fbpx

Author: Fabio Fernandes

Promotheus

WIE KANN MAN 11 MILLIARDEN MENSCHEN ERNÄHREN?

Von Frederik C. Roeder, Gesundheitsökonom und Geschäftsführer des Consumer Choice Centers.

Im Jahr 2070 wird die Welt von etwa 10,5 Milliarden Menschen bevölkert sein. Das bedeutet, dass wir in der Lage sein müssen, zusätzliche 3 Milliarden Menschen zu ernähren. Glücklicherweise hat uns der technische Fortschritt in der Landwirtschaft bereits dabei geholfen, in den letzten hundert Jahren 5,5 Milliarden zusätzliche Menschen zu ernähren, ausgehend von 2 Milliarden Menschen, die 1920 die Erde bevölkerten. Nach Angaben des Welternährungsgipfels ist die Zahl der Hungernden in Ländern mit niedrigem bis mittlerem Einkommen seit 1992 um über 200 Millionen von 991 Millionen auf 790,7 Millionen zurückgegangen. Forscher der Stanford University haben berechten: Wenn wir weiterhin die landwirtschaftliche Technik aus dem Jahr 1960 einsetzen würden, benötigten wir landwirtschaftliche Flächen von der Größe Russlands, des größten Landes der Welt, um die gleichen Erträge zu erzielen, die wir heute dank des Einsatzes moderner Technik brauchen. Dies ist ein großer Erfolg, stellt uns aber auch die Aufgabe, die Situation der verbliebenen Kinder und Erwachsenen zu verbessern, die immer noch täglich mit Hunger konfrontiert sind.

Leider scheint die aktuelle politische Debatte in einer der reichsten Regionen der Welt die vor uns liegenden Herausforderungen zu ignorieren. Sie zielt darauf ab, dass wir uns einer weniger effizienten Landwirtschaft zuwenden. Die Strategie Farm to Fork (F2F) der Europäischen Union will bis zum Ende dieses Jahrzehnts ein ‘nachhaltigeres’ Ernährungssystem zu schaffen. Die Ideen, die derzeit kursieren, deuten jedoch eher auf ein anderes Ergebnis hin: Nicht nur ist unklar, ob die neue Strategie nicht im Ergebnis dem Ziel der Nachhaltigkeit eher entgegenlaufen wird. Es steht auch dahin, ob damit womöglich nicht nur Europa, sondern die ganze Welt in eine Nahrungsmittelkrise mit massiven geopolitischen Auswirkungen gestürzt werden könnte.

Die EU plant, den Anteil der ökologischen Landwirtschaft an der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Produktion von derzeit 7,5% auf 25% zu erhöhen. Zusätzlich plant sie eine Reduzierung der Pestizide um 50%. Dabei umfasst die F2F-Strategie keine neuen Technologien, die es den Landwirten ermöglichen würden, die gleichen Erträge zu erzielen, die sie mit dem derzeitigen Pestizideinsatz erzielen. Unter anderem wegen der geringeren Erträge und der daraus resultierenden Notwendigkeit, mehr Land für die landwirtschaftliche Produktion bereitzustellen, ist die biologische Landwirtschaft in der Regel ungeeignet für die Deckung des weltweiten Nahrungsmittelbedarfs.

Was bedeutet dies für die Ernährung von 10,5 Milliarden Menschen im Jahr 2070?

Mehr ökologischer Landbau in Europa bedeutet geringere Erträge und höhere Preise für Verbraucher. Die Knappheit in Europa wird wahrscheinlich durch zusätzliche Lebensmittelimporte aus anderen Teilen der Welt ausgeglichen werden. Dies wird zu einem weltweiten Anstieg der Lebensmittelpreise führen. Für wohlhabende Regionen der Welt, wie Europa, wird dies für die Verbraucher eine ärgerliche Einschränkung sein. Für Menschen, die bereits am Rande der Existenz leben und Hunger leiden, sind die Folgen katastrophal.

Die Ernährungs- und Landwirtschaftsorganisation der Vereinten Nationen (FAO) schätzt, dass Landwirte weltweit 30 bis 40 Prozent ihrer Ernten aufgrund von Schädlingen und Krankheiten verlieren werden, wenn sie keine Pflanzenschutzmittel wie Insektizide oder Herbizide zur Hand haben. Bis zu 28 Prozent aller Leberkrebs-Erkrankungen weltweit können auf Aflatoxine, eine Mykotoxinart, zurückgeführt werden. Wenn wir den Landwirten nicht erlauben, Fungizide einzusetzen, die die Exposition des Menschen gegenüber diesen Toxinen verringern, riskieren wir weiterhin Millionen von Menschenleben.

In den letzten 100 Jahren hat sich gezeigt, dass Pestizide ein notwendiges Übel sind, um höhere und besser vorhersehbare Ernteerträge zu erzielen. In den vergangenen 60 Jahren haben wir einen Rückgang des Pestizideinsatzes pro Hektar um 40 Prozent erlebt, und viele (weniger sichere) Substanzen wurden schrittweise aus dem Verkehr gezogen. Das Aufkommen gentechnisch veränderter Nutzpflanzen und die jüngsten Durchbrüche bei der Genbearbeitung (Genschere) ermöglichen, dass wir noch weniger Chemikalien auf unseren Feldern versprühen müssen.

