fbpx

Author: Fabio Fernandes

ВООЗ змінює курс – тепер радить не вдаватись до локдаунів

Попри те, що ВООЗ закликає країни утримуватися від введення локдаунів, багато урядів продовжують використовувати цю стратегію.

Попри те, що ВООЗ закликає країни утримуватися від введення локдаунів, багато урядів продовжують використовувати цю стратегію. Український – поки в роздумах.

Наслідки пандемії COVID-19 завдали нищівного удару економіці багатьох країн і нашій, підірвали наші особисті та економічні свободи, що стали жертвами пандемії так само, як і наше здоров’я. Відповідно до результатів одного дослідження, в найближчі п’ять років локдауни можуть нам всім коштувати 82 трильйони доларів у світовому масштабі – приблизно стільки ж, скільки наш річний глобальний ВВП.

В Україні внаслідок першої хвилі пандемії третина компаній втратили 50-75% доходів, майже 45% – до половини доходів, ще 7% опитаних розглядали варіант закриття бізнесу (за результатами травневого опитування Європейської Бізнес Асоціації).

Локдауни весною були обґрунтовані рекомендаціями Світової Організації Охорони Здоров’я. У квітні генеральний директор ВООЗ лікар Тедрос Адханом Гебреєс закликав країни не виходити з локдаунів, поки хвороба не буде під контролем.

Але зараз, більше шість місяців з тих пір, як локдауни стали улюбленим політичним інструментом ба, ВООЗ закликає їх припинити. Лікар Девід Набарро, спеціальний посланник ВООЗ з питань COVID-19, минулого тижня заявив журналісту Spectator UK Ендрю Нілу, що політики помилялися, використовуючи локдаун як “основний метод контролю” для боротьби з COVID-19.

“Локдауни мають лише один наслідок, який ми ніколи не повинні нівелювати: вони роблять бідних людей набагато біднішими”, – сказав Набарро.

Доктор Майкл Райан, директор Програми ВООЗ з надзвичайних ситуацій у галузі охорони здоров’я, розділив такий підхід. “Ми хочемо і можемо уникнути масових локдаунів, які нищать громади, суспільство та все інше”, – сказав містер Райан, виступаючи на брифінгу в Женеві.

Чути такі заяви від організації, яка була ключовим авторитетом і моральним голосом, відповідальним за вирішення глобальної реакції на пандемію, є достатньо приголомшливо.

Рекомендації ВООЗ стали підставою всіх національних та локальних обмежень не тільки в Україні, несучи загрозу повернути 150 мільйонів людей по всьому світу до екстремальної бідності. Як зазначив Набарро, переважна більшість людей, які постраждали від локдаунів, були якраз бідні і ті, кому і так було тяжко зводити кінці з кінцями перед пандемією.

Кожен з нас напевно знає людей, чий бізнес збанкротував, або які втратили роботу через локдаун. Особливо це стосується сфер торгівлі та громадського харчування, які були знищені політикою локдаунів.

І навіть коли ВООЗ закликає країни утримуватися від нав’язування локдаунів, багато урядів продовжують використовувати цю стратегію. Як це все розвинеться в Україні – поки не відомо. Але, наприклад в багатьох штатах США, школи залишаються закритими, так само, як бари і ресторани, а великі збори – окрім протестів – засуджуються та закриваються силою.

Вплив тривалих локдаунів на молодих людей стає все більш очевидним. Недавнє дослідження, проведене в Единбурзькому університеті, говорить про те, що закриття шкіл збільшить кількість смертей через COVID-19. До того ж у дослідженні йдеться про те, що локдауни “подовжують епідемію, в деяких випадках приводячи до більшої кількості смертей на тривалий термін”.

Якщо ми хочемо зменшити вже завдану шкоду і не допустити нової, не треба більше локдаунів. Взагалі треба скептично ставитись до способів боротьби з пандемією чия ціна перевищує їхню потенційну користь.

Божевілля має закінчитися. Не лише тому, що так говорить ВООЗ, а тому, що від цього залежить наше життя і наше майбутнє.

Як зазначили лікарі та науковці у Великій декларації Баррінгтона, підписаній цього місяця в штаті Массачусетс, “локдауни самі по собі мали руйнівний вплив на фізичне та психічне здоров’я, і ці наслідки себе проявлять в короткостроковій та довгостроковій перспективі.”

Ми не можемо продовжувати ризикувати своїм добробутом, закриваючи економіку та людей. Це єдиний шлях вперед, якщо ми прагнемо оговтатися від руйнівних наслідків урядової політики навколо COVID-19.

Статтю написано у співавторстві з  Яелем Оссовскі, заступником директора Consumer Choice Center.

Originally published here.

