Difference between revisions of "Talk:Benefit-risk assessment of fish and related policy options"
m (→Farmed vs Wild) |
(Discussion on the real causality in the model) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ==Discussion on the real causality in the model== | ||
+ | {{discussion | ||
+ | |Dispute= Are the causalities correct currently in the model graph? | ||
+ | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | ||
+ | |Argumentation = | ||
+ | {{comment|#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".|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 24 May 2007}} | ||
+ | :{{defend|#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".|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 14:18, 31 May 2007 (EEST)}} | ||
+ | {{comment|#(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? |--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 14:18, 31 May 2007 (EEST)}} | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | |||
==Discussion on an appropriate title contra topic== | ==Discussion on an appropriate title contra topic== | ||
Revision as of 11:18, 31 May 2007
Contents
Discussion on the real causality in the model
Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, 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
--#(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) |
Discussion on an appropriate title contra topic
Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, 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)
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 ⇤#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
|
- ←#(5): : 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)
The variables included in the causal chain
Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, 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)
⇤#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)
|
- ←#(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)
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
discussion:
Dispute= Could dietary habits be the upper level decision?
Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
Argumentation =
⇤#(1): : Dietary habits are in a parallel level to steering instituninal kitchen. (Olli, Pia, Anne, Anu) --Olli 11:48, 4 May 2007 (EEST)
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?