Raumly Sat Down with Mr. Luis González Vaqué to Discuss Sharing Economy

• Publicado el 2 de octubre de 2020

Estado: localizable

Ivan Golovko

CEO at Raumly

 resources.

Hey guys! We at Raumly strongly believe in collaborative consumption and the growing potential of sharing economy.

This week we had the pleasure of interviewing the Director of Food and Agrarian Policies of the “Fundació Triptolemos” (Barcelona), Mr. Luis González Vaqué.

If you don’t know who he is, let us give you a brief about his glorious contribution to the Agriculture and food economy in Barcelona, Spain. Finishing his education in Consumer and Food Law in 1965, he diligently worked to provide sound legal advice in this field for the next 15 years.

In 1980, it was time for him to step up as Legal Adviser of Prosema, organiser of “Alimentaria”, the International Food Show of Barcelona. Since taking that step he has never looked back.

He has worked with numerous leading organizations during his extraordinary career such as the Council of the European Food Law Association (EFLA), Food, Plant and Animal Law Services of FAO, in Rome (Italy), and others.

He also has a strong belief in the emerging sharing economy and how it can change the world for the better. When we at Raumly got to know this, we were not going to leave our chance to know his views on the same.

That’s why we sat down with him and asked a few questions regarding the same. It did add to our perspective on sharing economy and gave us the motivation to dig in even more to bring out the best services on our platform.

We wanted to share the knowledge with you and hence read on to know what we asked and what he had to say.

1. Could you please tell our readers a bit about you and when did you sense that Sharing Economy has potential? How did you venture into it?

My interest in the sharing economy was the result of the first motions and documents of the European Parliament on this subject. I immediately sensed that it had a promising future, but that it also posed some problems, for example with regard to taxes and workers’ rights.

I am particularly interested in the development of this collaborative economy in the food sector, to which I have dedicated a large part of my professional career from a legal perspective.

2. What do you consider to be the driving factors for customers to dive into sharing resources and collaborative consumption?

From a socio-political perspective, I believe that citizens should value its more equitable character and the more direct relationship between users and consumers that the shared economy implies. However, getting this message and information to our compatriots is not easy nor obvious.

3. Do you think the millennial and GenZ population is more inclined towards sharing resources? If so, why?

They are our future and I hope they know how to amend our mistakes and improve the current economic system; anyway, although I am generally optimistic, in some cases there is a deed in young people a tendency to deviate towards in solidarity and new individualism …

4. So, currently Covid-19 hit the market and affected businesses. It’s definitely made people skeptical about sharing things. How do you think this segment could make a comeback or come into focus again?

There are many and very diverse opinions about what will happen when, finally, thanks to a vaccine, the current pandemic ends: some think that everything will improve, that people will be ‘better’, more generous and responsible. I’m afraid not … I think everything will go back to the way it was before, for better or for worse. The sharing economy and those who support and/or perform it will have to continue to struggle against the opposition of some lobbies and the indifference of the majority. We will still need a long period to inform and convince our fellow citizens of its advantages.

5. Do you see sharing economy/resources having any environmental impact as it’s portrayed in the media?

As I have said before, it is necessary to make a great informative effort; to date, the media have disseminated only partial or fragmentary information about conflictive sectors of the collaborative economy. I repeat: it is about informing exhaustively and convincing our fellow citizens with the veracity of a friendly solidarity economy, effective and at a human level.

6. Any closing remarks that you’d like to add

I will not fatigue of repeating it: the sharing economy must be seen and understood for what it is, not as it sometimes seems to be, or even in some cases, it is … a method to take advantage of workers, evade taxes, and so on. Authenticity, efficient work, advantageous results, and good information should be the three columns on which to support this new future that we all want.

It was certainly a pleasure to talk to Mr. Luis González Vaqué about the impact the sharing economy can have on our future. We sincerely thank him to take time out of his busy schedule and do this interview with us. We are fortunate to know him and stay in touch with him in the future to build the sharing economy space efficiently

.

Through this interview, our team at Raumly understood the need to inform the crowd exhaustively about the benefits of sharing resources and collaborative consumption. We also got an insight into how millennials and GenZ can be elementary in promoting the sharing of resources. Moreover, how they are carving a niche of new individualism through the sharing economy. In addition to the above, it also gave us know-how about how under the guise of sharing economy most major companies might be exploiting worker’s rights and taxes.

As an emerging sharing platform like ourselves, we decide to learn and consider new perspectives in this field from visionaries such as Mr. Luis González Vaqué. 

Now that you have reached the end of the post, we would leave you with this question, ‘What are your views on sharing economy and how can we build a sustainable future with it?’ 

Comment down below your views. We will be glad to engage in a further discussion on the same.

 

🛑 USA - Seafood company implicated in false labeling scam

 

Report on Supply Chain Compliance 3, no. 18 (September 17, 2020)

The treasurer of a North Carolina seafood company, Garland F. Fulcher Seafood Co. Inc. (Garland Fulcher), conspired to mislabel seafood as being domestically produced when some of the seafood processed and sold by the company was cheaper foreign imports. The United States Department of Justice specifically mentioned blue crab, which has been the target for mislabeling and other scams for some time, in a news release.[1]

In 2018, a Virginia-based company, Casey’s Seafood Inc., was also found guilty of mislabeling foreign blue crab. Several other seafood scandals have emerged in recent years as well,[2] including human trafficking in Southeast Asia and a price-fixing scandal in the canned tuna market.

