Month: June 2020

Entidade de defesa do consumidor critica aéreas por demora nos reembolsos

De acordo com dados da Iata, as empresas aéreas no mundo têm US$ 35 bilhões em reembolsos de passagens aéreas

Entidade de defesa do consumidor critica aéreas por demora nos reembolsos

O Consumer Choice Center (CCC), organização internacional de defesa do consumidor com atuação em mais de cem países, divulgou uma carta aberta aos presidentes das empresas aéreas, criticando práticas de reembolso adotadas por companhias aéreas durante a pandemia de covid-19.

A carta também foi endereçada à Associação Internacional de Transporte Aéreo (Iata, na sigla em inglês) e à Organização da Aviação Civil Internacional (ICAO). De acordo com dados da Iata, as empresas aéreas no mundo têm US$ 35 bilhões em reembolsos de passagens aéreas, de voos cancelados durante a pandemia de covid-19.

No documento, assinado por Fred Roeder, diretor geral do CCC, a entidade afirma que “muitos agentes do setor não se importam com contratos, leis e promessas feitas a seus clientes”.

De acordo com a entidade, consumidores têm gastado horas com o atendimento de companhias aéreas para tentar recuperar o dinheiro gasto em voos cancelados. Mas, frequentemente, as empresas tentam forçar os clientes a aceitar cupons para viagens futuras.

“Dar a um consumidor a opção de um cupom é bom. Mas negar o reembolso, como muitos de vocês ainda fazem, não é apenas contra a lei, mas também irrita os consumidores. Como sabemos se teremos condição de decolar no próximo ano para fazer a longa viagem que planejamos para este ano? Como sabemos se sua companhia aérea ainda estará no mercado?”, questiona o CCC na carta.

A entidade ainda acrescenta que “centenas de milhões de contribuintes em todo o mundo já estão ajudando vocês através de pacotes de socorro de governos”. “Queremos ajudá-los a permanecer no negócio, mas vocês também precisam respeitar as regras existentes e reembolsar os clientes”, conclui o CCC na carta.

Fabio Fernandes, gerente global de comunicação e relação com a mídia do CCC, disse que diversas empresas aéreas não estão cumprindo suas políticas de reembolso e desrespeitam as leis. Ele cita as aéreas RyanAir, AirEuropa, Air Canada, EasyJet e Alitalia. De acordo com Fernandes, a pior companhia é a RyanAir, que ainda não reembolsou 8 de cada 10 passageiros britânicos com viagens canceladas.

“Na Europa, a legislação estabelece o reembolso integral em caso de voos cancelados, e não apenas um voucher para ser usado na próxima viagem. Existe pressão em Bruxelas dos países membros da União Europeia para uma interpretação diferente dessa regra, porém os esclarecimentos da Comissão Europeia de 18 de março reafirmam o reembolso da tarifa do bilhete para voos cancelados, mesmo no caso do covid-19”, afirmou Fernandes.

Fernandes disse que espera que a Iata, como representante das empresas aéreas, sugira aos seus membros que façam o reembolso imediato dos voos cancelados.

Procurada, a Iata informou em nota que a política de reembolso “é uma decisão comercial de cada companhia aérea”. E acrescentou que a Iata “não tem condições de aconselhar sobre as exigências legais de cada país”.

Conteúdo publicado originalmente no Valor PRO, serviço de notícias em tempo real do Valor


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Entidade de defesa do consumidor critica aéreas por demora nos reembolsos

De acordo com dados da Iata, as empresas aéreas no mundo têm US$ 35 bilhões em reembolsos de passagens aéreas

Entidade de defesa do consumidor critica aéreas por demora nos reembolsos

O Consumer Choice Center (CCC), organização internacional de defesa do consumidor com atuação em mais de cem países, divulgou uma carta aberta aos presidentes das empresas aéreas, criticando práticas de reembolso adotadas por companhias aéreas durante a pandemia de covid-19.

A carta também foi endereçada à Associação Internacional de Transporte Aéreo (Iata, na sigla em inglês) e à Organização da Aviação Civil Internacional (ICAO). De acordo com dados da Iata, as empresas aéreas no mundo têm US$ 35 bilhões em reembolsos de passagens aéreas, de voos cancelados durante a pandemia de covid-19.