Energiewende: ce que le sévère échec de la transition énergétique allemande devrait nous apprendre

énergie nucléaire centrales environnement

Si nous voulons être sérieux face aux défis climatiques et à la demande croissante d’énergie, il faut que nous reprenions d’urgence le dossier de l’énergie nucléaire.

Imaginez vous que vous déclarez une transition énergétique mais que personne n’y participe. C’est au sens propre ce qui s’est passé en Allemagne avec l’ “Energiewende” (la transition énergétique).

Cette transition allemande a entraîné une hausse importante des prix pour les gens ordinaires. L’Institut de recherche économique a constaté que ce changement radical avait coûté plus de 28 millions d’euros aux ménages allemands, car le marché était soumis à une concurrence moindre. Les grands gagnants de cette transition sont l’industrie du charbon et du gaz.

En effet, l’utilisation des centrales électriques au charbon et au gaz a tant augmenté que l’Allemagne — même avec tout les efforts de réduction des émissions de dioxyde de carbone, est restée stagnante sur ses résultats. Ainsi ses objectifs climatiques n’ont pas été atteints. Afin d’éviter la situation de l’Allemagne, les Verts en Finlande sont en faveur de l’énergie nucléaire. En Suisse, même si le pays ne construit plus de nouvelles centrales, elle a plusieurs fois rejeté le principe d’une sortie complète du nucléaire par voie de référendum.

La nécessité du nucléaire devient également prégnante pour des raisons de sécurité nationale: pourquoi accepter une dépendance croissante au gaz venant de Russie, pays qui viole les droits de l’Homme et se montre régulièrement hostile aux payes européens ?

Pour le monde scientifique, dont le monde politique veut se fier quand il s’agit de souligner l’urgence du changement climatique, a régulièrement fait entendre sa voix dans ce débat. En décembre 2014, 75 scientifiques du monde entier ont rédigé une lettre ouverte aux écologistes sur l’énergie nucléaire, affirmant qu’il s’agit d’un moyen efficace et nécessaire de produire de l’énergie et que les faits contredisent le raisonnement idéologique qui s’oppose aux centrales.

Ces scientifiques étaient réunis par le professeur Barry W. Brook, titulaire de la chaire d’environnement durable à l’université de Tasmanie, en Australie. Cet écologiste a publié trois livres et plus de 300 articles scientifiques. Leur lettre disait :

“Même si les sources d’énergie renouvelables comme le vent et le soleil contribueront probablement de plus en plus à la production énergétique future, ces options technologiques sont confrontées à des problèmes concrets d’extensibilité, de coût, de matériel et d’utilisation des terres, ce qui signifie qu’il est trop risqué de les considérer comme les seules alternatives aux combustibles fossiles.”

L’énergie nucléaire répond aux problèmes de notre temps. C’est une énergie abordable et, de façon importante, n’émet pas d’émissions CO2. Les Etats-Unis, pas particulièrement connu d’être adepte aux accords internationaux pour le climat, ont évité 476,2 tonnes de CO2 grâce au nucléaire. Depuis 1995, cela fait un total de 15,7 milliards de tonnes qui a été évité grâce au nucléaire, soit un tiers de la consommation annuelle de la planète. Evidemment, il s’agit d’un chiffre qu’il s’agirait d’augmenter mais cela ne sera possible qu’avec des modèles énergétiques comme celui de la France, qui garantie l’indépendence énergétique avec un système de centrales nucléaires extensifs.

De plus, il faut revenir sur les faits quand à la discussion sur les déchets. En réalité, le combustible nucléaire est extrêmement dense. Il est environ un million de fois plus important que celui des autres sources d’énergie traditionnelles et, de ce fait, la quantité de combustible nucléaire utilisée est petite. La totalité des déchets des combustibles nucléaires produit par l’industrie nucléaire américaine au cours des 60 dernières années pourrait tenir sur un terrain de football à moins de 10 mètres de profondeur. De plus, actuellement 96% de ces “déchets” sont recyclables.

L’opposition au nucléaire est principalement dû à la méconnaissance des systèmes technologiques, ainsi qu’à la médiatisation problématiques des accidents comme celui de Fukishima. Comme le note l’écologiste Michael Schellenberger, “le nombre de décès pour une production identique d’électricité, ici par exemple le térawattheure est notablement inférieur à celui des autres grands moyens de production de masse comme le charbon, le pétrole, la biomasse et le gaz naturel.”

Si nous sommes tous préoccupés par les effets du changement climatique, nous devons nous rendre compte que l’énergie nucléaire est la seule alternative viable qui soit sûre, propre et capable de garantir la production dont nous avons besoin. Faut-il avoir un débat sur le nucléaire ? Evidemment. Mais il faut assurer que ce débat soit basé sur les faits et sans perdre de vue l’objectif de maintenir notre qualité de vie tout en réduisant les gaz à effet de serre.

