fbpx

Author: Fabio Fernandes

Euractiv

The Farm to Fork is too much of a political utopia

The EU’s new blueprint for sustainable food systems risks hurting both consumers and farmers, writes Bill Wirtz.

By 2030, the European Union is aiming to achieve a wide range of goals, according to the European Commission’s “Farm to Fork” strategy. From a political point of view, the document is the confirmation of a trend: green ideas are gaining in importance in Brussels’ day-to-day politics and are achieving many of their goals with this roadmap.

In line with the Biodiversity Strategy, which was presented at the same time as the “Farm to Fork” Strategy, the Von der Leyen Commission seems to be greener than its predecessors. But is this also good for farmers and consumers?

At the heart of “Farm to Fork” is the halving of pesticides by 2030, including those that have been found safe by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). This should raise questions at first sight: if these products have been safe until now, why do they need to be reduced? If they have not been found to be safe so far, why have they not been banned earlier?

The target of halving is incomprehensible in this sense. If plant protection products are fundamentally harmful to human health, then the remaining 50% is just as malignant as those that will be phased out.

The truth is tricky. There is a discrepancy between scientific and political rhetoric. Most established crop protection products have long been classified as safe, both by independent studies and by several national and international institutions.

This has not prevented many from questioning them anyway, and rightly so. Scientific knowledge changes: those who have new evidence are obliged to present it in the interest of food safety. Science is not a static construct that is set in stone as a unique and absolute truth.

For opponents of these means, it is not a scientific debate, but rather an ideological question of principle. Interventions in nature are viewed with scepticism, regardless of how important they are for food security.

These activists should know that not everything natural has to be healthy: for example, naturally occurring moulds carry aflatoxins, which are responsible for a large proportion of the world’s liver cancer cases. In Africa, 40% of all liver cancer cases are attributed to aflatoxins.

These have been combated with fungicides for many years, but more and more of these products are now to be banned.

It is often enough to have a conversation with a farmer. At the moment, most people complain about a lack of rain, but in the long term, the shrinking catalogue of permitted pesticides is a real problem. Insects eat up stocks, regardless of what the European Commission says or regulates.

This leads to higher prices in the supermarket, which is disastrous for many low-income earners, especially in view of the current economic imbalance. This is not a primary problem for the Dutch Green Change Commissioner Frans Timmermans.

In a speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 7 May, he said that we have been accustomed to cheap food for too long and that we need a paradigm shift in terms of sustainable agriculture.

If consumers bear the consequences of such experiments, and farmers are left with no alternative but to face the hurdles of natural problems, is it not time to rethink our agricultural policy?

Originally published here.

Study: Vaping Looks Like a Gateway Out of—Not Into—Smoking

In the United States, federal agencies and private organizations have pushed the narrative that the use of e-cigarettes threatens to get more people “hooked” on combustible products, leading to laws that have reduced the availability of non-smoke alternatives.

A new study from the United Kingdom, a country that recognizes and promotes vaping as a harm reduction intervention to smoking, found that most adult vapers buck the behavioral trajectory alleged across the Atlantic.

In 2020, more than half (58 percent) of UK adult vapers are ex-smokers—a proportion that’s been trending upwards since 2014. Meanwhile the proportion of adult vapers who are also current smokers has been on the decline—this year hitting 38 percent, compared with 65 percent six years ago, according to a YouGov survey commissioned by Action on Smoking and Health, a US-based organization aiming to end global harms of tobacco. Only 2 percent of the vapers were never-smokers.

Overall, 60 percent of the adult vapers identified their health as their “number one reason for taking up e-cigarettes.” That parallels findings that the top three specific reasons for vaping are to help with quitting cigarettes (30 percent), prevent relapse to smoking (20 percent) and reduce the number of cigarettes smoked (11 percent).

For Michael Landl, director of the Vapers’ World Alliance, the YouGov results suggest that “vaping is a gateway away from smoking.” After all, “e-cigarettes target tobacco consumers,” said Maria Chaplia, European affairs associate at the Consumer Choice Center, something she noted that “[m]ost anti-vaping arguments fail to take into account.”

“Just like sugar substitutes help people to reduce their sugar intake, e-cigarettes help people to quit smoking,” Chaplia continued. “We don’t blame sugar substitutes for increased sugar consumption, yet doing so for e-cigarettes seems to be acceptable.”

