fbpx

Month: October 2023

Gene-Editing Breakthrough: Revolutionizing Sickle Cell Treatment

In the realm of medical science, groundbreaking innovations are constantly reshaping the landscape of healthcare. One such marvel that has recently come to the forefront is the revolutionary gene-editing technology, CRISPR, poised to transform the lives of those suffering from debilitating genetic disorders. In a significant stride towards a potential cure, independent experts are set to evaluate a pioneering treatment designed to edit the genes of patients afflicted with sickle cell disease.

Sickle cell disease, a genetic disorder affecting approximately 100,000 individuals in the United States, primarily among people of color, has long been a challenge for both patients and medical professionals. The condition leads to deformed red blood cells, causing complications such as extreme fatigue, blood vessel blockages, and excruciating pain, significantly reducing the life expectancy of those affected. Traditional treatments, including stem cell transfusions, offer relief from symptoms but fail to address the underlying cause of the disease.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics have collaborated on a pioneering therapy that harnesses the power of CRISPR technology. This groundbreaking treatment aims to modify the stem cells of individuals suffering from sickle cell disease, potentially offering a cure that was once deemed unattainable. The therapy’s developers believe that the data amassed so far not only showcases its potential as a cure but also paves the way for a new era of gene-editing treatments.

At the heart of this medical marvel lies CRISPR, a gene-editing technique that holds the promise of precision medicine. By modifying the targeted genes responsible for sickle cell disease, CRISPR technology presents hope for patients who have long endured the limitations of existing treatments. The potential of this therapy to alleviate the debilitating symptoms of sickle cell disease, such as painful blood vessel blockages, has been demonstrated in late-stage trials. Remarkably, 29 out of 30 participants who received the treatment did not experience severe, painful blockages necessitating hospitalization for an entire year.

The significance of this innovation extends far beyond the realm of sickle cell disease. It represents a historic moment for CRISPR technology, showcasing its potential to revolutionize the treatment landscape for various genetic disorders. What sets this therapy apart is its ability to address the root cause of the disease, offering transformative possibilities for patients who previously had limited effective treatment options.

Despite the immense potential, the therapy’s approval is not without its challenges. The expert panel evaluating the treatment will scrutinize not only its efficacy but also the technology’s precision. Ensuring that CRISPR technology edits only the targeted genes is paramount, as off-target editing could lead to unintended consequences. To address these concerns, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics are rigorously assessing their data and conducting comprehensive analyses to demonstrate the therapy’s safety and accuracy.

Moreover, the affordability and accessibility of this innovative treatment remain crucial considerations. Insurers face the challenge of providing coverage for a therapy that holds immense promise but comes with a substantial price tag. However, if approved, this treatment could mark a turning point not only for CRISPR technology but also for patients battling severe sickle cell disease. It offers hope, not just for a better quality of life but for a life free from the shackles of this debilitating genetic disorder.

As we eagerly await the FDA’s decision, anticipated by December 8th, the medical community and patients alike hold their breath, hoping for a positive outcome. If approved, this therapy will not only signify a triumph for science but also a victory for those who have long awaited a cure. The journey of medical innovation is often arduous, but the strides made in the realm of gene-editing stand as a testament to human ingenuity, resilience, and the unwavering pursuit of a healthier, disease-free world.

Eglė Markevičiūtė Appointed Head Of Digital And Innovation Policy At Consumer Choice Center

Brussels, BE – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC), a global consumer advocacy group, announces the appointment of Eglė Markevičiūtė, former Lithuanian Deputy Minister of Economy and Innovation, as Head of Digital and Innovation Policy. In her new role, Markevičiūtė will spearhead innovative consumer policies in the digital, innovation, and communication realm, shaping digital policy advocacy for the CCC.

Markevičiūtė, with her background in digital and innovation policy management, as well as public affairs, expressed her enthusiasm for the opportunity, “I am honored to join the Consumer Choice Center and contribute to advocacy for consumer and competition-oriented digital, communication & innovation policies across the globe. The consumer-centric approach needs to become a bigger priority for global policymakers. We need a more transparent and inclusive ex-post analysis of regulation for the most innovative sectors, and if liberal democracies take the global innovation race seriously, we must address the fact that we have to focus not only on risk prevention and careful planning but also on calculated risk-taking.”