Bill Wirtz est analyste de politiques publiques pour l’Agence pour le choix du consommateur (Consumer Choice Center).

Originally published here.

The BBC can’t resist speculating on the science

In this column (26 September), I pointed out that the National Trust’s new ‘Gazetteer’ of its 93 properties linked with slavery and ‘colonialism’ was not so much a scholarly documentation as ‘a charge sheet and a hit list’. Once the organisation entrusted with the care of a building denigrates that building’s most famous occupants, logic suggests it will care for the building less well than for that of an occupant it admires. This logic is already starting to work through. The National Trust owns Thomas Carlyle’s house in Chelsea, but now it has closed it ‘until further notice’, whereas all the other small houses of the Trust in London will reopen in March. For the first time since it was opened to the public in 1895, the place will have no live-in housekeeper. Although not stated, the reason for this downgrading would seem to be Carlyle’s racial views. When it does reopen, members are promised ‘a different visitor experience’. If you click on the Trust’s website entry for the house, you can listen to a podcast entitled ‘Think a Likkle: Lineage of Thought’ by Ellie Ikiebe, who is a New Museum School trainee at the National Trust. She appears not to have visited 24 Cheyne Row until making the podcast, but she knows what she wants to do with Carlyle. ‘If we truly acknowledged the lineage of thought, popular society would see the links between colonialism, white supremacy to the injustice of Breonna Taylor death and the black lives matter movement’, she says. She is ‘shifting the narrative to under-represented histories’. The ‘hidden history’ here is that Carlyle was a racist. His ‘lineage of thought’, which she wishes people to ‘break from’, is that white men dictate what we think. Two thoughts strike me. The first is that the history of Carlyle’s views has never been hidden: he has always been intensely controversial, and critics have alleged that some of his views assisted, long after his death, the development of fascist thought. The second is that a charity which publishes such a hostile piece by someone who appears not to know much about the subject is not a fit body to look after his heritage.

When Peregrine Worsthorne died last week, my mind went back to February 1986. There was great excitement at that time about the state of British newspapers. Rupert Murdoch was defeating the print unions at Wapping and the talk was of an entirely new, independent paper starting. (It did: it was called, suitably, the Independent.) At the same time, Conrad Black had finally gained complete control of the Telegraph group and was about to appoint his own editors. Owned by Australians and therefore observing from the touchline, The Spectator (which I was then editing) tried to analyse the situation mischievously. Who better to do so, I thought, than Perry Worsthorne? He was by far the Sunday Telegraph’s most famous writer at the time, and could be relied on to make trouble. When I commissioned him to write the article, Perry grinned in a slightly furtive way, and agreed. The following day — entirely without my foreknowledge or expectation — he was announced as the next editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

So the cover piece Perry produced (‘The Battle for Good Journalism’, 1 March 1986) turned into his manifesto. ‘I never thought any proprietor would make me editor’, he wrote, because editing in the era of the print union tyranny had meant an endless battle for survival, with little chance to reflect. But perhaps the happier commercial climate would allow room for ‘a writing and thinking editor’. He imagined ‘a latter-day Dr Johnson’: the paper would be ‘highly intelligent but also commonsensical, authoritative as well as readable; high-principled, without being in the least moralistic… There would be plenty of idiosyncratic opinion and shafts of dazzling originality.’ To a remarkable degree, Perry the editor achieved his aim, though I would take out the word ‘commonsensical’, which he rarely was, and add the word ‘fearless’, which he was all the time. His experiment ended prematurely, due to managerial anxieties, but it was splendid and gallant while it lasted. In his final years (he died aged 96), bedridden and almost completely lost to the world, beautifully looked after by his wife Lucy, who kept telling him (it was the truth) how handsome he was, Perry retained his dandified courage.

Last week, this September was pronounced the hottest ever worldwide. Seeking, as ever, to dramatise the story, the BBC reporter Roger Harrabin ended thus on Radio 4 News: ‘Scientists warn these extremes are happening with just one degree of heating globally, when under the current projected rate of carbon emissions, we’re heading towards three degrees.’ His sentence raised more questions than it answered. Which scientists? One degree of heating over what period? Who is responsible for the currently projected rate of carbon emissions he cites? When will their projected rise of three degrees be reached? And how do we know that the September ‘extremes’ he described — wildfires in California, half a metre of rain falling in a day in France — were caused by the one degree warming he mentioned? That single sentence was a neat encapsulation of the Harrabin method — moving deftly from probable fact (the September global figure) to imagined trend, to full-scale, undated catastrophe. The Reverend Mr Harrabin is always preaching that the end is nigh, but it is more than his job’s worth to say when.

