Consumer Choice Center – Page 47 – Consumer Choice Center

[Marketing Medium] Large study debunks ‘insect apocalypse’ narrative

Brussels, BE – A new meta-analysis of insect populations*, representing the largest and most comprehensive assessment to date rectifies some of the misconceptions of the past years. The Consumer Choice Center’s Senior Policy Analyst Bill Wirtz says that this sobering study should put the discussion back into a more reasoned perspective.

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5ea1d7f7a5c7670004f1d76d/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

MEP Gianna Gancia on the risks of fake drugs

Counterfeit medicines pose a real risk to consumer health. Given the current coronavirus pandemic and the numerous problems posed by restrictions on individual freedom decided by most countries, I am concerned that more and more Europeans may turn to questionable online suppliers: this is because politicians and the media are not responsible for properly reporting. citizens, causing panic.

The OECD and EUIPO have published a report highlighting the problems of counterfeit medicines for consumers in Europe and around the world. A transparent and solid pharmaceutical e-commerce regulatory framework can help fight bad actors and protect the health of Europeans, compensating for the apparent turmoil caused by misleading information.

As a member of the European Parliament, I am deeply convinced that the EU should act quickly in this sense, encouraging some Member States to lift some restrictions on certified online pharmacies and giving the possibility of obtaining a prescription that exploits technological innovation in the sector. public: the microchip incorporated in our electronic ID is a certificate of authenticity that could allow a wide range of online services for European citizens. Leaner access to legal practitioners decreases the risk of consumers accidentally purchasing with a supplier of illicit pharmaceutical products.

This is a public health issue and can offer the EU an additional tool to implement strong and decisive action against COVID-19.

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Consumer Choice Center. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors is of their opinion.

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

The CCC represents consumers in more than 100 countries around the world. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other critical regulatory points, and we inform and empower consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Find out more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Javier Fernández-Lasquetty on Liberty And Innovation In the Age Of Coronavirus

The COVID-19 health crisis has highlighted, on the one hand, the weaknesses in the way we have conceived our institutional systems over the last sixty years. On the other hand, how intervened and directed markets become particularly inefficient in times of crisis.

Thus, of the many responses that we see every day, it is those that emerge spontaneously and freely that offer faster and more effective responses. Spontaneous order is once again the best response to the complex and petreus structure of the state.

The management of the provision of health material and medicines is currently one of the weakest points in our health systems, not because of its lack of effectiveness, but because of the slowness of response. This slowness is due precisely to the excess of control by the public authorities which, in many countries, has led to an intolerable slowness in the purchase of such basic products as means of protection for health workers.

If the provision of means of protection is important, it is particularly relevant, due to the urgency, how to manage quickly and safely the new research and subsequent patenting of drugs and/or vaccines to stop the pandemic.

In my view, attention needs to be paid to both aspects. The urgency of the search for a vaccine can lead to the emergence of black market suppliers due to the validation protocols and the various tests that any drug has to pass on the ordinary market, tests that can be ignored on the black market, or applied with less care. The problem with this is that, if adequate attention is not paid to the second aspect – managing research and patents quickly and safely – not only could serious damage be caused to people’s health, but also patents could be stolen to manufacture the drug in parallel markets outside medical controls, with obvious consequences.

We believe that safety in the creation of drugs and vaccines must be particularly sought after by institutions, without distinguishing between public and private ones. This circumstance implies not only guaranteeing that they comply with the appropriate controls but also protecting the property in the creation of the same since, otherwise, research would be discouraged, particularly in the private sphere. Proceeding in this way would undoubtedly lead to difficulties in finding solutions to these medical problems by leaving out of the production circuit an important agent who, as has been demonstrated in the management of this health crisis, provides important and necessary assistance to the public sector.

It is not unreasonable to remember that times of crisis are times of opportunity, even in circumstances as serious as the present. It is in them that opportunities are found in the weaknesses of the system so that, with ingenuity and creativity, it can be improved and new opportunities for growth sought.

It is necessary at this point to appeal to disruptive innovation. The best lesson that this terrible health crisis already leaves us is that only through spontaneous and voluntary cooperation, free creation and the absence of bureaucratic obstacles in the search for solutions we become efficient.

***Javier Fernández-Lasquetty***
Regional Minister of Finance. Madrid Region (Spain)
Former Regional Minister of Health. Madrid Region (Spain)

Non, l’Afrique n’est pas épargnée!

OPINION. Le virus ailé que représente l’invasion actuelle de criquets menace de réduire à néant toutes les récoltes de la Corne de l’Afrique. Il faut réagir de toute urgence, en se souvenant que chimie et technologie font aussi partie du génie humain, rappelle notre chroniqueur

L’hémisphère Sud, et en particulier l’Afrique, semble en grande partie épargné par la pandémie de Covid-19 qui préoccupe toute l’Asie et l’Occident. Mais pendant que nous focalisons notre attention sur cette maladie, nous détournons notre regard d’un désastre sans doute pire encore, qui ravage le continent africain.

A l’heure actuelle, des dizaines de milliers d’hectares de cultures et de plantations sont ruinés par la plus grande invasion de criquets de ces vingt-cinq dernières années. En raison d’un climat automnal favorable, ces insectes ont proliféré et leur nombre pourrait encore croître d’ici à juin.