Consumer Choice Center Managing Director Fred Roeder expressed his excitement about Markevičiūtė joining the team, saying, “We are thrilled to have Eglė Markevičiūtė on board as our Head of Digital and Innovation Policy. Her expertise and passion for consumer advocacy align perfectly with our mission. Her appointment will undoubtedly strengthen CCC’s footprint on digital and innovation policies across the globe. We believe her insights will be invaluable in shaping policies that prioritize consumer choice, innovation, and digital rights.”

Markevičiūtė brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the CCC, having served in key positions within the Lithuanian government. Her appointment marks a significant step for the organization, reaffirming its commitment to empowering consumers in the digital era.

Consumer Choice Center is a global consumer advocacy group dedicated to promoting competition and choice in the marketplace. With Markevičiūtė leading the digital policy efforts, the organization is poised to make a substantial impact on consumer rights and innovation in the digital space.

About the Consumer Choice Center

The Consumer Choice Center is a global consumer advocacy group that empowers consumers to promote competition, choice, and consumer freedom. We stand up for consumer choice in the digital age, ensuring consumers can access innovative products, services, and technologies that enhance their lives. For more information, visit consumerchoicecenter.org.

About Eglė Markevičiūtė

Eglė Markevičiūtė is a seasoned expert in economic and innovation affairs. She previously served as the Deputy Minister of Economy and Innovation in Lithuania, where she played a key role in shaping policies to foster innovation and digital reforms. With her expertise in digital and innovation policies, Markevičiūtė is well-positioned to drive consumer-centric initiatives in the digital sphere.

About Fred Roeder

Fred Roeder is the Managing Director of the Consumer Choice Center. He is a passionate advocate for consumer rights, free markets, and digital innovation. Under his leadership, Consumer Choice Center has become a leading voice in the global consumer advocacy landscape.

Esenciální oleje jako nebezpečné látky? Evropský parlament zachránil mnohamiliardový byznys

Často v Česku nadáváme na „ten zlý Brusel“ a na to, jak „nikým nevolení úředníci rozhodují o tom, co se smí a co se nesmí“. Jenže v praxi my, kdo se staráme o práva spotřebitelů, vidíme, jak to reálně funguje. Skutečně jsou tu úředníci s dost extremistickými návrhy. Ale také volení zástupci Evropanů ze všech členských států, kteří se tomu nebojí učinit přítrž.

Možná překvapí, že EU reguluje i takové věci, jako jsou vonné esenciální oleje. Ale ono je to logické: jde o zboží, které přichází na jednotný evropský trh, a platí, že abychom nemuseli mít sedmadvacet různých pravidel, je pro výrobce kdekoliv v Evropě lepší mít jedny platné všude. A nemuset se starat o různé typy registrací, regulací a požadavků.

Možná také překvapí, že jde o miliardy. Evropské země patří k předním světovým producentům těchto olejů. Dvěma nejvýznamnějšími příklady jsou Bulharsko, kde se vyrábí světově proslulý růžový olej z údolí Kazanlak a jehož vývoz činí 92 milionů eur, a Francie, která je třetím největším vývozcem levandule na světě (458 milionů eur).

Česko tak velkým producentem není, ale je příjemcem výhod, které vyplývají z jednotného evropského trhu v kosmetickém průmyslu, který je na esenciálních olejích do značné míry závislý. Až 992 derivátů esenciálních olejů je součástí běžně dostupných šamponů, deodorantů a dalších kosmetických přípravků, které denně používáme. Objem trhu s tímto kosmetickým zbožím má v Česku letos dosáhnout podle odhadů objemu přes 33 miliard korun.

Jenže příliš opatrná Evropská agentura pro chemické látky (ECHA) už dříve rozhodla, že omezí distribuci klíčových látek pro kosmetický průmysl. ECHA vyznává takzvaný absolutistický „přístup založený na nebezpečnosti“, který omezuje jakékoli směsi, pokud byť jen jediná chemická složka může být hypoteticky nebezpečná při laboratorních testech. A esenciální oleje dala do jednoho pytle s potenciálně nebezpečnými umělými látkami.

