Jul272017

News story: Independent report on Kent Oyster Farm published

HM Government

Work by independent experts covers oyster farm development and navigation.

Independent experts commissioned by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have produced a report looking at navigational risks in relation to oyster farm activity in the Whitstable area.

The report, which has been published on the Marine Management Organisation’s website, concludes that the farm’s operations are acceptable as a low risk to marine navigation. It recommends mitigation to reduce the risk even further, although acknowledging that the farm’s owners have already adopted this in some instances.

Assessing navigational risk

In response to questions from members of the public the MMO previously agreed to work with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Trinity House to assess how oyster racks in the area may affect local navigation and safety.

Marine licensing legislation

The MMO’s investigations under its marine licensing remit are still ongoing.

The MMO has a difficult task in managing competing uses of the marine area. It has previously explained its remit and the legislation it enforces relating to this development, specifically under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

The MMO has committed to reviewing its guidance around marine licence exemptions to take into account learning from this issue.

Jul272017

Making farms safer places to work and live

Northern Ireland Executive

Deaths or injuries on farms happen much more often than they should. Farmers are asked to think safety before starting any job to help make farms safer places to work and live.

Preventing accidents 

From quad bike accidents to animal attacks, farming kills and injures more people than any other industry in the UK and Ireland.

Tragically, most accidents are caused by simple factors such as habit, haste, fatigue, and improperly-maintained machinery.

Many farmers think ‘farm safety last’ rather than ‘farm safety first’ but most farming accidents are avoidable.

Safety must never be an afterthought. By taking just a few minutes to think about the job ahead, preventable accidents can be easily avoided by using simple safety practices.

Machinery

Poorly used or faulty machinery is a major cause of death and injury on farms.

Farmers come into contact with a host of machinery daily such as tractors, combines, choppers and hay balers which can bring dangers.

People can be injured by front-end loaders, falling from a moving tractor, or being struck by its wheels.

Also, hands, hair and clothing can be caught by unguarded PTO shafts or other unguarded moving parts such as pulleys and belts.

The following should help you and others to stay safe on your farm:

  • keep all guards in place on tractors and equipment, especially PTO guards
  • make sure that all mirrors and cameras (if fitted) are clean and fully functional on tractors and telescopic handlers
  • make sure equipment is stopped fully before clearing blockages
  • operate tractors with enclosed safety cabs or roll bars
  • take care when mounting or dismounting tractors or telescopic handlers
  • keep the brakes on all your machines properly maintained, especially the parking brakes
  • only start your tractor from the driver’s seat
  • make sure that your tractors starter system works properly
  • when pulling heavy machinery equipped with hydraulic brakes, make sure the brakes are connected to the tractor and work properly

You should:

  • never try to repair machinery if you do not have the correct tools and equipment, and are not competent to do so
  • never run a tractor down a slope to start it
  • never work near overhead power lines when tipping trailers or using high reaching machinery
  • never check hydraulic pipes for leaks by running your finger or hand along them while they are connected and under pressure

Farmers are encouraged to take the appropriate steps before doing any repair work on machinery.

The correct equipment must always be used for the job; this includes wheel chocks and a trolley jack or suitable props. Farmers should also consider employing a competent mechanic to carry out repairs.

Animals

Many farmers never stop to consider why animals behave as they do and, more importantly, what this behaviour could mean to their personal safety.

Livestock can be unpredictable, something that even the most experienced farmer can’t completely plan for.

Handling livestock always involves a risk of injury, and this is increased when an animal becomes frightened or has been startled.

Animals will fiercely defend their food, shelter, territory and young. When frightened or in pain, animals may react in ways that threaten your safety as well as their own.

Although most animal incidents are not fatal, many men, women and children are needlessly injured every year due to a lack of safety awareness. 

It’s important to stress that safe handling equipment is a must, not a luxury.

Falls

Farming carries an above-average risk of falling accidents. Any fall from height can lead to long-term injuries or sadly even death.

Most accidents of this type happen either because the work is not properly planned, the risks are not recognised, proper precautions are not taken, or the equipment used is either defective, not appropriate, or used incorrectly.

While working at heights is always a risky business, there are several things which can be done to reduce those risks. The following checklist can help prevent falls from heights:

  • have you thought about the best way to get up to the job?
  • can you use a cherry-picker or a materials handler (including a fork lift)?
  • do you have a suitable cage or platform attached to the machine?
  • have you done everything you can to avoid using a ladder? 
  • is the ladder in good condition, rungs and stiles sound?
  • is it long enough, reaches to at least 0.9m above the stepping off point?
  • can it be tied or footed?
  • is the roof material fragile, for example asbestos cement sheet?
  • have you got crawling boards or staging to cover the asbestos cement by bridging the joists?
  • can you avoid stepping on the roof-lights?

Remember: you can either fall off or through the roof of a farm building.

More farm safety information

You can find out more about farm safety on the links below:

Always take your time to think about what you are doing, as making a few simple checks could actually save a life – maybe your own.

More useful links

Jul272017

Pyrrolizidine alkaloids in tea, herbal infusions and food supplements

EU

Exposure to pyrrolizidine alkaloids in food, in particular for frequent and high consumers of tea and herbal infusions, is a possible long-term concern for human health due to their potential carcinogenicity, say EFSA’s experts.

The consumption of food supplements based on pyrrolizidine alkaloid-producing plants could also result in exposure levels causing short-term toxicity resulting in adverse health effects.

