• Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.21-26
• /
• 2001

Risk assessment traditionally are conducted on individual chemicals; however, humans are exposed to multiple chemicals in daily life. The organophosphorus (OP) pesticides are considered in a single risk assessment because they act by a common mechanism of toxicity, and there is likely to be expose to multiple OP pesticides simultaneously or sequentially. The OP pesticides act by inhibiting the enzyme acetylcholinesterasc (AChE) and have available extensive database. AChE is widely distributed throughout the body, most importantly in the nervous system. Inhibition of AChE results in accumulation of acetylcholine in the nervous system that results in clinical signs of cholinergic toxicity, including increased salivation and lacrimation, nausea and vomiting, muscle fasciculation, lethargy and fatigue, among others. To conduct an exposure assessment for pesticides in the diet, we need to know the food consumption patterns of the populations, and the pesticide residue levels in the foods that are consumed. This study was conducted to identify cumulative dietary risk due to multiple OP pesticides that can be exposed through various foods. Total 22 food samples including cereals, vegetables and fruits were collected randomly two times from food markets in several sites (4 cities). The subjected foods were selected by regarding of highly consumed foods to general Korean people. The 12 OP pesticides including Acephate, Azinphos-methyl, Chlorpyrifos, and Diazinon were monitored. For the exposure assessment, general adult group of 60 kg body weight was regarded as target population and food consumption data suggested by Lee et al. (2000) were used as consumed value of individual food. Analyses of samples for OP pesticides have been carried out according to the multiclass multiresidue analysis method and acephate and methamidophos analysis method of Korea Food Code. In general the levels of OP pesticides found in the food samples were very low or not detected.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.39-77
• /
• 2019

Crew members engaged in international air transportation provide work in many countries due to the nature of their work. According to the Private International Act, the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work plays an important role in the determination of the governing law of the international labor contract (Article 28, Paragraph 2) and in the decision of international jurisdiction (Article 28, Paragraphs 3 and 4). The concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work was proposed by the EU to determine international jurisdiction and governing law. In international aviation law, the legislative purpose of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work is different from that of home base, which is a concept introduced for fatigue management of the crew in order to secure the aviation safety; thus the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work and home base are not the same concept. In order to determine the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work, following matters should be considered comprehensively; (i) where the crew starts and ends work, (ii) where the aircraft the crew is performing work on is primarily parked, (iii) where the crew is informed of the instructions and organizes his/her work activities, (iv) where the crew is obliged to reside according to the labor contract, (v) where there is an office provided by the employer and available to the crew, (vi) where the crew is obliged to be when he/she is ineligible for the work or subject to discipline. However, since all of the above items are the same as the location of the home base, it is reasonable to consider the home base as the most important factor when deciding on the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In contrast, the state where the aircraft is registered (Article 17 of the Chicago Convention), should not be regarded as a place of where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In this case, CJEU provided the first judging standard for the concept of the place where the employee engaged in international air transportation habitually carries out his/her work. It is the interpretation of the Brussels regulations which became a model -for the Korean Private International Act,- so it would be helpful to understand the concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work.