Evropský parlament měl ale jiný názor. Začátkem října přijal nové právní předpisy, které mění status esenciálních olejů v rámci celoevropských pravidel pro  klasifikaci, označování a balení látek a směsí. Místo omezujícího přístupu byrokratů parlament seznal, že zcela přírodní a bezpečné extrakty budou zařazené do kategorie látek přírodního a botanického původu a nikoli v jednom nařízení s organickými insekticidy, kam opravdu nepatří.

Lekcí z celé kauzy je několik. Zaprvé, je dobře, že europoslanci dbají na zájem svých voličů především v době, kdy opravdu není zájmem kohokoli zvyšovat životní náklady lidí, což je obvykle vedlejší účinek jakýchkoli omezujících ustanovení v evropské nebo národní legsilativě. Díky této „drobné“ změně Evropského parlamentu si celé odvětví ekonomiky polepší o stovky milionů eur.

Schválením v Evropském parlamentu to ale nekončí. Aby nová legislativa vstoupila v platnost, je potřeba, aby změny posvětila i Rada Evropské unie a Evropská komise v rámci takzvaného interinstitucionálního trialogu, kdy mezi sebou evropské orgány uzavírají potřebné kompromisy. Je zásadní, aby členské státy měly primárně na paměti náklady, které regulace přináší nakonec spotřebitelům a snažily se je snížit co nejvíce.

A druhé poučení z této kauzy je také v tom, že demokraticky volení zástupci by měli nastavit jiná pravidla pro byrokracii, aby například ECHA změnila svůj přístup z absolutního pohledu na bezpečnost na vyváženější přístup založený na vnímání a analýze rizik. Existují empirické důkazy o tom, že esenciální oleje jsou pro lidi i životní prostředí neškodné a agentury by měly brát v úvahu i ekonomické a sociální důsledky svých rozhodnutí na členské státy i regiony. Politici pak budou mít méně práce v přípravě legislativy a v opravování chyb úředníků.

Originally published here

Kerugian Besar karena Pelanggaran Hak Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia

Pelanggaran hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan salah satu fenomena yang sangat menjamur dan umum yang terjadi di berbagai belahan dunia, termasuk juga di Indonesia. 

Dengan sangat mudah, kita semua bisa menemukan berbagai produk dan barang-barang bajakan yang dijual di berbagai tempat dan platform, baik secara offline maupun secara daring.

Bila kita berselancar di dunia maya misalnya, kita bisa dengan mudah menemukan berbagai produk-produk bajakan yang dijual secara bebas, seperti produk fashion, elektronik, dan lain sebagainya. 

Tentunya, harga produk yang dijual tersebut jauh lebih murah dibandingkan dengan produk yang asli, yang menjadi daya tarik utama bagi pembeli untuk mendapatkan barang tersebut.

Hal yang sama juga terjadi bila kita berkunjung ke berbagai pertokoan dan pusat perbelanjaan di berbagai kota di Indonesia. Dengan sangat mudah kita bisa menemukan berbagai produk bajakan yang dijual secara bebas. Hal ini tentunya merupakan praktik yang sangat merugikan para inovator dan juga para pelaku industri.

Kalau hal ini tetap dibiarkan, bukan tidak mungkin nanti insentif para pelaku industri dan juga inovator untuk berkreasi dan berinovasi akan semakin berkurang dan menurun. 

Hal ini dikarenakan mereka tidak bisa mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari karya yang mereka buat, dan karya hasil usaha mereka bisa dengan mudah dicuri oleh pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab.

Bila tidak ada langkah yang tegas, maka ini akan menimbulkan dampak yang negatif. Bila insentif untuk berkarya dan berinovasi dari para inovator dan pelaku usaha semakin berkurang, maka industri tidak akan berkembang. 

Dengan demikian, lapangan kerja bagi masyarakat juga akan semakin berkurang, dan semakin sedikit orang yang bisa mendapatkan penghasilan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan mereka sehari-hari.

Di Indonesia misalnya, berbagai praktik pembajakan yang sangat marak terjadi telah membawa kerugian yang sangat besar. Berdasarkan studi yang dilakukan oleh lembaga Masyarakat Indonesia Anti Pemalsuan (MIAP), yang bekerja sama dengan Institute for Economic Analysis of Law & Policy Universitas Pelita Harapan (IEALP UPH), kerugian ekonomi yang disebabkan banyaknya peredaran produk palsu di Indonesia mencapai hingga 967 miliar, dan juga mengurangi lebih dari 2 juta lapangan pekerjaan (krjogja.com, 13/9/2023).