EFSA has updated its 2011 advice on the risks for human and animal health from pyrrolizidine alkaloids, a large group of toxins produced by different plant species that can unintentionally enter the food chain.

The European Commission requested the updated risk assessment, which takes account of exposure estimates using more recent data on the levels of these toxins in honey, tea, herbal infusions and food supplements.

In 2011 EFSA concluded there were possible long-term health concerns for toddlers and children who are high consumers of honey, the only food category for which sufficient data were then available.

EFSA’s experts identified 17 pyrrolizidine alkaloids in food and feed that should continue to be monitored and recommended further studies on the toxicity and carcinogenicity of those most commonly found in food.

Jul272017

EU report: more evidence on link between antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance

EU

The European Food Safety Authority, the European Medicines Agency and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control are concerned about the impact of use of antibiotics on the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. A new report from the three agencies presents new data on antibiotic consumption and antibiotic resistance and reflects improved surveillance across Europe.

Vytenis Andriukaitis, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, said: “To contain antibiotic resistance we need to fight on three fronts at the same time: human, animal and the environment. This is exactly what we are trying to achieve in the EU and globally with our recently launched EU Action Plan on antimicrobial resistance.

“This new report confirms the link between antibiotic consumption and antibiotic resistance in both humans and food-producing animals.”

A diverse picture

The Joint Interagency Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance Analysis (JIACRA) report highlights that there are still important differences across the EU in the use of antibiotics in animals and humans. Reducing their unnecessary use will have an impact on the occurrence of resistance.

Overall antibiotic use is higher in food-producing animals than in humans, but the situation varies across countries and according to the antibiotics.

In particular, a class of antibiotics called polymyxins – which includes colistin – is used widely in the veterinary sector. It is also increasingly used in hospitals to treat multidrug-resistant infections.

Other antibiotics are more often used in humans than in animals. These include third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and quinolones, antibiotics that are also considered critically important for human health.

Links between antibiotic use and resistance

The report notes that resistance to quinolones, used to treat salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis in humans, is associated with use of antibiotics in animals. The use of third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of infections caused by E. coli and other bacteria in humans is associated with resistance to these antibiotics in E. coli found in humans.

Cooperation spurs better reporting and analysis

The report is the result of close cooperation between the three EU agencies, each drawing on their specific expertise and data from monitoring of antibiotic resistance and antibiotic consumption in animals and humans.

The conclusions are in line with those of the first report published in 2015. However, the availability of better quality data allowed for a more sophisticated analysis.

Experts of the three agencies recommend further research to better understand how the use of antibiotics and resistance affect one another.

Jul272017

News story: Distinguishing between marking errors and differences of opinion

HM Government

Ofqual has today (27 July 2017) published research that shows examiners were able to distinguish between marking errors and legitimate differences of opinion when conducting reviews of marking last summer. The analysis follows the introduction of new rules in 2016 to ensure reviewers only change marks when there is an error, and ensure fairness for all students.

Data published today shows that marks were unchanged following a review in more than half of cases requested by schools and colleges in 2016. Analysis of a sample of cases where marks were changed, including some of the most difficult cases to judge, reveals that examiners acted consistently with the new rules in a clear majority of cases, such that only marking errors were corrected. In a small number of cases a change was made even though there was no error in the original marking, and in a very small number of cases errors were not corrected. The reasons for this, including unusual responses, examiner error and mark schemes, are discussed further in the report.

Commenting on today’s publications, Sally Collier, Chief Regulator said: “It is pleasing to see that our new rules were used in many cases in the way we intended last summer. There will always be a period of adjustment following any change, and we are working with exam boards to identify what can be done this year to be even more confident that students are getting the results their performance deserves.

“Of course, the first best solution remains for original marking to be as good as it can be. Our findings provide some useful information here too, and we believe that improvements are being made through the comprehensive redesign and introduction of new GCSEs and A levels.”

New data have also been published today that show the extent of mark and grades changes in 2016 resulting from reviews of marking and moderation by subject and centre-type. These show that the incidence and extent of mark and grade changes varied by subject, explained by factors including the degree of non-exam assessment, structure of the qualification or nature of the assessment (objective vs subjective).

A further piece of research, also published today, provides an insight into the approaches of exam board moderators when considering centre-marked assessments. It identifies several areas for improvement, including factors that may influence their decisions. However, overall, the evidence is of consistency in their approaches to moderation.

The 4 documents published today are:

  1. ‘Evaluation of Reviews of Marking and Moderation 2016: Study and survey’

  2. ‘Reviews of marking and moderation resulting in grade changes of 2 grades or more: Summer 2016 examination series’

  3. ‘An exploratory investigation into how moderators of non-examined assessments make their judgements’

  4. ‘Reviews of marking and moderation: subject level analyses’

Background

Ofqual is introducing changes to the systems schools and colleges use to challenge GCSE, AS and A level results in England to make them clearer, more consistent, and fairer for all students.

Among several reforms in summer 2016 we changed the rules so that mark changes would only be permitted where there was a marking error. This reflected earlier research that showed inconsistency in how marks were being reviewed, giving those who requested a review an unfair advantage.

In spring 2017, we announced that we would in future give schools and colleges a second opportunity to challenge GCSE, AS level, A level and project results if they continue to have concerns about marking or moderation errors. This adds to their existing right to appeal results on the grounds that an exam board hasn’t followed its own procedures.