Database

There is uncertainty surrounding the long term health effects of added phosphates in foods and beverages; though they have been used in processed foods for a very long time. The intended uses are many, varied and highly prevalent. These are the right conditions to register as an emerging liability risk; exposure uncertainty may be much larger than the estimated risk itself. Evidence from: E Ritz et al. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2012; 109(4): 49-55 Phosphate Additives in Food—a Health Risk While generally regarded as safe, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests room for doubt about this designation. There is a coherent mechanism, via the effect of phosphates on calcium, that would predict problems with existing heart disease and even causation. Risks so far have been measured as small. Liability risk managers have to assess the potential product liability exposure, keeping in mind that some of the predicted outcomes are indivisible. There are also potential D&O risks associated w

Two key starting points: In a well managed system, the decision-maker will know how close to the wind he is sailing. He will know how big  a chance change in wind speed needs to be to give him that extra reward, or risk toppling the ship. Appetite for risk plays an important part; the more chance you take, the bigger the potential reward, and the bigger the potential cost of emergency action. It follows that the successful decision-maker will have a keen interest in the projection of revenue and outgo. Regulators and shareholders would expect expert, transparent and auditable systems, and experienced judgements to be in place. For an overview of the expected approach and how there are particular problems with liability insurance see : Emerging risks management – overview For liability insurance business, the plan begins with identifying the right definition of emerging liability risk:  projected liability exposure will probably exceed its anticipated level by more than its accept

Some of our most talented minds and the vast computing resources at their disposal have been devoted to climate modelling. This has been a huge academic exercise producing an array of approximate solutions which now seem to converge on a view about anthropogenic effects. Man has had and will have a measurable effect on the climate. The basic science is accepted but it is still unclear whether or not some key elements of the model have been missed out or are poorly approximated. This continues to drive the academic endeavour. Does this matter? The simple question soon reveals that in their tremendous efforts to make good physics the basic question has not been answered: are any of the models fit for purpose? If not, will they ever be? Fit for purpose implies that someone needs to be making some kind of decisions based on these models. But who? Politicians, insurers, estates managers, businesses, charities among others. But in each region each stakeholder will have different action thres

BERNARD DIXON, ETC., ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 536 September Term, 2011 Plaintiffs expert [Dr Welch] on causation asserted: “every exposure to asbestos is a substantial contributing cause and so brake exposure would be a substantial cause even if [the plaintiff] had other exposures.” On cross-examination, Dr. Welch further explained her opinion that every exposure to asbestos is a “substantial contributing cause” of mesothelioma. The judgment analyses this as follows: Where the question of causation is probabilistic: “substantiality” and “responsibility” necessarily imply some test of magnitude, viz., how much must exposure have increased one’s risk of harm in order to hold the responsible party liable? “substantiality” is essentially a burden of proof For reasons we need not explore in detail, it is not prudent to set a singular minimum “relative risk” value as a legal standard.  The judgment refers to the problem, namely, th

The report outlines how noise pollution can affect wellbeing and perhaps also health. Annoyance and heart disease are highlighted here. The report follows an EU Directive on noise pollution and aims to encourage harmonisation of responses across Europe. Evidence from: European Environment Agency ISBN 978-92-9213-140-1 Oct (2010) Good practice guide on noise exposure and potential health effects Risk of heart attack has been related to environmental noise exposure. 11#1 4

Smoking as a contributor to the cause of occupational lung cancer has been taken to court, but the situation is unclear. The detailed mechanisms now being worked on will allow greater certainty in the future, but not yet. In the alternate, inflammation could be used as a catch-all mechanism. Any cause or contributor to inflammation could be cited as a contributory cause. Cancer is indivisible, BUT, details of the mechanism could provide defences based on timing of exposure, and de minimis. Smoking causes cardiovascular disease. Occupational or product contributions to this would be possible. Indivisible and divisible outcomes are both possible. Likely claims involving smoking would be when fine dust exposure is alleged to be a cause of indivisible heart disease. More speculative would occupational causes of debilitating high blood pressure or angina; both of which are divisible. Evidence from: A report of the Surgeon General (2010) ISBN 978-0-16-084078-4 How Tobacco Smoke Causes Diseas