Sensing when it began that Covid-19 would deprive people of many small pleasures and freedoms, I kept one or two things which would remind me of them, on a multum in parvo principle. I have a press release from the senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center, an ‘advocacy group’, issued in mid-March. Its headline is ‘Greece banning snuff in times of emergency is undemocratic and cruel’. Hear! Hear! Sadly, even more undemocratic and cruel things have happened since then.

Originally published here.

Mycotoxin contamination: The dangers of mould

Mycotoxin contamination is set to become a bigger problem as climate change evolves. In order to prevent food safety and food security, European farmers need adequate crop protection tools….

What do you do when you see a set of mould on the marmalade in your fridge? The unfortunate conventional household wisdom is to remove it, and then continue to eat whichever food product it affected. The misconceptions of consumers go further than that — in recent study conducted by the University of Copenhagen, researchers found that Danish consumers regard mould as a sign of “naturalness”, while products treated with pesticides as unhealthy.

This is a problematic misunderstanding of nature, perpetuated by decades of denigrating modern agriculture and the work of farmers. The use of fungicides and better storage units to prevent mould is not arbitrary and against the interests of consumers, quite in contrary. Moulds carry mycotoxins, which adversely affect human health.

Mycotoxins are naturally occurring toxic chemicals produced by moulds (fungi) that grow on crops. Wet weather, insect damage, and inadequate storage all promote the growth of mould on crops and increase the likelihood of mycotoxin contamination. Among the most common mycotoxins are aflatoxins, ochratoxin A (OTA), fumonisins (FUM), zearalenone (ZEN), and deoxynivalenol (DON – also known as vomitoxin), which can all be ingested through eating contaminated food, including dairy products (as infected animals can carry it into milk), eggs, or meat. One of the most dangerous are aflatoxins, which can affect corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, peanuts, and tree nuts, and can cause cancer. Most disconcertingly, up to 28% of all liver cancers worldwide can be attributed to aflatoxins, and its immunosuppressant features leave humans weakened against other diseases. The features have been known to modern science since the turn of the century.

In Africa, this is a deadly epidemic. Aflatoxin exposure is more deadly than exposure to malaria or tuberculosis, with 40% of all liver cancers in Africa being related to it. Mycotoxin contamination can occur through inadequate food storage, but more importantly, it occurs in the absence of the correct crop protection measures, including chemicals.

A recently published study by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that a changing climate impacts these problems. “Some of the important factors that influence mycotoxin production – temperature, relative humidity and crop damage by pests – are affected by climate change”, writes the UN body. 

In order to prevent these fungi, farmers use fungicides. Fungicides are biocidal chemical compounds or biological organisms used to kill parasitic fungi or their spores. However, a large range of fungicides are being criticised by environmental groups, because of hazard-based risk-assessments. It is important to understand why they are wrong, by laying out the difference between “hazard” and “risk” in scientific language.

For instance, the sun is a hazard when going to the beach, yet beach-goers limit their exposure by applying suncream. A hazard-based regulatory approach would be to ban all beach excursions, in order to cut out the hazard completely. The same logic of hazard-based regulation is all too often applied in crop protection regulation, paired with a misunderstanding of the precautionary principle. In essence, hazard-based regulation advocates would endorse outlawing all crop protection methods that are not completely safe, regardless of the dosage. By ignoring the importance of the equation Risk = Hazard x Exposure, hazard-based regulation does not follow a scientifically sound policy-making approach, and would, in the long-run, ban all necessary tools available to farmers to guarantee consumer safety.

“Listening to science” needs to go both ways. We cannot face the challenges of climate change and simultaneously espouse the idea that all of modern agriculture is evil. Farmers need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and so do chemicals developed to prevent long-lasting diseases.

Originally published here.

WHO Reverses Course, Now Advises Against Use of ‘Punishing’ Lockdowns

Even as the WHO calls on nations to refrain from imposing lockdowns, many governments continue to use this strategy.

For months, an overwhelming majority of the planet’s population has been subject to cruel and unnerving lockdowns: businesses closed, travel restricted, and social gatherings kept to a minimum.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have sunk our economies, kept loved ones apart, derailed funerals, and made personal and economic liberty a casualty as much as our health. One report states it could cost us $82 trillion globally over the next five years – roughly the same as our yearly global GDP.

Many of these initial lockdowns were justified by policy recommendations by the World Health Organization.

The WHO’s director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, writing in a strategy update in April, called on nations to continue lockdowns until the disease was under control.

But now, more than six months since lockdowns became a favored political tool of global governments, the WHO is calling for their swift end.

Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO’s Special Envoy on COVID-19, told Spectator UK’s Andrew Neil last week that politicians have been wrong in using lockdowns as the “primary control method” to combat COVID-19.

“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” said Nabarro.