Neuf Etats africains s’essaient aujourd’hui à maîtriser la propagation de ce virus ailé qui se répand à une vitesse effarante. Maïs, millet, sorgho, herbes et feuilles: tout y passe!

Des nuages de criquets, parfois de la taille de petits pays comme le Luxembourg, se déplacent sur des kilomètres ravageant tout sur leur passage et ne laissant derrière eux qu’une terre stérile. Ces régions pauvres, qui souffrent régulièrement de la famine, se retrouvent ainsi face à une future crise alimentaire de grande ampleur.

Depuis le début de cette invasion, les gouvernements de ces pays ont intensifié les mesures de contrôle qui comprennent notamment une utilisation rapide de pesticides dans toutes les zones touchées, pulvérisés à l’aide de pompes manuelles et motorisées. Ces Etats sont aujourd’hui appuyés par les Nations unies, qui demandent une aide urgente pour organiser rapidement une pulvérisation aérienne de grande ampleur avant la saison des plantations.

L’objectif est principalement d’empêcher l’éclosion des œufs des criquets par l’utilisation de fénitrothion et de malathion, des insecticides organophosphorés couramment utilisés pour lutter contre les moustiques et les insectes frugivores. En effet, si une intervention n’est pas faite rapidement, la plaie des criquets pourrait s’amplifier et réduire à néant les terres agricoles restantes de la Corne de l’Afrique.

Pandémie et prolifération des criquets: face à ces catastrophes d’ampleur biblique, l’Humanité se retrouve confrontée à ses éternels ennemis naturels qui lui rappellent sa fragilité. La nature nous rappelle aujourd’hui qu’elle n’est pas que Gaïa la nourricière mais également Nemesis la colérique.

Par ces épreuves, nous prenons conscience que la technologie et la science ne sont pas des oppressions qui nous éloignent d’un état naturel fantasmé mais au contraire le résultat de notre vie et notre confrontation à notre milieu.

Energie nucléaire, produits chimiques, médicaments de synthèse, vaccins: toutes ces solutions qui sont décriées par des minorités qui font beaucoup de bruit sont pourtant les fruits de l’ingéniosité humaine et la source de sa prospérité.

Après le passage de ces heures sombres, nous devrions ressortir plus reconnaissants de ce qui nous permet d’échapper à une vie «courte, brutale et indigente», comme le disait Thomas Hobbes. Retrouvons foi en notre ingéniosité et notre capacité à créer plutôt que porter sans cesse le poids d’une culpabilité infondée de notre présence sur cette Terre.

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

La eurodiputada Isabel Benjumea en COVID-19

La terrible pandemia de Covid-19 que estamos sufriendo no solo trae consigo una crisis sanitaria y humanitaria, sino también una crisis económica, social y política. Ante este escenario, no debemos olvidar que los momentos de debilidad y crisis son terreno fértil para intervencionistas y estatistas de toda condición, que pretenderán “aprovechar” estos momentos de tremenda incertidumbre para inocular sus dogmas en una sociedad temerosa.

El confinamiento de los ciudadanos bajo la tutela del Estado como principal medida de prevención frente al virus y las amplios poderes conferidos a los Gobiernos puede ser interpretada por dichos estatistas como el salvoconducto ideal para transmitir sus dogmas: “es el Estado el único capacitado para protegerte de esta amenaza, es el Estado el único capaz de comprender lo que está sucediendo y actuar a tal efecto (administrando por tanto la información y la gestión de la verdad), es el Estado quien marca los tiempos y quien administra tu vida cotidiana… Ergo: es el Estado quien te acabará salvando”.

Como siempre sucede, la realidad se impone a la utopía y los hechos a las ensoñaciones dogmáticas. Basta poner como ejemplo lo que sucede en mi país, España, uno de los más afectados por esta terrible pandemia.

Frente a las medidas recentralizadoras e intervencionistas de un gobierno socialista poco amigo de la libertad, ha sido la iniciativa privada quien ha conseguido desbloquear la exasperante lentitud gestora del gobierno. Mientras el gobierno central amontonaba material sanitario para proceder a un reparto justo y solidario, diferentes empresas se unían para comprar material sanitario y traerlo a nuestro país. Mientras dicho gobierno se perdía en canales burocráticos y ruedas de prensa sin periodistas, la colaboración público-privada en regiones y ciudades permitía la adquisición de material, la gestión directa de la crisis sanitaria y hasta la construcción o adecuación de nuevos hospitales. Mientras el gobierno socialista vende supuestas ayudas que aumentarán el gasto público, son pequeñas, medianas y grandes empresas, junto a sujetos individuales quienes están donando miles de ayudas y aportaciones para luchar contra el virus y dar respuesta a los colectivos más vulnerables y afectados.

Tengamos claro este punto de partida para entender que esa nueva época que se abre tras la crisis del coronavirus correrá el riesgo de regresar hacia un pasado oscuro y fracasado si permitimos que la habitual propaganda estatista manipule la realidad y maquille lo que está sucediendo. Todas las soluciones a esta crisis y todas las aportaciones para construir el futuro han de venir, como siempre, de unas instituciones eficientes y eficaces de limitado poder y de una iniciativa privada fuerte y con capacidad de actuación y desarrollo que pueda colaborar en la reconstrucción y en la búsqueda de soluciones.