Berdasarkan hasil studi yang dilakukan oleh MIAP, perangkat lunak atau software menduduki peringkat pertama produk yang paling rentan untuk dipalsukan, sebesar 84,25%. Hal ini diikuti dengan produk-produk kosmetik sebesar 50%, farmasi 40%, pakaian dan barang kulit sebesar 38%, makanan dan minuman sebesar 20%, dan juga suku cadang otomotif beserta pelumas sebesar 15% (krjogja.com, 13/9/2023).

Angka di atas 900 miliar tersebut tentu bukan angka yang sedikit. Terlebih lagi, angka 2 juta lapangan pekerjaan yang hilang karena pembajakan tentu merupakan jumlah yang sangat besar. Maka dari itu, pemerintah dan juga lembaga regulasi terkait harus didorong untuk menyelesaikan permasalahan tersebut.

Pemerintah sendiri, melalui Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual (DJKI) Kementerian Hukum dan HAM (Kemenkumham) telah melakukan berbagai upaya untuk meningkatkan pengawasan terhadap beredarnya banyak barang-barang palsu di pasar Indonesia. Hal ini berlaku tidak hanya yang dijual di pusat perbelanjaan tetapi juga toko daring.

DJKI Kemenkumham sendiri telah melakukan sertifikasi di 87 pusat perbelanjaan di seluruh Indonesia sejak tahun 2021 lalu. Sertifikasi tersebut dilakukan agar berbagai mall dan pusat perbelanjaan tidak lagi menggunakan berbagai merek palsu dalam berbagai aktivitas perdagangan yang mereka lakukan, dan saat ini DJKI akan semakin meningkatkan program sertifikasi tersebut.

Sejak tahun 2021 lalu misalnya, pemerintah sudah membentuk satuan tugas operasi (Satgas Ops) anti pembajakan untuk mengatasi permasalahan pembajakan di Indonesia. 

Satgas ini terdiri dari berbagai lembaga pemerintah, di antaranya Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual (DJKI), Bareskrim Polri, Ditjen Bea dan Cukai, Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika (Kominfo) serta Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan (BPOM) (cnnindonesia.com, 10/10/2021).

Adanya satgas ini tentu merupakan hal yang patut diapresiasi, mengingat pembajakan di Indonesia merupakan praktik yang sangat masif. Karena buruknya penegakan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual di negara kita misalnya, Indonesia dimasukkan oleh badan Amerika Serikat, United States Trade Representative (USTR) sebagai salah satu negara dalam priority watch list, bersama dengan 6 negara lainnya, diantaranya Argentina, Chile, China, India, Rusia, dan Venezuela (ustr.gov, 26/4/2023).

Hal ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang patut kita perhatikan dan kita atasi. Bukan tidak mungkin, peringatan dari USTR tersebut juga kana membawa dampak bagi iklim investasi di Indonesia, khususnya yang terkait dengan industri kreati. Bila demikian, tentu masyarakat Indonesia yang akan mengalami kerugian, karena lapangan kerja menjadi semakin sedikit.

Sebagai penutup, pembajakan merupakan salah satu masalah besar di Indonesia yang harus segera kita atasi bersama, dan telah menimbulkan kerugian yang sangat besar. Diharapkan, melalui berbagai reformasi kebijakan dan juga pembentukan satgas tersebut, perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual di Indonesia bisa semakin baik.

Originally published here

AI can be responsible without government intervention, new research shows

The global race to develop artificial intelligence is the most consequential contest since “the space race” between the United States and the Soviet Union. The development of these tools and this industry will have untold effects on future innovation and our way of life.

The White House will soon unveil its anticipated executive order on AI, which may include a commission to develop an “AI Bill of Rights” or even form a new federal regulatory agency. In this case, the government is playing catch-up with AI innovators and ethicists.

AI in a democratic society does not mean spinning up federal AI agencies staffed by whoever won the most recent election — it means having a wide range of policies and rules made for the people, by the people, and that are responsive to the people.

AI has an almost unlimited potential to change the world. Understandably, this makes many people nervous, but we must resist handing over its future to the government at this early stage. After all, this is the same institution that has not cracked 30% in overall trust to “do the right thing most or all of the time” since 2007. The rules of the road can evolve from the people themselves, from innovators to consumers of AI and its byproducts.

