Guido Noto La Diega: "Uber law and awareness by design. An empirical study on online platforms and dehumanised negotiations"

Revue européenne de droit de la consommation/ European Journal of Consumer Law, 2016 (II). pp. 383-413. ISSN 0775- 3209

Published by: Larcier: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/27866/1/Guido-REDC.pdf

W

● E.D. van Assel y otros, “Prioritization of chemical hazards in spices and herbs for European monitoring programs”

Food Control (2016) doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.12.023.

Publicado como avance 'online' el 18 de diciembre de 2016

Abstract

Monitoring programs are preferably risk-based, which allows focusing on the most relevant human health risks. In this study, a risk matrix was used to identify those chemical hazards that have the highest human health risk for the following spices and herbs: paprika/chilli powder, black pepper, nutmeg, basil, thyme, and parsley. Both the probability of occurrence and the severity of the hazard were assessed for 36 chemical compounds and classified into low, medium, high, and severe. Probability of occurrence was evaluated based on available monitoring data and RASFF notifications as well as possibilities for economic adulteration. Severity was assessed based on available toxicological reference values and classification of carcinogenicity. The results demonstrated that the mycotoxins aflatoxins and ochratoxin A, the pesticides chlorpyrifos and triazophos, and the dye Sudan I posed the highest human health risk for spices and herbs. These compounds should, therefore, have an increased monitoring frequency in these products.

Keywords: chemical compounds, risk matrix, risk ranking, contaminants

Consultar: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713516307149 

CUSTOMER VALUE IN SHARING ECONOMY: THE CASE OF AIRBNB

Author: Hong Ngoc Nguyen

Abstract

The sharing economy is an Internet-based business model in which users are directly connected to create, share and exchange goods or services built from underused resources. While this emerging phenomenon has been studied from different perspectives, including technical, social and economic, limited investigation has been done from the customer perspective. The aim of this thesis is to narrow the research gap by applying customer viewpoint to explore and identify customer perceived value inside the sharing economy. From this perspective, customer value is an important concept because creating excellent value to customers is one of strategic decisions for company to sustain and grow in the market. In order to address the research purpose, the author takes an interpretive approach to study customers’ experience of using sharing economy. Empirical data is collected, from the case of Airbnb, to identify customer perceived value representing for the sharing economy. The results found by this study are indicated as follows. Firstly, the sharing economy offers customers alternative choices with easier consumption methods at a lower cost. Secondly, the sharing economy offers customers a unique, personal and socially-integrated experience. Finally, the choice of sharing economy reflects a shift in consumer preferences. Although consumers are aware of the potential costs and risks, they still prefer using the sharing economy because of its flexibility and uniqueness. These findings could be useful insights for companies to sharpen their competitive advantages and navigate business strategies.

LINK: http://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/100387/GRADU-1482240821.pdf?sequence=1

x

UNIÓN EUROPEA: Informe relativo a los alimentos e ingredientes alimentarios tratados con radiaciones ionizantes correspondientes al año 2015

Documento COM(2016) 738 final, 25.11.2016: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2016:738:FIN&rid=8

WEALTH OF TECHNOLOGY – A PLATFORM FOR BUSINESS AND COUNTRY

R. SHOBANA, Research Scholar, Department of Management, SNR and Sons College,
Coimbatore. TN INDIA

Abstract

Digital revolution is a blooming terminology which always makes people connected in. Technology has altered the traditional human recognition. How to get our self in the environment with differential perspectives are the challenges of any business man. New concepts are formerly accomplished through more conventional approaches are becoming increasingly difficult to manage. India is also coming up with adapting digital revolution to make it a developing country. This paper identifies few strategies which could transform a business unit by framing new core competencies and how to have a balance between technology, efficiency and humanity.

Keywords: Digital, Business, Communication, Strategies.

LINK: http://puneresearch.com/media/data/issues/582b546cd8bf3.pdf

Regulating the Sharing Economy: Applying the Process for Creative Destruction

Salman Dostmohammad and Jude Long, Dalhousie University

The rising popularity of sharing platforms such as Uber, AirBnB, Taskrabbit and others is democratizing access to services as part of a larger sharing economy phenomenon. The sharing economy is a hub of peer‑to‑peer activity for obtaining, giving, or sharing access, and is coordinated through a web interface featuring community feedback. Uber, AirBnB and other such firms are drawing the attention of regulators as the sharing economy operates within a gray zone that is not contained within the existing regulatory framework. As new technology is accelerating the emergence of new forms of economic activity, regulators must adopt quicker measures in order to remain relevant. This paper first examines the reasons that cause governments to regulate, the problems currently affecting the regulatory framework, and the trade-offs regulators must consider in formulating the appropriate regulatory response. This paper then calls for possible solutions by proposing a regulatory framework that is flexible and responsive enough to allow these companies to operate into the future. Responsiveness can be enhanced by creating an inter-jurisdictional task force that will develop government's foresight and anticipatory abilities, and applying the process of creative destruction toward regulations that can solve the problem of outdated regulations.