Etwa 20 Prozent der Weltbevölkerung lebt in Südasien. Aufgrund des indischen Kastensystems leben und bewirtschaften die Bauern der untersten Kasten Land, das mit größerer Wahrscheinlichkeit regelmäßig überschwemmt wird, was sich nachteilig auf ihre Reisernte auswirkt. Dank gentechnisch veränderter Kulturen kann der Reis bis zu zwei Wochen unter Wasser sein und dennoch hohe Erträge bieten. Solche Technologien bedeuten für die Armen und Hungrigen ein Wendepunkt. Es gibt kein humanitäres Argument gegen Gentechnik, aber ein starkes für sie.

Leider wenden sich viele Kritiker von Pestiziden auch gegen den Einsatz von Gen-Editing. Dies führt zu einem Dilemma, das letztlich zu einer verminderten Lebensmittelproduktion führt, während die weltweite Nachfrage nach Lebensmitteln weiter steigen wird. Man muss kein Wirtschaftswissenschaftler sein, um zu verstehen, dass dies zu höheren Lebensmittelpreisen führen wird.

Wir alle haben die dramatische Flüchtlingskrise im Jahr 2015 gesehen: das schreckliche Leid; ertrinkende Kinder und Frauen im Mittelmeerraum. Auch wenn die Politik der EU diese Krise nicht ausgelöst hat, könnte unsere künftige Agrarpolitik in Teilen Afrikas und Asiens weit verbreitete Hungersnöte verursachen. Sie könnten eine Migrationswelle auslösen, wie wir sie seit der Völkerwanderung im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nicht mehr erlebt haben. Geschichte zeigt leider, dass solche massiven unkontrollierten Migrationsströme in der Regel auch mit Krieg und Unruhen einhergehen.

Die „westliche“ Idee, Landwirtschaft ökologischer zu gestalten, wird zu einer weltweiten Inflation der Lebensmittelpreise führen und denen schaden, die bereits jetzt leiden. Wir teilen in der Tat alle einen Planeten und brauchen daher eine vernünftige Lebensmittelpolitik, die anerkennt, dass Hunger immer noch ein Problem ist, mit dem 10 Prozent der Weltbevölkerung täglich konfrontiert sind. Eine substantielle Anpassung der künftigen Agrarpolitik der EU ist nötig, um Armut und Hunger zu mildern. Die „Farm to Fork“-Strategie der EU muss dem Rechnung tragen und darf unsere Fähigkeit, eine ständig wachsende Bevölkerung zu ernähren, nicht gefährden.

Originally published here.

Western Standard

CANZUK treaty a potential economic vaccine to the Covid depression

David Clement writes that the potential CANZUK treaty would give Canada, NZ, Australia, and the UK the benefits of the EU’s common market, without the bureaucratic overreach that led to Brexit.

The toll of COVID-19 on the lives and livelihood of Canadians has been devastating. Canada’s economy has taken a huge hit, and our fiscal position is set to decline from bad to worse. To counter that, Canada needs a pro-growth strategy that boldly takes us in a new direction.

One policy that would help enable Canada’s growth and boost our nation’s morale is CANZUK. CANZUK is a proposed free movement and free trade deal that would unite Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. 

Specifically, the agreement would allow for free trade, free movement, and foreign policy coordination between the member states. In a nutshell, CANZUK represents all of the benefits of a European Union-style common market, without the negatives that drove Brexit. CANZUK would increase trade and movement through a common market, without an overreaching central government, multinational regulatory board, and the negative externalities that come from a common currency. 

Citizens of each of these nations would be able to make investments, cross borders, take up residence, study, and sell their products.

For economic growth, CANZUK would turbocharge the economy, and we know this from the European example. Prior to the creation of the EU common market in 1993, European free trade was estimated to increase GDP by 4.5-6.5 per cent. Luckily for Europeans, those projections fell short, with GDP growth from EU free trade increasing GDP growth by 8-9 per cent. And while the economy of CANZUK will be smaller than the economy of the EU, it isn’t a stretch to forecast similar GDP growth as a result of a CANZUK deal. Even at half or a quarter of that growth, CANZUK would be great for the Canadian economy. And, unlike in the EU, CANZUK doesn’t come with the regulatory barriers of a central government, like in Brussels. 

A CANZUK trading bloc wouldn’t just interconnect these four countries whose collective GDP is more than $7 trillion. A CANZUK deal would allow for these four countries to punch above their weight on the world stage, which is increasingly more important with the rise of China, and the growing desire to decouple relations with Beijing. 

Together, the CANZUK bloc could be more aggressive in their free trade push in Asia, specifically with target markets like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Together, CANZUK would allow for each country to recommit to free trade internationally, without further deepening ties with China and the Chinese Communist Party. In the post-COVID world of geoeconomic statecraft, CANZUK puts Canada on a more solid footing.

