisites for Implementation of Remote Meat Inspection in Sweden.

Remote meat inspection is currently not permitted under the European Union food control legislation. However, the environmental impact of travelling to and from abattoirs and increasing shortages of qualified veterinary staff make remote controls a potential future scenario. This paper reports the results of a qualitative study conducted with a sample of nineteen official veterinarians and food business operators in Sweden. We investigated attitudes, perceived risks, and prerequisites for remote meat controls in semi-structured interviews. Results indicate both positive attitudes towards remote meat inspection, and concerns related to technical challenges, reliability and security of data transfer, and possibilities of manipulation of the remote system. Respondents also noted both negative effects, such as physical hurdles for good control, and positive impacts on animal welfare, such as shortened waiting times for slaughter. Considering the current regulatory framework, only 21% of the respondents have had any prior experience with (pilot) remote meat inspections and the additional 11% carried out remote inspections of Food Chain Information documents. Nevertheless, all participants, including the majority without any prior experience in remote inspections, assumed that remote inspections would be done via video streaming. The optimal setting for a remote meat inspection, according to our respondents, seems to be a combination of cameras at fixed locations with body cameras worn by assisting abattoir personnel. Overall, remote meat inspections are possible to introduce but not without significant legal and technical adaptations as well as definition of the conditions for this type of control flexibility.

Implications of circular textile policies for the future regulation of hazardous substances in textiles in the European Union.

The textile industry's business model is currently unsustainable and systemic changes must be made. The transition to a circular textile economy can be a major lever for this. However, it faces multiple issues, including the (in)ability of current legislations to provide sufficient protection regarding hazardous chemicals in recirculating materials. It is therefore crucial to identify legislative gaps that prevent the implementation of a safe circular textile economy, and to identify which chemicals could jeopardize this process. With this study, we aim to identify hazardous substances that could be found in recirculated textiles, to identify and discuss gaps in current regulations covering chemicals in textiles, and to suggest solutions to ensure better safety of circular textiles. We compile and analyze data on 715 chemicals and their associated functions, textile production stage, and hazard data. We also present how chemicals have been regulated over time and discuss regulations' strengths and weaknesses in the perspective of circular economy. We finally discuss the recently proposed Ecodesign regulation, and which key point should be included in the future delegated acts. We found that most of the compiled chemicals present at least one recognized or suspected hazard. Among them, there were 228 CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic substances), 25 endocrine disruptors, 322 skin allergens or sensitizers, and 51 respiratory allergens or sensitizers. 30 chemicals completely or partially lack hazard data. 41 chemicals were found to present a risk for consumers, among which 15 recognized or suspected CMR and 36 recognized or suspected allergens/sensitizers. Following the analysis of regulations, we argue that an improved risk assessment of chemicals should consider chemicals specific hazardous properties and product's multiple life cycles, instead of being limited to the product's end-of-life stage. We especially argue that implementing a safe circular textile economy requires that chemicals of concern are eliminated from the market.

Empirically supported out-of-the-box strategies for science communication by environmental scientists.

Scientists are expected to communicate their research to a wide audience, while often lacking appreciable training. Environmental science poses many value-laden and ethical questions. This necessitates the identification and use of specific strategies or guidelines, which encourage 2-way communication and enable trust in both the experts and the scientific results. The objective of this paper is to give environmental scientists tools for effective science communication based on sound scientific evidence that does not require further specialization in communication studies. Using common scientific search engines in Europe, scientific communication literature that met specific parameters was identified. The summarized data contextualize the importance of science communication in environmental sciences but also highlight the need of scientists for communication experts to aid in establishing objectives for particularly complex topics and audiences. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:499-504. © 2019 SETAC.

Assessing and managing multiple risks in a changing world-The Roskilde recommendations.

