Sports foods are formulations of protein powders, carbohydrate gels and other nutrients such as creatine and pre work out, that are designed for athletes to provide additional nutrients for optimum performance(1). These contain specific amounts of nutritive substances not meant for non-athletes(2). However, over the last decade there has been a substantial increase in the availability, types, and sales of sports foods in mainstream retailers(3,4), likely driven by non-athlete consumption. Increased consumption could lead to nutrient intake above recommendations(5) or unwanted side effects (e.g. caffeine overload) due to consumption of multiple products(6). Little is known about the characteristics and motivations of non-athletes and it is important to understand the drivers of this increase, to ensure appropriate and safe consumption. This study aims to investigate characteristics and motivations, consumption patterns, exercise participation, reasons for product selection and perception of risks and side effects of non-athlete sports food consumers. In 2022, non-athlete Australian adults (18-65) completed a purpose designed online cross-sectional survey. Closed ended questions collected demographic characteristics, sports food consumption (type, frequency, amount, cost), exercise participation (type, frequency, duration), purchase location, recommendation source (friends, family social media) and use of packaging attributes (e.g. claims) to inform decision making. Open-ended questions captured reasons for consumption, perceptions of any risks and side effects experienced. Descriptive statistics were performed for participant characteristics and open-ended questions were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Participants (n = 307) were predominately female (56%), middle aged (45%), moderate income earners (53%) and tertiary educated (54%). Protein products were most consumed (powder 82%, bar 61%, snack 37%), with over two thirds (65%) consuming 2 or more products. Walking was the most frequent exercise performed (65%), supermarkets the most common purchase location (52%) and media the most frequent recommendation source (39%), with on-pack nutrition information being used by most respondents (95%) to inform product selection. Just over half (52%) stated perceived risks and more than a third (35%) reported experiencing side effects from sports food consumption. The main reasons for consuming sports foods were for protein intake, muscle recovery, stamina and energy. The key risks stated were kidney/liver/organ effects, caffeine overdose and gut/digestion problems. The main side effects reported were bloating, tingling, anxiety (jitters, shaking, trembling), nausea or stomach upsets. Despite the consumer characteristics and their stated awareness of the risks, and side effects experienced, they continue to consume sports foods for their many perceived benefits. This is potentially driven by on-pack nutrition information and claims, which appear particularly influential in purchasing. Previous research shows that on-pack information can be inaccurate, or misleading(4). Tighter regulation and enforcement would benefit non-athletes, ensuring safer and more informed consumption.

The Stanford Population Health Sciences Data Ecosystem was created to facilitate the use of large datasets containing health records from hundreds of millions of individuals. This necessitated technical solutions optimized for an academic medical center to manage and share high-risk data at scale. Through collaboration with internal and external partners, we have built a Data Ecosystem to host, curate, and share data with hundreds of users in a secure and compliant manner. This platform has enabled us to host unique data assets and serve the needs of researchers across Stanford University, and the technology and approach were designed to be replicable and portable to other institutions. We have found, however, that though these technological advances are necessary, they are not sufficient. Challenges around making data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable remain. Our experience has demonstrated that there is a high demand for access to real-world data, and that if the appropriate tools and structures are in place, translational research can be advanced considerably. Together, technological solutions, management structures, and education to support researcher, data science, and community collaborations offer more impactful processes over the long-term for supporting translational research with real-world data.

In the article ‘How to be absolutely fair, Part I: the Fairness formula’, we presented the first theory of comparative and absolute fairness. Here, we relate the implications of our Fairness formula to economic theories of fair division. Our analysis makes contributions to both philosophy and economics: to the philosophical literature, we add an axiomatic discussion of proportionality and fairness. To the economic literature, we add an appealing normative theory of absolute and comparative fairness that can be used to evaluate axioms and division rules. Also, we provide a novel definition and characterization of the absolute priority rule.

We present the first comprehensive theory of fairness that conceives of fairness as having two dimensions: a comparative and an absolute one. The comparative dimension of fairness has traditionally been the main interest of Broomean fairness theories. It has been analysed as satisfying competing individual claims in proportion to their respective strengths. And yet, many key contributors to Broomean fairness agree that ‘absolute’ fairness is important as well. We make this concern precise by introducing the Fairness formula and the absolute priority rule and analyse their implications for comparative fairness.

Human rights — Treaties — Scope of application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Application during international armed conflict — Application to State in respect of events outside territory of that State

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Human rights — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — International armed conflict — Active hostilities — Occupation — Legal space — Effective control over an area — State agent authority and control over individuals

Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 — Right to life — Procedural aspect of Article 2 — Article 3 — Torture and inhuman treatment — Prisoners of war — Detained civilians — Article 5 — Arbitrary detention — Detention of civilians during international armed conflict — Article 8 — Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 1 — Protection of property — Right to education — Article 2 of Protocol No 4 — Freedom of movement — Right to displaced civilians to return home — Whether administrative practice in violation of Convention — Relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law

Territory — Occupation — International armed conflict — Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Effective control over territory — State obligations under Convention while occupying territory of another contracting State

Claims — Exhaustion of local remedies — Application in human rights cases — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 35 — Whether requirement to exhaust domestic remedies in cases of administrative practice in violation of Convention

War and armed conflict — Applicable law — Relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Occupied territory — Prisoners of war — Civilian population of occupied territory

International Court of Justice — Alleged violations of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955 — Alleged violations of customary rules of international law on sovereign immunity — Preliminary objections — Jurisdiction of the Court — Admissibility of claims

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction under Article XXI(2) of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955 — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Article XX(1)(c) and (d) of 1955 Treaty — Whether 1955 Treaty including restrictions on scope of International Court of Justice jurisdiction — Issue already decided in Court’s earlier jurisprudence — Confirmation of earlier findings — Whether certain provisions of 1955 Treaty incorporating rules of customary international law on sovereign immunity — Article IV(2) — Article XI(4) — Article III(2) — Article IV(1) — Article X(1) — Definition of “company” under Article III(1) of 1955 Treaty — Whether Central Bank of Iran a “company” under 1955 Treaty — Relevance of an entity’s functions for it to be a “company” under 1955 Treaty — Determination of functions a matter for merits — Whether objection possessing an exclusively preliminary character

Claims — Admissibility of claims — Abuse of process — Distinction from abuse of rights — Abuse of process not a new objection — Re-characterisation of objection — Exceptional circumstances not present — Unclean hands — Allegations of sponsoring terrorism — No decision on status of unclean hands doctrine under international law — Whether conditions for unclean hands doctrine satisfied in the circumstances

Claims — Inter-State cases — Claims for just satisfaction — Whether Article 41 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 applicable to inter-State cases — Judgment in Cyprus v. Turkey — Whether Article 41 of Convention applicable to present case — Whether present case fulfilling three criteria set out in Cyprus v. Turkey — Whether award of just satisfaction justified — Determination of sufficiently precise and objectively identifiable group of people — Criteria for award of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage — Requirement for distribution of damages to members of group

Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 41 — Inter-State case — Claims for just satisfaction for breach of human rights — Non-pecuniary damage — Whether victims identifiable — Determination of sufficiently precise and objectively identifiable group of people — Whether claim could be submitted under Article 41 of Convention — Whether award of just satisfaction justified — Criteria to be applied

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Damages — Non-pecuniary damages — Inter-State case — Damages awarded for distribution to group of nationals — Supervision of distribution — Role of Council of Ministers

State responsibility — Obligation on State responsible for internationally wrongful act to make reparations — Just-satisfaction rule deriving from public international law principles relating to State liability — Duty of States to co-operate under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Obligation on State to abide by final judgment of European Court of Human Rights

Consumers are increasingly interested in the sustainability of food products, but so far, no specific European Union (EU) legislation has been developed to harmonise sustainability claims. We analyse which efforts already undertaken within the EU dealing with sustainability claims on products apply to sustainable food claims. We show that whilst sustainability can address three different dimensions (environmental, social and economic), it is crucial to clearly define sustainability in order to allow for the development of concrete regulations and guidance documents. EU legislative initiatives so far seem to be focused on environmental aspects, whilst Member States approach sustainability more broadly. At the same time, substantiation methods can only be successful when sustainability is well defined. We conclude that whilst there is a large range of initiatives taken at different levels, the foundation of these initiatives remains weak when there is no clear scope of terminology nor clarification of substantiation requirements. Currently existing self-regulatory initiatives could support protecting consumers from misleading claims by providing specific provisions for (food) business operators on how to make sustainability claims. Only when claims can be trusted and understood by consumers will they be able to make more sustainable purchase decisions. This plays an important role in the overall policy objective of the EU of climate neutrality by 2050.

Skepticism about blameworthiness says that there is good reason to doubt that, in our world, humans are ever blameworthy for their deeds. A significant problem for the discussion of this view is that it is unclear how to understand the kind of blame that should be at issue. This paper makes a new proposal. The basic idea is that the kind of blame skeptics should be skeptical about is constituted by responses that can violate the targets’ claims and by the responders’ thought that the targets have forfeited this claim because of their morally objectionable actions and because of how they were when they performed them. This view identifies an important part of our everyday lives and frames discussions about skepticism about blameworthiness in a new way.