Y también tengamos claro que quienes han acaparado todo el poder no lo van a querer volver a entregar así como así. Un estado voraz que ha tenido la oportunidad de gestionar la vida cotidiana de los ciudadanos no va a regalar ese poder. De ahí, que debemos ser vigilantes en la recuperación de todos y cada uno de los derechos individuales entregados en esta crisis.

Es imprescindible entender este contexto antes de abordar el terreno de las medidas. Antes de adentrarnos en las propuestas de ámbito sanitario, fiscal, laboral o social hay que tener claros los peligro que nos acechan y el camino a seguir.

Más concretamente, en relación con el suministro de medicamentos y material sanitario, anteriormente ponía como ejemplo el caso español: ha tenido que ser la colaboración público-privada la que salvara la situación de bloqueo que vivía el país. Y ahí debe haber normas y regulación, por supuesto, siguiendo la sencilla máxima: “pocas y claras”.

Frente a la hiperregulación y la burocracia que bloquea los canales de compra, encarece los productos y retrasa su entrega y posterior reparto, agilicemos las compras delimitando la seguridad de las mismas. La liberalización del sector farmacéutico, permitiendo la venta de medicamentos que no necesitan prescripción médica fuera de las farmacias y online, así como una mayor libertad en el sector tanto en su organización interna como en la creación de nuevos establecimientos, pueden ser líneas a tener en cuenta para lograr el abaratamiento de los medicamentos.

Junto a esa liberalización, las instituciones han de centrar su normativa en asegurar la calidad del producto, especialmente en un tema tan sensible como la salud. Evidentemente, la existencia de patentes que han de superar todos los exigentes filtros de seguridad y calidad, es una herramienta imprescindible. A su vez, aseguran el interés de la investigación privada, tan necesaria para el beneficio público y sanitario. Pero también será papel de las instituciones limitar esa gestión de las patentes, evitando monopolios y abusos en el mercado que pudieran impedir la libre competencia y su consiguiente abaratamiento del producto.

Medidas liberalizadoras que se combinen con el marco de seguridad que han de aportar las instituciones, reducción y simplificación de la hiperregulación que retrasa la gestión de las soluciones y la colaboración público-privada en la búsqueda de soluciones son el camino a seguir. Y la clave es que esto no son dogmas ideológicos, son apuntes extraídos de observar lo que sucede; de observar la tozuda realidad.

Isabel BENJUMEA — **Isabel Benjumea, MEP**
Partido Popular (Spain)

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Consumer Choice Center. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors are of their opinion.

MEP Isabel Benjumea on COVID-19

The terrible COVID-19 pandemic that we are experiencing brings with it not only a health and humanitarian disaster but also an economic, social and political crisis. Faced with this issue, we must not forget that moments of weakness and crisis lay a ground for interventionists and statists of all political affiliations, who will try to take advantage’ of these moments of tremendous uncertainty to push forward their dogmas in societies filled with fear.

The confinement of citizens as the main measure of prevention against the virus and the extensive powers channelled by governments for that matter can be interpreted as the ideal safeguard to enforce statist dogmas. One of them goes as follows, “only the state is capable of protecting you from this threat [coronavirus] only the State has a clear understanding of what is happening and acting to that end (thus monopolising information and the truth), it is the State that marks the times and that administers your daily life… Ergo: it is the State that will save you in the end”.

Yet, as is usually the case, reality prevails over utopia and facts take over dogmatic dreams. Let’s look at what’s happening in Spain- my home country – which is also, unfortunately, one of the countries most affected by this terrible pandemic.

In the face of the centralised and interventionist measures of a socialist government that is not very freedom-loving, the private initiative has managed to tackle the exasperating slowness of government management. While the central government was piling up sanitary material to ensure a fair and equal distribution, different companies came together to buy sanitary materials and bring them to our country. While this government got lost in bureaucratic procedures and press conferences without journalists, the public-private collaboration in regions and cities allowed the acquisition of material, the direct management of the public health emergency and even the construction or adaptation of new hospitals. While the socialist government is selling supposed aid to increase public spending, small, medium and large companies, along with individual donors who are giving out thousands of grants and contributions to fight the virus and help the most vulnerable and affected groups.

If we allow the usual statist propaganda to manipulate reality and make up for what is happening, the post-coronavirus era might signify a dangerous return to a dark past. All solutions to this crisis and all contributions to building the future must as always, come from effective and accountable institutions with limited power. And they should embrace a strong private initiative and embrace its role in the global search for the most sensible solution.

And let’s also be clear that those who have seized all the power will not want to give it up easily. An uncontrollable government that has had the opportunity to manage the daily lives of its citizens will not give away that power. That is why we must take it all seriously and insist that each and every one of the individual rights given up in this crisis is preserved.

It is essential to understand these potential dangers before choosing an action plan. Before passing legislation in the fields of health, tax, labour or social affairs, we must be clear about the dangers that lie ahead and the path to follow.

More specifically, in relation to the supply of medicines and health material, I previously used the Spanish case as an example: so far it has been a public-private collaboration that helped find a way out of the gridlock that the country found itself in. And there must be rules and regulations, of course, following the simple maxim: “few and clear”.