Dr. Michael Ryan, Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, offered a similar sentiment.

“What we want to try to avoid – and sometimes it’s unavoidable and we accept that – but what we want to try and avoid is these massive lockdowns that are so punishing to communities, to society and to everything else,” said Dr. Ryan, speaking at a briefing in Geneva. 

These are stunning statements from an organization that has been a key authority and moral voice responsible for handling the global response to the pandemic.

Cues from the WHO have underpinned each and every national and local lockdown, threatening to push 150 million people into poverty by the end of the year.

As Nabarro stated, the vast majority of the people harmed by these lockdowns have been the worse off.

We all know people who have lost their businesses, lost work, and seen their life savings go up in smoke. That’s especially true for those who work in the service and hospitality industries, which have been decimated by lockdown policies.

And even as the WHO calls on nations to refrain from imposing lockdowns, many governments continue to use this strategy. Schools in many US states remain closed, bars and restaurants are off-limits, and large gatherings–apart from social justice protests–are condemned and shut down by force.

The effects of the prolonged lockdowns on young people are now becoming more clear. A recent study from Edinburgh University says keeping schools shut down will increase the number of deaths due to COVID-19. Added to that, the study says lockdowns “prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long-term.”

If we want to avoid any more harm, we should immediately end these disastrous policies. Any fresh calls to impose lockdowns should now be viewed with the utmost skepticism.

It’s time for the madness to end. Not only because the World Health Organization says so, but because our very lives depend on it.

As the doctors and scientists stated in the Grand Barrington Declaration signed this month in Massachusetts, the “physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies” have themselves caused devastating effects on both short and long-term health.

We cannot continue to risk our health and well-being in the long-term by shutting in our economies and our people in the short-term. That’s the only way forward if we seek to recover from the ruinous effects of government policy surrounding COVID-19.

Originally published here.

Europe Looks Backwards On Agriculture, Endangers A Trade Deal With The U.S.

The EU’s new “Farm to Fork” strategy pines for nature-friendly farming that’s completely disconnected from reality.

12:01 AM BILL WIRTZ

Most people look at a gluten-free, vegan, sugar-free, organic, non-GMO, palm oil-free candy being advertised in a store with bemusement. Yet in the United States, aisles in supermarkets, entire retail chains, are dedicated to these kinds of products, which over the years have attracted a loyal customer base. This is quintessentially American, because consumers have choices.

In Europe, critics of modern agriculture seek not to convince the public with slogans and brands; instead they’ve launched an open attack on the free choices of consumers. Almost all GMOs have been made illegal in Europe, and an increasing number of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides are being banned, despite scientific research showing their safety. This has led to rising food prices in Europe—while the EU average price increase is 2.5 percent a year, some member states saw up to 5 percent in pre-pandemic times, which outperforms inflation. More increases are to be expected if new plans come into motion.

The European Union’s executive body, the European Commission, recently published a new roadmap for agriculture, known as the “Farm to Fork” strategy. It is the cornerstone of fundamental agriculture reform, a move intended to foster sustainable agriculture. The strategy contains two flagship proposals: reducing pesticide use 50 percent by 2030 and increasing organic agriculture to 25 percent of total production by 2030.

On pesticide reduction, there is no ambiguity about the fact that this is a political ambition and not a scientific one. In the European Union, chemical crop protection products are approved by a government food safety agency. Requesting a reduction of 50 percent of products that are considered harmless in the first place has nothing to do with reasonable agricultural policy. 

The origins of the hostility towards modern agriculture are multifactorial. There’s the skepticism of food from the United States, which is regarded as unsafe, as well as the ready availability and multitude of choices, which are perceived as unhealthy consumerism.

One of the most cited reasons is that American chicken is treated with chlorine—which has scared many European consumers (despite them happily eating chicken on a visit to the United States). This attitude arose from the misconception that EU regulators had deemed the process of using chlorine unsafe. In reality, those regulators expressed concern that the process, which is safe, would lead poultry farmers in the U.S. to be more negligent in the keeping of their chickens.

Another key factor relating to the reduction targets on pesticides is how Europe increasingly views risk assessment. In the English language, the words “hazard” and “risk” are used interchangeably, yet in the scientific world, they mean different things. “Hazard” is the ability of something to cause harm, while “risk” is the degree to which it actually is harmful. For instance, the sun is a hazard when going to the beach, yet sunlight enables the body’s production of vitamin D and some exposure to it is essential. As with everything else, it is the amount of exposure that matters. A hazard-based regulatory approach to sunlight would shut us all indoors and ban all beach excursions, rather than cautioning beachgoers to limit their exposure by applying sunscreen. The end result would be to harm, not protect human health. A risk-based assessment would take into account the varying factors present in the real world.