In regards to labour, CANZUK would provide immense benefits to Canadian employees, and Canadian employers, because it comes with a professional designation and licensing recognition that would connect more Canadians with opportunities around the world. 

As a result of CANZUK, Canadian professionals could freely take jobs in each of the other countries, and employers could attract talent from abroad. Take mining for example. If our mining sector was struggling, Canadian resource workers could take open positions in Australia’s large mining sector. Laid off Canadian oil and gas workers could take their experience to the UK’s resource sector in the North Sea. And of course, all of this could run the other way to the benefit of Canadian employers. 

On mobility, CANZUK would allow for hassle-free tourism between member states and would give retirees easy access to different destinations for their retirement. It would open up Canadian universities to students from abroad and would put member state universities within reach for Canadians. 

CANZUK would allow for better collaboration on foreign policy matters, providing Canada with a more comprehensive diplomatic alliance and complementing our existing agreements in NATO. Canada would continue to be a favorite nation on the world stage.

For those who aren’t familiar with CANZUK, the concept might sound far-fetched, but when over 13,000 citizens of the four countries were polled, respondents in each prospective member state overwhelmingly supported the idea of a free movement agreement. Kiwis at 83 per cent, Canadians at 76 per cent, Australians at 73 per cent, and the British at 68 per cent.

While it may be fashionable to use the pandemic as an opportunity to turn Canada inward, doing so would be poor economic policy. CANZUK gives us the opportunity to shift in the opposite direction, and recommit ourselves to a more global, and more interconnected, Canada. 

David Clement is a columnist with the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center

Originally published here.

States Ranked on Vapor Regulations

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) has published an index ranking each U.S. state on the consumer-friendliness of its vapor regulations.

Rankings are assigned based on a legislative actions, including restrictions, taxation, and online sales prohibitions.

According to the index, California is the “worst state for vaping.” New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are also among the least consumer-friendly states. Virginia, Colorado, Texas and Maryland each received “A” scores.

“The worst states … are far behind all the other states because of flavor bans, exorbitant taxation on vaping products, and restrictions on online sales,” said David Clement, North American affairs manager and deputy director at the CCC. “Our research indicates these states go above and beyond to deter adult smokers from switching to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”

“What lawmakers should note is that a number of states are providing a positive framework of regulation for vaping that boosts consumer choice while contributing to public health by encouraging smoking cessation,” said Yaël Ossowski, who is also North American affairs manager and deputy director at the CCC.

“Excessive flavor bans, taxes, and prohibitions on online commerce grow the black-market sector and harm consumers who want less harmful alternatives to smoking. If states want to innovate in 2020 and provide adult smokers with an alternative that is less harmful, they should look to reform their state laws to better accommodate this new technology that is helping millions.”

The report shows that 25 states allow flavored vaping products with no additional taxes and no shipping restrictions. Twenty states have previous flavor bans, some taxes and a few shipping restrictions. There are five states that have partial flavor bans, high taxes and shipping restrictions.

The center stated that the focus is on state regulation of vaping, “as it plays a big part in their availability to adult consumers who want to switch away from combustible tobacco.”

The weighted scoring system analyzes additional flavor restrictions, taxes and the ability to sell vaping products online. Regulations are assessed on stringency in addition to Food and Drug Administration regulations.

States that received between 0 and 10 points received an “F” grade, between 11 and 20 points is “C” and states with points between 21 and 30 received an “A” grade.

Originally published here.

В контрабанді ліків винні не тільки контрабандисти

В Україні, як і в багатьох інших європейських країнах, контрабанда лікарських засобів набрала нових обертів через COVID-19.

Міністерством охорони здоров’я було рекомендовано цілу низку ефективних препаратів, які допомагають полегшити перебіг хвороби, але оскільки багато засобів не є доступними в Україні, чорний ринок отримав чудову можливість підзаробити. 

Фальсифіковані та контрабандні ліки з найбільш небезпечних форм незаконної діяльності. Тут важливо розрізняти між ліками, які були сертифікованими за кордоном та нелегально ввозяться на територію України та підробками. Обидва типи є контрабандою.

Неправильно виготовлені препарати становлять особливу небезпеку для пацієнтів. Такі ліки можуть містити неправильну дозу діючого препарату або можуть мати зовсім інший компонентний склад, який може зробити препарат неефективним.

Усі види ліків можуть виготовлятися незаконно. Вони варіюються від звичайних знеболювальних препаратів до таких, які приймаються для схуднення чи ліків від онкологічних захворювань. Останні є дуже поширеними в Україні й часто є єдиним шансом для хворих протриматись довше, однак ризики для здоров’я є максимально великими.

Випадків контрабанди ліків є дуже багато, а таких, про які СБУ досі не відомо — ще більше. Так, наприклад, у липні було викрито міжнародне угруповання, яке займалося контрабандою і продажем лікарських засобів серцево-судинної, онкологічної невідомого походження. Ліки на загальну суму понад 3 млн грн передавались в Київ і Харків з території Росії та Західної Азії.