Hyper-regulation and bureaucracy that blocks the supply channels makes the products more expensive and delays their delivery and subsequent distribution. Let’s speed up purchases by limiting the security checks instead. The liberalization of the pharmaceutical sector, allowing the sale of medicines that do not need a prescription outside pharmacies and online. It is also crucial to lower the burden faced by the pharmaceutical sector both in its internal organization and in the creation of new enterprises. This may help reduce the price of products.

Alongside this liberalisation, the institutions must focus their regulations on ensuring product quality, especially in such important areas as health. Obviously, the existence of patents that have to overcome all the demanding safety and quality filters is absolutely justifiable. At the same time, they ensure the interest of private research, necessary for public and health benefit. But it will also be the role of the institutions to facilitate the management of patents, to prevent monopolies and abuses in the market that could prevent free competition and its consequent lowering of the price of the product.

Liberalising measures combined with the security framework to be provided by the institutions, reduction and simplification of the hyper-regulation that delays the management of solutions and public-private collaboration in the search for solutions are the way forward. And the key is that these are not ideological dogmas; they are lessons drawn from observing what is happening; from examining the disastrous reality.

Isabel BENJUMEA on Covid-19 — **Isabel Benjumea, MEP**
Partido Popular (Spain)

Las opiniones y opiniones expresadas aquí son de los autores y no reflejan necesariamente la política oficial o la posición del Centro de Elección del Consumidor. Cualquier contenido proporcionado por nuestros bloggers o autores es de su opinión.

Consumer Choice Center es el grupo de defensa del consumidor que apoya la libertad de estilo de vida, la innovación, la privacidad, la ciencia y la elección del consumidor. Las principales áreas de política en las que nos enfocamos son digital, movilidad, estilo de vida y bienes de consumo, y salud y ciencia.

El CCC representa a los consumidores en más de 100 países de todo el mundo. Monitoreamos de cerca las tendencias regulatorias en Ottawa, Washington, Bruselas, Ginebra y otros puntos críticos de regulación e informamos y activamos a los consumidores para luchar por #ConsumerChoice. Obtenga más información en consumerchoicecenter.org

La nueva herramienta contra la lucha de los virus, la edición genética: en qué consiste y por qué deberíamos estar entusiasmados con esta nueva tecnología?

Actualmente, la humanidad está atravesando un gran desafío impuesto por el Coronavirus. Las fronteras están siendo cerradas, las aerolíneas suspendiendo sus operaciones y algunos negocios cerrando sus puertas.

Simultáneamente, científicos, investigadores y profesionales de la salud se encuentran arduamente trabajando en nuevos tratamientos que permitan encontrar pronto una solución a la pandemia producida por el COVID-19.

Probablemente, lidiar con el coronavirus y sus consecuencias debe ser uno de los retos más grandes que el mundo contemporáneo ha enfrentado en las ultimas décadas. Sin embargo, no será el ultimo virus que debamos enfrentar.

Por tal motivo, se vuelve importante abrazar a las biociencias y permitir una mayor apertura a la aplicación de métodos de alteración de genes.

Para comprender mejor las ventajas que brinda la biociencia y cómo esta puede mejorar considerablemente nuestra calidad de vida, revisaremos las cuatro alternativas más comunes para alterar los genes de una planta o animal:

X- Men (Dr Charles Xavier) – Mutaciones naturales/espontáneas

Las mutaciones per se suceden de manera regular en la naturaleza. Fue justamente de esta manera que unos aminoácidos terminaron siendo seres humanos luego de unos miles millones de años. La evolución biológica puede suceder justamente gracias a este tipo de mutaciones. Las mutaciones naturales suceden de manera aleatoria o son causadas por factores exógenos como la radiación (p. ej. el sol). Para los amantes de los cómics entre nosotros, las mutaciones que tienen lugar en “X-men” son un ejemplo de mutaciones naturales, debido a que (en muchos casos) ocurren de manera espontánea.

Hulk – Mutaciones por exposición (mutágenos)

Una de las formas más comunes de manipular semillas es a través de la exposición a la radiación y esperar a mutaciones positivas (p. ej. una resistencia mayor a plagas). Este método es muy común desde 1950 y es un método bastante preciso en la búsqueda de obtener plantaciones más resistentes o agradables para el consumo. Sin embargo, requiere de miles de intentos para obtener un resultado deseable. Este método es ampliamente utilizado y legal en gran parte de los países. En nuestro universo de cómics, Hulk seria un buen ejemplo de este tipo de mutaciones causadas por la radiación.

Spiderman- Organismos genéticamente modificados (transgénicos OGM)

El método utilizado para la creación de organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM) suele ser temido por muchos. El procedimiento se basa en insertar los genes de una especie en otra especie. En la mayor parte de los casos, las plantaciones de transgénicos OGM han sido inyectadas con la proteína de otra planta o bacteria que permite a la plantación o cosecha desarrollarse de manera más acelerada o resistente hacia ciertas plagas.

Otros ejemplos pueden palparse en el cruce del salmón con la tilapia que permite al salmón crecer de manera mucho más acelerada. Un ejemplo a nivel de los cómics para este caso es Spider-man, mejor conocido como el “hombre araña”. Luego de ser mordido por una araña, puede escalar rascacielos y desarrollar una agilidad sobrehumana gracias a su potenciado ADN aracno-humano (transgénico).