The twisted logic of hazard-based regulation is all too often applied in crop protection regulation, where it creates equally absurd inconsistencies. For instance, if wine was sprayed on vineyards as a pesticide, it would have to be banned under EU law, as alcohol is a known and quite potent carcinogen at high levels of consumption. All this is rationalized through an inconsistent and distorted application of what Europeans call the “precautionary principle.” Needless to say, Europe is practically the only region in the world that governs food standards in this fashion, and many countries have complained about this before the World Trade Organization.

EU institutions have a rigid and fundamentalist view on nature and agriculture. In a speech in May, the EU’s commissioner for environment talked about the European food strategy in a nature-based way: “When you have adequate protection, properly enforced, nature pays you back.” He added, “This is a strategy for reconnection with nature, for helping Europe to heal.” To do so, Brussels endorses organic agriculture and “agro-ecological practices.” The science (or lack thereof) of “agro-ecology” deserves an article all its own, but in essence, it means no pesticides, no genetic engineering, no synthetic fertilizers, and in many cases no mechanization. This method of farming has been described as “peasant farming” and “indigenous farming,” and rejects all the progress of modern agriculture. According to its own proponents, it reduces agricultural output by 35 percent on average.

With the current recession, one wonders what the consequences of these radical changes will be in Europe. U.S Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue has been very present in European media, reminding authorities that modern farming is a great asset, that their choices will lead to bad outcomes, and that a trade deal across the Atlantic will be virtually impossible if Europe diverges even more from reasonable norms. 

He’s right: the view of modern agriculture as a destroyer of nature is seriously flawed. Stanford University researchers have found that if we farmed in the same manner as 60 years ago, an area equal to the entire land mass of Russia—three times the size of the Amazon, four times that of the European Union—would have to be cleared of forest and natural habitat and brought into agricultural production. Adding to that, high-yield farming has avoided 161 gigatons of carbon dioxide since 1961, while research from the United Kingdom has shown that moving all current agriculture to organic farming would increase greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70 percent.

The black-and-white view from which organic is good while conventional agriculture destroys ecosystems is a mere caricature of the reality of farming. If EU member states do not reject the “Farm to Fork” strategy, then they’ll lead their continent down a dangerous path towards less food security and higher prices. That isn’t in the interests of nature, farmers, or consumers.

Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English, French, and German. His work has appeared in Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, CityAM, Le MondeLe Figaro, and Die Welt.

Originally published here.

A dónde ir (y a dónde no) si eres un viajero vapeador en Estados Unidos

¿Sabes cuáles son los estados más amigables con el vapeo en Estados Unidos y cuáles debes evitar si eres un vapeador haciendo turismo en la tierra del tío Sam? El Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor) publicó un índice que mide qué tan amistosas son las regulaciones de cada estado con los consumidores de vaporizadores de nicotina.

La metodología

El Consumer Choice Center, que representa a consumidores de más de 100 países del mundo, creó un índice donde califica qué tan favorables son las regulaciones de cada estado de Estados Unidos con los vapeadores. Para clasificarlos crearon un sistema de puntuación con ponderación única que analiza restricciones de sabores diferentes al tabaco, impuestos y posibilidad de vender productos de vapeo por internet. Las regulaciones se evaluaron en función de cuán estrictas son. Cabe anotar que el índice tiene en cuenta las regulaciones adicionales a las promulgadas por la FDA.

Los estados que recibieron entre 0 y 10 puntos obtuvieron la calificación “F”, que es la menos amistosa con el vapeo. Entre 11 y 20 puntos fueron calificados “C”, que es el intermedio. Los Estados que obtuvieron entre 21 y 30 puntos recibieron la calificación “A”, que indica que sus regulaciones son las más favorables para los usuarios de vaporizadores de nicotina. 

Estados amigables

Si eres vapeador y estás buscando un destino para visitar en Estados Unidos, el índice identifica 24 estados con una regulación amistosa con el vapeo. Estos son: 

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia 

Estos estados tienen plena disponibilidad de sabores, no cobran impuestos adicionales y permiten la venta de productos por medios digitales con controles para imposibilitar la compra por parte de menores de edad.

Estados cuasi amigables 

Hay 20 estados que cuentan con regulaciones parcialmente favorables para los vaporizadores. Estos, clasificados en la categoría “C”, son: 

Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming 

La puntuación de estos estados generalmente disminuyó por la aplicación de impuestos que hacen más caro optar por el vapeo. Estos pueden ir desde los 0,5 dólares por mililitro en Delaware y Lousiana hasta impuestos del 95% –iguales a los de los letales cigarros de combustión–, como en el caso de D.C. y Minnesota. Sin embargo, estos estados no tienen restricciones para la compra de líquidos de vapeo de sabores diferentes a tabaco y permiten adquirir productos por internet.