See more at: http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/organization/sj-eng.aspx

BIOVEGEN organiza la Jornada “TECHNOLOGY ATTRACTION: el futuro de la tecnología en plantas". FRUIT ATTRACTION. 6 octubre 2016. Madrid

Tras la exitosa celebración de la Jornada "Innovación e impacto económico de las variedades vegetales" organizada por BIOVEGEN el año pasado en el marco de la feria FRUIT ATTRACTION 2015, desde BIOVEGEN hemos organizado la Jornada “TECHNOLOGY ATTRACTION: El futuro de la tecnología en plantas", que pretende resaltar la importancia de la tecnología para aumentar la competitividad del sector agrícola español.

La Jornada se celebrará el próximo 6 de octubre de 2016 en el marco de la Feria internacional FRUIT ATTRACTION 2016 (auditorio del Pabellón 7).

El objetivo de esta Jornada es reunir a representantes destacados de la Ciencia, Empresa y Administración española para transmitir la revolución tecnológica que está teniendo lugar en Biología Vegetal, destacando así la crucial herramienta de mejora competitiva que estos avances proporcionan al sector de la producción vegetal, y cuál es el contexto internacional y las tendencias en este sentido. Nuestra intención es estimular la innovación en el sector a través de la generación de contactos y proyectos entre Oferta y Demanda tecnológica, entre Ciencia y Empresa, con el fin de potenciar la colaboración público-privada en I+D, que entendemos de importancia capital para el desarrollo tecnológico y económico del sector agroalimentario.

Fecha: jueves 6 de octubre de 2016

Hora: de 12:00 a 14:00 horas

Lugar: Feria FRUIT ATTRACTION. Fruit Forum 7. Pabellón 7 de IFEMA. Avenida del Partenón nº5, Feria de Madrid (28042) Madrid

Inscripción: GRATUITA HASTA COMPLETAR EL AFORO

*La inscripción incluye pase profesional de acceso completo a Fruit Attraction, cortesía de BIOVEGEN. ESTE PASE ES NECESARIO PARA ACCEDER A LA JORNADA.

INVITACIÓN PROFESIONAL CORTESÍA DE BIOVEGEN

DESCARGUE AQUÍ SU PASE DE VISITANTE PROFESIONAL

CÓDIGO: FA160001383FV

PROGRAMA

12:00 h.                Bienvenida e introducción

12:10 h.                CIENCIA: Revolución tecnológica y nuevas herramientas en Biología Vegetal

                               Gabino Sánchez-Pérez. Plant Research International, Universidad de Wageningen

                               Contenido: Visión científica de la situación actual y tendencias futuras de la Biología Vegetal. Herramientas y procesos disponibles para el desarrollo de nuevos productos

12:40 h.                EMPRESA: Tendencias de la I+D agroalimentaria. Necesidades y demandas tecnológicas del sector agroalimentario

                               Jorge Jordana Butticaz de Pozas. Patrono Director Área Agroalimentaria. Fundación LAFER

                               Contenido: Visión de la industria agroalimentaria y necesidades del sector privado en el ámbito de la innovación agroalimentaria: producción primaria y transformación. Evolución y perspectivas del sector privado desde el punto de vista de la I+D

13:10 h.                CONTEXTO: Presente y futuro de la producción vegetal. Marco legislativo y demandas futuras de mercado

                               Luis González Vaqué. Coordinador del Área de Políticas Agroalimentarias. Fundación TRIPTOLEMOS

                               Contenido: Marco legislativo europeo e internacional de las tecnologías ofrecidas por la Biología Vegetal en el contexto de las demandas futuras del mercado de la producción vegetal. Evolución, tendencias actuales y perspectiva de futuro

13:40 h.                BIOVEGEN como catalizador de I+D en producción vegetal

                               Gonzaga Ruiz de Gauna Gutiérrez. Plataforma Tecnológica de Biotecnología Vegetal (BIOVEGEN)

13:50 h.                Coloquio y preguntas

14:00 h.                Clausura de la Jornada

                               Coctel y networking entre los asistentes

EL CONCEPTO DE CONSUMIDOR MIXTO EN EL ORDENAMIENTO JURÍDICO EUROPEO Y MEXICANO

Henrry Sosa Olán y Fredi Qué Landero

Perfiles de las Ciencias Sociales, Año 3, No. 6, Enero - Junio 2016, 131-151 pp.

RESUMEN: El presente trabajo, tiene como objetivo analizar el concepto de consumidor, tanto a nivel europeo como en el ordenamiento jurídico mexicano. Ambos ordenamientos coinciden en que sea una persona física o jurídica que compre bienes o contrate servicios con un propósito ajeno a su actividad comercial. Sin embargo, a diferencia del ordenamiento jurídico mexicano que sí reconoce la figura del consumidor mixto, a nivel europeo no se ha reconocido expresamente, tal y como veremos.

Consultar: http://www.revistas.ujat.mx/index.php/perfiles/article/viewFile/1410/1216 

European Parliament - Matt Carthy’s Question & Answer: Transparency

• 14 June 2016 - Matt Carthy – [E-004832-16] - Subject: Transparency:

When Mr Juncker assumed office as President of the European Commission, he made a commitment to enhance transparency by publishing more information about meetings and providing greater access to documents relating to negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Three weeks ago, and 2.5 years into his term, he launched a public consultation on making the Transparency Register mandatory.

On 11 November 2014 the Commission published a communication on the Commission working methods 2014-2019. In this communication, the Commission stated that, as a rule, Commissioners must not meet with professional organisations or self-employed individuals that are not on the Transparency Register.

Could the Commission please explain why this ‘rule’ was included in a communication instead of in one of the Commission decisions adopted later that month, namely decisions C(2014)9048 and C(2014)9051, both on the subject of transparency. Including this rule in a decision would have given it much greater legal significance.

Could the Commission provide details as to whether a monitoring system has been put in place to ensure that Commissioners abide by this rule?

Could it also explain why this rule was not extended to cover all officials working at the Commission?

Answer given by First Vice-President Timmermans on behalf of the Commission (27 July 2016):

« In line with Decisions C(2014)9048[1] and C(2014)9051[2], Commissioners, their Cabinet members and Directors-General publish information on meetings with interest representatives on their respective websites and under their own responsibility. No specific monitoring system has been put in place as disclosure in the public domain implies that the implementation of the rules can be closely scrutinised by stakeholders, the media and citizens.

The rule that Commissioners, their Cabinet members and Directors-General should not meet interest representatives that are not on the Transparency Register was included in the Working Methods of the European Commission 2014-2019[3]. The working methods are administrative rules laid down by the President on the basis of Article 17(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and an appropriate place to set out internal instructions.

These rules apply to the top decision-makers at the political level and those directly responsible for advising them at the civil-service level in view of the special role and responsibilities allocated to the persons holding such positions. Extending the reporting requirements to all staff would create additional administrative burdens without bringing proportionate added-value. In addition, all staff are advised to check the credentials of interest representatives to make sure they are registered in the Transparency Register and if, they are not, encourage them to register.».

--------------------------------------

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/news/2014/docs/c_2014_9048_en.pdf

[2] http://ec.europa.eu/news/2014/docs/c_2014_9051_en.pdf

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2014/EN/3-2014-9004-EN-F1-1.Pdf

European Parliament - Konstantinos Papadakis’s Question & Answer: Harsh measures affecting poorer medium-sized dairy farms

• 6 June 2016 - Konstantinos Papadakis – [E-004635-16] - Subject: Harsh measures affecting poorer medium-sized dairy farms:

The restructuring of the dairy sector under the CAP has led to a reduction in the number of small farms with only few cows, while the number of large farms has increased. The resulting increase in productivity has benefited monopolistic formations with over 70% of production and marketing activities in the hands of just six groups.

The major fall in milk prices paid by dairies has left smaller farmers unable even to recoup their production costs. Their situation has been dramatically worsened following measures adopted by the present Syriza-ANEL coalition government and its predecessors, such as deregulation of the shelf life of pasteurized milk, deployment of legislative safeguards from the OECD ‘toolkit’ and production methods encouraging dairy processing monopolies.

In the meantime, poorer medium-sized sheep and goat milk producers are being ruined by extortionate taxes, animal diseases, the declassification of millions of acres of pastureland and the privatisation of public veterinary services.

In addition, under the terms of international agreements (CETA, TTIP, EPA agreement with South Africa regarding Feta cheese) the EU is effectively compromising Greek products (cheese, yogurt, oil, Kalamata olives etc.) hitherto protected by PDO and PGI rules.

In view of this:

What is the Commission’s response to the fact that, as a result of its measures, the concentration of dairy production in large capitalist farms is being encouraged while poorer medium-sized goat and sheep breeders are being progressively forced out of business?

Answer given by Mr Hogan on behalf of the Commission (28 July 2016):

«The Commission has mobilised a wide range of instruments to directly and indirectly support European farmers in difficulty, notably in the light of the introduction of the Russian ban in August 2014, and the deterioration of global markets throughout 2015 and in the first half of 2016. The Commission remains attentive to market evolution and will make a responsible use of the instruments made available by the legislator, should this be required.

The quality and diversity of the Union's agricultural production is one of its important strengths giving a competitive advantage to its producers. The Commission therefore strongly advocates the EU quality schemes like geographical indications (GI) as they offer significant benefits for small and medium-sized producers in that they often get a better price for their products and hold a stronger position in the food chain. They also help producers to distinguish their products in the marketplace highlighting their authenticity and specific characteristics. Through international agreements, the EU secures protection for EU GIs where in many cases there was none before. These agreements have no impact on protection of EU GIs within the EU.

Dairy GI products can serve as an important economic driver in the regions where they are produced as they usually generate direct jobs on the farms and in the processing facilities. EU quality schemes help more small production facilities to survive. Similarly, direct payments and rural development programmes offer appropriate tools to support smaller scale holdings notably located in less favoured areas.».

European Parliament - Marian Harkin’s Question & Answer: Imports of chlorinated chicken under the TTIP agreement

• 8 June 2016 - Marian Harkin – [E-004726-16] - Subject: Imports of chlorinated chicken under the TTIP agreement:

In response to Written Question P-002677/2016 [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=P-2016-002677&language=EN] regarding imports of chlorinated chicken under the TTIP agreement, EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis did not categorically rule out the importation of the product under a TTIP agreement, but rather stated that ‘no antimicrobial treatments will be approved in the EU unless there is a clear scientific assessment confirming that they are beneficial for consumers (i.e. reduction of microbial contamination and reduction of safety risks)’. In this context, is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) currently assessing the safety of chlorinated chicken or any other antimicrobial treatment of meat or carcases so as to evaluate whether or not they enhance the hygiene requirements that EU legislation requires to be applied throughout the food-chain process?

Or are there any plans to request that EFSA carry out such an assessment?

Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis on behalf of the Commission (27 July 2016):

«The Commission is committed to uphold high standards and levels of health, safety, and environmental protection in the EU. The negotiation for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is not going to change that. The Commission has repeatedly underlined that the overall objective in TTIP is to cut unnecessary red tape, reduce the costs of doing business across the Atlantic and make it easier for companies to comply with both American and European laws, while maintaining the appropriate levels of protection set by each side.

Where a request is made to the Commission to authorise a product for the antimicrobial treatment of meat or carcases, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) may be requested to carry out a risk assessment as part of the risk analysis of the product. There are currently no such applications, nor risk assessments in progress. However, if such an application were to be made in the future, EFSA may be requested to carry out an assessment.».

European Parliament - Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar’s Question & Answer: Situation in Venezuela — Mercosur agreement

• 9 May 2016 - Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar – [E-003833-16] - Subject: Situation in Venezuela — Mercosur agreement:

Given that:

— In 1995 EU and Mercosur signed an inter-regional cooperation agreement. The EU is Mercosur's most important trading partner, accounting for 20% of Mercosur's total trade in 2013. Venezuela has been a member of Mercosur since 2012.

— The EU is in the process of negotiating a trade agreement with Mercosur, covering not only agricultural and industrial products but also services and public procurement, intellectual property rules, customs aspects and other barriers to trade.

— Venezuela finds itself in a critical period, with a severely weakened economy — and the attendant worsening of its people's living conditions — energy rationing, reduced working hours for civil servants, changes in the time zone, scarcity of food and other essential goods and growing social unrest.

1. Can the Commission say how instability in Venezuela could affect these ongoing negotiations with the Mercosur countries?

2. Does the Commission intend to take action to improve trade relations with Latin America, in particular by entering into bilateral agreements rather than moving towards an overall agreement with Mercosur?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission (8 July 2016):

«The daily deterioration of the security and socioeconomic situation in Venezuela is followed by the Commission with concern. The EU continues to urge all political actors to work together to overcome the increasing political tensions and find productive solutions for the people of Venezuela.

Venezuela has been a full member of Mercosur since 2012. However, Venezuela is still not fully participating in the external trade agenda of Mercosur and, more particularly, is not party to the trade negotiations between the EU and Mercosur. According to reports by the pro-tempore Presidency, the Free Trade Agreement negotiations may continue to be chaired by Uruguay on the Mercosur side for the rest of 2016, while Venezuela assumes the pro-tempore Presidency of Mercosur for the second semester of the year.

As regards the format of the negotiations, the European Union is fully committed to this process with Mercosur.».

Versions in Portuguese: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2016-003833+0+DOC+XML+V0//PT and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2016-003833&language=PT

---

European Parliament - Lefteris Christoforou’s Question & Answer: Defending protected designations of origin

• 14 June 2016 - Lefteris Christoforou – [E-004833-16] - Subject: Defending protected designations of origin:

It is being reported that, in talks with the EU regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the US is consistently refusing to countenance the inclusion in the agreement of protected designations of origin (PDOs) recognised on the European market.

However, their exclusion from the agreement would have a disastrous impact on European product quality and drive thousands of producers out of business, leaving European markets to be flooded with cheap and inferior US substitutes. The consequences for European consumers could be disastrous and irremediable.

For example, dairy products such as feta, halloumi and parmesan would be unable to compete and forced out of the market. At the same time, many other European product categories would also suffer huge losses.

The EU therefore has a fundamental duty to defend European protected designations of origin as an integral part of its policy making.

In view of this:

— Can the Commission say what action it intends to take in dealing with this issue?

— Can it give its assurance that PDO products will not be adversely affected by the TTIP agreement?

Answer given by Mr Hogan on behalf of the Commission (8 August 2016):

«The Commission confirms that its objective is to provide for enhanced protection and recognition of EU Geographical Indications (GIs) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

For further details, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to questions P-002810/2016[1] and E-000422/2015[2].».

---

[1] «The Commission is aware of the economic impact resulting from the lack of appropriate protection experienced in the U.S. market by an important number of EU quality products bearing the PDO/PGI [Protected Designation of Origin/Protected Geographical Indication] protection in the EU territory and is therefore pursuing an ambitious outcome for EU geographical indications within the framework of the ongoing negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the U.S. In order to achieve this objective, the EU is pragmatically but firmly negotiating rules that would guarantee an appropriate level of protection and an appropriate enforcement of that protection for a selection of most significant EU geographical indications in terms of EU commercial interests in the US market. The list of the selected EU geographical indications has been published on the TTIP TRADE website [http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154386.GIPaperAnnex1%20FINAL_REV.pdf]. The list of selected names has been established in 2013 by the Commission, in close coordination with Member States, on the basis of objective criteria such as the economic relevance of these names in the U.S marketplace. Some of the names mentioned by the Honourable Members (‘Arancia rossa di Sicilia’,"Cappero di Pantelleria, ‘Pecorino Romano’, ‘Pecorino Toscano’, ‘Pomodoro di Pachino’ and ‘Prosciutto Toscano’) are indeed included in the list, while others did not meet the criteria set above. The Commission signals that one of its objectives in these negotiations is to secure in the agreement rules that would allow the initial list of geographical indications to be expanded with the consensus of the Parties.»

[2] «There are currently almost 3 300 products bearing a protected designation of origins (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) in the EU. While it is difficult to assess the total number of jobs directly and indirectly dependent on PDO/PGIs, the Commission can provide examples of jobs directly involved in the production of some well-known EU specialities, based on data from GI holders' sources. Around 50,000 jobs are involved in the production of Parmigiano Reggiano cheese, about 10 000 jobs for Gorgonzola cheese, and over 10 000 jobs for Bayerisches Bier. These figures do not take into account the number of jobs indirectly related to those names, e.g. involved in distribution and/or tourism in the areas of production.CETA ensures for a short list of 145 prominent European GIs a level of protection comparable to the protection in the EU. CETA will allow additional GIs to be added in the future. As regards the U.S., the Commission is aware of the economic impact resulting from the lack of protection experienced in this market by a number of PDO/PGI. The Commission, in the ongoing TTIP negotiations and in line with the Council negotiating directives, is looking for rules guaranteeing an appropriate level of protection and enforcement of that protection for a selection of EU GIs.In the context of the FTA with the EU, Singapore accepted to adopt a GI legislation and to introduce a GI register providing for high level of protection. This register will concern a first list of EU names, subject to national examination process, but will then be opened to any other EU GI. The examples above show that trade agreements can be powerful tools to enhance the protection of EU GIs in third countries and do not lower GI protection in the EU.».