Database

Soils are inadequately characterised (chemistry, physics, biology and rheology) and the interactions between key variables are not understood. Whether or not changes in soil microorganisms would be deemed harmful is not predictable. Commercially relevant soil properties are routinely recorded and could affect land values. There is no mechanism which allows foreseeability of the effects of GM agriculture on land values. Evidence from: AK Lilley et al. Trends in Biotechnology (2006) Vol.24#1 p 10 – 14 “Life in earth: the impact of GM plants on soil ecology?” Studies of microbes in the soil cannot (yet) provide general commercially valuable information. Macroscopic variables, such as water retention, are recorded routinely but linking them and any changes in them with GM agriculture remains speculative. Some changes would be described as contamination, some as changes in biodiversity (both would be of interest to the regulator in charge of remediation). Further detail: 6

State of the art review of the effects of mould exposure. Evidence from: RK Bush et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2006) Vol. 117#2 p 326 – 333 “The medical effects of ‘mold’ exposure” In a jurisdiction where evidence of causation is required, there would be very few successful liability claims. Further information: 6#1 39

Evidence from: HSL and HSE “Psychosocial Working Conditions in Great Britain in 2005” The report examined changes in the levels of the six chosen stressors and related these to self-reported stress levels. There was a link between relationship quality and stress levels but no consistent trend. there was no relevance from role clarity and changes at work. The work would support argument based on a proposed lack of relevance of the stress management standards. This could count in favour of Defendants or Claimants, depending on the circumstances of the case. Further detail: 6#1 38

Report of a seminar on stress. HSE continue to support the stress management standards though accepted there were limitations. The way forward is -seemingly – to identify weaknesses in managers and demonstrate what a good manager looks like. The way to find this out is – seemingly- to ask his employees. In another presentation – in what were seemingly ideal management conditions, workers tended to overwork. Both presentations adopted a position that the only way to tackle stress was at an ever increasingly sophisticated organisational level. In our view, this opinion was more about power politics than about evidence. Further detail: 6#1 37  

A new measure of mental vulnerability has been tested for its ability to predict objective heart disease. It was a significant moderate predictor. Mental vulnerability would probably increase the rate of reports of distress at work, leading to an association between stress and heart disease. Evidence from: LF Eplov et al. J Psychsom Res (2006) Vol.60 p 169 – 176 “Mental vulnerability—a risk factor for ischemic heart disease” Claims defence would be greatly enhanced by there being any history related to mental vulnerability, provided the employer knew and acted accordingly. Most of the indicators of vulnerability are out with any influence the employer can reasonably exert without an explicit request from the employee. Further detail: 6#1 36

Organisational intervention studies to date have produced very disappointing results; the interventions have usually failed. Reasons for this are discussed and tested. Evidence from: R Randall et al. Eur J Work and Org Psych. (2005) Vol.14 p 23 – 41 “Evaluating organizational stress-management interventions using adapted study designs” Group intervention approaches to risk management may have some construct validity but have no effect in practice for individuals at risk. Insurers should be at risk only when individual stress risk management has been rather obviously negligent. Further detail: 6#1 35