GATTACA / La Ira de Khan- Edición genética (las tijeras de la biociencia)

Screenshot de Star Trek: La ira de Kahn | https://www.espinof.com/criticas/especial-star-trek-star-trek-2-la-ira-de-khan-de-nicholas-meyer

Super villanos libre de gluten: La edición genética no se trata de super humanos, sino de mantenernos y darnos una vida saludable

Este método puede llevarse a cabo en personas adultas que se encuentra vivas, lo cual significa una gran oportunidad sobre todo para aquellos que sufren trastornos genéticos. La edición genética permite “reparar” los genes en organismos vivos. Este método también es miles de veces más preciso que el método de bombardear con radiación. Algunos ejemplos son la desactivación del gen responsable de generar el gluten en el trigo: el resultado es trigo sin gluten para celiacos.

Existen varios métodos utilizados en la edición genética. Uno de los más populares estos días es aquel llamado CRISPR Cas-9. Estas “tijeras” son usualmente bacterias reprogramadas para transmitir un nuevo gen o desactivar genes no deseados.

Muchas novelas de ciencia ficción y películas nos muestran un futuro en el cual podemos desactivar defectos genéticos y curar a las personas de enfermedades catastróficas. Algunos ejemplos de historias de este tipo donde métodos similares al CRISPR han sido utilizados son GATTACA-La Ira de Khan, Start Trek o la serie Expanse donde la edición genética juega un rol crucial en desarrollar plantaciones para ser cultivados en el espacio.

Qué relación tiene todo esto con el Coronavirus?

Biólogos sintéticos han comenzado a utilizar CRISPR para recrear de manera artificial partes del coronavirus en un intento de producir una vacuna en contra de esta afección del sistema respiratorio para desarrollarla de manera masiva y rápida.

Gracias a la combinación de simulaciones computarizadas con inteligencia artificial, este proceso acelera la producción de una vacuna de años a cuestión de meses. De igual forma, en tiempos de crisis las instituciones encargadas de aprobar nuevas pruebas y procedimientos para este tipo de tecnología como la DEA en los EEUU han demostrado estar a la altura de las circunstancias.

El CRISPR permite también identificar genes específicos en un virus. Esto ha permitido a los investigadores construir de manera rápida y sencilla tests para ser utilizados en los pacientes con coronavirus.

En el largo plazo, la edición de genes nos permitiría ampliar la inmunidad que poseemos los seres humanos para alterar nuestros genes y convertirnos más resistentes a los virus y las bacterias.

Esta no será la última crisis

Mientras el coronavirus pone a prueba nuestra sociedad contemporánea, también necesitamos ser conscientes de que este no será el último patógeno que tendrá el potencial de matar millones de personas. Si no contamos con mucha suerte, el COVID-19 podría tener alguna mutación que lo haga mucho más difícil de combatir.

El próximo virus, hongo o bacteria letal podría estar a la vuelta de la esquina. Por este motivo, debemos adaptarnos y aceptar las nuevas innovaciones en biotecnología y evitar bloquear las investigaciones genéticas que están teniendo lugar y la aplicación de sus resultados.

En estos momentos, varias prohibiciones se encuentran en vigencia bloqueando la posibilidad de utilizar innovaciones como la del CRISPR en pacientes alrededor del mundo. Debemos repensar aquella hostilidad que existe hacia la ingeniería genética y aceptarla por lo que es, una alternativa prometedora para nuestra supervivencia. Para ser franco, siempre nos encontramos en aquella disyuntiva entre nuevas enfermedades que aparecen y la necesidad de implementar herramientas innovadoras como el CRISPR que podrían salvar millones de vidas.

by Julio Clavijo

Originally published here.

Testing – not lockdowns – may explain why some countries handle Covid-19 better

This is a post by a Guest Author.
Disclaimer: The author’s views are entirely his or her own, and don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of the Consumer Choice Center.

There are ongoing debates about who has been better handling the Covid-19 pandemic: testing or lockdown?

With so many people confined to their homes, passions are running high, and there are ongoing debates about who has been better handling the Covid-19 pandemic. So much so that it feels like comparing and contrasting countries and their trajectories has become sort of a global pastime.

Nearly all developed countries (and others) have put their populations under severe lockdowns and emphasized social distancing as the silver bullet against the spread of the virus. Sweden, however, has recently been castigated for failing to put its population under a lockdown like every other country, especially other Nordic countries which it is compared and contrasted against.

The problem is that it is quite hard to compare the performance of two randomly selected countries. For instance, on every level Norway seems to be doing much better than Sweden. That said, one can always find a bunch of other countries that are doing much worse despite having been under lockdown for some time.

It should be noted that Sweden has made some questionable decisions, regardless of social distancing. It failed to ramp up testing with increasing cases around March 20, and it only closed its nursing homes for visits in early April.

But aren’t lockdowns clearly working?

Many people have still argued that lockdowns are clearly working because the epidemic has slowed shortly after their imposition. However, it is important that we are careful when inferring that lockdowns were responsible for the decline. There may be a correlation between the two, but as everyone should know, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and there may be other intervening variables. It is vital that we not jump to conclusions too fast. While many people believe, and many epidemiological models assume, that unchecked epidemics just grow exponentially until more than half of the population gets infected, the evidence for Covid-19 increasingly suggests otherwise.