Roskilde University (Denmark) hosted a November 2015 workshop, Environmental Risk-Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World. This Focus article presents the consensus recommendations of 30 attendees from 9 countries regarding implementation of a common currency (ecosystem services) for holistic environmental risk assessment and management; improvements to risk assessment and management in a complex, human-modified, and changing world; appropriate development of protection goals in a 2-stage process; dealing with societal issues; risk-management information needs; conducting risk assessment of risk management; and development of adaptive and flexible regulatory systems. The authors encourage both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to address their 10 recommendations: 1) adopt ecosystem services as a common currency for risk assessment and management; 2) consider cumulative stressors (chemical and nonchemical) and determine which dominate to best manage and restore ecosystem services; 3) fully integrate risk managers and communities of interest into the risk-assessment process; 4) fully integrate risk assessors and communities of interest into the risk-management process; 5) consider socioeconomics and increased transparency in both risk assessment and risk management; 6) recognize the ethical rights of humans and ecosystems to an adequate level of protection; 7) determine relevant reference conditions and the proper ecological context for assessments in human-modified systems; 8) assess risks and benefits to humans and the ecosystem and consider unintended consequences of management actions; 9) avoid excessive conservatism or possible underprotection resulting from sole reliance on binary, numerical benchmarks; and 10) develop adaptive risk-management and regulatory goals based on ranges of uncertainty. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:7-16. © 2016 SETAC.

Risk communication discourse among ecological risk assessment professionals and its implications for communication with nonexperts.

Risk communication, especially to the general public and end users of plant protection products, is an important challenge. Currently, much of the risk communication the general public receives is via the popular press, and risk managers face the challenge of presenting their decisions and their scientific basis to the general public in an understandable way. Therefore, we decided to explore the obstacles in risk communication, as done by expert risk assessors and managers. Using the discourse analysis framework and readability tests, we studied perspectives of 3 stakeholder groups-regulators, industry representatives, and academics across Europe. We conducted 30 confidential interviews (10 participants in each group), with part of the interview guide focused on communication of pesticide risk to the general public and the ideas experts in the field of risk assessment and management hold of the public perception of pesticides. We used the key informant approach in recruiting our participants. They were first identified as key stakeholders in ecological risk assessment of pesticides and then sampled by means of a snowball sampling technique. In the analysis, first we identified main motifs (themes) in each group, and then we moved to studying length of the sentences and grammar and to uncovering discourses present in the text data. We also used the Flesch Reading Ease test to determine the comprehension difficulty of transcribed interviews. The test is commonly used as a standard for estimating the readability of technical documents. Our results highlight 3 main obstacles standing in the way of effective communication with wider audiences. First of all, ecological risk assessment as a highly technical procedure uses the specific language of ecological risk assessment, which is also highly specialized and might be difficult to comprehend by nonexperts. Second, the idea of existing "expert-lay discrepancy," a phenomenon described in risk perception studies is visibly present in the experts' opinions. Finally, the communication flow among stakeholders was perceived as flawed, e.g., our participants did not consider themselves fully included in the communication process, despite taking part in many networks. Interestingly, both studies on the role of trust in risk perception, and research on links between daily choices and perceived risk, show that the public is more likely to rely on experts they can trust, than the experts in our study were inclined to think.

Stakeholders' perspective on ecological modeling in environmental risk assessment of pesticides: challenges and opportunities.

The article closely examines the role of mechanistic effect models (e.g., population models) in the European environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides. We studied perspectives of three stakeholder groups on population modeling in ERA of pesticides. Forty-three in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders from regulatory authorities, industry, and academia all over Europe. The key informant approach was employed in recruiting our participants. They were first identified as key stakeholders in the field and then sampled by means of a purposive sampling, where each stakeholder identified as important by others was interviewed and asked to suggest another potential participant for our study. Our results show that participants, although having different institutional backgrounds often presented similar perspectives and concerns about modeling. Analysis of repeating ideas and keywords revealed that all stakeholders had very high and often contradicting expectations from models. Still, all three groups expected effect models to become integrated in future ERA of pesticides. Main hopes associated with effect models were to reduce the amount of expensive and complex testing and field monitoring, both at the product development stage, and as an aid to develop mitigation measures. Our analysis suggests that, although the needs of stakeholders often overlapped, subtle differences and lack of trust hinder the process of introducing mechanistic effect models into ERA.