The comparative toxicity to soil invertebrates of natural chemicals and their synthetic analogues

The introduction of Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH), requires companies to register and risk assess all substances produced or imported in volumes of >1 tonne per year. Extrapolation methods which use existing data for estimating the effects of chemicals are attractive to industry, and comparative data are therefore increasingly in demand. Data on natural toxic chemicals could be used for extrapolation methods Such as read-across. To test this hypothesis, the toxicity of natural chemicals and their synthetic analogues were compared using standardised toxicity tests. Two chemical pairs: the napthoquinones, juglone (natural) and 1,4-naphthoquinone (synthetic); and anthraquinones, emodin (natural) and quinizarin (synthetic) were chosen, and their comparative effects on the survival and reproduction of collembolans, earthworms, enchytraeids and predatory mites were assessed. Differences in sensitivity between the species were observed with the predatory mite (Hypoaspis aculeifer) showing the least sensitivity. Within the chemical pairs, toxicity to lethal and sub-lethal endpoints was very similar for the four invertebrate species. The exception was earthworm reproduction, which showed differential sensitivity to the chemicals in both naphthoquinone and anthraquinone pairs. Differences in toxicity identified in the present study may be related to degree of exposure and/or subtle differences in the mode of toxic action for the chemicals and species tested. It may be possible to predict differences by identifying functional groups which infer increased or decreased toxicity in one or other chemical. The development of such techniques would enable the use of read-across from natural to synthetic chemicals for a wider group of compounds. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The medieval papacy and holy war: General crusading letters and papal authority, 1145-1213

Chapter in an edited collection on the twelfth-century papacy and its authorisation of crusades to the Near East.

No asylum for “Infiltrators”: the legal predicament of Eritrean and Sudanese nationals in Israel

This article explores the precarious status of Eritrean and Sudanese nationals in Israel. Having crossed the Israeli-Egyptian border without authorisation and not through an official border crossing, Israeli law defines such individuals as ‘infiltrators’, a charged term which dates back to border-crossings into Israel by Palestinian Fedayeen in the 1950s. Eritreans and Sudanese nationals constitute over 90 percent of ‘infiltrators’ in Israel. Their livelihood is curtailed through hostility, sanctions, and detention, while (at the time of writing) Israel refrains from deporting them to their respective countries of origin, recognising that such forced removal could expose them to risks to their lives and/or freedom. Israel was the 10th state to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention, and has acceded to its 1967 Protocol which removed the 1951 Convention’s temporal and geographic restrictions, yet it has not incorporated these treaties into its domestic law not has it enacted primary legislation that sets eligibility criteria for ‘refugee’ status and regulates the treatment of asylum-seekers. Israeli law also fails to accord subsidiary protection status to persons that the state considers to be non-removable, whether or not they satisfy the definition of a ‘refugee’ under the 1951 Convention. Absent legal recognition of ‘refugee’, ‘asylum-seeker’, and ‘beneficiary of subsidiary protection’ statuses, Eritreans and Sudanese nationals are left in legal limbo for an indefinite period qua irregular non-removable persons. This article takes stock of their legal predicament.