Pregnancy weight gain standards are charts describing percentiles of weight gain among participants with no risk factors that could adversely affect weight gain. This detailed information is burdensome to collect. We investigated the extent to which exclusion of various pre-pregnancy, pregnancy and postpartum factors impacted the values of pregnancy weight gain percentiles. We examined pregnancy weight gain (kg) among 3178 participants of the US nuMoM2b-Heart Health Study (HHS). We identified five groups of potential exclusion criteria for pregnancy weight gain standards: socio-economic characteristics (group 1), maternal morbidities (group 2), lifestyle/behaviour factors (group 3), adverse neonatal outcomes (group 4) and longer-term adverse outcomes (group 5). We established the impact of different exclusion criteria by comparing the median, 25th and 75th percentiles of weight gain in the full cohort with the values after applying each of the five exclusion criteria groups. Differences > 0·75 kg were considered meaningful. Excluding participants with group 1, 2, 3 or 4 exclusion criteria had no impact on the 25th, median or 75th percentiles of pregnancy weight gain. Percentiles were only meaningfully different after excluding participants in group 5 (longer-term adverse outcomes), which shifted the upper end of the weight gain distribution to lower values (e.g. 75th percentile decreased from 19·6 kg to 17·8 kg). This shift was due to exclusion of participants with excess postpartum weight retention > 5 kg or > 10 kg. Except for excess postpartum weight retention, most potential exclusion criteria for pregnancy weight gain standards did not meaningfully impact chart percentiles.

Fish and other seafood are a major component of New Zealanders’ diet; the 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 New Zealand Health Survey found that nearly three quarters of New Zealanders eat seafood at least once a week(1). Environmental and ethical factors influence New Zealand consumers’ purchase of seafood and consumers prefer to get their information about seafood at the point of purchase(2). However, environmental claims are not regulated under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, unlike health and nutrition claims. Some seafood products are certified by programmes (e.g. Best Aquaculture Practice (BAP)), ensuring the seafood was sourced according to specific criteria related to environmental management, but other products carry self-declared environmental claims that have not been independently verified. This study aimed to describe labelling practices, including environmental claims, on fish and seafood packaged products sold in major New Zealand supermarkets and available in the 2022 Nutritrack database. Nutritrack is an annual survey conducted by trained fieldworkers who take photographs of all packaged food and beverage products displaying a nutrition information panel (NIP) from 4 major supermarkets in New Zealand. Information from the photographs, including the NIP and the ingredients list is entered into the Nutritrack database. For this study, data (including fish species, harvest location, processing country, fishing method, environmental certifications and self-declared environmental claims) were extracted from the archived photographs of all sides of the packaged fish and seafood products in the 2022 Nutritrack database. Self-declared environmental claims were assessed against the ISO 14021 standard for “Environmental labels and declarations — Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling)” on specific criteria that were relevant for seafood products, including if the self-declared claim mentioned the word “sustainable” (as this term is difficult to substantiate and should be avoided); was vague and non-specific; or overstated the benefits (to imply multiple benefits from a single environmental change). There were 369 fish and seafood products included in this study. Eighty-eight products (23.8%) displayed a certification; the Marine Stewardship Council’s certification (MSC) for wild fish was the most common and was featured by 72 products (19.5%). One hundred and fifty-two products (41.2%) displayed at least one self-declared claim. Thirty-three distinct self-declared environmental claims were identified, 16 (48.5%) of which breached the ISO 14021 standard for environmental declarations because they used the term “sustainable” and 26 (78.8%) of which breached the ISO 14021 standard because they were vague. This analysis suggests that stricter regulation is needed for self-declared environmental claims on fish and other seafood products available for purchase in New Zealand, to prevent greenwashing and to provide consumers transparent, accurate and substantiated information.

The SUERC Radiocarbon Laboratory reports approximately 3000 unknown samples per year with an additional 1200 samples processed for quality assurance purposes. In addition to the primary OxII standard (SRM-4990C) required for AMS batch normalization, secondary “known-age” standards have been used over many years to evaluate individual batch quality. These have included wood (as prepared alpha-cellulose), barley mash, humic acid, a background mammoth bone, known-age bones, and a whisky sample. In this paper, we present some of the results gathered over routine laboratory operation (for more than 10 years) and examine the results illustrating how they are being used to monitor and quality assure performance. Since many of these samples have also been used in the Glasgow intercomparisons, we will also reflect on the results, as well as the actual and potential uses of such samples.

The next generation of high-power lasers enables repetition of experiments at orders of magnitude higher frequency than what was possible using the prior generation. Facilities requiring human intervention between laser repetitions need to adapt in order to keep pace with the new laser technology. A distributed networked control system can enable laboratory-wide automation and feedback control loops. These higher-repetition-rate experiments will create enormous quantities of data. A consistent approach to managing data can increase data accessibility, reduce repetitive data-software development and mitigate poorly organized metadata. An opportunity arises to share knowledge of improvements to control and data infrastructure currently being undertaken. We compare platforms and approaches to state-of-the-art control systems and data management at high-power laser facilities, and we illustrate these topics with case studies from our community.

In the late twentieth century, the European Union (EU) emerged as a global leader in setting environmental protections, including vehicle emissions standards. But member state consensus around environmental rules did not come easily, and the regional norms eventually set by the EU and its predecessor, the European Economic Community, had complex origins. This article argues that common emissions standards were ultimately achieved through a public-private process during the program to create the Single European Market in the 1980s and 1990s. For regional policymakers, standards were key to achieving an internal car market and strengthening the auto industry's global competitiveness; for many European carmakers and their transnational business associations, common norms could facilitate economies of scale and level the playing field. The “liberal environmentalism” born out of this convergence of interests produced common standards that fell pragmatically between the greenest member states and those most invested in protecting their national champion firms.

No matter how good a smart device may be, it remains useless outside the context of a digital ecosystem. Internet of Things (IoT) environments are possible as long as services and products can interconnect smoothly and exchange data in real time. Therefore, interoperability ranks high in global policy agendas, with the promise of bringing an end to network effects slanted in favour of ecosystem orchestrators. However, recent regulatory initiatives introducing interoperability obligations risk falling short of their intent or even risk generating unintended consequences in the absence of a coherent approach to standardisation. Against this backdrop, focusing on the UK Open Banking experience, this article makes a proposal for workable interoperability in IoT ecosystems aimed at ensuring market contestability without undermining incentives to innovate.

In the social debate about animal welfare we can identify three different views about how animals should be raised and how their welfare should be judged: (1) the view that animals should be raised under conditions that promote good biological functioning in the sense of health, growth and reproduction, (2) the view that animals should be raised in ways that minimise suffering and promote contentment, and (3) the view that animals should be allowed to lead relatively natural lives. When attempting to assess animal welfare, different scientists select different criteria, reflecting one or more of these value-dependent views. Even when ostensibly covering all three views, scientists may differ in what they treat as inherently important versus only instrumentally important, and their selection of variables may be further influenced by a desire to use measures that are scientifically respected and can be scored objectively. Value assumptions may also enter animal welfare assessment at the farm and group level (1) when empirical data provide insufficient guidance on important issues, (2) when we need to weigh conflicting interests of different animals, and (3) when we need to weigh conflicting evidence from different variables. Although value assumptions cannot be eliminated from animal welfare assessment, they can be made more explicit as the first step in creating animal welfare assessment tools. Different value assumptions could lead to different welfare assessment tools, each claiming validity within a given set of assumptions.

Animal welfare is of increasing significance for European consumers and citizens. Previously, agricultural production focused mainly on supply, price and competition but consumers now expect their food to be produced and processed with greater respect for the welfare of the animals. Food quality is therefore determined by the welfare status of the animals from which it was produced as well as the nature and safety of the end product. Thus, practical welfare improvement strategies and reliable on-farm monitoring systems for assessing the animals’ welfare status and evaluating potential risks are urgently required to accommodate societal concerns and market demands. It is also of paramount importance to define the kind of information that consumers want about the final products and to develop effective strategies for communicating welfare standards to the public. Generating an intensified dialogue with all factions of society on welfare issues as well as appropriate labelling of animal products and farming systems that offer guarantees about welfare issues and production conditions will, in turn, promote transparency and the societal sustainability of European agriculture. Welfare is multidimensional. It cannot be measured directly but only inferred from external parameters. Therefore, the integration of the most appropriate specialist expertise in Europe is essential to develop, refine, standardise and intercalibrate welfare monitoring systems and to identify and validate remedial measures. We must establish a European standard for welfare assessment systems in order to facilitate intra-European trade and marketing. Only then can we harmonise labelling that is informative and relevant to all European consumers.