To be clear, vaping does not work for everyone as a so-called gateway out of smoking. Almost half of smokers have tried but no longer use e-cigarettes. Most commonly, 22 percent of them said it “did not feel like smoking a cigarette.” Two other reasons were that they didn’t quell cravings (16 percent) and that they had just wanted to try it (12 percent).

But when 8 million people, worldwide, die of smoking-related causes each year, any widespread exit route is hugely significant.

Originally published here.

The Pope should back off on anti-capitalism

Idea global capitalism has failed us is objectively wrong and so is caveat that economic gains have been shared unequally

According to Pope Francis, global capitalism has failed the world. In his latest encyclical, “Fratelli Tutti” (Brothers All), he writes that “neo-liberalism simply reproduces itself by resorting to magic theories of ‘spillover’ or ‘trickle.’ ” According to His Holiness, capitalism is a “perverse” global economic system that consistently keeps the poor on the margins while enriching the few. The Pope may be the Vicar of Christ on Earth for Catholics, but he couldn’t be more wrong when it comes to economics.

In the past 40 years, global capitalism has alleviated poverty at a rate never seen before. In 1980, over 40 per cent of people then alive lived in absolute poverty — defined as an income of less than $2 a day when adjusted for inflation. Fast forward to today, after half a century of globalization and “neoliberalism,” fewer than 10 per cent of people live in poverty.

China and India, which were once among the worst-off countries, have benefited immensely from a more globalized world. Since 1980, China has seen life expectancy rise by 13 per cent, infant survival by 80 per cent, inflation-adjusted income per person by 230 per cent, food supply per person by 44 per cent, and mean years of education by 49 per cent. India’s progress has charted that same path, as life expectancy has risen 23 per cent, infant survival 66 per cent, income per person 487 per cent, food supply 23 per cent and mean years of education 166 per cent.

To say these growth patterns are astounding would be an understatement. In fact, this wholesale reduction in poverty is so large it dwarfs the gains made during the Industrial Revolution, possibly even during our species’ domestication of agriculture over 10,000 years ago. If the Pope thinks this is failure, it’s hard to imagine what success would look like.

Critics of global capitalism might argue that poverty reduction is well and good but the progress has been unevenly shared. To a certain extent that is true but that gap is much smaller than most people realize.

Has the significant growth in the developing world come at the expense of workers in Canada and the United States? Hardly. Trade isn’t a zero-sum game, as the data confirm. Since 1980, Canada has experienced significant, albeit more modest gains on most of the measures mentioned. Since 1980 life expectancy has risen nine per cent in this country, infant survival 58 per cent, inflation-adjusted income per person 64 per cent, food supply 18 per cent and mean years of education 21 per cent. Those all represent substantial improvements.

But what about income inequality within Canada? Populists on the left and right will argue that the Pope is right and that globalization has exacerbated inequality here at home. That is the prevailing narrative these days. Every week we see headlines decrying the massive wealth of innovators like Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates. But the idea that Canada has become less equal as a result isn’t true either.

A country’s Gini coefficient (a measure of income inequality) shows how equal or unequal a country’s income or wealth distribution is. Its value is zero if everyone has the same income or wealth and one if only one person receives all of the country’s income or owns all its wealth. Although the Canada’s Gini coefficient for after-tax income has fluctuated, today it is about the same as it was in 1976, the first year for which Statistics Canada has data. In 1976, Canada’s after-tax Gini coefficient was .300. In 2018 it was .303 — virtually unchanged. Canada’s commitment to open markets and free trade, coupled with our strong social safety net, has allowed our country to experience economic growth without run-away inequality. People who suggest otherwise just don’t have fact on their side.

The idea that global capitalism has failed us is objectively wrong and so is the caveat that economic gains have been shared unequally. Whether we call it global capitalism or neoliberalism, the world is a better place because of it. We have all benefited from a more interconnected world. The rising tide has lifted all boats.

Originally published here.

Can things invent things? Do algorithms dream of owning patents?

In a new world of AI, and in light of AI policy being developed in a myriad of areas, we must not forget to determine how to reward and encourage innovation that derives from AI sources….

The first patent in human history was awarded in England in 1331, and in the 15th Century, many European nations began to use them, such as Florence who granted a patent for a marble carrying barge. The inventor of this vehicle was the first owner of an idea. In the 18th Century led by the United Kingdom and soon others such as the United States what we now understand as the patent system formed, and gave inventors incentives to disclose to the world their inventions in return for a monopoly period.