Several research papers (e.g. here and here) argued that the dynamics of the Covid-19 pandemic are well-described by exponential functions only at the early stage, after which so-called power-law functions are a much better fit. A detailed study of the outbreak in the initially hit communes in Lombardy also suggests that in each commune, it started slowly, then briefly became exponential and then slowed, all that before any significant intervention.

To help you better understand what the mathematical jargon above means and why it is so important, consider two simple functions, y=2^x and y=x². The first function is exponential and the second function is a power-law one. You will better see the crucial difference between them if they are plotted together.

If these functions were describing an epidemic, then the x-axis would mean rounds of transmission. In the beginning there is one infected person in both cases. Then, until the fifth round the functions seem to grow in at an almost similar speed but afterwards, they diverge dramatically.

When researchers talk about an epidemic growing first exponentially and then in accordance with a power law, they mean that the growth of the epidemic looks like the hybrid function (first, y=2^xand y=x² after round 5) below. Its growth clearly slows a lot after the fifth round.

Why could an epidemic grow exponentially, first, and then slow down on its own? Here, it is important to remember that real societies are complex. Instead of interacting with random people every now and then, people tend to form groups (or clusters, in scientific terminology) and live in local areas within which interactions are much more intense than outside of them. With obvious implications for infection transmission.

What probably changes at the early stage of the epidemic is that so-called superspreader events are much likelier. Such events, where single infected people spread the virus to scores, hundreds or even thousands of people, have clearly played an enormous role in Covid-19. It is enough to mention the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in South Korea, the tragic gathering of French catholics in Mulhouse and the first coronavirus-hit hospitals in Lombardy. At these events, infected people have an opportunity to spread the virus way beyond their clusters of interactions.

After the initial stage, when everyone becomes aware that the epidemic is in the community and significant events are cancelled, the infection may get increasingly isolated within clusters, first, grow slower and then start falling off. The available data is increasingly hinting at this process in play. In Italy, cases appear to have peaked on the day the national lockdown was announced. In the US, they appear to have peaked on March 20.

Lockdowns could even be counterproductive

A more speculative but still plausible idea is that lockdowns could, in fact, not merely coincide with the slowing-down of Covid-19 without causing it but actually create more damage than they prevent.

Many people believe that if some social distancing (like closing bars or canceling events) is desirable than extreme social distancing like lockdowns that keeps most people at home most of the time must be even more beneficial. However, this potentially ignores two important facts about Covid-19 and viral diseases in general.

First, it is abundantly clear that Covid-19 overwhelmingly spreads in closed, often poorly ventilated spaces and through close contacts. Secondly, as Robin Hanson convincingly argued, there is a wealth of evidence that the severity of viral disease depends on the viral dose received. This means that if families are forced to stay at home together all the time, this may create perfect conditions for the virus to spread and especially cause severe disease.

The data from Google about actual social distancing patterns in several countries hit by Covid-19 shows that Italy, Spain and France have had by far the most extreme social distancing, and the UK was starting to catch up with them after its lockdown. Yet, these four countries have some of the highest fatality rates in the world per population and detected cases.

Could testing explain things better?

A better way to try to make sense of the causation is to try to identify a bunch of countries that have something important in common. The most important thing in any epidemic is to minimize deaths, and there is a group of countries that seem to have far fewer deaths by population size, and per identified infections, than others. These countries include Iceland, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Austria, and Norway. You can see how low their case fatality rates are compared to other countries with a lot of cases here (see the “death rates” column).

What makes those countries succeed in driving down deaths? One would actually be surprised to learn that none of these countries is, or was, under total lockdown. South Korea hasn’t even closed bars and restaurants. This shows that extreme social distancing measures are not necessarily the best explanation.

The real answer may largely lie in how many tests those countries have been doing compared to others. Testing may reduce fatality rates by giving public health responders valuable information and helping to isolate and quarantine those that carry the virus before they spread it to vulnerable groups like the elderly.

Iceland is the absolute champion at testing. It has already conducted 28,992 tests, which is more than 8% of its entire population. It also has the world’s lowest case fatality rate from Covid-19 at 0.38%. Iceland isn’t an anomaly, and using Iceland as an example isn’t cherry picking. Researchers Sinha, Sengupta and Ghosal showed that country death rates from Covid-19 are significantly correlated with the intensity of testing. They did not, however, control for the potential impact of lockdowns and other stringent social distancing measures.

Testing and outcomes by region

In addition to national data, one can also look at regional data where it is available and see if the testing/fatality relationship still holds. Italy has been publishing detailed regional statistics on Covid-19 starting from February 24. If we plot tests per confirmed cases in each region with reported fatalities per million inhabitants, we get the following picture:

The chart surprisingly shows us that Italy’s worst hit region isn’t Lombardy, and that it is actually the little-known Aosta Valley. We also see that there is a clear negative relationship between the intensity of testing and fatality rates. In fact, the former seems to explain more than half of the variation in the latter, and the regression coefficient is statistically significant (the p-value is 0.0003).