Проблема контрабанди лікарських засобів в Україні є старою і невирішеною більшою мірою через корупційні схеми, зарегульованість сфери охорони здоров’я, а також відсутність стимулу не вдаватись до кримінальної діяльності. Мисленнєвий процес в голові контрабандиста працює наступним чином: ними зважуються шанси успішного фінансового збагачення від продажу ліків і шанси загриміти у в’язницю. Якщо ймовірність збагачення більша, вони обирають цю опцію.

У країнах, де ефективно працює верховенство права, для боротьби з контрабандою принциповим є збільшення санкції за неї. В Україні, де в законі пише одне, а на практиці все по-іншому, треба більше зосередитись на виконанні  існуючих законів. Але для цього самим правоохоронним органам має стати не вигідно покривати контрабандистів. Виходить замкнуте коло корупції та різного роду схем, які доповнюють одна одну.

Щоправда, іншою важливою частиною пазлу є споживач. На кожен товар є покупець і якби на українському ринку не було попиту на незаконні ліки, які незаконно ввозяться, то відповідно не було б і резону купляти в контрабандистів. Середньостатистичний український споживач, в якого проблеми зі здоров’ям, хоче мати не тільки власне можливість придбати препарати, які йому допоможуть, але й зробити це за найменшою ціною. Коли так товари не можна знайти на легальному ринку, споживач йде на чорний ринок. Законні ліки мають бути не тільки максимально доступними в плані ціни, але їх має бути знайти та купити легше, ніж ті, що пропонуються контрабандистами.

Таким чином, ключовим компонентом боротьби з контрабандою ліків має бути лібералізація регулювання ринку лікарських засобів з гарантуванням простого, прозорого та мінімально часозатратного процесу реєстрації лікарських засобів в Україні.

Восени 2016 року набрала чинності спрощена процедура державної реєстрації лікарських засобів. За нею ліки, які вже зареєстровані у США, Швейцарії, Японії, Австралії, Канаді та ЄС, проходять експертизу в Державному Експертному Центрі МОЗ швидше. В середньому така процедура має тривати 7-10 днів, однак по факту вона займає набагато більше часу: в середньому десь рік. Враховуючи, що ми зараз проживаємо пандемію, яка досі залишається не до кінця зрозумілою і дуже непередбачуваною, рік — це ціла вічність. Ціна одного уколу, здатного врятувати життя, може злетіти й до 60 тис. грн. Крім контрабандистів, нам треба винити державу за таке абсолютно неприйнятне регулювання ринку лікарських засобів.

Відповідно до статті 3-ої Конституції України, людина, її життя і здоров’я, честь і гідність, недоторканність і безпека визнаються в Україні найвищою соціальною цінністю. Ринок незаконних ліків є прямим посяганням на наше життя та здоров’я, і чим довше уряд продовжує ігнорувати процедурну зарегульованість державної реєстрації ліків, а точніше відсутність контролю за дотриманням існуючих  законів, тим на більший ризик він наражає життя та здоров’я кожного українця.

Originally published here.

Quanto sono importanti gli aromi delle sigarette elettroniche?

Cosa succederebbe se i liquidi per le sigarette elettroniche con gusti differenti dal tabacco venissero proibiti? A rispondere a questa domanda pensa un rapporto denominato “Why vape flavors matter”, cioè “Perché gli aromi del vaping sono importanti”, che è stato da poco pubblicato dal Ccc, il Consumer Choice Center. Ebbene, secondo questo report proibire gli aromi all’interno dei liquidi per le sigarette elettroniche potrebbe innescare delle conseguenze negative a livello sociale. In particolare, due potrebbero essere gli effetti più probabili: da un lato i vapers potrebbero ricominciare a usare le sigarette tradizionali; dall’altro lato potrebbero affidarsi al mercato nero, il che sarebbe deleterio sia dal punto di vista legale che sul piano della salute.

Dove comprare gli aromi per le e-cig

Chi è alla ricerca di un aroma sigarette elettroniche oggi può fare affidamento sul catalogo di Vape in Italy, che mette a disposizione un ampio assortimento di gusti e una straordinaria varietà di marchi per andare incontro a ogni tipo di richiesta. Nelle schede tecniche, per altro, sono riportati i suggerimenti dei produttori, che permettono di godersi al massimo tutto il piacere del vaping. Gli aromi possono essere con o senza nicotina. Va ricordato, inoltre, che gli aromi delle sigarette elettroniche sono del tutto innocui per la salute: in effetti sono gli stessi che vengono adoperati in ambito alimentare, ma semplicemente sono più diluiti.

Il ruolo del vaping

Come mette in evidenza il report del Consumer Choice Center, il vaping merita di essere considerato una risorsa molto efficace a disposizione di chi ha intenzione di smettere di fumare, e in questo scenario un ruolo di primo piano è proprio quello svolto dagli aromi. Gli autori della ricerca hanno preso in esame le conseguenze di un eventuale divieto applicato ai liquidi: un tema molto attuale, soprattutto negli Stati Uniti.