The ever-evolving legal framework governing the protection of inventions has played a crucial role in developing medicines and novel technologies across sectors. Modern patent law permits software to be patented. This has led to a revolution in innovation and catapulted humanity into the age of the knowledge society. The next frontier is to determine whether the owner of software or author of an algorithm can own the inventions by those electronic products.

Machine learning and the broader term artificial intelligence (AI) are the hopefuls of tech companies striving for more automation, tailored solutions, and faster research. While companies invest nearly 50 billion US Dollars on AI, there’s still a lack of clarity on how to protect the fruits of their inventions. Current patent law states fairly straightforward that inventions can only be made by humans. Bruce Love of the Financial Times describes this as ‘Things cannot invent things.’

Current patent law does not allow corporations to be the inventors of things but allows them to own patents. The challenge of AI inventing new ideas, technologies, and even drugs is that international patent law did not foresee that anyone but humans would have the actual cognitive capacity to create something inventive, and only humans would need recognition in a system designed to reward such ingenuity.

Recently, this focus on the human inventor has been tested: In 2018, several patent applications were filed in the name of Dr. Stephen Thaler for inventions purportedly invented by an artificial intelligence (AI) named DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). On the grounds that DABUS independently conceived of the inventions, and that no human inventor could be identified, the applications list DABUS as the sole inventor.

Formal inventorship requirements vary across different jurisdictions, but the USPTO, the EPO and the UK IPO have all rejected the possibility that DABUS can be named as an inventor on the patent applications, reaching the common consensus that, under current legislation, an inventor must be a ‘natural person’ for the purposes of a patent application.

The question of whether an AI can be an inventor is not merely academic, but part of a broader point about AI inventions and their commercial reality. Being an inventor conveys certain legal rights, and is integral to the concept of patent ownership.  Under the UK Patents Act 1977, the right to grant of a patent belongs first to the inventor.  An AI has no legal personality and if it invents then no one has a right to the invention as a patent.

Whether the law requires an update is a question that has garnered increasing attention in with the UK government opening a consultation on the matter in September 2020, and a third WIPO session on Intellectual Property and AI scheduled for November 2020.  The level of interest is understandable when we consider the history of patents, the public policy rationale and the ‘patent bargain,’ which grants a 20-year patent monopoly to an inventor for two reasons: (i) To have inventors share what they learn, so others coming after them can build on their ideas; and (ii) to reward investment in research.  As we have seen, the starting place for the grant of a patent has so far been the human inventor, the ‘natural person,’ albeit a company can then own and exploit the patent.  However, as the DABUS cases show, the questions we need to be asking now are: Does it matter if there is no human inventor?  What does it mean for investment and transparent sharing of learning, if a company cannot obtain a patent because the inventor was an AI? 

These questions may not seem that pressing at the moment, so far there has been no outcry that businesses are failing to obtain patents because of arguments concerning AI inventors.  However, an inability for a company to see a return on its investment in research is likely to change the business interest in these questions quickly. If this happens, policy makers will have to consider the patent bargain, and grapple with questions such as: If patents for AI inventions generated by AI are not available, will businesses stop publicly sharing their knowledge and/or struggle to obtain investment, and is that a problem? Does the cost of development of using AI warrant patent protection, or are inventions generated by is AI based on a comparatively cheap form of research that shouldn’t be afforded the same protection as other inventions? Is financial investment in research worthy of policy protection at all, or is it the human endeavour which we seek to reward? In particular, policy makers will have to decide what the purpose of the patent system is and whether, on balance, there is a sufficient policy reason to change it.

With humanity being at the brink of a new age and about to unleash a massive acceleration in our innovative potential thanks to artificial intelligence development, we must ask if it is time to update our patent laws. Without reflecting the fact that machines and algorithms have inventive capabilities we might miss out on investments and innovations that can elevate all of mankind. Think of algorithms that might only need days to find a vaccine for a new virus, smarter law enforcement methods, or programs that help us understand interstellar travel better than we could have ever imagined.  

In a new world of AI, and in light of AI policy being developed in a myriad of areas, we must not forget to determine how to reward and encourage innovation that derives from AI sources.

Originally published here.

Vaping is a Gateway OUT of Smoking, Study Finds

E-cigarettes help adults quit smoking and are not a gateway to tobaccco for non-smokers, according to a study published earlier today.

The report, from the World Vapers’ Alliance and the Consumer Choice Centre, also found that youth smoking rates are at an all-time low.

The findings are at odds with the frequently used argument that e-cigarettes encourage non-smoking teens to take up the habit. 

World Vapers’ Alliance director, Michael Landl, said:

“The most common arguments against vaping – painting vaping as a gateway to smoking – fail the test of reality and science.

“Vaping helps adult smokers to quit and youth use of e-cigarettes is rare, particularly by non-smokers.”

The researchers looked at smoking rates in the UK, where public health authorities support vaping as a smoking cessation method.

Here, the smoking rate is at a record low with the vast majority of vapers being ex-smokers and dual users.

Image source: Consumer Choice Centre

Report co-author Maria Chaplia said that most anti-vaping arguments ignored the fact that e-cigarettes were targeted at adult smokers.

Chaplia noted that e-cigarettes were comparable to sugar substitutes that help people reduce sugar intake.

She said:

“We don’t blame sugar substitutes for increased sugar consumption, yet doing so for e-cigarettes seems to be acceptable.” 

The main findings of the report include:

  • That nicotine is not the issue, the toxins in cigarettes are and that almost all the harm from smoking comes from the thousands of other chemicals in tobacco smoke.
  • E-cigarettes help adults to quit smoking and are twice as effective as nicotine replacement therapies
  • Vaping does not lead to smoking among teenagers as their smoking rate is at an all time low.
  • Youth use of e-cigarettes is rare.
  • Banning flavours won’t solve the problem: restrictions and bans on flavours will significantly limit the usefulness of vaping as a cessation tool.

Landl concluded:

“Policymakers cannot ignore the facts any longer.

“The scaremongering about vaping needs to stop and it should be endorsed as an effective tool to help smokers move to a safer alternative by public health agencies.”

Originally published here.

Le sigarette elettroniche sono una porta di uscita dal fumo

Un nuovo paper del Consumer Choice Center affronta il tema dell’effetto gateway ed esorta la politica a promuovere l’e-cigarette.

Di Barbara Mennitti| SIGMAGAZINE

Si intitola “Vaping and the gateway myth” (lo svapo e il mito dell’effetto gateway) il nuovo Policy paper appena pubblicato dal Consumer choice center, l’organizzazione americana (ma con sede anche in Europa) ormai sempre più attiva nella difesa della sigaretta elettronica. A firmare il documento sono Maria Chaplia, European affairs associate del Ccc, e Michael Landl, direttore della rete di associazioni di consumatori World Vapers’Alliance, fondata lo scorso maggio proprio grazie a un contributo iniziale dell’organizzazione. Scopo del paper è quello di fornire una base di argomenti che dimostri come la sigaretta elettronica sia uno strumento per abbandonare il fumo e non per arrivarci.

Read the full article here.

How to feed 11 billion people?

If the EU wants to fight global hunger, it needs to stop food elitism, writes the Consumer Choice Centre’s Fred Roeder.

By 2070 the world will be populated by approximately 10.5 billion people. This means that we will need to be able to feed a further three billion people. Fortunately, technological advances in agriculture and technology have already helped us provide food for an extra 5.5 billion people in the last century compared to the two billion that populated the earth in 1920. Stanford University estimates that if we were to still use the farming technology of 1960, we would need additional farming land equivalent to the size of Russia to earn the same yields as current technology.

Unfortunately, the current political narrative in one of the world’s wealthiest regions seems to ignore the challenges ahead of us and wants us to turn to less efficient farming. The European Union’s Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy sets out to create a more sustainable food system by the end of this decade. However, looking at the current proposals, it is worrisome that this new policy framework will achieve the opposite of sustainable farming and could lead not just Europe but the entire world to a food crisis with massive geopolitical ramifications.

“Stanford University estimates that if we were to still use the farming technology of 1960, we would need additional farming land equivalent to the size of Russia to earn the same yields as current technology”

The EU plans to increase the share of organic farming as a total of agricultural production from the current level of 7.5 percent to 25 percent by 2030. Additionally, they plan to reduce pesticide use by half. At the same time, the F2F strategy does not embrace new technologies that allow farmers to achieve the same yields they are able to produce using the current level of pesticides.

More organic farming in Europe means lower yields of EU food production and higher prices for consumers. The shortage in Europe will be likely compensated by additional food imports from other parts of the world. This will lead to a global increase in food prices. For affluent regions of the world such as Europe, this will be rather a nuisance for consumers. But for people already living at the edge of existence and facing hunger, this will have very negative consequences.

In India, home to a fifth of the world’s population, the country’s caste system means that farmers of the lowest caste live and farm on land that is more likely to experience regular flooding, resulting in poor or destroyed rice harvests. However, using gene editing, we can produce rice crops that can submerge underwater for up to two weeks and still provide high yields. Such technologies are a clear game-changer for the poor and hungry and should be embraced. There’s no humanitarian case against them but a strong one for them.

Unfortunately, many critics of pesticides also oppose the use of gene editing. This can result in lower food production in the face of growing demand.

“We indeed all share one planet and we therefore need to have sensible food policies that acknowledge hunger still being a problem for one in ten of us every day”

We all saw the dramatic refugee crisis in 2015, including all the terrible suffering and drowning in the Mediterranean. While the EU’s policies did not trigger this crisis, our future agricultural policies could cause widespread famines in parts of Africa and Asia. We indeed all share one planet and we therefore need to have sensible food policies that acknowledge hunger still being a problem for one in ten of us every day. No one wants to see people forced from their homes because of starvation, but, with just a few adjustments of the EU’s future agricultural policies, we can mitigate many of the negative drivers of poverty and hunger.

The EU’s Farm to Fork strategy needs to take this into account and not jeopardise our ability to feed an ever-growing population.

Originally published here.

How Not to Respond to Alarming Social Media Censorship

Protecting a free and open internet means not using punitive regulations or policies to hamstring social networks because of the scandal of the day.

Call it election interference, censorship, or simple editorializing, but Twitter and Facebook’s throttling of several New York Post articles this week has drawn lots of criticism.

The stories allege that Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, introduced Ukrainian energy adviser Vadym Pozharskyi to his father after receiving a cushy $50,000 a month board seat at the company Burisma. (Other outlets have contested the report).

There is no question that the social networks in question made a bad call. Disabling the link on the various platforms made even more people seek it out, creating a “Streisand Effect” of mass proportions.

But the content of the articles isn’t what really matters.

The reaction to the New York Post report reveals just how much pressure is put on social networks to perform roles far beyond what they were intended for. We want them to simultaneously police speech online, keep the networks free for open discussion, and be mindful of “fake news” that spreads rapidly.

So, it is important to understand why Facebook and Twitter felt they had to censor the story in the first place—and why all of us are actually to blame. For the last several years, campaigners, activists, and politicians have primed us all to accept the byzantine expectations and regulations put on social networks.

From Netflix documentaries such as The Social Dilemma and The Great Hack to the criticisms of “surveillance capitalism,” many voices are calling for further regulation of social media networks.

Some on the Right smirk as Sen. Josh Hawley pens legislation to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or to ban “infinite scrolling” on social media apps. Meanwhile, some on the Left cheer as technology CEOs are dragged before congressional committees and castigated for “allowing” Trump to win in 2016. 

This week, it was revealed that the New York State Department of Financial Services wants a “dedicated regulator” to oversee social media platforms. Other states will likely follow suit.

But what we’re all too loath to admit is that these firms do what any of us would do when under scrutiny: they pivot, they engage in damage control, and they aim to please those with pitchforks outside their doors. It’s the same whether it’s Black Lives Matter or President Trump.

Facebook has committed to ending all political advertising online (hurting non-profit advocacy groups like mine) and Twitter already implemented a similar policy last year, lauded by political figures such as Hillary Clinton and Andrew Yang.

Of course, when tech giants censor or delete stories that we perceive to advance or hurt our political “team,” we are all up in arms. But protecting a free and open internet means not using punitive regulations or policies to hamstring social networks because of the scandal of the day.

Internet policy remedies dreamed up in Washington, D.C. will almost always end up hurting those of us who don’t have power or deep pockets. It harms the small businesses that use social networks for advertising, and it sets up more roadblocks for ordinary users who simply want to check in with friends and family. 

Big Tech isn’t powerful because it has money, but because it has delivered superior products, those that have left platforms such as AOL, Myspace, and Yahoo in their wake.

Social networks have evolved from places to connect and share information across borders to intellectual and political battlefields where we wage digital wars.

Of course, there should be regulation in some respect. But it should be smart regulation that keeps platforms relatively free and open and provides incentives for future innovation. The powerful platforms of today can afford to comply with cumbersome rules, while new market entrants cannot. 

That means that with every new proposal to roll back Section 230 protections or require quasi-governmental fact-checking functions around Election Day, we’re depriving consumers of choice and entrepreneurs of the ability to innovate.

Of course, targeted censorship of certain accounts or stories on social media networks is bad. But policy “solutions” dreamed up by technologically illiterate bureaucrats and power-hungry politicians would no doubt be even worse. 

Originally published here.

Agefi

Réglementation sur les créneaux horaires dans l’aviation: la concurrence doit primer

La Commission européenne a encore une fois prolongé la dérogation à la réglementation des créneaux horaires. Applaudie comme étant une aide au secteur, cette dérogation garantit encore une fois l’avantage aux entreprises établies leur permettant de contourner la concurrence. Comment est-ce que le secteur aérien peut s’améliorer si à chaque crise nous dépensons l’argent du contribuable pour le sauver.

Le secteur aérien distribue une partie des créneaux horaires commes des réservations de route. Ceci s’applique de façon générale aux aéroports les plus utilisés. Par exemple, la compagnie X réserve un aller-retour depuis un aéroport et sera contrainte par cette réservation. Cela veut dire que l’avion devra partir, même s’il n’y a pas de passagers, afin de garantir la place de la compagnie sur ce créneau horaire. Ceci provoque ce qu’on a nommé des “ghost flights” (vols fantômes), où les compagnies envoient des avions vides afin de ne pas perdre leur place. Cette réglementation avait été créée afin d’éviter une concentration dans le secteur aérien. A titre d’exemple, une compagnie pourrait réserver tous les créneaux disponibles dans un aéroport spécifique (si elle a le cashflow nécessaire), afin d’empêcher toute concurrence.

Au début de la crise du COVID-19, la Commission européenne avait décidé d’une dérogation à cette réglementation. A court terme, ceci fût une bonne décision. Par contre, une nouvelle extension de la dérogation est un non-sens, car la concurrence, même si amoindrie par la pandémie, existe tout de même. Les créneaux horaires des aéroports sont rares, et c’est pourquoi ils sont si précieux et doivent être utilisés de la manière la plus efficace possible. Bien que conçue  par de nobles objectifs, la politique de la Commission implique que les compagnies aériennes sont les seules propriétaires des créneaux horaires.

La dérogation actuelle à l’obligation de voler n’expirera qu’en mars 2021. De nombreuses associations ont demandé à la Commission de prolonger la dérogation “pour éviter que des avions vides ne volent” ainsi qu’afin que  “les vols soient effectués de la manière la plus optimale possible pour éviter de la pollution inutile”. Toutefois, la prolongation créerait une situation dans laquelle les plus grandes compagnies aériennes auraient la possibilité de monopoliser les créneaux horaires, rendant impossible l’entrée des plus petites. Cela explique pourquoi les compagnies à bas prix comme Wizz Air s’opposent à la prolongation à cette dérogation, la qualifiant d’anticoncurrentielle et que “cela entraverait plutôt que n’aiderait à la reprise de l’industrie aéronautique de l’UE et, par conséquent, des économies européennes”. 

Si la Commission n’a certainement pas l’intention de protéger les grandes compagnies aériennes en renonçant à l’obligation de détenir des créneaux horaires, c’est cependant une conséquence évidente de cette décision. La propriété des créneaux horaires dans les aéroports ne devrait pas être statique. Au contraire, elle devrait faire l’objet d’une rotation constante entre les compagnies aériennes afin de garantir l’attribution la plus efficace possible des installations et d’encourager une utilisation responsable des aéroports. La règle “use-it-or-leave-it” est, en ce sens, juste et équitable, et devrait être maintenue à tout moment.

L’aviation a changé notre vie à bien des égards. Maintenant que les consommateurs de toute l’Europe ont pu goûter à la vie sans voyager, ils souhaiteraient prendre l’avion davantage, et non moins, une fois la pandémie passée. La Commission européenne devrait veiller à ce que les consommateurs aient la possibilité de choisir entre plusieurs compagnies aériennes, en tenant compte de leurs contraintes budgétaires. Pour y parvenir, les grandes compagnies et les compagnies à bas prix doivent être traitées sur un pied d’égalité et se faire concurrence pour les créneaux horaires dans les aéroports.

Le secteur de l’aviation peut être soutenu par l’allégement des taxes locales sur les compagnies aériennes et par des mesures de déréglementation. Cependant, ce genre de mesures doit être équitable pour tous, afin de garantir un maximum de concurrence et par ce biais, de choix pour les consommateurs.

Mengapa Vape Berperasa Itu Penting?

Rokok elektronik, atau yang dikenal dengan nama vape, saat ini sudah menjadi bagian keseharian dari jutaan penduduk dunia, khususnya mereka yang tinggal di wilayah urban. Memang harus diakui, vape memiliki beberapa kelebihan yang tidak ada pada rokok tembakau konvensional yang dibakar. Karena meningkatnya konsumsi vape di seluruh dunia, para produsen dan perusahaan berlomba-lomba mendirikan toko dan menawarkan produk-produk terbaik yang dapat menarik konsumen. Salah satu kelebihan dari rokok elektronik yang tidak disediakan oleh rokok konvensional yang dibakar adalah, ada beragam rasa yang ditawarkan dalam produk-produk vape. Produk-produk vape yang berbahan dasar cairan memberi kesempatan kepada berbagai produsen dan perusahaan untuk berkreasi dan membuat berbagai rasa untuk menarik hati konsumen, seperti buah-buahan strawberry, jeruk, dan sebagainya.Namun, tidak semua pihak menanggapi fenomena penggunaan vape yang semakin meningkat ini dengan positif, khususnya terkait dengan rokok elektronik yang mengandung perasa. Beberapa pemerintahan merespon fenomena tersebut dengan melarang seluruh penjualan produk-produk yang menggandung rasa tertentu.Alasan yang kerap dikemukakan untuk menjustifikasi kebijakan tersebut adalah rokok elektronik yang mengandung perasa dapat semakin menarik anak-anak dan remaja untuk mengkonsumsi produk tersebut. Hal inilah yang ingin dihindari oleh berbagai pemerintahan di dunia melalui kebijakan pelarangan produk-produk vape yang mengandung perasa.Alasan lain yang juga digunakan sebagai pembenaran atas kebijakan tersebut adalah munculnya beberapa kasus penyakit pernafasan yang dianggap oleh aparat penegak hukum disebabkan oleh penggunaan vape. Di Amerika Serikat beberapa bulan lalu misalnya, terjadi beberapa kasus orang-orang yang dilarikan ke rumah sakit karena menderita penyakit pernafasan yang disebabkan oleh penggunaan produk-produk rokok elektronik (CNN, 19/09/2019).Merespon kejadian tersebut, pada bulan Februari 2020 lalu, Presiden Amerika Serikat, Donald Trump, mengeluarkan kebijakan yang melarang penjualan produk-produk rokok elektronik yang mengandung perasa, dan hanya mengizinkan produk-produk rokok elektornik dengan rasa netral atau menthol (NBC News, 06/02/2020).

Lantas, apakah kebijakan pelarangan ini merupakan sesuatu yang tepat?*****Untuk menjawab pertanyaan di atas, kita harus melihat terlebih dahulu akar penyebab dari munculnya kebijakan pelarangan produk-produk rokok elektronik yang menggunakan perasa tersebut. Sehubungan dengan beberapa kasus penyakit pernafasan yang muncul di Amerika Serikat sebagai akibat dari penggunaan rokok elektronik, hal ini merupakan penjelasan yang kurang tepat sesuai dengan fakta di lapangan.Memang benar bahwa, kasus-kasus penyakit pernafasan yang muncul tersebut disebabkan oleh para pengguna vape. Namun, yang sangat penting untuk dicantumkan adalah, hal tersebut disebabkan oleh penggunaan vape ilegal yang berbahaya, dan bukan vape legal. Pada bulan September tahun 2019 lalu, aparat keamanan Amerika Serikat menangkap 2 orang bersaudara yang menjalankan bisnis vape ilegal tersebut (Fox News, 15/09/2019).

Melarang produk legal, apapun produknya, untuk mencegah dampak berbahaya yang disebabkan oleh produk serupa yang ilegal adalah kebijakan yang sangat tidak tepat dan justru sangat berbahaya bagi konsumen. Bila pemerintah melarang produk-produk vape legal yang menggunakan perasa, hal tersebut justru akan berpotensi besar semakin menyuburkan pasar vape ilegal yang menggunakan perasa, yang justru dapat sangat membahayakan bagi kesehatan para konsumen.Terkait dengan kekhawatiran produk-produk vape yang menggunakan perasa akan berpotensi menarik hati anak-anak dan remaja, memang benar konsumsi nikotin oleh anak-anak di bawah usia adalah hal yang harus kita cegah. Produk-produk vape atau rokok elektronik memang bukan sesuatu yang untuk dikonsumsi oleh anak-anak.Namun, bukan berarti lantas hal ini bisa menjustifikasi pelarangan seluruh produk-produk vape yang mengandung perasa. Kebijakan ini jsutru akan semakin membatasi opsi yang bisa dimiliki oleh pengguna vape dewasa.Adanya produk-produk vape yang mengandung perasa merupakan salah satu faktor yang sangat penting yang membuat banyak perokok mengalihkan kebiasaan mereka dari menggunakan rokok konvensinal yang dibakar ke rokok elektronik. Berdasarkan penelitian yang dilakukan oleh lembaga Consumer Choice Center (CCC), akan semakin banyak para pengguna vape atau rokok elektronik yang akan berpindah ke mengkonsumsi rokok konvensional apabila pemerintah mengeluarkan aturan yang melarang produk-produk rokok elektronik yang menggunakan perasa (Consumer Choice Center, 2020).Berdasarkan penelitian yang dilakukan di beberapa negara, secara total pelarangan vape yang menggunakan perasa oleh pemerintah akan membuat mereke kembali menggunakan rokok konvensional. Di Amerika Serikat misalnya, jumlah pengguna vape yang akan beralih ke rokok konvensional apabia aturan tersebut diberlakukan ada 7.700.000 pengguna. Sementara itu, di Belanda ada 260.000 orang, diJerman 1.309.000 orang, di Kanada 955.000 orang, dan di Prancis akan ada 1.600.000 pengguna vape yang akan beralih ke rokok konvensional apabila vape yang menggunakan perasa dilarang (Consumer Choice Center, 2020).

Hal ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang sangat berbahaya bagi kesehatan piblik, dan harus dapat kita cegah. Rokok konvensioal yang dibakar telah terbukti secara penuh oleh penelitian medis dapat menyebabkan berbagai penyakit kronis bagi orang-orang yang menggunakannya, seperti berbagai jenis kanker dan serangan jantung.Sebaliknya, vape atau rokok konvensional sudah terbukti jauh lebih aman dan tidak lebih berbahaya bila dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar. Berdasarkan laporan dari lembaga kesehatan publik Britania Raya, Public Health England rokok elektronik atau vape 95% jauh lebih aman bila dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar (Public Health England, 2015).Penyebab utama mengapa rokok konvensional adalah sesuatu yang sangat berbahaya dan dapat menimbulkan berbagai penyakit bagi konsumennya adalah karena berbagai zat-zat kimia yang terkandung di dalam rokok tersebut. Berdasarkan laporan dari American Lung Association, di dalam rokok konvensional terdapat lebih dari 7.000 zat kimia, di mana 69 dari zat-zat tersebut merupakan zat yang dapat menyebabkan kanker (American Lung Association, 2019). Hal ini jauh berbeda dengan rokok elektornik atau vape. Bahan utama yang terkandung di dalam cairan vape adalah propylene glycol (PG) dan vegetable glycerin (VG) yang banyak digunakan sebagai bahan perasa makanan, dan sudah dinyatakan aman oleh berbagai lembaga regulator di berbagai negara, salah satunya adalah lembaga pengawas obat dan makanan Amerika Serikat, Foods and Drugs Administration (U.S. Food and Drugs Administration, 2019).Sementara itu, terkait dengan kekhawatiran penggunaan vape oleh anak-anak di bawah usia bila rokok elektronik yang menggunakan perasa dilaran, maka solusi atas hal tersebut tentu bukan melarang produk vape berperasa sepenuhnya. Hal tersebut justru akan semakin mengurangi insentif para perokok dewasa yang mengguankan rokok konvensional untuk berhenti merokok dan beralih ke produk lain yang lebih aman.Solusi yang tepat untuk mencegah penggunaan dan konsumsi rokok elektronik oleh anak-anak adalah melarang toko-toko menjual produk-produk tersebut ke anak di bawah usia. Bila ada toko atau penjual yang melanggar aturan tersebut, maka akan dikenakan sanksi yang tegas.Sebagai penutup, sudah terbukti bahwa salah satu faktor yang menyebabkan banyaknya para perokok yang berhenti merokok dan beralih ke produk yang terbukti lebih aman. Jangan sampai kita membuat kebijakan yang semakin menyulitkan mereka dalam melakukan hal tersebut.

Originally published 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