To conclude, it will take a long time and careful research to sort out why some countries and regions have gone through the Covid-19 pandemic much less damaged than others. That said, one thing seems to be increasingly clear. When the dust settles it will be clear that testing will be a significant factor, and that the importance of social distancing will be diminished.

Guest Author: Daniil Gorbatenko

Rokok Elektronik, Kesehatan, dan Kebebasan Individu

April 7, 2020
By Consumer Choice Center
In Consumer Goods/Lifestyle, Recent Media, Vaping
0 comments

by Haikal Kurniawan

Rokok elektronik, atau yang akrab disebut vape, saat ini merupakan produk yang sedang mendunia, termasuk di tanah air. Di Indonesia sendiri, menurut laporan dari CNBC Indonesia, ada sekitar 1 juta pengguna vape pada tahun 2019 lalu (CNBC Indonesia, 2019).

Bisnis rokok elektronik di Indonesia juga mampu meraup pendapatan yang besar, hingga 200 miliar sampai 300 miliar setiap bulannya (Mix.co.id). Omset yang besar ini juga berdampak pada cukai yang tinggi, hingga 700 miliar rupiah per November 2019 (Waspada.co.id, 2019).

Banyaknya pengguna vape di Indonesia ini menimbulkan kontroversi. Tidak sedikit pihak yang menentang produk tersebut, dan meminta kepada pemerintah untuk segera melarang peredaran vape. Salah satu penentangan tersebut datang dari Komisi Nasional (Komnas) Pengendalian Tembakau.

Melalui manager komunikasinya, Nina Samidi, Komnas Pengendalian Tembakau menghimbau kepada pemerintah untuk menarik seluruh produk rokok elektronik yang beredar di pasar Indonesia. Selain itu, Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan (BPOM) menyatakan bahwa vape merupakan produk yang berbahaya. (Media Indonesia, 2019).

Namun, apakah anggapan ini merupakan sesuatu yang tepat? Mari kita lihat faktanya terlebih dahulu.

Berdasarkan laporan dari organisasi Asosiasi Paru-Paru Amerika (American Lung Association), rokok konvensional, ketika dibakar, menghasilkan lebih dari 7.000 zat kimia. Dari 7.000 zat kimia tersebut, 69 diantaranya telah diidentifikasi sebagai penyebab kanker (American Lung Association, 2019).

Sementara, dua bahan yang paling umum yang digunakan oleh dalam bahan cair vape adalah propylene glycol (PG) dan vegetable glycerin (VG), yang digunakan untuk membuat uap dan perasa. Bahan-bahan ini merupakan sesuatu yang terbukti aman dan merupakan bahan yang umum digunakan di berbagai produk makanan dan minuman seperti soda, es krim, dan produk-produk berbahan dasar susu (Food and Drugs Administration, 2019).

Organisasi pemerhati kesehatan asal Britania Raya misalnya, Public Health England, pada tahun 2015 menyatakan bahwa rokok elektronik 95% lebih aman dibandingkan dengan rokok tembakau konvensional (Public Health England, 2015). Hal yang sama juga dinyatakan oleh Kementerian Kesehatan New Zealand dan Kanada.

Keduanya menyatakan bahwa rokok elektronik jauh lebih aman daripada rokok konvensional, dan merupakan salah satu solusi terbaik untuk membantu perokok untuk berhenti merokok. Kementerian Kesehatan Kanada misalnya, menyatakan bahwa rokok elektronik jauh lebih aman daripada rokok tembakau konvensional, karena tidak melalui proses pembakaran yang mengeluarkan zat-zat berbahaya yang membuat kanker (Health Canada, 2018).

Lantas bagaimana dengan berbagai kasus kematian yang terjadi di berbagai tempat karena penggunaan vape. Bukankah hal tersebut merupakan bukti bahwa rokok elektronik merupakan sesuatu yang berbahaya?

Di Amerika Serikat misalnya, per Februari 2020, lembaga kesehatan Pemerintah Amerika, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mencatat setidaknya ada 2.800 kasus orang-orang yang dibawa ke rumah sakit karena penggunaan rokok elektronik (CDC, 2020). Adanya kasus tersebut juga merupakan penyebab utama Presiden Donald Trump mengeluarkan peraturan pelarangan produk vape yang memiliki rasa selain menthol dan original, pada bulan Januari 2020 lalu.

Originally published here.

The coalition letter opposing “Buy American”

READ HERE

[EU] Public consultation for the EU climate ambition for 2030 and for the design of certain climate and energy policies of the European Green Deal

Introduction

Global warming is happening and affecting citizens while threatening our long-term sustainability on this planet. The average temperature of our planet has already increased by 1°C and the world is currently not on track to achieve the Paris Agreement objective of limiting temperature change below 2°C, let alone 1.5° C. The 2018 special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on 1.5°C indicated that already at 2°C the world would see dramatic and potentially irreversible impacts due to climate change. Science is also clear on the close link and interdependence of climate change and biodiversity loss.

The EU has taken global leadership in tackling climate change and actively pursues policies to cut its greenhouse gas emissions and to decouple these from economic growth. This allows the EU to modernise its economy and energy system, making them sustainable in the long term and to improve energy security and the health of its citizens by reduced air pollution.