La situazione negli Usa

Diversi Stati americani, infatti, hanno imposto dei divieti a proposito dei gusti nei liquidi: una decisione che è stata adottata sulla scia di ciò che è successo lo scorso anno, con un notevole incremento dei casi di patologie polmonari che è stato attribuito all’uso di cartucce con Thc illegali. Il governo Usa, con l’obiettivo di evitare la diffusione del vaping tra i più giovani, ha proibito per tutti i sistemi a cartuccia i liquidi che abbiano aromi diversi dal mentolo, dalla menta e dal tabacco. Ma la questione non è importante solo al di là dell’Oceano Atlantico: anche alle nostre latitudini ci sono Paesi che stanno puntando sulla strada proibizionista, se è vero che sia la Danimarca che i Paesi Bassi hanno reso nota l’intenzione di ridurre gli aromi all’interno dei liquidi per le sigarette elettroniche.

Cosa potrebbe succedere

Che cosa potrebbe accadere, dunque, nel caso in cui questa misura prendesse sempre più piede? In base al report menzionato in precedenza, una situazione del genere finirebbe per ridurre in misura consistente la reale utilità delle e-cig come mezzo di contenimento del danno, così che tante persone sarebbero indotte a ritornare a usare il tabacco combustibile per fumare. Come è facile capire, tutto questo rappresenterebbe un danno importante per la salute pubblica.

L’importanza degli aromi

Gli autori del rapporto hanno analizzato le ricerche condotte sul tema per comprendere quanto siano importanti gli aromi sul piano della cessazione. Ciò avviene dal momento che i fumatori desiderano un gusto gradevole, diverso da quello delle sigarette classiche. Varie ricerche scientifiche hanno messo in evidenza che gli adulti che usano le e-cig con gusti non tabaccosi smettono di fumare con più probabilità rispetto agli altri. Ecco perché gli autori del report sono convinti che se si vietassero gli aromi nei liquidi il numero di fumatori aumenterebbe: si avrebbero ben 15 milioni di fumatori in più tra l’Italia, la Polonia, la Danimarca, la Germania, i Paesi Bassi, la Spagna, la Francia, gli Stati Uniti e il Canada, vale a dire i Paesi che lo studio ha analizzato.

Originally published here.

Consumer advocacy group critical of California vaping regulations

FAIRFIELD — California is the “worst state for vaping.”

Typically, such a statement is followed by findings that show vaping use is high in the state, such as the report that more than 20% of high school students – more than 3 million – said they vaped in 2018, a rate twice as high as in 2017.

But the finding that California is the worst state for vaping this time comes from a report by the Consumer Choice Center, which ranks each state “based on its consumer-friendly regulatory approach to vaping products.”

“California is far behind all the other states because of its local flavor bans and its exorbitant taxation on vaping products,” David Clement, North American Affairs manager at the Consumer Choice Center, said in a statement released with the report Tuesday. He was co-author of the study. “Our research indicates California’s policies deter adult smokers from turning to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”

Korey Temple, 31, of Fairfield, smokes cigarettes, but has tried vaping, too. Temple agrees that the state’s regulations and taxes on smoking products are unfair.

“California spends all this money to get people to stop smoking, and when the numbers drop, the revenues drop, so they raise taxes, again,” Temple said.

“I think the state should just make tobacco illegal if they want people to stop, but they would have to find something else to tax to make up for the lost (revenues)” she said. “It’s just about money.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom in August signed into law a bill than bans flavored tobacco, with an exemption for hookah. Proponents argue the flavored products are just an attempt to get more people hooked on nicotine.

Health officials also disagree that vaping is less harmful than cigarettes, and point to some research that shows that people who vape are more likely to start smoking.

Solano County has a no-smoking policy for its buildings and its parks. It also offers a cessation program.

“Government surveys show the sleek devices – and multitude of copycat products – are far more popular among high school students than adults. While the legal age to buy e-cigarettes is 18 in most states – and 21 in California – the products are widely available online and not all sellers require proof of age. And vaping kits now come in the form of pens, flash drives, key fobs, even watches – making them both stylish and easy to disguise,” California Healthline stated.

California joined New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island with “F” grades, while Virginia, Colorado, Texas and Maryland each received “A” grades” for more consumer-friendly vaping regulations.

“What lawmakers should note is that a number of states are providing a positive framework of regulation for vaping that boosts consumer choice while contributing to public health by encouraging smoking cessation,” Yael Ossowski, North American Affairs manager and deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, said in the statement.

“Excessive flavor bans, taxes, and prohibitions on online commerce grow the black market sector and harm consumers who want less harmful alternatives to smoking,” Ossowski said. “If states want to innovate in 2020 and provide adult smokers with an alternative that is less harmful, they should look to reform their state laws to better accommodate this new technology that is helping millions.”

The report states that 25 states allow flavored vaping products with no additional taxes and no shipping restrictions. Twenty states have previous flavor bans, some taxes and a few shipping restrictions. There are five states that have partial flavor bans, high taxes and shipping restrictions.

The center stated that the focus is on state regulation of vaping, “as it plays a big part in their availability to adult consumers who want to switch away from combustible tobacco.”

The weighted scoring system analyzes additional flavor restrictions, taxes and the ability to sell vaping products online. Regulations are assessed on stringency in addition to Food and Drug Administration regulations.

States that received between 0 and 10 points received an “F” grade, between 11 and 20 points is “C” and states with points between 21 and 30 received an “A” grade.

Look at the U.S. Vaping Index 2020 

To look at the vaping index, go to https://consumerchoicecenter.org/united-states-vaping-index/

Originally published here.

Open Letter on EU Airlines

Dear Director-General Mr. Hololei,

On behalf of the Consumer Choice Center, the consumer advocacy group representing and empowering consumers in the EU and globally, we would like to express our deep concerns about the Commission’s intention to extend the waiver of the “use-it-or-loseit” rule for the entire 2020-2021 winter season. In our view, such a move would be extremely protectionist, distortive, and would do more harm than good.

The overwhelming uncertainty around the second wave of coronavirus, travel restrictions, and a significant drop in demand are some of the crucial issues the aviation industry has faced. It is therefore in the interest of consumers, airports, and the industry itself to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution. What we need in these times is to encourage more connectivity and not less. Extending the waiver will likely keep flight connections and destinations way below the pre-COVID times. Now might be the right time for new entrants into the market to connect people across Europe and the world.

The current waiver of the requirement to fly 80% of granted slots or lose them is set to expire on October 24th. Multiple associations have called on the Commission to extend the waiver “to ensure that the flying of empty planes is avoided” so that “flights are operated in the most sustainable
way possible.” However, the extension would create the situation in which the biggest airlines will get a chance to monopolise the slots making it impossible for the smaller ones to enter. This explains why low-cost airlines such as Wizz Air oppose the extension of the waiver calling it anti-competitive and such that “would hinder rather than help the recovery of the EU aviation industry and, therefore, European economies.”

Airport slots are scarce, and that is why they are so valuable and have to be put to the most efficient use. Though pursued out of noble motives, the Commission’s waiver policy implies that the airlines are the sole owner of the slots.

The airport slot ownership shouldn’t be static. On the contrary, it should constantly rotate between airlines to guarantee the most efficient allocation of the facilities and to encourage responsible use of airports. The “use-it-or leave-it” rule is, in this sense, fair and just, and should be sustained at all
times.

Flying has changed our lives in many ways. Now that consumers all across Europe have got a taste of life without travelling, they would want to fly more not less once the pandemic is over. The European Commission should focus on ensuring that they have a chance to choose between multiple airlines keeping in mind their budget constraint. In order to achieve this,
both big and low cost companies have to be treated equally and compete for airport slots.

It is still not too late to preserve competition and consumer choice. With that in mind, the Consumer Choice Center calls on the Commission to reconsider formalising the extension for the entire 2020-2021 winter season. On our end, we would be keen to elaborate further on our
view and help the Commission find the most optimal solution.

READ HERE

New Jersey Ranked One of the Worst State in the Union for Vaping Regulations

TRENTON, NJ – In an index published Tuesday by the Consumer Choice Center, the state of New Jersey has been named one of the worst U.S. states for vaping.

The Consumer Choice Center’s 2020 US Vaping Index categorizes and ranks each state based on its consumer-friendly regulatory approach to vaping products.

The study authors, David Clement and Yael Ossowski, North American Affairs Manager and Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center, said recent actions on flavored vaping products sunk it to the bottom of the list.

The full graph is below:

us-vaping-index.png

“New Jersey is far behind all the other states because of its flavor ban and its exorbitant taxation on vaping products,” said Clement, North American Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center. “Our research indicates New Jersey’s policies deter adult smokers from turning to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”

New Jersey joined the states of New York, California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island as the worst in the nation with a grade of “F”, while states like Virginia, Colorado, Texas, and Maryland each received “A” scores for more consumer-friendly vaping regulations.

“What lawmakers should note is that a number of states are providing a positive framework of regulation for vaping that boosts consumer choice while contributing to public health by encouraging smoking cessation,” said Ossowski. “Excessive flavor bans, taxes, and prohibitions on online commerce grow the black market sector and harm consumers who want less harmful alternatives to smoking.

“If states want to innovate in 2020 and provide adult smokers with an alternative that is less harmful, they should look to reform their state laws to better accommodate this new technology that is helping millions,” said Ossowski.

Read the full US Vaping Index Here

Originally published here.

Pentingnya Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Untuk Menjaga Kerajinan Tradisional

Kenaekaragaman suku dan budaya di Indonesia telah melahirkan kerajinan tradisional yang sangat beragam. Berbagai kerajinan ini memliki bentuk yang sangat beragam, mulai dari furniture, motif pakaian, hingga perhiasan. Tidak sedikit pula, berbagai motif dan desain dari berbagai karya tersebut merupakan sesuatu yang sudah turun temurun dan dibuat oleh pekerja kerajinan tradisional tersebut secara turun menurun selama bergenerasi-generasi.

Kerajinan tradisional di Indonesia ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang sangat penting untuk dilestarikan. Menjaga kelestarian kerajinan tradisional tidak hanya penting demi menjaga produk budaya tersebut, tetapi juga penting agar memastikan para seniman kerajinan tradisional di Indonesia bisa mendapatkan manfaat, termasuk manfaat finansial, dari karya yang mereka buat.

Meskipun mungkin tidak terlihat besar, namun industri yang berkaitan dengan kerajinan tradisional di Indonesia telah menyumbang cukup banyak bagi perekonomian negara. Pada tahun 2017 misalnya, industri kerajinan yang paling populer, yakni batik dan kain tenun misalnya, nilai ekspor kedua produk tersebut sebesar USD151,7 juta atau 2,1 triliun rupiah (Antaranews, 05/05/2017).

Indonesia sendiri sudah memiliki payung hukum untuk melindungi hak kekayaan intelektual bagi warganya, termasuk juga para pekerja kerajinan tradisional. Undang-Undang Nomor 28 tahun 2014 tentag Hak Cipta misalnya, merupakan salahs atu instrumen hukum yang bertujuan untuk melindungi para pekerja kreatif terhadap karya yang mereka buat.

Dalam Pasal 40 Undang-Undang Hak Cipta, dijelaskan bahwa Hak Cipta yang dilindungi di Indonesia meliputi berbagai karya seni, sastra, dan ilmu pengetahuan. Beberapa bentuk karya seni yang dilindungi tersebut diantaranya adalah karya seni rupa seperti lukisan, ukiran, patung, seni pahat, karya seni terapan, dan karya seni motif sepeti kain batik, yang sangat digemari oleh banyak orang. Masa berlaku Hak Cipta ini juga cukup lama, yakni hingga 70 tahun dari sejak pembuat karya tersebut tutup usia (Jogloabang.com, 2019).

Undang-Undang Hak Cipta secara eksplisit juga memberi sanksi tegas bagi orang-orang yang melakukan pelanggaran Hak Cipta atas karya orang lain. Dalam Pasal 113 misalnya, dituliskan dengan jelas bahwa mereka yang melakukan pelanggaran Hak Cipta akan dipidana paling lama 1 tahun atau denda 100 juta rupiah. Bila orang yang melakukan pelanggaran Hak Cipta tersebut memperoleh manfaat ekonomi dari karya yang ia bajak , maka sanksinya diperberat menjadi 3 tahun dengan denda maksimum 500 juta rupiah.

Tidak hanya pelakunya saja, mereka yang memfasilitasi perdagangan barang-barang yang melanggar hak cipta milik orang lain juga akan dikenai sanksi tegas, seperti pemilik toko yang menjual barang-barang bajakan yang melanggar hak cipta orang lain misalnya. Dalam Pasal 114, dijelaskan sanksi bagi orang yang mengelola tempat perdagangan barang-barang yang melanggar hak cipta akan dipidana denda maksimum 100 juta rupiah.

Sudah adanya kerangka hukum yang melindungi hak kekayaan intelektual seperti hak cipta, seperti yang tercntum dalam Undang-Undang No. 28 tahun 2014 tersebut tentu merupakan sesuatu yang harus kita apresiasi. Salah satu yang menyebabkan perlindungan atas hak kekayaan intelaktual produk-produk kerajinan tradisional adalah potensi ekonomi yang bisa didapatkan dari karya-karya tersebut.Malalui perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual terhadap karya-karya tradisional di Indonesia, maka para pengrajin dan para pekerja yang bergerak di industri kerajinan tradisional dapat menikmati manfaat ekonomi dari karya yang mereka buat tersebut.

Tidak jarang, bagi pengrajin dan pekerja industri kerajinan tradisional, satu-satunya pendapatan mereka adalah dengan menjual karya-karya yang mereka buat kepada konsumen, baik konsumen domestik maupun mancanegara.

Sayangnya, penegakan terhadap perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual para pekerja kerajinan tradisional ini masih lemah. Bila kita pergi ke pertokoan di kota-kota besar misalnya, atau ke pertokoan yang terletak di tempat-tempat yang menjadi destinasi wisata misalnya, kita bisa menemukan dengan mudah berbagai karya tradisional bajakan yang tentunya melanggar hak cipta orang lain. Produk-produk bajakan ini umumnya dijual dengan harga yang jauh dibawah produk-produk asli, dan tentunya kualitasnya juga tidak sebaik produk-produk aslinya.

Banyaknya pembajakan terhadap karya-karya kerajinan tradisional ini tentu merupakan hal yang harus kita lawan bersama. Selain itu, masih minimnya kesadaran dari pelaku industri kreatif, termasuk juga mereka yang bergerak di kerajinan tradisional, untuk mendaftarkan karyanya, juga merupakan salah satu persoalan besar yang harus segera diatasi. Untuk itu, kampanye publik kepada para pelaku industri kreatif, termasuk mereka yang bergerak di industri kerajinan tradisional merupakan sesuatu yang sangat penting.

Dan juga, dampak negatif dari pembajakan karya-karya kerajinan tradisional juga bukan hanya manfaat ekonomi yang akan didapatkan oleh para pengrajin dan pembuat kerya tersebut menjadi berkurang. Hal ini tentu juga akan merusak citra dari karya tradisional tersebut, khususnya di dunia internasional.Sebagaimana yang sudah dijelaskan di paragraf sebelumnya, karya-karya kerajinan tradisional bajakan yang tidak asli umumnya memiliki kualitas yang sangat jauh dibawah dengan karya yang asli. Bila produk-produk bajakan ini sampai di tangan konsumen, terutama konsumen mancanegara, maka tentu bukan tidak mungkin citra dari karya tersebut menjadi tidak baik. Hal ini tentu adalah sesuatu yang harus kita hindari dan kita cegah.

Sebagai penutup, kerajinan tradisional Indonesia, baik yang berupa motif pakaian seperti batik, ukiran, dan lain-lain merupakan kekayaan bangsa kita yang sangat penting untuk kita jaga dan lestarian. Salah satu langkah yang sangat penting untuk melindungi karya-karya tersebut adalah melalui perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual seperti hak cipta untuk mencegah pencurian dan pembajakan karya yang dilakukan oleh pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab.

Originally published here.

A vaping flavour ban sets back public health

Vaping is under attack, and that is bad news for public health and smoking cessation, argue David Clement, Michael Landl and Yael Ossowski.

Vaping has been proven to be an effective harm reduction tool for adults who are trying to quit traditional cigarettes.

It reduces the harms posed by smoking by decreasing or removing the combustion of tobacco altogether, which is why in 2015, Public Health England declared vaping was 95% less harmful than combustible tobacco and began recommending current smokers switch to electronic cigarettes.

Countries like Canada and New Zealand followed their lead helping to save millions of lives. In fact, vaping achieved, in a short period of time, what public health authorities hoped to accomplish in a far greater time span: fewer people smoking traditional cigarettes. 

Despite vaping’s efficacy as a harm reduction tool, it has become a target for politicians and activists, with new regulations, restrictions and bans popping up around the world. Right now the prime target for legislators is flavoured vaping products.

Unfortunately, there are efforts to ban or restrict the sale of flavoured vapes in countries such as the United States and the Netherlands, with several others following their lead. If flavour bans go global, it would be disastrous for public health.

New research from the Consumer Choice Centre and the World Vapers’ Alliance shows that flavours in vapes are essential for helping smokers quit. In our recent policy paper entitled, ‘Why Flavours Matter’ we were able to show that banning flavours would have a profoundly negative effect on society, pushing smokers back to cigarettes or to the dangerous black market.

Two-thirds of current vapers are using some form of flavoured liquids. Vapers prefer flavours over tobacco flavoured e-cigarettes, mainly because flavours don’t remind them of the taste of cigarettes.

Because of this, researchers at Yale concluded that vapers who use flavours are 2.3 times more likely to quit smoking than those using tobacco flavoured e-cigarettes. It is reasonable to assume that restrictions and bans on flavours will significantly limit the usefulness of vaping as a cessation tool and will drive vapers back to cigarettes, which is nothing worth celebrating.

“While proposed flavour bans are well-intentioned, they have disastrous outcomes. Legislation on vaping flavours must take the facts of smoking cessation and harm reduction into account, and we urge legislators against the widespread implementation of such bans”

Our research looked the impact a flavour ban would have across nine countries. If enacted, in the US alone, 7.7 million vapers could switch back to smoking. In the Netherlands, a quarter of a million vapers could revert back to smoking if nothing is done to stop flavour bans.

In Germany, 1.3 million people could switch back to cigarettes with a flavour ban in place. That’s about the same number of people as the population of Munich. In France, 1.6 million smokers could re-emerge if a flavour ban is in place. That’s nearly the population of Paris.

Another option for vapers who prefer flavours is to resort to the black market. Flavour bans could balloon the illegal market for vapes. Because of the ban on flavoured vaping products in Massachusetts, the market for illicit products is expected to reach $10bn.

Flavour bans have driven some to create vaping liquids in their own homes without any legal oversight, developing unregulated and potentially dangerous products. These illegal sales are outside a state’s tax regime, which means t they lose revenue they otherwise would have acquired if these products were legal.

While proposed flavour bans are well-intentioned, they have disastrous outcomes. Legislation on vaping flavours must take the facts of smoking cessation and harm reduction into account, and we urge legislators against the widespread implementation of such bans.

Banning flavours would disproportionately harm smokers who are trying to quit, which runs against the goals of public health agencies. But good intentions in themselves, do not matter; only good outcomes.

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