No documento, assinado por Fred Roeder, diretor geral do CCC, a entidade afirma que “muitos agentes do setor não se importam com contratos, leis e promessas feitas a seus clientes”.

De acordo com a entidade, consumidores têm gastado horas com o atendimento de companhias aéreas para tentar recuperar o dinheiro gasto em voos cancelados. Mas, frequentemente, as empresas tentam forçar os clientes a aceitar cupons para viagens futuras.

“Dar a um consumidor a opção de um cupom é bom. Mas negar o reembolso, como muitos de vocês ainda fazem, não é apenas contra a lei, mas também irrita os consumidores. Como sabemos se teremos condição de decolar no próximo ano para fazer a longa viagem que planejamos para este ano? Como sabemos se sua companhia aérea ainda estará no mercado?”, questiona o CCC na carta.

A entidade ainda acrescenta que “centenas de milhões de contribuintes em todo o mundo já estão ajudando vocês através de pacotes de socorro de governos”. “Queremos ajudá-los a permanecer no negócio, mas vocês também precisam respeitar as regras existentes e reembolsar os clientes”, conclui o CCC na carta.

Fabio Fernandes, gerente global de comunicação e relação com a mídia do CCC, disse que diversas empresas aéreas não estão cumprindo suas políticas de reembolso e desrespeitam as leis. Ele cita as aéreas RyanAir, AirEuropa, Air Canada, EasyJet e Alitalia. De acordo com Fernandes, a pior companhia é a RyanAir, que ainda não reembolsou 8 de cada 10 passageiros britânicos com viagens canceladas.

“Na Europa, a legislação estabelece o reembolso integral em caso de voos cancelados, e não apenas um voucher para ser usado na próxima viagem. Existe pressão em Bruxelas dos países membros da União Europeia para uma interpretação diferente dessa regra, porém os esclarecimentos da Comissão Europeia de 18 de março reafirmam o reembolso da tarifa do bilhete para voos cancelados, mesmo no caso do covid-19”, afirmou Fernandes.

Fernandes disse que espera que a Iata, como representante das empresas aéreas, sugira aos seus membros que façam o reembolso imediato dos voos cancelados.

Procurada, a Iata informou em nota que a política de reembolso “é uma decisão comercial de cada companhia aérea”. E acrescentou que a Iata “não tem condições de aconselhar sobre as exigências legais de cada país”.

Conteúdo publicado originalmente no Valor PRO, serviço de notícias em tempo real do Valor


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Open Letter to Airline CEOs

Open Letter to Airline CEOs

To the CEOs of Airlines

CC: ICAO, IATA

Open Letter to Airline CEOs: We consumers want to help you, but you need to adhere to the law and allow easy refunds.

Dear Airlines CEOs of the World,

We, as an international consumer group, and consumers who love global connectivity, know full well the devastating impact Covid-19 has had on the airline industry. 2020 has been a tough year for all of us, and our thoughts go out to the airline employees who have been furloughed, fired, or who may still lose their job as a result of the pandemic.

For us consumers, it is extremely important to have a healthy airline industry that allows us to reconnect to the world and bring us back to the skies so we can visit friends and family across the globe.

The years leading up to COVID-19 saw many new regulations and taxes that made it harder for airlines to operate. Even pre-pandemic times saw record numbers of airlines fail. While industry consolidation is something natural and sometimes even good for consumers, trends such as higher taxes and anti-flying sentiments, such as flight shaming, can be attributed to the weaker financial standing of the industry. And then came COVID…

We have been fighting against higher taxes on flight tickets for years and praised the airline industry as a great enabler of consumer choice and globalization. But while 2020 presents us all with challenges from mental health to job security, we also had to learn the hard way that many players in your industry do not care about contracts, the law, and promises made to their customers.

We all have spent too many hours with your call centers this Spring trying to recoup the money we spent on canceled flights. More often than not Airlines have tried to force consumers into accepting vouchers for future trips.

Giving a consumer an option for a voucher is fine. Incentivizing us to take it instead of the cash refund by adding 10-20% extra value to the voucher is even better. We want to keep you afloat and such deals are a way to get our buy-in. BUT denying us refunds, as many of you still do, is not just against the law but also makes consumers angry. How do we know if we are even able to take off next year to go on that long trip we planned for this year? How do we know that your airline will still be in business? Can I get that voucher insured the same way as I had my original ticket insured against your bankruptcy?

