Talk:Goherr: Project: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "== GOHERR website == Requirements * Logo and navigation bar on the top * News window * Photographs of the project-related stuff * Search functionality * Links to other websit...") |
(GOHERR discussion started) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== GOHERR website == | == GOHERR website == | ||
[http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:Goherr:_Project&oldid=37007| Permalink to discussion about the website.] | |||
== GOHERR recommendations discussion == | |||
=== Recommendation about health === | |||
{{discussion | |||
|id=disc9167 | |||
|title=Dioxin is a concern | |||
|Statements = Dioxin is still a concern. Keep the current recommendations (consumption limits for young women), monitoring programs, and concentration limits in food. | |||
|Resolution = | |||
|Resolved = | |||
{{ | |Argumentation = | ||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5270|type=truth|content= BONUS GOHERR health benefit-risk assessment (WP5) showed that Baltic fish improves public health and even in the target group (fertile women planning to have children), the benefits and risks are close to each other.|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5271|type=truth|content=BONUS GOHERR survey (WP5) showed that recommendations to limit Baltic herring and salmon use are ineffective on average and even counterproductive with many people.|sign=}} | |||
}} | |||
{{discussion|id=disc9168|type=|Statements=Dioxin is a minor concern. Stop health-based dioxin restrictions, but promote eating small fish with less dioxin, just to be on the safe side.|Resolution=|title= Dioxin is a minor concern|Resolved=|Argumentation= | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5272|type=relevance|content=I think the statement is too controversial for SLU.|sign=Andreas}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5273|type=|content=I cannot support this very general recommendation as you in your analyses do find health risks to children and fetuses, incl serious ones like IQ. The health benefits comes not from Baltic fish, but from any source of omega3, so there is no need to promote eating dioxin-containing fish if there is any risk at all to humans. If you want to have a recommendation on removing the ban for men > 45yr where you saw the health benefits, and for women older than fertile age, that’s fine with me.|sign=Anna}} | |||
:{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5274|type=|content=1 All fish contains some dioxin and some methyl mercury, so the zero-risk approach does not hold. It is true that those risks are smaller with some other fish species so it is possible to prefer those. | |||
2 food security argument encourages us to eat Baltic herring, so you have to balance between two harms anyway. We didn't quantify the value of food security so this is done only qualitatively.|sign=Jouni Tuomisto}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant comment|selftruth1=true|id=arg0903|type=|content=I think the thing to keep is that we should promote is better use of small-bodied fish for human consumption, and incorporate that in the first suggested recommendation above (i.e. to keep current recommendations)|sign=Magnus}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5275|type=|content=If we believe that dioxin risk is below concern, why do we need extra measures? This gives conflicting messages and deteriorates the main message that people can stop worrying about dioxin in their food.|sign=}} | |||
:{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5276|type=|content=Small herring promotion can be done in two different ways: making recommendations to the public, or by targeting food industry and facilitating production and marketing of products made of small herring. If we do the latter, argument #5275 becomes invalid.|sign=}} | |||
::{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9017|type=|content=New products made of “healthy herring” would create new markets, maybe even to other parts of Europe. The larger herring could be used for feed. In the feed industry the dioxins can be removed|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9018|type=|content=Promoting small fish has other reasons, too. Different foods can be made from small fish, and that potential is largely unused (except maybe in Estonia).|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9019|type=|content=The policy analysis model of GOHERR (WP6) demonstrated that all the consumer groups benefit from eating smaller herring (also salmon) as the dioxin concentrations are lower in smaller fish.|sign=}} | |||
:{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5270|type=|content=NB! This is valid only within the same area. The concentrations of a smaller fish from northern parts may be higher than a bit larger from the south. Well... anyhow it does not change the recommendation.|sign=amlehikoinen}} | |||
}} | |||
{{discussion|id=disc9169|type=|Statements=Dioxin risk has decreased to level below concern. Stop health-based dioxin restrictions.|Resolution=|title=Dioxin is not a concern|Resolved=|Argumentation= | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5272|type=relevance|content=I think the statement is too controversial for SLU.|sign=Andreas}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5277|type=|content=Again: I suggest we do not give this recommendation, but WP5 can tell about the results.|sign=Päivi Haapasaari}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg5270|type=truth|content= BONUS GOHERR health benefit-risk assessment (WP5) showed that Baltic fish improves public health and even in the target group (fertile women planning to have children), the benefits and risks are close to each other.|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9020|type=|content=We must remember that it is not only about individual choices. Rather, the large retail companies make significant decisions on behalf of consumers. For example, if Prisma in Finland decides to remove a product from their selection, one million Finns will stop using that product. Therefore, the health-based recommendations should be clear and also guide decisions of retail companies.|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9021|type=|content=We can recommend this because there is no zero-risk situation. If people eat less fish, some people will actually die. So, I guess we agree that in general, we should recommend more fish consumption, even Baltic species that contain some pollutants.|sign=}} | |||
:{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5278|type=|content=Yes, there is no zero-risk situation, but why wouldn’t we still aim for minimizing the harm, while maximizing the utilities? This can be done by promoting the use of smaller fish.|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9022|type=|content=For more than 20 years in Finland, there has been discussion about dangerous dioxins in Baltic herring. At the same time, the Baltic herring consumption has decreased by 90 %. Of course this is not only due to the dioxin warnings, but it has probably had a significant role. So, we have lost a lot of people due to cardiovascular diseases that could have been avoided by more fish eating. We have gone too far with our restrictive recommendations.|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5279|type=|content= You say “dioxin warnings, but it has probably had a significant role” - do we have any results in any GOHERR analyses that shows that this is the case? If not, we cannot recommend abandoning dioxin ban, because we do not know how this will affect consumption.|sign=Anna}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5280|type=|content=We don’t have data about historical impacts of recommendations. But we do have data about what people say they would do if recommendations are changed. And that is one part of the model and thus recommendations.|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9023|type=|content=The tooth and IQ problems in children are mild, so we are not putting any identifiable people in great risk. This is in compliance with the "first, do no harm" principle by Hippocrates. Also, the total disease burden in children is not large and it is not that different from the benefits to their families, so there is a fairly good balance also on the subpopulation level. (One additional premise that is not in the model is that if we hope that adults eat fish in the future, they need to learn that when they are children. Therefore, we should not scare young families with horrors of fish eating, because although the risks are not zero, they are not large.)|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9024|type=|content=Recommendation related to fertile women (or even more specifically: fertile women that are planning to get children at some point) is fine. But due to the reasons described above, I think that that is only the second-best recommendation we can make. The best recommendation is that we could just stop worrying about the minor dioxin risk and focus on promoting the consumption of fish, which is healthy for public health, and in the case of Baltic herring also sustainable (unlike many ocean species). Dioxins were the problem of 1980's, but now they are largely in control. In 2010's, we should focus on sustainability, climate change, and food security. Those are the real threats today and the near future|sign=}} | |||
:{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9025|type=|content=This is a good point|sign=Päivi Haapasaari}} | |||
}} | |||
=== Recommendation about dioxin management === | |||
Possible management strategies (several strategies may be applied together) | |||
{{discussion|id=disc9170|type=|Statements=Manage the dioxin problem at the fisheries level.|Resolution=|title=Fishery management|Resolved=|Argumentation= | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5281|type=|content=BONUS GOHERR (WP4) showed that manipulating fish stock sizes and catching strategies is ineffective|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5282|type=|content=Ecological sustainability should be the first criteria for fisheries management. This is important both from the perspective of ecosystem’s stability and the societal food security.|sign=}} | |||
:{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9026|type=|content=This is a good point ( to be used as a justification...)|sign=Päivi Haapasaari}} | |||
}} | |||
{{discussion|id=disc9171|type=|Statements=Manage the dioxin problem by reducing dioxin emissions.|Resolution=|title=Emission management|Resolved=|Argumentation= | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant attack|selftruth1=true|id=arg5283|type=|content=I don’t see why we need this splitting up. I’ve rephrased a recommendation on which to prioritize based on our modelling results, at the beginning of this document.|sign=Anna}} | |||
:{{argument|relat1=relevant comment|selftruth1=true|id=arg0904|type=|content=I split it up due to reasons relating to the argumentation process. Some recommendations have several parts and we may agree on one but not another part. The whole hierachy exercise is for being specific about what we talk about. When a resolution is found, we can rephrase the text as needed.|sign=Jouni Tuomisto}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9027|type=|content=Many dioxin sources are still point sources and can be effectively managed. This approach reduces problems everywhere, not only in Baltic fish.|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9028|type=|content=Dioxins come mostly from burning processes, waste incineration, and metal smelting. Cleaning these processes also helps tackling greenhouse gas and other emissions, not only dioxins.|sign=}} | |||
{{argument|relat1=relevant defense|selftruth1=true|id=arg9029|type=|content=The integrated policy analysis of BONUS GOHERR (WP6, integrating the outputs from the other WPs) showed that reducing the dioxin load is the only effective way to (further) decrease the concentrations in herring and salmon (in comparison with fisheries and nutrient load management).|sign=}} | |||
}} | |||
{{discussion|id=disc9168|type=|Statements=Manage the dioxin problem at the food and feed sector. See “Recommendation about health”.|Resolution=|title=Food management|Resolved=|Argumentation= }} | |||
Revision as of 12:30, 3 September 2018
GOHERR website
Permalink to discussion about the website.
GOHERR recommendations discussion
Recommendation about health
| Fact discussion: Dioxin is a concern (disc9167) |
|---|
| Opening statement: Dioxin is still a concern. Keep the current recommendations (consumption limits for young women), monitoring programs, and concentration limits in food.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
arg5270: . BONUS GOHERR health benefit-risk assessment (WP5) showed that Baltic fish improves public health and even in the target group (fertile women planning to have children), the benefits and risks are close to each other. (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack) arg5271: . BONUS GOHERR survey (WP5) showed that recommendations to limit Baltic herring and salmon use are ineffective on average and even counterproductive with many people. (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack) |
| Fact discussion: Dioxin is a minor concern (disc9168) |
|---|
| Opening statement: Dioxin is a minor concern. Stop health-based dioxin restrictions, but promote eating small fish with less dioxin, just to be on the safe side.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
arg5272: . I think the statement is too controversial for SLU. Andreas (type: relevance; paradigms: science: relevant attack) arg5273: . I cannot support this very general recommendation as you in your analyses do find health risks to children and fetuses, incl serious ones like IQ. The health benefits comes not from Baltic fish, but from any source of omega3, so there is no need to promote eating dioxin-containing fish if there is any risk at all to humans. If you want to have a recommendation on removing the ban for men > 45yr where you saw the health benefits, and for women older than fertile age, that’s fine with me. Anna (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
2 food security argument encourages us to eat Baltic herring, so you have to balance between two harms anyway. We didn't quantify the value of food security so this is done only qualitatively. Jouni Tuomisto (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack) arg0903: . I think the thing to keep is that we should promote is better use of small-bodied fish for human consumption, and incorporate that in the first suggested recommendation above (i.e. to keep current recommendations) Magnus (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant comment) arg5275: . If we believe that dioxin risk is below concern, why do we need extra measures? This gives conflicting messages and deteriorates the main message that people can stop worrying about dioxin in their food. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
arg9018: . Promoting small fish has other reasons, too. Different foods can be made from small fish, and that potential is largely unused (except maybe in Estonia). (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense) arg9019: . The policy analysis model of GOHERR (WP6) demonstrated that all the consumer groups benefit from eating smaller herring (also salmon) as the dioxin concentrations are lower in smaller fish. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense)
|
| Fact discussion: Dioxin is not a concern (disc9169) |
|---|
| Opening statement: Dioxin risk has decreased to level below concern. Stop health-based dioxin restrictions.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
arg5272: . I think the statement is too controversial for SLU. Andreas (type: relevance; paradigms: science: relevant attack) arg5277: . Again: I suggest we do not give this recommendation, but WP5 can tell about the results. Päivi Haapasaari (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack) arg5270: . BONUS GOHERR health benefit-risk assessment (WP5) showed that Baltic fish improves public health and even in the target group (fertile women planning to have children), the benefits and risks are close to each other. (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant defense) arg9020: . We must remember that it is not only about individual choices. Rather, the large retail companies make significant decisions on behalf of consumers. For example, if Prisma in Finland decides to remove a product from their selection, one million Finns will stop using that product. Therefore, the health-based recommendations should be clear and also guide decisions of retail companies. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense) arg9021: . We can recommend this because there is no zero-risk situation. If people eat less fish, some people will actually die. So, I guess we agree that in general, we should recommend more fish consumption, even Baltic species that contain some pollutants. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense)
arg9022: . For more than 20 years in Finland, there has been discussion about dangerous dioxins in Baltic herring. At the same time, the Baltic herring consumption has decreased by 90 %. Of course this is not only due to the dioxin warnings, but it has probably had a significant role. So, we have lost a lot of people due to cardiovascular diseases that could have been avoided by more fish eating. We have gone too far with our restrictive recommendations. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense) arg5279: . You say “dioxin warnings, but it has probably had a significant role” - do we have any results in any GOHERR analyses that shows that this is the case? If not, we cannot recommend abandoning dioxin ban, because we do not know how this will affect consumption. Anna (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack) arg5280: . We don’t have data about historical impacts of recommendations. But we do have data about what people say they would do if recommendations are changed. And that is one part of the model and thus recommendations. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack) arg9023: . The tooth and IQ problems in children are mild, so we are not putting any identifiable people in great risk. This is in compliance with the "first, do no harm" principle by Hippocrates. Also, the total disease burden in children is not large and it is not that different from the benefits to their families, so there is a fairly good balance also on the subpopulation level. (One additional premise that is not in the model is that if we hope that adults eat fish in the future, they need to learn that when they are children. Therefore, we should not scare young families with horrors of fish eating, because although the risks are not zero, they are not large.) (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense) arg9024: . Recommendation related to fertile women (or even more specifically: fertile women that are planning to get children at some point) is fine. But due to the reasons described above, I think that that is only the second-best recommendation we can make. The best recommendation is that we could just stop worrying about the minor dioxin risk and focus on promoting the consumption of fish, which is healthy for public health, and in the case of Baltic herring also sustainable (unlike many ocean species). Dioxins were the problem of 1980's, but now they are largely in control. In 2010's, we should focus on sustainability, climate change, and food security. Those are the real threats today and the near future (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense)
|
Recommendation about dioxin management
Possible management strategies (several strategies may be applied together)
| Fact discussion: Fishery management (disc9170) |
|---|
| Opening statement: Manage the dioxin problem at the fisheries level.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
arg5281: . BONUS GOHERR (WP4) showed that manipulating fish stock sizes and catching strategies is ineffective (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack) arg5282: . Ecological sustainability should be the first criteria for fisheries management. This is important both from the perspective of ecosystem’s stability and the societal food security. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
|
| Fact discussion: Emission management (disc9171) |
|---|
| Opening statement: Manage the dioxin problem by reducing dioxin emissions.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
arg5283: . I don’t see why we need this splitting up. I’ve rephrased a recommendation on which to prioritize based on our modelling results, at the beginning of this document. Anna (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
arg9027: . Many dioxin sources are still point sources and can be effectively managed. This approach reduces problems everywhere, not only in Baltic fish. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense) arg9028: . Dioxins come mostly from burning processes, waste incineration, and metal smelting. Cleaning these processes also helps tackling greenhouse gas and other emissions, not only dioxins. (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense) arg9029: . The integrated policy analysis of BONUS GOHERR (WP6, integrating the outputs from the other WPs) showed that reducing the dioxin load is the only effective way to (further) decrease the concentrations in herring and salmon (in comparison with fisheries and nutrient load management). (type: ; paradigms: science: relevant defense) |
| Fact discussion: Food management (disc9168) |
|---|
| Opening statement: Manage the dioxin problem at the food and feed sector. See “Recommendation about health”.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|