• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Why Rdas And Uls Are Incompatible Standards In The U-shape Micronutrient Model: A Philosophically Orientated Analysis Of Micronutrients' Standardizations
【24h】

Why Rdas And Uls Are Incompatible Standards In The U-shape Micronutrient Model: A Philosophically Orientated Analysis Of Micronutrients' Standardizations

机译：为什么在U型微量营养素模型中Rdas和Uls是不兼容的标准：微量营养素标准化的哲学取向分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Risk assessments of micronutrients are carried out in the customary deficiency-excess model. It is regarded as straightforward and unambiguous. Nevertheless, it is a problematic amalgamation of two different and to a certain extent contrasting perspectives on risk and science that we will criticize in this contribution. Our critique is framed in a conceptual scheme of opposing perspectives highlighted by the rival characteristics of RDAs and SULs and the role of science therein. The one part of our scheme holds the typically modern approach that centers on risks that can be scientifically assessed more or less confidently. Subsequent policies are aimed at preventing major health problems that affect the majority of the population from early on in life. The RDAs are the ideal type-case here. The other part of our scheme holds a much more postmodern approach in which health risks are explicitly recognized as "uncertain." Dealing with those risks has little to do with major health problems from early on in life. Here, we encounter the scientific quandary of disentangling complex factors and impacts that may relate to some extra quality of life later on in life. SULs are exemplarily thereof. We will show that RDAs originally spawned from the scientific aim of securing objective knowledge "to lay down the requirements of an adequate" diet. SULs, conversely, are the upshot of generating acceptable outcomes driven by ever-increasing safety requirements. This shift from securing objective knowledge to generating acceptable outcomes will be addressed in relation to precautionary culture.
机译：微量营养素的风险评估在惯常的过量-过量模型中进行。它被认为是简单明了的。然而，这是两种不同的，在一定程度上形成对比的关于风险和科学的观点的有问题的融合，我们将对此作出批评。我们的批评是建立在对立观点的概念性方案中的，而RDA和SUL的竞争特征以及科学在其中的作用突显了这一观点。我们计划的一部分采用一种典型的现代方法，该方法以可以或多或少自信地进行科学评估的风险为中心。随后的政策旨在防止从一开始就影响到大多数人口的重大健康问题。在这里，RDA是理想的类型。我们计划的另一部分采用了一种更为后现代的方法，其中健康风险被明确认为是“不确定的”。从一开始就应对这些风险与主要的健康问题几乎没有关系。在这里，我们遇到了各种复杂因素和影响的科学难题，这些复杂因素和影响可能与以后生活中的某些额外生活质量有关。 SUL是其示例。我们将显示，RDA最初源自确保客观知识的“科学目标”，以“制定适当的”饮食要求。相反，SUL是由不断增长的安全要求驱动而产生可接受结果的结果。从获取客观知识到产生可接受结果的转变将与预防文化相结合。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号