The EU has already adopted climate and energy legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Furthermore, it adopted ambitious energy efficiency and renewable energy legislation, whose full implementation is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond the existing target – by around 45% by 2030. As part of this legislation, Member States develop National Energy and Climate Plans to ensure that common EU objectives will be met. Unless complemented by further policies, the agreed legislation is expected to lead to around 60% greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2050. In 2018, the Commission proposed for the EU to become climate compensating any remaining GHG emissions by absorptions. The European Parliament neutral by 2050 and the European Council endorsed this objective in 2019. The Commission has proposed to enshrine this objective in the European Climate Law.

According to the latest Eurobarometer survey, 93% of EU citizens see climate change as a serious problem and a significant majority of the EU population wants to see increased action on climate change. As a reflection of this and due to the urgency of the climate and linked ecological challenges, the European Commission has proposed in December 2019 a as one of its priorities including a list European Green Deal of forthcoming proposals to deliver it. The Green Deal aims, among others, to align all EU policies with the 2050 climate neutrality objective, sending an early and predictable signal to all sectors and actors to plan
2 for the transformation.

As part of the Green Deal, the Commission intends to propose to increase the EU’s 2030 target for greenhouse gas emission reductions to at least -50% and towards -55% compared to 1990 levels, in a responsible way. The Commission will thoroughly assess the feasibility and the social, economic and environmental impacts of increasing the 2030 target. This assessment will look into how to increase ambition in a way that enhances EU competitiveness, ensures social fairness and access to secure, affordable and sustainable energy and other material resources, benefits citizens and reverses biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. The Commission intends to present a comprehensive plan to increase the EU 2030 climate target in the third quarter of 2020.

Building on the existing 2030 legislation and the upcoming comprehensive plan, the Commission will review and propose to revise, where necessary, the key relevant energy and climate legislation by June 2021. This will include a coherent set of changes to the existing 2030 climate, energy and transport framework, notably related to the EU Emissions Trading System Directive, the Effort Sharing Regulation and the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation, CO Emissions Performance Standards for Cars and Vans 2 and, as appropriate, the Renewable Energy Directive and the Energy Efficiency Directive.

This public consultation invites citizens and organisations to contribute to the assessment of how to increase the EU 2030 emission reduction ambition in a responsible way. Please note that relevant questions and topics may also be covered under other public consultations such as for instance the Strategy on Sustainable and Smart Mobility, the EU Adaptation Strategy, the “Farm to Fork” Strategy, the Action Plan to implement the European Pillar of Social Rights, the Targeted Consultation for the Evaluation of the Guidelines on State aid for Environmental protection and Energy 2014-2020.

Response:

DOWNLOAD HERE

Nový vyhledávač informací pro editaci genomu

Nástroj shrnuje právní předpisy pro editaci genomu v oblasti zemědělství, medicíny a tzv. gene drives technologie, která se zaměřuje na boj proti škůdcům.

Nedávno spatřil světlo světa ucelený zdroj informací o editaci genomu – „The Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker and Index“.

Jde o interaktivní nástroj, který umožňuje přehledně sledovat, jak je v jednotlivých částech světa právně upravena editace genomu a do jaké míry jsou země v tomto směru konzervativní. Tento nástroj vytvořila nezisková organizace „Genetic Literacy Project (GLP)” ve spolupráci s organizací „Consumer Choice Center“.

Nový nástroj shrnuje právní předpisy pro editaci genomu v oblasti zemědělství, medicíny a tzv. gene drives technologie, která se zaměřuje na boj proti škůdcům (např. projekty na eliminaci komárů nebo myší a potkanů). O technikách „gene drives“ jsme mj. psali v článku „Gene drives, ano či ne?“.

Současně platforma poskytuje přehled, kdy právní předpisy vznikaly, a ukazuje, na kterých produktech a terapeutických metodách státy pracují.

Jelikož se GLP snaží uživatelům poskytnout komplexní informaci, u jednotlivých zemí lze nalézt postoje nevládních organizací, vědců i kritiků k editaci genomu.

Tyto informace snadno napoví, zda je v dané zemi vývoj moderních technologií podporován nebo spíše upozaďován.

Nový vyhledávač informací pro editaci genomu můžete vyzkoušet ZDE.

Originally published here.

Author: Consumer Choice Center

[Marketing Medium] Large study debunks ‘insect apocalypse’ narrative

MEP Gianna Gancia on the risks of fake drugs

Javier Fernández-Lasquetty on Liberty And Innovation In the Age Of Coronavirus

Non, l’Afrique n’est pas épargnée!

La eurodiputada Isabel Benjumea en COVID-19

MEP Isabel Benjumea on COVID-19

La nueva herramienta contra la lucha de los virus, la edición genética: en qué consiste y por qué deberíamos estar entusiasmados con esta nueva tecnología?

Testing – not lockdowns – may explain why some countries handle Covid-19 better

There are ongoing debates about who has been better handling the Covid-19 pandemic: testing or lockdown?

But aren’t lockdowns clearly working?

Lockdowns could even be counterproductive

Could testing explain things better?

Testing and outcomes by region

Rokok Elektronik, Kesehatan, dan Kebebasan Individu

The coalition letter opposing “Buy American”

[EU] Public consultation for the EU climate ambition for 2030 and for the design of certain climate and energy policies of the European Green Deal

Introduction

Response:

Nový vyhledávač informací pro editaci genomu

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA