Talk:Benefit-risk assessment of fish and related policy options

Discussion on the real causality in the model

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Are the causalities correct currently in the model graph?Needs editing Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ----#1:: . Muutoksia jälkimmäisessä kuvassa sekä end pointteja lisätty ja tarkennettu. Onko kuvan fish foor processing ja siitä lähtevät nuolet todenmukaisia? Oma ajtuksenjuoksu on että "fish food processing" vaikuttaa "dietary habitsiin" ja sitä kautta "fish consumptioniin" ja sieltä kautta hyödyllisten/haitallisten aineiden saannin kautta ihmisen terveyteen ja sitä kautta myös sillä on "societal and economical implications". --Olli 24 May 2007 (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#2:: . I agree with both. So a causality exists from "fish food processing" to "dietary habits" to "fish consumption" to "human health effects" to "societal and economical implications" as well as directly from "fish food processing" to "societal and economical implications". --Anna Karjalainen 14:18, 31 May 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----#(number):: . Some other illogical things that I noticed still exists in the model graph. Firstly, nodes that belong into the "environmental pollution" box would be: "quality of fish as food", "implications to fisheries", "xenobiotics in fish" under the original reasoning in the first graph in the main page. As for the "nutritional status of fish" I originally ment ONLY the beneficial effects so I would leave that as well as "intake of beneficial nutrients", "fish consumption", "steering institutional kitchen", "consumption advisories and recommendations" and "dietary habits" and even "xenobiotic exposure" (because it is a consequence of fish consumption) out of the "environmental pollution" box for overall clarity. Secondly, shouldn't we have also arrows from "quality of fish as food" to "dietary habits"; from "xenobiotics in fish" to "dietary habits", "steering institutional kitchen" and "consumption advisories and recommendations"; and from "nutritional status of fish" to "steering institutional kitchen" and "consumption advisories and recommendations". I see these things interrelating, the question is just - from the modellers point of view - that is it logical to draw arrows from decision nodes to variable nodes? --Anna Karjalainen 14:18, 31 May 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Discussion on an appropriate title contra topic

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Is the current topic appropriately defined? Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--1: . Maybe we could narrow down the topic more. By excluding microbiological risks, the topic could be like "Nutritional benefits & chemical risks of fish consumption and related policy options about using fish for human food". I think this topic sounds too plastic and we should work on this more, but this comment is just a starting point to discussions about issue. --Olli 10:45, 17 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--2: . I see what you mean. I first had this title "Benefit-risk assessment of fish on human health and related policy options" in my mind but was a bit insecure about it because it is a long one. Still, it is shorter than yours. Would it clarify the issue enough on your opinion? --Anna Karjalainen 13:56, 18 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) Apologies for this conversation (below) being held in Finnish. This conversation should be continued in English. ⇤--3: . Yksi kommentti: Beneris ei sisällä mikrobiologisia riskejä, joten voimme sen puolesta jättää sen huoletta pois. Tämä työn selkeyttämiseksi kannattaa nyt rajata ulkopuolelle. Toisaalta mikään ei estä meitä myöhemmin ottamasta mikrobiologiaa mukaan myöhemmin, jos tarvetta ilmenee. --Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--4: . Käsittääkseni suurtalouskeittiöiden ohjaus oli tarkoitus käsitellä lähinnä kalan käytön määrää, ei niinkään hygienista laatua. Toki merkittävä ja mielenkiintoinen asia kalansyönnin riskejä ajatellen, mutta onko meidän tarkoitus tutkia mikrobiologista riskiä tämän tutkimuksen scopessa? Eli otsikon pitäisi poissulkea tämä puoli jos näin päätetään. --Olli (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--5: . Kalan käytön määrä on varmaan yksi tärkeimmistä mjista, mutta tärkeää Suomessa on myös mm. se minkä kokoista silakkaa suurkeittiöt käyttävät (vai meneekö tämä tukkumyynnin puolelle), eli minkä kokoista myytäväksi tarjotaan. Suomessa voisi ajatella tehtävän saaliista kokojaottelua, jonka seurauksena vain pienikok. silakka tulisi vähittäis+tukkumyyntiin. En esittänyt tätä "Quality chain management..." asiaa ollenkaan pelkästään lihan mikrobiologiseen laatuun liittyen vaan kalan lihan laatuun ja säilyvyyteen yleisesti ottaen. Sillä luulisi olevan vahvoja kytköksiä kalan kaupattavuuteen/myyntikelpoisuuteen, tämän merkitys meidän pitäisi pohtia myös. Esitän, että asioita joita kuvataan "Quality chain management in fish processing industry"-osiossa (jokseenkin yliolkaisesti tosin koska se oli vain nopea katsaus asiaan) mietitään kuvattaviksi (pystytäänkö ylimalkaan kuvaamaan) ensisijaisesti (tai vain) niiltä osin kuin ne vaikuttavat "Marketabilityn" kautta. Tummansinisiksi väritetyistä solmuista ei mene suoraa nuolta "Human health effects"-solmuun. Siksi nyt viimeisenä kohtana "Policy options implications for fish consumption"-listassa "marketability". --Anna Karjalainen 15:41, 18 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--6: . I agree that we could try to think if we can quantitatively describe "Qualtiy chain management in fish industry" variables whick link to "Human health effects" node. --Olli 15:26, 19 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

The variables included in the causal chain

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Which variables should we include in the causal chain? Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--#1:: . Dark blue boxes representing important nodes, i.e. variables is a good idea, but if the number of pale blue nodes grows much in the future, the model could become hard to read. Could the colour be even fainter to highlight the variables used for modelling? --Olli 08:48, 18 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--#3:: . I don't find this very crucial issue (any longer). I will clarify my thinking on this while answering your second question on this. --Anna Karjalainen 17:50, 18 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--#2:: . I added a graph derived from the previous BRAfish graph to highlight the policy options and where/what they are affecting. --Olli 12:56, 18 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#4:: . The graph is good. Though it still needs some editing. Firstly, "Implications to fisheries" and "Decreased catch per unit effort" should be in the "Environmental pollution" box. There is an causality between "Fisheries management" and "Implications to fisheries". I'd like to see "Nutritional status of fish" instead of "Nutrients in fish". Also, "Intake of beneficial nutrients" is better than "Nutrient exposure". "Fish marketability" and "Quality of fish as food" I find obscure under "Policies on fishery" so I suggest to change the title to something like "Policies on fisheries management and fish processing industry" to cover the policies or decisions in this box. Additionally, this manner of representation is better since it clarifies the chain a lot. However, in order to understand the background thinking behind this topic we still need the more, say, disordered causal graph. Otherwise our choice of variables will be confusing to the newcomers of the site. This applies at least to issues such as "Marketability" and "Quality of fish as food". So what would be your suggestion: to leave the disordered graph into the page, to put it into another one with an interlink or something else? It should be available to anyone. I can write some text in the linkage between these two "while reorganizing the variables we ended up with this causal graph...." --Anna Karjalainen 17:50, 18 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#(4):: . I was not too carefully naming the nodes as I planned this graph for the base of numerical modelling, but I can name the nodes more precisesly for this graph, it's not a big work and it might also help to understand the quantitative model. I think we could have two graphs; the first one covering background knowledge and causal chains and the other one representing and highlighting the policies. I totally agree with the "Fish marketability" and "Quality of fish as food" to be problematic to place under "Policies on fishery". Your idea of expanding the title sounds good too. I did the changes to the graph. --Olli 15:26, 19 April 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Farmed fish

I think we could consider also aquaculture. We are moving from wild fish production to farmed fish production in the future. What kinds of policies are there which have human health consequences (fish feed policies, antibiotics to fish etc.). Or is this going out of scope already? (Olli)

Is farmed fish and policies applied to it, actually more relevant point of discussion? (Pia)

Should we build a model concerning only farmed fish? (Olli)

Politicial decisions of aquaculture and wild fish are connected with each other (Anna)

Could we maintain the possibility to consume both wild and farmed fish in the future. (Anna)

Should we have two different top level diagrams for both farmed and wild fish. Easy to compare. (Olli)

Socio-economic

Should term: socio-economic be called "societal and economical". What exactly do we mean by socio-economical? (Pia & Olli)

Could there be three objective nodes: human health, socio-economic, societal and economical? (Pia)

Socio-economic differencies? (Pia)

Policies

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Could dietary habits be the upper level decision?Needs editing Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--1: . Dietary habits are in a parallel level to steering instituninal kitchen. (Olli, Pia, Anne, Anu) --Olli 11:48, 4 May 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Stakeholders

Anu and Pia can provide ways to find stakeholders. Stakeholders may be involved later in the study.

Farmed vs Wild

Are there significant differencies in the nutritional composition between wild and farmed fish? What are the differencies? What about the contaminants and differencies between these two? Terttu and Hannu might know something.

- does data exist?

- Seafood plus as a source material?