A dónde no ir

Para quienes vapeamos, saber que podemos adquirir productos de vapeo sin participar en una cruzada o en un “asalto a mano armada” a nuestras finanzas es importante. No importa si estamos de vacaciones o en un viaje de negocios. En ese sentido y si está en nuestras manos, podríamos evitar 6 estados. Estos son los clasificados con “F”, muy probablemente por “fail”, pues definitivamente les fallan a las personas que buscan una forma al menos 95% menos nociva que el tabaco combustible para dejar de fumar.

Así las cosas, los estados no recomendados son: 

California
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island 

Con excepción de Illinois, estos estados restringen los sabores. Así, encontrar un líquido con un delicioso sabor a cheesecake de fresa sería legalmente imposible. Además cobran impuestos sustanciales a los productos de vapeo, a pesar de que son la forma de “terminar con el tabaquismo dentro de nuestro tiempo de vida”. Finalmente, algunos de estos estados aún cuentan con regulaciones que no permiten adquirir los productos en línea. 

Déjanos saber en los comentarios si el acceso a productos de vapeo es importante durante tus viajes. 

Originally published here.

Massachusetts Tops List of Worst States for Vaping Regs

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC), a consumer and lifestyle freedom advocacy organization, has declared Massachusetts one of the worst U.S. states for vaping regulation.

California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island are the other five states considered hostile environments for the product category, according to the center’s recently published United States vaping index.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, announced a multifaceted campaign against vaping products amid a rash of lung injuries associated with the behavior.

As a result, the Baker administration has backed the implementation of invasive flavor bans and heavy taxation on flavored vaping products. The center’s rankings on Massachusetts’ cases speaks for itself — with a 75 percent sales tax on wholesale products.

“Massachusetts is far behind all the other states because of its flavor ban and its exorbitant taxation on vaping products,” said David Clement, North American affairs manager for CCC. “Our research indicates Massachusetts’ policies deter adult smokers from turning to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”

Nearby New Hampshire is believed to be more welcoming to vaping and the industry, while still having a moderate score on the CCC’s vaping index. Unlike Massachusetts, the state government in New Hampshire has only levied an 8 percent excise tax on wholesale products.

The tax is still higher compared to states with lower tax rates and none at all.

In addition, the vaping industry in New Hampshire is extensively more active than other states that have similar ratings to that of Massachusetts. Alex Norcia, a contributor to Filter, reported in July that vape shops in New York state are setting up on Native American reservations to circumvent the Cuomo administration’s aggressive vaping regulations.

The freedom to use a vaping product exists heavily in states where there is already a more relaxed approach to recreational drug regulations.

A study by Dr. Abigail Friedman, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health, found that states with liberalized marijuana industries saw the least reported cases of the noncommunicable e-cigarette and vaping associated lung injury (EVALI) that was widely reported throughout 2019.

“If e-cigarette or marijuana use per se drove this outbreak, areas with more engagement in those behaviors should show a higher EVALI prevalence,” Friedman said in her study. “This study finds the opposite result. Alongside geographic clusters of high EVALI prevalence states, these findings are more consistent with locally available e-liquids or additives driving the EVALI outbreak than a widely used, nationally-available product.”

Friedman found that five states with some of the earliest legalization of recreational marijuana all had less than one EVALI diagnosis per 100,000 residents in the 12 to 64 age group.

These states include Alaska, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Since most of the EVALI cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention focus on adulterated and illicit marijuana vaping products, the epidemiological analysis in

Friedman’s study shows further evidence that bans on nicotine vaping products are implemented on the backs of EVALI injury outrage.

The Consumer Choice Center’s vaping index reports that Alaska, Colorado and Oregon are three of the most friendly states for vaping.

California is one of the worst; Washington has a better rating than most states.

These collective findings are well-founded when considering the impact of state-level regulation on the vaping industry and, therefore, the accessibility of vaping products.

Originally published here.

Allocate funding to curtail e-commerce black market, group tells govt

PETALING JAYA: A consumer advocacy group has called on the government to allocate funding to curtail the “growing threat” of the e-commerce black market.

In a statement, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) said such funding was required due to the explosion of online purchases during the Covid-19 pandemic, which has provided black market perpetrators new avenues and opportunities.

The recommendation is part of the CCC’s three-point recommendations for Budget 2021 aimed at protecting consumers from the black market.

Apart from recommending that relevant enforcement agencies should be provided with the resources required to curtail the black market, CCC also suggested that the government allocate funding for consumer education.

Another recommendation is for a special allocation to be put in place for relevant government ministries and agencies to conduct roadshows throughout the country to educate consumers against buying black market products.

CCC also suggested that the government review the excise structure and reform taxes as structural reforms were required to close the price gap between legitimate products, which carried an artificially inflated price due to taxes and excise duties, versus black market products.

CCC said if the price difference was small, consumers would prefer to buy legal products and black market perpetrators would lose their motivation to smuggle in illegal goods.

“The 2021 Budget provides an ideal opportunity for the Malaysian government to address the black market in an urgent and comprehensive manner to safeguard Malaysian consumers and re-energise the country’s economy,” said CCC managing director Fred Roeder.

“The tobacco black market hurts all Malaysian consumers as it causes the government to lose RM5 billion in uncollected tax annually, harms legitimate retailers and fuels corruption at all levels of the public sector.

“Malaysia currently tops the world in the tobacco black market, commanding a market share of over 62% in total cigarettes sold. If such products can easily enter the marketplace, what about other items like drugs, unregulated pharmaceuticals or fake goods?”

Originally published here.

Tiga cadangan dalam Bajet 2021 untuk lindungi pengguna

KUALA LUMPUR – Tiga perkara telah dikemukakan oleh The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk dimasukkan dalam Bajet 2021 yang bertujuan melindungi pengguna daripada isu pasaran gelap.

Kumpulan advokasi pengguna global itu dalam satu kenyataan berkata, perkara pertama yang dicadangkan ialah menyediakan peruntukan untuk tujuan pendidikan kepada pengguna agar tidak membeli produk pasaran gelap.

“Peruntukan khas perlu disediakan oleh kementerian dan agensi kerajaan yang berkaitan bagi mengadakan jerayawara ke seluruh negara untuk mendidik pengguna daripada membeli produk pasaran gelap,” kata kenyataan itu hari ini.

Kedua, mengkaji semula struktur eksais dan melakukan perubahan terhadap cukai bagi menutup jurang harga antara produk sah yang kini diletakkan pada harga yang jauh tinggi disebabkan cukai dan duti eksais berbanding produk seludup.

“Jika perbezaan harga adalah kecil, sudah tentu pengguna akan memilih produk sah dan penjenayah pasaran gelap akan kehilangan motivasi untuk menyeludup masuk barangan tidak sah,” kata kenyataan itu lagi.

Ketiga, pembiayaan untuk penguatkuasaan yang lebih baik terutama di ruang e-dagang kerana agensi penguatkuasaan berkaitan seharusnya dilengkapkan dengan sumber-sumber yang diperlukan bagi membanteras pasaran gelap.

CCC mengemukakan tiga perkara kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk dimasukkan dalam Bajet 2021 yang bertujuan melindungi pengguna daripada isu pasaran gelap.
“Ledakan pengguna membeli barangan secara dalam talian di bawah norma baharu ini telah memberikan penjenayah pasaran gelap satu kaedah dan peluang baharu.

“Pihak berkuasa mestilah diberikan pembiayaan dan teknologi baharu bagi mencantas ancaman ini sebelum menjadi tidak dapat dikawal,” kata organisasi yang mewakili pengguna di lebih 100 negara di seluruh dunia itu.

Menurut CCC lagi, pasaran gelap hari ini merupakan ancaman paling serius dan semakin meningkat terhadap pengguna-pengguna di Malaysia

Bukan itu sahaja, produk-produk yang tidak sah ini turut membahayakan pengguna kerana ia tidak dikawal selia dan kualitinya sangat buruk, malah bertoksik.

“Pasaran gelap Malaysia bernilai RM300 bilion kini menuju ke tahap `boom’ disebabkan ramai yang kehilangan kerja, kebimbangan terhadap jaminan pekerjaan dan perubahan tabiat membeli akibat pandemik Covid-19 yang berterusan sekarang,” katanya.

Sementara itu, Pengarah Urusan CCC, Fred Roeder berkata, pasaran rokok seludup misalnya telah menjejaskan semua pengguna di Malaysia kerana ia mengakibatkan kerajaan kerugian RM5 bilion dari segi cukai yang tidak dapat dikutip setiap tahun, merosakkan peruncit sah dan menyemarakkan rasuah di semua peringkat sektor awam.

Malah katanya, Malaysia kini menerajui dunia dari segi pasaran rokok seludup, menguasai pasaran lebih 62 peratus dari segi jumlah keseluruhan rokok yang dijual.

“Jika produk sebegitu boleh dengan mudah memasuki pasaran negara, bagaimana barangan lain seperti dadah, bahan farmaseutikal yang tiada tauliah atau barangan palsu?” katanya.

Beliau berkata, Bajet 2021 memberikan peluang ideal kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk menangani pasaran gelap secara tegas dan menyeluruh bagi menjaga kesejahteraan pengguna Malaysia dan memperkasa semula ekonomi negara.

Originally published here.

Scroll to top
en_USEN