Besides, does anyone really believe a government that is trying to wrap its regulatory mind around the business model and existence of Amazon Prime is prepared to govern artificial intelligence?

For an example of the rigor required to develop rules for AI in a free society, consider the recent researchpublished by Anthropic, an Amazon-backed AI startup known for the Claude generative AI chatbot. Anthropic is developing what’s known as “Constitutional AI” that looks at the question of bias as a matter of transparency. The technology is governed by a published list of moral commitments and ethical considerations.

If a user is puzzled by one of Claude’s outputs or limitations, he or she can look to the AI’s constitution for an explanation. It’s a self-contained experiment in liberalism.

As any American knows, living in a functional constitutional democracy is as clarifying as it is frustrating. You have specific rights and implied rights under American law, and when they’re violated, you can take the matter to court. The rights we have are as frustrating to some as the ones we don’t: the right to keep and bear arms, for example, along with the absence of a clear constitutional right to healthcare.

Anthropic surveyed 1,094 people and broke them up into two response groups based on discernible patterns in their way of thinking about a handful of topics. There were many unifying beliefs about what AI should aim to do.

Most people (90% or more) agree that AI should not say racist or sexist things, AI shouldn’t cause harm to the user or anyone else, and AI should not be threatening or aggressive. There was also broad agreement (60%) that AI should not be programmed as an ordained minister — though with 23% in favor and 15% undecided, that leaves quite the opening in the AI space for someone to develop a fully functional priest chatbot. Just saying.

But even agreement can be deceiving. The yearslong national debate over critical race theory, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and “wokeness” stands as evidence that people don’t really agree on what “racism” means. AI developers such as Anthropic will have to choose or create a definition that encompasses a broad view of “racism” and “sexism.” We also know that the public does not even agree on what constitutes threatening speech.

The single most divisive statement, “the AI shouldn’t be censored at all,” shows how cautious consumers are about AI having any kind of programmed bias or set of prerogatives. With a close to 50/50 split on the question, we’re a long way from when Congress could be trusted to develop guardrails that protect consumer’s speech and access to accurate information — much less so the White House.

Anthropic categorizes the individual responses as the basis for its “public principles” and goes to great lengths to show how public preferences overlap and diverge from its own. The White House and would-be regulators are not showing anywhere near this kind of a commitment to public input.

When you go to the people through elected legislatures, you find out interesting things to inform policy. The public tends to focus on maximized results for AI queries, such as saying a response should be the “most” honest or the “most” balanced. Anthropic tends to value the opposite, asking AI to avoid undesirables by asking for the “least” dishonest response or “least” likely to be interpreted as legal advice.

We all want AI to work for us, not against us. But what America needs to realize is that the natural discomfort with this emerging technology does not necessitate government action. The innovation is unfurling before our very eyes, and there will be natural checks on its evolution from competitors and consumers alike. Rather than rushing to impose a flawed regulatory model at the federal level, we should seek to enforce our existing laws where necessary and allow regulatory competition to follow the innovation rather than attempt to direct it.

Originally published here

In defense of the EPA’s independence  

In a recent op-ed for The Hill, (now) independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. laid out the case for his candidacy. Among his grievances, he lists the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as one of the victims of corporate capture by business interests.  

As a tort lawyer and environmental activist, Kennedy has long considered the EPA as a thorn in his side. This is because the agency has approved many of the pesticides that RFK Jr. opposes in his advocacy, one of which is the herbicide glyphosate. It’s one of the most commonly used crop protection chemicals in American agriculture, essential for farmers to protect their crops from weeds. The glyphosate compound, which can be found in a variety of products, does this by blocking an enzyme that is required for plant growth.  

In a world without herbicides, farmers would need to increase tillage, which disrupts the soil and releases more carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere — something that, say, an environmentalist might normally care about. 

RFK has been on the warpath against glyphosate for a long time, motivated by his erroneous belief that the compound is linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. As a lawyer, he has been able to extract millions from agro-chemical giant Monsanto through a lawsuit. However, convincing a jury is a different game than convincing a scientific body such as the EPA, which upholds that “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label” and that “glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.” 

Kennedy’s suggestion that the EPA is beholden to the industry merely because it approves a chemical he’s skeptical of is an unfair and misleading characterization. Regulatory bodies base their approval decisions on their own risk assessments, as well as those of independent researchers. 

EPA administrators are appointed by the president, which is arguably the only element of bias that politics introduces into the agency. (RFK himself had once been considered to run the EPA by President Obama, but his view that climate change skeptics should be considered “traitors” ultimately made him too controversial of a pick.) 

Perversely, this is the element Kennedy wants to use to appoint “activists,” as he writes in his op-ed. The people he would appoint as president would no doubt be activists from within the anti-pesticide movement. The agency would become even more politicized and biased, not serving the interests of the American people or scientific processes.  

Contrary to popular belief, the fact that regulatory agencies are in contact with chemical manufacturers is not suspicious behavior. Rather, it is essential for the approval process, not dissimilar from the way that the Food and Drug Administration communicates with pharmaceutical companies to share data and information about a new drug.  

Reading on a blog that Bill Gates is trying to make the frogs gay doesn’t make for a good action item for an EPA meeting, contrary to what RFK might believe. Innovating products for the sake of growers and consumers, that is where manufacturers and regulators come in and play a vital role.

The way regulatory agencies operate is predicated not on the idea that politicians set the ground rules for approval, but that the agencies make determinations on safety independent of legislatures. Europe is currently experiencing the downside of a system that seeks final approval from elected officials. Glyphosate is up for reapproval in the European Union, and has already been green-lit by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Still, the heads of government in the European Council, roughly the equivalent of the United States Senate, are still pondering whether they will continue to allow glyphosate to be used on European soil.  

Once agencies have spent months or years analyzing scientific literature and research to determine whether a crop protection chemical is safe, should it really be up to elected officials whether the product ought to be approved or not?  

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., unlike the scientists at the EPA he so regularly attacks, has no scientific authority. His tort actions for the benefit of his clients aside, his wild conspiracy theories about everything from vaccines, which he suggested could be linked to the Spanish Flu epidemic, to Wi-Fi, which he thinks can cause cancer and “leaky brain,” make him unfit to make unbiased decisions on complicated scientific topics such as agricultural policy.  

As president, he would make appointee choices that would undermine the efficacy and independence of these agencies and make them mere extended arms of the White House. 

Guaranteeing the independence of agencies such as the EPA is key. That does not mean that agencies cannot get it wrong — they can and they do. But throwing these bodies under the bus of an imaginary grand big business conspiracy does the conversation a disservice. 

Originally published here

The problem with canceling Jon Stewart: Apple bowed to Chinese government censorship

You would think Jon Stewart can talk about whatever he wants. The Comedy Central veteran who returned from what looked like retirement to host “The Problem with Jon Stewart” on Apple TV+, is reportedly not moving forward with a third season.

It wasn’t Stewart’s shows about COVID-19, election interference, race relations, the Middle East or socialism vs. capitalism that led to an impasse with one of America’s most innovative companies.

And it wasn’t even the program’s poor ratings. Apparently – it was China. 

It’s almost hard to still be surprised. The dependent relationship between Apple and China is longstanding and well-documented, and one would expect that any Apple TV+ content by one of America’s sharpest cultural critics and comedians, directed at China’s Communist Party, would raise red flags in Cupertino as well as Beijing.

Americans have become sadly accustomed to these sorts of stories regarding Sino-American relations in the realm of entertainment. In recent memory, there was the explosion of controversy around “Top Gun: Maverick” and Tom Cruise wearing a Taiwan flag patch on his jacket, then the disputed map of the South China Seashown in the “Barbie” movie, as well as Disney filming its live-action “Mulan” in Xinjiang province, where an estimated 1 million Muslim Uyghurs are held in detention camps.

China’s censors have long history of restricting content

The list of other PR blowups between Hollywood and China’s censors is far, far longer. 

American consumers must not allow themselves to become complacent. Our creative class and intellectual leaders are being muzzled at the behest of a foreign adversary, and it has to stop. 

Unfortunately for the average consumer, it often feels like little can be done to resist feeding an entertainment machine doing the bidding of the Chinese government. Parents and children want to see popular movies and TV shows featuring big-name stars in theaters and on streaming services.

It takes a highly informed and committed conscientious objector to resist any consumer behavior that rewards studios for censorship they accept to access China’s market. 

Watching ‘forbidden’ movies about China is a small act of defiance

Nonetheless, there is one simple thing you can do. Watch some “forbidden” movies. You can search to see the movies the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t want you to see.

Streaming now on Netflix is “Seven Years in Tibet,” an epic starring Brad Pitt as Austrian climber Heinrich Harrer. The movie follows the true story of Harrer’s departure from the Nazi military to climb the Himalayas and his brutal journey on foot to the Tibetan holy city of Lhasa. There he befriends the young Dalai Lama in the final years before Tibet’s Buddhist monks were massacred by Mao Zedong’s communist revolutionaries. 

At the end of “Seven Years in Tibet,” Pitt’s character confronts a Tibetan official who helped facilitate the Chinese takeover of Lhasa. Pitt says, “On the way to Lhasa I would see Tibetans wearing those jackets (Communist Chinese Party attire). ‘Chinese soldiers – very nice. They give food, clothes, money – very nice.’ It’s strange to me that something so harmless as a jacket could symbolize such a great lie.” 

China-hawks of today would be pressed to write such a compelling exchange that captures what so many in the West have come to understand about open relations with China: The Chinese have shaped us, and we have utterly failed to shape them. 

The film was a seismic struggle for Sony to complete and distribute in the United States during the late 1990s. Considering that Martin Scorsese’s critically acclaimed 1997 film on the fall of Tibet, “Kundun,” has been all scrubbed from cinematic history and the world of streaming, watching “Seven Years in Tibet” is a small but worthwhile act of resistance while it is still available online.  

Stop following China.United Nations is ruled by ‘we the peoples,’ not authoritarian regimes.

Here’s another. The Foundation for Economic Education recently released a wonderfully detailed documentary video on Scorsese’s “Kundun” and then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner’s ultimate decision to bury the film, per China’s wishes. “Kundun” is hard to find online and isn’t available to stream on any major platform. But you can learn everything about it and China’s campaign to block the film from American eyes by watching the documentary. 

Consumers will have to demand more from our nation’s storytellers and media companies if open discourse is going to survive. 

Jon Stewart must have known what he was getting into with Apple when he began to pursue an episode critical of China, and he should be lauded for walking away. We can only hope whatever it is Stewart had to say that Apple couldn’t tolerate, he’ll say by other means.

Midway through “Seven Years In Tibet,” the young Dalai Lama asks Harrer, “Do you think someday people will get Tibet on their movie screens and wonder what happened to us?”

When Tibet itself is a forbidden subject, known as one of the Forbidden T’s, the answer to the Dalai Lama’s question is, of course, yes. 

Originally published here

NY Bee Protection Bill Would Sting Farmers

Protecting the birds and the bees, that is the aim of a bill in the New York Legislature that passed in June. The bill would ban the use of neonicotinoid insecticides (known as neonics) — a move that is dear to the heart of anti-pesticide activists, but that would severely hurt farmers and consumers alike.

The premise of their argument is that chemicals in this group of insecticides severely affects the health of pollinators, and thus a ban would protect the ecosystem in the state — but they’re wrong.

As I outlined in a piece for Newsmax last year, there are a myriad of mistruths about the health of bees that are being used for the causes of activists whose stated goals is a ban of all pesticides. The short version is the following: despite warnings of a “Beepocalypse,” bee populations are in fact on the rise. Regional bee declines occur through urbanization, reduced market demands for managed colonies, and naturally occurring viruses.

Like most poor public policy, the Birds and Bees Protection Act is built on faulty premises and a feel-good name. The statistics on pollinator decline and colony collapse disorder have long been falsely associated with the use of insecticides. In fact, before insecticides were blamed for “killing the bees,” it used to be bioengineered food that was in the crosshairs of activists.

This assumption was never backed up by evidence, and administrations on both sides of the aisle have come to recognize the incredible climate mitigation and efficiency opportunities associated with genetically engineered food.

In the European Union, a number of countries have implemented exemptions on neonic bans due to the detrimental impact they had on local farmers. This exemption policy not only causes anxiety for all parties involved, but also fails to provide farmers with any certainty for the future.

The Birds and Bees Protection Act takes a different approach by completely prohibiting the use of these products, bypassing regulatory agencies. However, this approach then requires these agencies to undergo lengthy assessments to determine appropriate emergency use. This process is both burdensome and unfair to farmers.