We want to be in the air with you as soon as possible, but please do your part and commit to the rule of law and don’t force us to bring you to court. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers across the world are already helping you through government bailouts. We do our part to advocate for fewer levies and taxes paid on airfares and against silly bans of domestic flights, like the ban being discussed in France right now. This will make the sector more competitive and will allow us, consumers, to fly more with you.

We want to help you to stay in business, but you also need to honor existing rules and refund customers. Building trust is not a one-way street and we need to see strong actions from all of you. Let’s put the frustrations we had with your customer service teams behind us, give us our money back (or at least the choice to get refunded), and conquer the skies together once more.


Sincerely,

Fred Roeder
Managing Director
Consumer Choice Center


Originally published here.

Carta abierta a los CEOs de las aerolíneas

Carta abierta a los CEO de aerolíneas: Nosotros, los consumidores, queremos ayudarlo, pero usted debe cumplir con la ley y permitir reembolsos fáciles.

-Carta abierta a los CEO de las aerolíneas-

Estimados CEOs del mundo de Airlines,

Nosotros, como grupo de consumidores internacionales, y consumidores que amamos la conectividad global, conocemos muy bien el devastador impacto que Covid-19 ha tenido en la industria de las aerolíneas. 2020 ha sido un año difícil para todos nosotros, y nuestros pensamientos están con los empleados de la aerolínea que han sido despedidos, despedidos o que aún pueden perder su trabajo como resultado de la pandemia.

Para nosotros, los consumidores, es extremadamente importante tener una industria aérea saludable que nos permita volver a conectarnos con el mundo y llevarnos de vuelta al cielo para que podamos visitar a amigos y familiares en todo el mundo.

Los años previos a COVID-19 vieron muchas nuevas regulaciones e impuestos que dificultaron la operación de las aerolíneas. Incluso en tiempos previos a la pandemia, fracasaron números récord de aerolíneas. Si bien la consolidación de la industria es algo natural y, a veces, incluso buena para los consumidores, las tendencias como los impuestos más altos y los sentimientos antiaéreos, como la vergüenza de vuelo, se pueden atribuir a la posición financiera más débil de la industria. Y luego vino COVID …

Hemos estado luchando contra impuestos más altos en los boletos de avión durante años y elogiamos a la industria de las aerolíneas como un gran facilitador para la elección del consumidor y la globalización. Pero mientras que 2020 nos presenta a todos desafíos desde la salud mental hasta la seguridad laboral, también tuvimos que aprender de la manera difícil que muchos jugadores en su industria no se preocupan por los contratos, la ley y las promesas hechas a sus clientes.

Todos hemos pasado demasiadas horas con sus centros de llamadas esta primavera tratando de recuperar el dinero que gastamos en vuelos cancelados. La mayoría de las veces, las aerolíneas han tratado de obligar a los consumidores a aceptar cupones para futuros viajes.

Darle a un consumidor una opción para un cupón está bien. Incentivarnos a tomarlo en lugar del reembolso en efectivo agregando un valor adicional del 10-20% al cupón es aún mejor. Queremos mantenerlo a flote y tales ofertas son una forma de obtener nuestra aceptación. PERO negarnos los reembolsos, como muchos de ustedes todavía lo hacen, no solo es ilegal, sino que también enoja a los consumidores. ¿Cómo sabemos si incluso podemos despegar el próximo año para emprender ese largo viaje que planeamos para este año? ¿Cómo sabemos que su aerolínea seguirá operando? ¿Puedo asegurar ese comprobante de la misma manera que tenía mi boleto original asegurado contra su quiebra?

Queremos estar en el aire con usted lo antes posible, pero haga su parte y comprométase con el estado de derecho y no nos obligue a llevarlo a los tribunales. Cientos de millones de contribuyentes en todo el mundo ya lo están ayudando a través de rescates gubernamentales. Hacemos nuestra parte para abogar por menos impuestos e impuestos pagados en las tarifas aéreas y en contra de las prohibiciones tontas de vuelos nacionales, como la prohibición que se está discutiendo en Francia en este momento. Esto hará que el sector sea más competitivo y nos permitirá a nosotros, los consumidores, volar más con usted.

Queremos ayudarlo a mantenerse en el negocio, pero también debe cumplir con las normas existentes y reembolsar a los clientes. Crear confianza no es una calle de sentido único y necesitamos ver acciones firmes de todos ustedes. Dejemos atrás las frustraciones que teníamos con sus equipos de servicio al cliente, devuélvanos nuestro dinero (o al menos la opción de obtener un reembolso) y conquiste los cielos una vez más.

Sinceramente,

Fred Roeder
Director general
Centro de elección del consumidor


Published here.

Banning paid blood donations only forces us to pay for foreign donations

David Clement writes about why the Voluntary Blood Donations Repeal Act will allow Alberta to stop paying for paid donations from the United States.

Alberta’s United Conservative Party is proposing a new way to help supply hospitals with much-needed blood plasma therapies, and it would mean letting Albertans receive cash for their donations.

MLA Tany Yao will introduce a bill that would repeal the former government’s Voluntary Blood Donations Act. This would allow for blood plasma donors in Alberta to be compensated for their donations, which the NDP previously made illegal. While this might sound like an obscure policy for most, it is incredibly important that Alberta continues down this path and legalizes compensation for plasma donors.

Blood plasma is a valuable resource used to create medicines that treat burns, help those with immune deficiencies, coagulation disorders and respiratory diseases. Unfortunately, Canada does not collect enough plasma to meet our domestic need for plasma therapies. That’s why for years, we have imported these medicines from the United States. More than 80 per cent of these therapies come from south of the border, where plasma donors are compensated for their donations.

That fact alone makes the NDP’s Voluntary Blood Donations Act a farce, and one worthy of repeal.

Critics of paid plasma argue that compensating donors increases risks and is less safe than voluntary donations. We know that this isn’t true, and can’t be true, because Canada relies on paid plasma donors for their medicines – they just happen to be American instead of Canadian. If compensating donors was really unsafe and risky, we wouldn’t be so comfortable importing these medicines from our American friends. There is also no data to support the claim that paid plasma is risky. There has not been a single instance of viral or bacterial transmission from plasma products since modern processing practices were implemented over 25 years ago. That is exactly why Canadian Blood Services CEO Graham Sher said the following about the existence of a paid plasma sector.

“I certainly need to be very clear that we don’t believe the existence of a paid plasma sector is a safety threat to product or to patients and I don’t think there is data or evidence to support that.”

Critics also posit that compensating donors for their time is exploitation, and that “blood brokers” will be praying on vulnerable citizens. This also doesn’t pass the smell test, because if it were true, critics such as the NDP, Bloodwatch, and their public-sector union partners would be lobbying for a ban on the import of American-made plasma therapies. They aren’t doing that, and haven’t done that, because they know that such a move would be devastating to the patients who rely on these therapies. Compensating donors for their time simply acknowledges the reality that pure altruism isn’t always enough. There is nothing exploitative about informed, medically screened and healthy adults being compensated for their plasma donations to aid the process of making much-needed plasma therapies for patients.

If the UCP succeeds with legalizing paid plasma collection in Alberta, it can be expected that plasma collection will increase in the province, as it has in other jurisdictions. Czechia for example (formerly known as the Czech Republic) legalized compensation and saw donations increase by 700 per cent. Because of that decision, Czechia is now entirely self-sufficient when it comes to blood plasma collection and doesn’t need imports at all. In fact, the only countries who are self-sufficient for plasma collection are the USA, Germany, Austria and Czechia, and they all allow for donors to be compensated. Anti paid plasma organizations like Bloodwatch have long been calling on Canada to become self-sufficient when it comes to plasma collection, but rebuff the obvious solution. It’s a sad fact that they have actively, and successfully, fought the only proven tool to increase domestic supply.

The need for paid plasma becomes even more necessary in these uncertain times. Just this April, President Donald Trump empowered FEMA to prevent the shipment of essential medical goods into Canada as a response to Covid-19. What if Trump banned the export of plasma therapies into Canada? Stranger things have happened. Would our entirely voluntary public system, which accounts for less than 20 per cent of the supply we need, be able to cover the difference? Our country would be struck by severe medical shortages, and the public system wouldn’t be able to cover the gap. To say that this would be devastating for patients would be an understatement.

Luckily there is a way to help avoid that nightmare scenario. Alberta should follow through with its plan to legalize paid plasma, and other provinces should follow suit. Doing so would put patients over politics, and that is something certainly worth celebrating.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Tallinn, Estonia leads the sharing economy index globally

Tallinn leads the way as one of the most sharing-economy friendly cities. Its low level of regulation of ride-hailing and flat-sharing services along with openness to e-scooters, and outstanding innovation in the digital space helped take it to the first place. Estonia is well-known for its booming digital state, Consumer Choice Center reports.

The sharing economy has transformed our lives in a variety of ways. Booking holiday accommodation via flatsharing platforms and grabbing our phone to order a rideshare when we are late to a meeting is a habit many of us share. The innovative nature of the sharing economy has led to its undeniable success. But now, those benefits to consumers are often undermined by excessive regulation and taxation. The current COVID-19 pandemic has shown both how much the sharing economy helped consumers access essential goods and services, while at the same time revealing the very real restrictions and regulations that undermine them.

Consumer Choice Center’s Sharing Economy Index is seeking to rank some of the world’s most dynamic cities and to provide a valuable guide for consumers about the sharing economy services available to them.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Lawmakers Approve Vaping Tax, Raises Age For Tobacco Products To 21

The Senate Finance Committee on Friday passed a measure to raise the tobacco tax in Georgia from 37 cents per pack to $1.35.

Lawmakers on the last day of the legislative session passed a bill taxing vaping products for the first time and raising the age to purchase tobacco products to 21.

The move, when signed by Gov. Brian Kemp, means an estimated $9.6 million and $14.5 million in extra revenue for the state. However, that is far less than the $600 million that was left on the table by not increasing the sales tax on cigarettes, according to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, or GBPI.

Georgia ranks 48th out of 50 for the lowest cigarette tax in the nation.

“If we just assessed that fee of $1.80 on vaping and cigarettes that would raise $600 million a year and just make us average in the nation,” GBPI analyst Danny Kanso said.

That’s because a bill to raise the tobacco tax in Georgia from 37 cents per pack to $1.35 stalled even after passing the Senate Finance Committee last Friday.

Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, who chairs the finance committee, talked about the cuts with GPB’s Bill Nigut on Political Rewind on Thursday morning.

“It’s not just money, it’s health care, too,” he said. “And I just don’t understand why our state doesn’t move forward in that.”

Opponents to the vaping tax said communities of color and lower-income Georgians will be most affected.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, said such a significant vaping tax will come at the expense of poor consumers, and may push smokers across the state back to combustible products.

But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health organizations around the nation have been investigating illnesses related to vaping since last year. At least six Georgians have died from severe lung disease due to vaping, according to the Department of Public Health.

Dr. Saranya Selvaraj said she will never forget how school-aged children watched as their mother’s lung cancer metastasized to her brain before she died. The woman was only in her 50s.

“You go through chemo. You’re in the hospital. You’re on oxygen. You’re in hospice, and it’s a really long, drawn out process that involves a lot of pain,” Selvaraj said. “And then, eventually, you’re just separated from your family by death.”

She said thousands of similar deaths are completely preventable.

The doctor, who treats patients across the metro Atlanta area, said roughly 80 to 90% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cases are directly related to tobacco products. If people stopped smoking, they would see health benefits and long-term savings, Selvaraj said.

“In the long run, if we’re able to use the money on the tobacco tax to help fund tobacco-cessation programs (and)  tobacco-use prevention programs, we are going to help keep people in these communities have longer, healthier lives and save money,” she said.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Helyettesíthető-e minden helyi termékkel?

A civil szervezet szerint az Európai Parlament Kereskedelmi és Fejlesztési Bizottságának véleménye tudománytalan mezőgazdasági elméleteket vezet be.

A Consumer Choice Center (CCC, Fogyasztói Választás Központja) fogyasztóvédő szervezet közleménye bemutatja, hogy az Európai Parlament Nemzetközi Kereskedelmi és Fejlesztési Bizottságának nemrégiben közzétett véleményébe a parlamenti képviselők beillesztették a következő 21. bekezdést (teljes másolatban):”Hangsúlyozza azt a tényt, hogy a COVID-19 által kiváltott zavarok előtérbe helyezték a globális élelmiszerrendszer sebezhetőségét; rámutat továbbá, hogy a mezőgazdasági piacok liberalizálása tovább erősíti az exportorientált mezőgazdaság ipari modelljét, amely jelentősen hozzájárul az éghajlatváltozáshoz, elősegíti az élőhelyek elvesztését és megteremti a vírusok kialakulásának és terjedésének feltételeit; úgy véli, hogy a rövid ellátási láncok és más helyi kezdeményezések ezzel szemben nagy lehetőségeket rejtenek az élelmiszer-rendszer jelenlegi hiányosságainak kezelésére azáltal, hogy javítják a friss élelmiszerekhez való hozzáférést , biztosítja, hogy a gazdálkodók nagyobb értéket szerezzenek, és csökkenti a nemzetközi piacok zavarait és sérülékenységét; ezért sürgeti a Bizottságot, hogy dolgozzon ki stratégiát a kereskedelemorientált agrárpolitikától a helyi és regionális piacok felé való fokozatos eltolódás érdekében; “

„A legmegdöbbentőbb irónia az, hogy a Nemzetközi Kereskedelmi Bizottság azt mondja nekünk, hogy csökkentenünk kell a nemzetközi kereskedelmet és helyi termékeket kell vásárolnunk. Egyrészt az Európai Unió az Egyesült Államok után protekcionizmust követ, másrészt azt mondják nekünk, hogy ha az egységes piacról vásárolunk zöldséget, az sérülékennyé tesz a világjárványokra. Milyen felelőtlen dolog ezt írni!” – mondja Wirtz.

„Egyáltalán nincs bizonyíték arra, hogy a COVID-19 valamilyen módon kapcsolódik a „mezőgazdasági piacok liberalizációjához”. Valójában az az ország, amelyből az új koronavírus származott, nevezetesen Kína, kollektivista gazdálkodást folytat, és nincs jelentős élelmiszerkereskedelme. Kicsinyes összeesküvés-elméletekkel foglalkozni nem méltó az Európai Parlamenthez. Ezt mondják, aztán szerencsére észreveszem, hogy az EPP és az ID képviselői, mint például Gianna Gancia (Olaszország) és Anna Michelle Asimakopoulou (EPP) a vélemény ellen szavaztak.””A helyi termék vásárlása nem minden esetben oldható meg. Én luxemburgi állampolgár vagyok, és szeretek a helyi gazdáktól vásárolni. De ettől még a banántermesztés Luxemburgban meglehetősen eredménytelen és erőforrás-pazarló lenne.

Annak ellenére, hogy: az európai kereskedelem kétségtelenül az európaiak megértésének, versenyképességének és a mezőgazdasági ágazat fejlesztésének legfontosabb tényezője. Nem szabad azonban protekcionizmushoz fordulnunk, sem a nemzeti felsőbbrendűség nevében, sem az összeesküvés-elméletek mentségében “- zárja be Wirtz .


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Rimuovere i bagagli a mano è una scelta insensata

“Ancora una volta l’Italia ha deciso una linea che non è condivisa da nessun altro stato europeo, e che provocherà solo disservizi e problemi ai viaggiatori. Per quanto lo scopo del provvedimento sia nobile, chiediamo un intervento del governo e degli organi competenti, affinché sia revocato il più presto possibile e venga invece presa una decisione a livello continentale sul modo migliore per gestire i bagagli a mano, promuovendo una linea comune tra gli stati membri dell’Unione Europea” Conclude Bertoletti. 

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5ef612a4fc36420004da1470/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

Rimuovere i bagagli a mano è una scelta insensata

“Ancora una volta l’Italia ha deciso una linea che non è condivisa da nessun altro stato europeo, e che provocherà solo disservizi e problemi ai viaggiatori. Per quanto lo scopo del provvedimento sia nobile, chiediamo un intervento del governo e degli organi competenti, affinché sia revocato il più presto possibile e venga invece presa una decisione a livello continentale sul modo migliore per gestire i bagagli a mano, promuovendo una linea comune tra gli stati membri dell’Unione Europea” Conclude Bertoletti. 

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/2BbaMA0

Scroll to top