As Europeans face a public health crisis, we should increase patient accessibility by abolishing VAT on the most essential of goods, writes Bill Wirtz.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put health policy back into the hearts and minds of European decision-makers. Before the outbreak, Europe had been in a debate about drug pricing, but it only involved the upper echelon of political institutions. Often blamed are pharmaceutical companies, as well as a lack of price transparency. But having a closer looks at the costs of drugs shows that one of the main drivers for high costs is sales taxes on medicines.

Informed patients will know that all but one European country charge VAT on over-the-counter (OTC) medicine and prescription medicine. Germany charges as much as 19% VAT on both types of medicines, while Denmark ranks the highest, with rates at 25% – that is a fifth of the total price for a drug!

There is only one country that does not charge VAT on prescription or over-the-counter drugs: Malta. Luxembourg (3% each) and Spain (4% each) also show that modest VAT rates on drugs are not a crazy idea but something millions of Europeans already benefit from. Sweden and the UK both charge 0% VAT on prescription medicine, yet 25% and 20% respectively on OTC.

One of the significant roadblocks towards more patient access to drugs is the unfair tax policies of some EU member states. Before talking about eroding intellectual property rights and price setting across the block, we should discuss whether we should have a VAT on medicines.

Especially on prescription medicine, where cancer drugs can reach substantial price levels, VAT rates of up to 25% significantly burden patients and their health insurance. On prescription medicine, there is little sense in first charging value-added tax, and then have national health insurance providers pick up the tab. As for OTC medicine, the implication that just because it isn’t prescribed, it therefore isn’t an essential good, is a blindspot of policy-makers.

Many OTC meds, ranging from drug headache pain relief, heartburn medicine, lip treatments, respiratory remedies, or dermatological creams are not only essential medicines for millions of Europeans; they often act as preventative care. The more we tax these goods, the more we are burdening MDs with non-essential visits.

Following the example of Malta, European countries should lower their VAT rates to 0% on all medicines. The purpose of VAT is to take a cut out of commercial activity, making sure that all commercial transactions pay what is considered their fair share, even those businesses who traditionally don’t pay any company taxes. However, regarding the sale of medicine as a purely commercial transaction, from the standpoint of patients, misses the point. Millions of patients need specific prescription medicine every day, and others rely on the help of over-the-counter drugs to relieve pain or treat problems that do not require professional medical attention.

It is time for European nations to agree on a binding Zero VAT agreement on medicine or at least a cap at 5%, which would reduce drug prices in the double digits, increase accessibility, and create a fairer Europe.

Originally published here.

A French scientist has won a Nobel Prize for a technology that has been made illegal for use in agriculture by the European Union…

One wonders how exactly the news was received in the European Commission when two female scientists, one of which French, received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the development of the gene-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9. The discovery of Emmanuelle Charpentier from the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin and Jenifer Doudna from the University of California has far-reaching positive impacts for the work of medicine, but also for industry and consumers in the area of energy and agriculture. However, due to outdated EU-legislation dating back to the beginning of the century, genetic engineering is not legal to be used in food.

When EU Directive 2001/18/EC (a piece of legislation governing the use of GMOs) was introduced, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jenifer Doudna had not yet developed CRISPR-Cas9. However, in 2018, the European Court of Justice delivered a ruling that declares products derived from directed mutagenesis (gene-editing) illegal under the said directive, because it is a GMO. Whether or not gene-edited foods and GMOs are the same is a scientific conversation that would overwhelm the scope of this article, but for the sake of understanding the irony of the ECJ ruling, readers ought to know this: random mutagenesis is legal under EU law, while gene-editing is not. Random mutagenesis has been practised in Europe for decades, and is less safe than precise gene-editing.

Interestingly, this is not an uninformed take on the matter, but the assessment of the European Commission’s own Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, from a statement back in November 2018. On the issue of random mutagenesis, they also write:

“The resulting mutant organisms (in this case plants) require lengthy screening of the organisms’ characteristics to identify the few mutants that carry a novel desirable feature and do not present any unwanted features. Despite this lengthy screening process, the ultimately selected end products are likely to carry additional mutations beyond the ones resulting in the desired trait, each of which can be considered to be an ‘unintended effect’. Such unintended effects can be harmful, neutral or beneficial with respect to the final product.”

In the absence of listening to its own scientists, the European Union is lagging behind the rest of the world. The Consumer Choice Center has, together with the Genetic Literacy Project, released the Gene Editing Regulation Index, which compares the regulatory leniency of governments in different regions of the world. Needless to say, the European Union does not score well. It is time for policymakers to stand up for science and innovation and let Europe remain a global powerhouse of breakthroughs.

We need to allow European scientists to participate in the gene-revolution, and have them work together with farmers to release the innovations of the future. As I have laid out on the blog of the Consumer Choice Center, recent gene-editing innovations allow us to produce more paper with less resources, and make salmon less prone to disease and more affordable for consumers. Through genetic engineering, we can both fight the challenge of climate and that of increasing population.

Let us usher in a century of innovation in Europe, and let European scientists lead the charge.

Originally published here.

Para 2030, la Unión Europea tiene como objetivo lograr una amplia gama de objetivos, de acuerdo con la estrategia “De la granja a la mesa” de la Comisión Europea. Desde un punto de vista político, el documento es la confirmación de una tendencia: las ideas verdes están ganando importancia en la política del día a día de Bruselas y están logrando muchos de sus objetivos con esta hoja de ruta.

De acuerdo con la Estrategia de Biodiversidad, que se presentó al mismo tiempo que la Estrategia “De la granja a la mesa”, la Comisión Von der Leyen parece ser más ecológica que sus predecesoras. ¿Pero esto también es bueno para los agricultores y los consumidores?

En el corazón de “De la granja a la mesa” está la reducción a la mitad de los pesticidas para 2030, incluidos los que la Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria (EFSA) ha considerado seguros. Esto debería plantear preguntas a primera vista: si estos productos han sido seguros hasta ahora, ¿por qué deben reducirse? Si no se ha comprobado que sean seguros hasta ahora, ¿por qué no se han prohibido antes?

El objetivo de reducir a la mitad es incomprensible en este sentido. Si los productos fitosanitarios son fundamentalmente perjudiciales para la salud humana, el 50% restante es tan maligno como los que se eliminarán gradualmente.

La verdad es engañosa. Existe una discrepancia entre la retórica científica y política. La mayoría de los productos fitosanitarios establecidos han sido clasificados como seguros durante mucho tiempo, tanto por estudios independientes como por varias instituciones nacionales e internacionales.

Esto no ha impedido que muchos los cuestionen de todos modos, y con razón. Cambios en el conocimiento científico: quienes tienen nueva evidencia están obligados a presentarla en interés de la seguridad alimentaria. La ciencia no es una construcción estática grabada en piedra como una verdad única y absoluta.

Para los que se oponen a estos medios, no se trata de un debate científico, sino de una cuestión ideológica de principio. Las intervenciones en la naturaleza se ven con escepticismo, independientemente de su importancia para la seguridad alimentaria.

Estos activistas deben saber que no todo lo natural tiene que ser saludable: por ejemplo, los mohos naturales transportan aflatoxinas, que son responsables de una gran proporción de los casos de cáncer de hígado en el mundo. En África, el 40% de todos los casos de cáncer de hígado se atribuyen a las aflatoxinas.

Estos se han combatido con fungicidas durante muchos años, pero ahora se prohibirán cada vez más de estos productos.

A menudo es suficiente tener una conversación con un agricultor. Por el momento, la mayoría de la gente se queja de la falta de lluvia, pero a largo plazo, el catálogo cada vez más reducido de pesticidas permitidos es un problema real. Los insectos se comen las existencias, independientemente de lo que diga o regule la Comisión Europea.

Esto conduce a precios más altos en el supermercado, lo que es desastroso para muchas personas de bajos ingresos, especialmente en vista del desequilibrio económico actual. Este no es un problema principal para el comisario holandés de Cambio Verde, Frans Timmermans.

En un discurso ante la Comisión de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural del Parlamento Europeo el 7 de mayo, dijo que estamos acostumbrados a la comida barata durante demasiado tiempo y que necesitamos un cambio de paradigma en términos de agricultura sostenible.

Si los consumidores soportan las consecuencias de tales experimentos y los agricultores no tienen otra alternativa que enfrentar los obstáculos de los problemas naturales, ¿no es hora de repensar nuestra política agrícola?

Originally published here.

Το νέο σχέδιο της ΕΕ για βιώσιμα συστήματα τροφίμων κινδυνεύει να βλάψει τόσο τους καταναλωτές όσο και τους αγρότες, γράφει ο Bill Wirtz.

Μέχρι το 2030, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση επιδιώκει να επιτύχει ένα ευρύ φάσμα στόχων, σύμφωνα με τη στρατηγική «Farm to Fork» της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής. Από πολιτική άποψη, το έγγραφο αποτελεί την επιβεβαίωση μιας τάσης: οι πράσινες ιδέες αποκτούν σημασία στην καθημερινή πολιτική των Βρυξελλών και επιτυγχάνουν πολλούς από τους στόχους τους με αυτόν τον χάρτη πορείας.

Σύμφωνα με τη στρατηγική για τη βιοποικιλότητα, η οποία παρουσιάστηκε ταυτόχρονα με τη στρατηγική «Farm to Fork», η Επιτροπή Von der Leyen φαίνεται να είναι πιο πράσινη από τους προκατόχους της. Αλλά αυτό είναι επίσης καλό για τους αγρότες και τους καταναλωτές;

Στην καρδιά του «Farm to Fork» βρίσκεται το μισό των φυτοφαρμάκων έως το 2030, συμπεριλαμβανομένων εκείνων που έχουν βρεθεί ασφαλή από την Ευρωπαϊκή Αρχή για την Ασφάλεια των Τροφίμων (EFSA). Αυτό θα πρέπει να θέσει ερωτήσεις εκ πρώτης όψεως: εάν αυτά τα προϊόντα ήταν ασφαλή μέχρι τώρα, γιατί πρέπει να μειωθούν; Αν δεν έχουν βρεθεί ασφαλείς μέχρι τώρα, γιατί δεν έχουν απαγορευτεί νωρίτερα;

Ο στόχος της διχοτόμησης είναι ακατανόητος υπό αυτήν την έννοια. Εάν τα φυτοπροστατευτικά προϊόντα είναι θεμελιωδώς επιβλαβή για την ανθρώπινη υγεία, τότε το υπόλοιπο 50% είναι εξίσου κακοήθη με αυτά που θα καταργηθούν.

Η αλήθεια είναι δύσκολη. Υπάρχει μια διαφορά μεταξύ της επιστημονικής και της πολιτικής ρητορικής. Τα περισσότερα καθιερωμένα προϊόντα προστασίας των φυτών έχουν από καιρό χαρακτηριστεί ως ασφαλή, τόσο από ανεξάρτητες μελέτες όσο και από διάφορους εθνικούς και διεθνείς οργανισμούς.

Αυτό δεν εμπόδισε πολλούς να τις αμφισβητήσουν ούτως ή άλλως, και δικαίως. Οι επιστημονικές γνώσεις αλλάζουν: όσοι έχουν νέα στοιχεία υποχρεούνται να το παρουσιάσουν προς το συμφέρον της ασφάλειας των τροφίμων. Η επιστήμη δεν είναι ένα στατικό κατασκεύασμα που τίθεται σε πέτρα ως μοναδική και απόλυτη αλήθεια.

Για τους αντιπάλους αυτών των μέσων, δεν πρόκειται για επιστημονική συζήτηση, αλλά για ιδεολογικό ζήτημα αρχής. Οι παρεμβάσεις στη φύση αντιμετωπίζονται με σκεπτικισμό, ανεξάρτητα από το πόσο σημαντικές είναι για την επισιτιστική ασφάλεια.

Αυτοί οι ακτιβιστές θα πρέπει να γνωρίζουν ότι δεν είναι όλα τα φυσικά που πρέπει να είναι υγιή: για παράδειγμα, τα φυσικά καλούπια φέρουν αφλατοξίνες, οι οποίες είναι υπεύθυνες για ένα μεγάλο μέρος των περιπτώσεων καρκίνου του ήπατος στον κόσμο. Στην Αφρική, το 40% όλων των περιπτώσεων καρκίνου του ήπατος αποδίδεται σε αφλατοξίνες.

Αυτά έχουν καταπολεμηθεί με μυκητοκτόνα για πολλά χρόνια, αλλά όλο και περισσότερα από αυτά τα προϊόντα πρέπει τώρα να απαγορευτούν.

Συχνά αρκεί να συνομιλείς με έναν αγρότη. Προς το παρόν, οι περισσότεροι παραπονούνται για έλλειψη βροχής, αλλά μακροπρόθεσμα, ο συρρικνωμένος κατάλογος των επιτρεπόμενων φυτοφαρμάκων είναι ένα πραγματικό πρόβλημα. Τα έντομα καταναλώνουν αποθέματα, ανεξάρτητα από το τι λέει ή ρυθμίζει η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή.

Αυτό οδηγεί σε υψηλότερες τιμές στο σούπερ μάρκετ, το οποίο είναι καταστροφικό για πολλούς χαμηλού εισοδήματος άτομα, ιδίως ενόψει της τρέχουσας οικονομικής ανισορροπίας. Αυτό δεν αποτελεί πρωταρχικό πρόβλημα για τον Ολλανδό Επίτροπο για την Πράσινη Αλλαγή Frans Timmermans.

Σε ομιλία του στην Επιτροπή Γεωργίας και Ανάπτυξης της Υπαίθρου του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου στις 7 Μαΐου, είπε ότι έχουμε συνηθίσει για φτηνά τρόφιμα για πολύ καιρό και ότι χρειαζόμαστε μια αλλαγή παραδείγματος όσον αφορά τη βιώσιμη γεωργία.

Εάν οι καταναλωτές φέρουν τις συνέπειες τέτοιων πειραμάτων, και οι αγρότες δεν έχουν άλλη εναλλακτική λύση αλλά να αντιμετωπίσουν τα εμπόδια των φυσικών προβλημάτων, δεν είναι καιρός να επανεξετάσουμε τη γεωργική μας πολιτική;

Originally published here.

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.

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.