The elimination of regulatory agencies from the decision-making process was the primary reason why California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill last year that aimed to ban neonics for non-agricultural purposes.

Advocates for pollinators may have good intentions, but their lack of understanding of agriculture is evident. The implementation of neonics bans in Europe has resulted in farmers resorting to alternative chemicals to protect their crops. However, the use of substitute products has been shown to decrease crop yield and increase insect resistance, ultimately leading to negative impacts on the environment and biodiversity.

It is not feasible to suggest that farmers acquire more land to compensate for crop losses or use products that are not equipped to provide adequate protection for their fields.

The potential consequences of such measures are dire, particularly for the over 25,000 farm workers in New York State who rely on stable yields and reliable methods to safeguard their farms from invasive species. The absence of guaranteed yields could lead to rising prices in the crop production sector, as has been observed in France.

For New Yorkers already grappling with the burden of rapid inflation, such agricultural regulations are not responsible. Legislation of this nature should require more than a mere noble-sounding name and good intentions to become law, and the Birds and Bees Protection Act falls short in this regard.

Originally published here

The Personal Data Protection Act 2010 Should Apply to the Public Sector

KUALA LUMPUR, 26th October 2023 – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) urges the government especially the Ministry of Digital and Communications to consider amending the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 by expanding the application of the act to the public sector.  

Wakil Pusat Pilihan Pengguna Malaysia, Tarmizi Anuwar berkata: “Representative of the Malaysian Consumer Choice Centre, Tarmizi Anuwar said: “There is a need for the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 to be extended to the public sector in order to improve the quality of data security and transparency in the public sector. Notably, yesterday’s 2023 Mid-Year Threat Landscape Report by Cyber Security Malaysia showed that the government sector experienced the highest breach or leakage of information in the first half of this year at 22 percent.”

In addition, according to the amount of data leaked by sector, the Government sector is in the second highest place at 28.67 percent behind the banking sector at 37.65 percent. Followed by telecommunications by 20.98 percent, logistics and transport by 9.67 percent and retail by 3.02 percent.   

Currently, Act 709 does not apply to the federal government, state governments and their agencies but only applies to commercial transactions of personal data. 

“Currently, any public sector data leaks will be investigated by the Federal and state governments, the National Cyber Security Agency (Nacsa) which is under the jurisdiction of the National Security Council (MKN). However, until now there is no clear structure regarding the process to be taken when an information leak occurs in the public sector.”

“In addition, there is no mechanism for individuals to claim compensation when there is a leak in the public sector that causes users to suffer material damage such as financial damage or non-material damage such as loss of reputation or psychological burden. We should take the example of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by the European Union which is quite comprehensive by taking into account the risk of information leakage in the public sector and the right of users to seek compensation,” he said. 

Commenting on the factors and weaknesses of leaks such as vulnerable software, weak access control, data disclosure and critical issues, Tarmizi suggested that the government to improve and enforce the policies and procedures of a public sector organization’s data protection. 

“The public sector needs to upgrade data protection procedures in the public sector such as controlling access to sensitive data by limiting data access only to certain employees or deleting data that is no longer used to avoid the risk of internal breaches and theft or loss of data.”

“The public sector also needs to upgrade to safer software with a focus on standards and results rather than fixing any single technology or solution and does not preclude the use of new technologies,” Tarmizi concluded.

FMT

Encourage illegal nurseries to apply for licences, govt urged

PETALING JAYA: The government should set a “whitelisting period” to encourage illegal nurseries to register and obtain licences, a consumer group said.

Consumer Choice Centre’s Malaysian country associate Tarmizi Anuwar said the government needs to increase monitoring and enforcement to identify unregistered care centres and untrained caregivers.

“It is very important that nursery workers (and) teachers are trained in early childhood education. Untrained workers or teachers may endanger the children’s safety and not be able to provide effective education,” he told FMT.

On Oct 10, a two-month-old baby died at a childcare centre in Kota Damansara, Petaling Jaya. The centre was not registered with the social welfare department.

“The government needs to set up a nursery whitelisting period and give entrepreneurs the opportunity to register and comply with the guidelines created under the Child Care Centre Act 1984,” he said.

Read the full text here

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN