From the publisher: "Background: The introduction of whole new foods in a population may lead to sensitization and food allergy. This constitutes a potential public health problem and a challenge to risk assessors and managers as the existing understanding of the pathophysiological processes and the currently available biological tools for prediction of the risk for food allergy development and the severity of the reaction are not sufficient. There is a substantial body of in vivo and in vitro data describing molecular and cellular events potentially involved in food sensitization. However, these events have not been organized in a sequence of related events that is plausible to result in sensitization, and useful to challenge current hypotheses. The aim of this manuscript was to collect and structure the current mechanistic understanding of sensitization induction to food proteins by applying the concept of adverse outcome pathway (AOP). Main body: The proposed AOP for food sensitization is based on information on molecular and cellular mechanisms and pathways evidenced to be involved in sensitization by food and food proteins and uses the AOPs for chemical skin sensitization and respiratory sensitization induction as templates. Available mechanistic data on protein respiratory sensitization were included to fill out gaps in the understanding of how proteins may affect cells, cell-cell interactions and tissue homeostasis. Analysis revealed several key events (KE) and biomarkers that may have potential use in testing and assessment of proteins for their sensitizing potential. Conclusion: The application of the AOP concept to structure mechanistic in vivo and in vitro knowledge has made it possible to identify a number of methods, each addressing a specific KE, that provide information about the food allergenic potential of new proteins. When applied in the context of an integrated strategy these methods may reduce, if not replace, current animal testing approaches. The proposed AOP will be shared at the www.aopwiki.org platform to expand the mechanistic data, improve the confidence in each of the proposed KE and key event relations (KERs), and allow for the identification of new, or refinement of established KE and KERs." Authors: Jolanda H. M. van BilsenEmail author, Edyta Sienkiewicz-Szłapka, Daniel Lozano-Ojalvo, Linette E. M. Willemsen, Celia M. Antunes, Elena Molina, Joost J. Smit, Barbara Wróblewska, Harry J. Wichers, Edward F. Knol, Gregory S. Ladics, Raymond H. H. Pieters, Sandra Denery-Papini, Yvonne M. Vissers, Simona L. Bavaro, Colette Larré, Kitty C. M. Verhoeckx and Erwin L. Roggen
LINK
This paper investigates the prospective application of arbitration by Transnational Private Regulation (TPR). It builds on the study of TPR developed by Fabrizio Cafaggi et al. TPR addresses the ever-increasing transfer of regulatory power from national to global levels, and from public to private regulators. TPR entails private regulatory co-operation be-yond the jurisdictional boundaries of States through voluntary standards. The regimes of TPR are built by a variety of actors, such as companies, NGOs, independent experts, and epistemic communities. Examples of TPR can be found in food safety, forestry management, trade, and derivatives, among other fields. More specifically, they concern private actors engaging in transnational coordination of standard setting such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that was developed to foster responsible management of the world’s forests. There are four main characteristics of TPR: legitimacy, quality, effectiveness, and enforcement. I will describe those four characteristics in brief here. First, the legitimacy of TPR is built around consent through voluntary entry, participation, and exit of regulated entities. Important to this contribution is that the legitimacy of TPR goes beyond its legal dimension, measured by purely legal standards. Hence, the legitimacy of TPR is largely determined by standards developed by social and economic institutions relevant to specific TPR regimes. The role of those institutions in standard settings is higher in private TPR regimes than private-public TPR regimes, where some forms of compliance are mandatory. Second, the quality of TPR corresponds to the ex ante and ex post evaluation cycle of regulatory processes. It is also linked with the transparency of TPR. Third, the effectiveness of TPR is measured according to the extent to which the objectives of TPR (or selected TPR regimes) are met. And finally, enforcement of TPRis understood as ‘ensuring compliance with commitments’. Enforcement of TPR can take place through courts, administrative agencies, and private dispute resolution—including the arbitration at the core of this contribution. Cafaggi’s study identified rather selective use of arbitration in TPR, but also recommended changes to make arbitration law more adaptable to TPR. Furthermore, the study recommended that more specialized dispute resolution institutions are created to exclusively serve TPR. Against this background, I shift the main focus of analysis from TPR to arbitration. Whereas Cafaggi argued that arbitration may be suitable for TPR as a means of private enforcement, in this paper I go even further, arguing that arbitration as a means of informal, out-of-court dispute resolution is well suited to strengthen the normativity of TPR. This is so because private arbitration actors (including, inter alia, arbitrators and arbitral institutions) are already equipped with the tools necessary to facilitate cross-border TPR, which is done through informal standards and procedures with origins in the communitarian values and reputational mechanisms used by different communities before the development of modern States. The roots of most private justice regimes—including arbitration—are informed by communitarian values such as collaboration, participation, and personal trust. Those values, together with other core characteristics of arbitration correspond to all core characteristics of TPR, making both systems comparable and complementary. The analytical framework incorporated in this paper follows the four core characteristics of TPR. Hence, the paper is organized into five sections. The first section contains the introduction. In the second section, I analyze the legitimacy of arbitration vis-à-vis the legitimacy of TPR. In the third section, I investigate the accountability of arbitration as a means of quality signaling vis-à-vis TPR. In the fourth section, I focus on the remedies available to arbitrators in a view of TPR’s effectiveness. Finally, in the fifth section, I analyze enforcement through arbitration and its impact on the exclusiveness versus complementarity of TPR regimes. Conclusions follow, including recommendations for future research. Part of topic "The blurring distinction between public and private in international dispute resolution"
MULTIFILE
Existing studies offer very limited insight into how sellers may reduce consumers' perceived risk in order to make consumer-to-consumer electronic marketplaces more successful. Contrary to these studies, the empirical investigation reported in this article acknowledges the role of sellers in enabling these computer-mediated transaction platforms. The study focuses on how information provided by sellersabout themselves (i.e., seller information) and about their products (i.e., product information) can function as risk reduction signals and how these affect a buyer's inclination to purchase. Combining signaling theory with perceived risk theory, the authors present a research model that they test using structural equation modeling with data collected in two different electronic marketplaces, includingeBay.nl. The results indicate that while product and seller information are indeed important risk reduction signals, and as such can play an important role in stimulating purchasing, the risk reduction potential of these forms of information differs across the studied risk types. This article discusses these findings and explains how they contribute to signaling theory and perceived risk theory. Based on the findings, several practical implications for sellers active in electronic marketplaces and for the intermediaries operating these transaction systems are described.
Since the COVID-19-pandemic, the enormous societal, medical and financial impact associated with the transfer of infectious pathogens from wild animals to humans and other animals urged for further follow-up in early signalling management of zoonotic diseases. Consequently, the Raad-voor-Dierenaangelegenheden and the Dutch government currently recommend to set up a surveillance system and cooperation with (applied-)scientists to detect zoonotic diseases using data and samples from animals entering wildlife rehabilitation centres. Each year approximately 100,000 wild animals are submitted to ±78 Dutch wildlife rehabilitation centres. This would potentially generate an enormous amount of currently unutilized information, which could reduce disease incidence and avoid the problems of scaling-up disease control if early detection can be improved. The current wild animal health surveillance system could be much enhanced if wild animals taken into care by wildlife rehabilitation centres would be consistently registered, processed and shared. However the processes, technology and biological knowhow to do this are currently not up to standards. Besides for this to work, wildlife rehabilitation centres need to be more strongly aligned and strongly embedded in the current health networks. Therefore, our objective is to develop a sustainable participatory collaboration system in the current health networks, on which first the focus is on valid and reliable data bundling of animals and their diseases from wildlife rehabilitation centres. These data can be made applicable to scientific research and the professional field to be able to signal the risks of (inter)national zoonotic diseases. We will focus our methodology on the societal, technical and biological elements involved. Van Hall Larenstein Hogeschool, Wageningen University, the Dutch Wildlife Health Centre, the National-Institute-for-Public-Health-and-the-Environment, Falcon together with Dutch wildlife rehabilitation centres will develop the fundaments of the surveillance system. The Foundation DierenLot, the Ministry-of-Agriculture-Nature-and-Food-quality, Flemish wildlife rehabilitation centres, vets, and governmental organisations are partners, among others.