‘Seafood mislabeling is consumer fraud that undermines efforts of hardworking, honest fisherman and the free market by devaluing the price of domestic seafood,’ said U.S. Attorney Robert J. Higdon Jr. for the Eastern District of North Carolina. ‘In this case, the fraudulent scheme artificially deflated the cost of domestic blue crab and gave Styron and Garland Fulcher Seafood an unacceptable and unfair economic advantage over law-abiding competitors.’[3]

1 United States Department of Justice, “Seafood Processor Pleads Guilty to Selling Foreign Crabmeat Falsely Labeled as Blue Crab from USA,” news release, September 3, 2020, https://bit.ly/3hhBJ4a.

2 Sascha Matuszak, “‘Local’ seafood is found to be globally sourced,” Report on Supply Chain Compliance 1, no. 9, (August 17, 2018), https://bit.ly/3bLYtrH.

3 United States Department of Justice, “Seafood Processor Pleads Guilty.”

 

[View source.]

Optimizing Sustainability - Connecting with Influencers

 

Best Food Facts recently hosted nine digital influencers for a Virtual Taste Tour focused on sustainability. Get the details.

The tour, originally planned to be in-person in central Iowa, was reformatted into three virtual discussions focused on these topics:

• Sustainable Food with conversations about food waste, processed foods, biotechnology and food affordability
• Sustainable Egg Farming, providing dialogue on hen housing and impacts on animal well-being, food affordability and natural resources
• Sustainable Crop Farming with a focus on crop practices and environmental stewardship

Eleven experts – including farmers, food manufacturers, registered dieticians, retailers and animal scientists – engaged with candor and authenticity to share how they make sustainability decisions. The experts provided several specific examples of how they weigh benefits and tradeoffs to evaluate the overall sustainability and impacts of decisions around individual practices, products and processes.

The influencers each wrote blog posts about the tour, reaching a combined audience of over 10 million followers. The influencer tour was complemented by a four-part series on Best Food Facts examining sustainability impacts and the topics of grass-fed and grain-fed beef, pesticides and GMOs.

United Soybean Board provided funding for the influencer engagement and content promotion.

https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/optimizing-sustainability/

• • •

European Food and Feed Law 4/2020 (Vol. 15)

European Food and Feed Law 4/2020 (Vol. 15)

Editorial 

Leonie Evans

Page 315 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/3

Articles

The Origin Declaration of Food and its Primary Ingredients – A Quick Guide on Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and Regulation (EU) 2018/775

Christian Ballke, Maria Kietz

Page 316 – 326 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/4

---

The Distinction Between Medicinal Products and Foodstuffs in Light of Recent German Case Law

Gunnar Sachs, Magdalena Thole

Page 327 – 335 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/5

---

The Response of the EU Agri-Food Chain to the COVID-19 Pandemic:Chronicles from the EU and Selected Member States

Francesco Montanari, Sarah Arayess, Toma Barbarasa, Alberta Clavarino, Inês Ferreira, Aude Mahy, Stelios Margaritis, Alicja Michałowska, Christina Schröck, Arthur Servé, Agnieszka-Szymecka Wesolowska, Cesare Varallo, Pilar Velázquez González

Page 336 – 356 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/6

---

Food Classification Report: The Concept ‘Ultra-Processed’

Carmen Carretero, Ramon Clotet, Yvonne Colomer, Gonzalo García de Fernando, Juana Frías, Juana Frías, Luis González Vaqué, Abel Mariné, Antonio Martínez, Rafael Moreno Rojas, María Jesús Periago, Dolores Rodrigo, Mª Ángeles Romero Rodríguez, Amparo Salvador, Pau Talens Oliag

Page 357 – 362 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/7

Legislation

Page 363 - 364

Jurisdiction

Page 365

Reports

Bulgaria ∙ New Foodstuff Act in Bulgaria

Elena Todorova - Page 366 - 367

---

Spain ∙ Food Classification Controversy  

Cristina Vidreras - Page 368 - 369

---

Portugal ∙ Impact of Covid-19 on the Dietary Habits of the Portuguese Population

Inês Ferreira - Page 370 - 372

---

Poland ∙ Food as an Object of Intellectual Protection: New Courts of Intellectual Property in Poland

Iwona Wrześniewska-Wal - Page 373 - 374

_____________________________________________________

 

Miscellaneous

List of Recent Notifications to the European Commission under Directive (EU) 2015/1535

Page 375 - 377

---

New Publications

Page 378 - 396

---

European Parliament: MEP’s Questions & Answers

(November 2019 - May 2020)

Page 397 - 417

 

CHINA: Beijing IP court heard a trademark dispute between “Chateau Lafite Rothschild Winery” and “Real Estate Company”

 

On August 7, 2020, the Beijing IP Court made an award in favour of “Château Lafite Rothschild” (Château Lafite), a well-known French winery established in the 18th century. “Château Lafite” sued Huailai Lishihongya Company (怀来利世鸿亚公司) and two other unknown respondents on the grounds of the trademark infringement. The Beijing IP Court compelled the respondents to pay damage loss of 5 million yuan (approximately $720,000) and issued a public apology to the claimant “Château Lafite”.

The respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” specializes in providing clients with a wide range of real estate services like renting apartments, leasing of real estate, management etc. Therefore, this company has registered the trademark “Château Lafite” (the Chinese name - 拉斐) in class 36 under the Nice classification of goods and services. In its turn, the real trademark owner “Château Lafite” has been acquiring a reputation of a good wine producer since the late 1990s. So, this trademark is well-recognized not only by Chinese consumers but also by consumers from all over the world. Furthermore, the trademark has been well-recognized while conducting the trademark administrative review and litigation procedures. The real trademark owner registered trademark “Lafite” (the corresponding Chinese name - 拉菲, registration no.: 1122916 and 6186990) in class 33, which belongs to spirit drinks except for beers.

After the Beijing IP Court conducted a thorough examination of all the facts and pieces of evidence submitted by both parties, the Beijing IP Court came to the conclusion that the respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” had intentionally copied, imitated and made a translation of the well-known trademark. These aforementioned actions caused to the public’s misleading and “Château Lafite” incurred colossal monetary losses. Hence, the Beijing IP Court approved the respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” had violated the exclusive rights of the real trademark holder, referring to art. 57 of the Trademark Law of China (2019). However, what was more interesting is the court’s decision of this case. The Beijing IP Court didn’t make any statement about immediate removal of the cited trademark from all the products and trademark systems.

August 31 2020

Schmitt & Orlov

🔄 “Economía circular, aproximación a un modelo para Pymes exportadoras”

Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Administrativas, Vol. 2 No. 1 (2020) 62-77 

Resumen:

El objetivo del artículo es realizar una aproximación a un modelo que pueda ser usado por  las  pequeñas  y  medianas  empresas  (Pymes)  que  buscan oportunidades de optimizar el uso de materias primas, el diseño de eco-productos y ampliar las políticas internas que cambien pensamientos de compartir en vez de adquirir. Asimismo, transformar modelos tradicionales de consumo  lineal  e  ingresar  a  una  economía  que  aprovecha  todos  los  recursos, manteniéndolos útiles por mayor tiempo.  El método desarrollado en el artículo fue la búsqueda de información a nivel nacional e internacional, es decir, qué modelos se estaban aplicando y cómo se podrían ajustar a las Pymes colombianas. En ese sentido, el resultado de mayor importancia fue generalizar un método para las eco-industrias, basadas en la aplicación de tecnologías amigables con el medio ambiente y a la sustentabilidad.

Palabras clave:

economía circular; reciclaje; ciclo técnico; ecodiseño; Pymes exportadoras.

 

[ consultar: http://cipres.sanmateo.edu.co/index.php/rcca/article/view/348/291 ].

W.

 

Milk revolution

 

The vegetarian and vegan market has grown exponentially in the last 10 years. In fact, the meat-free industry is forecast to increase in value to £658 million by 2021.

The alternative milk sub-sector provides a wide range of milks for vegetarians, vegans, lactose intolerant and anyone else wanting to dip their toe in the dairy-free range. Milk is currently available from a variety of products: almond, oat, hazelnut, coconut, rice and soy to name a few. However, some companies are set to further disrupt the dairy and alternative milk sectors.

Israeli start-up, Remilk, is investing in an alternative way to make non-dairy milk that harnesses microbes to produce a product that is adaptable and argued to be environmentally conscious. Remilk claims that its product does not have any of the health "pitfalls" that are associated with its dairy counterparts: no lactose, growth hormones, antibiotics or cholesterol. Such a product could potentially revolutionise not only the milk market, but also the alternative cheese market.

Another brand seeking to disrupt the dairy sector is Swedish oat-based milk brand, Oatly. Its advertising campaigns have been controversial – focusing on environmental destruction, the brand has become ever more political in its tact. Advertising campaigns, such as "It's like milk but made for humans", have catapulted the brand into an adversarial dance with Sweden's dairy lobby, LRF Mjölk, which sued the company in 2015 for disparaging cow milk and implying that it was bad for health. It won the case and Oatly was prevented from using the slogan and ordered to pay around £100,000.

Tension between dairy companies and non-dairy alternative brands can also be seen in the US. A Californian class action lawsuit was brought against Blue Diamond Growers, an almond milk producer, in 2018. The lawsuit alleged that the products manufactured by the company were mislabelled under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) law because the labelling of products as "almond milk" would mislead consumers. The lawsuit argued that non-dairy milk should be labelled as "imitation milk" because it is nutritionally inferior to milk and is therefore a substitute. The lawsuit was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that federal law, namely the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), contains "a broad pre-emption provision, which prohibits a state from directly or indirectly establishing food labelling requirements not identical to federal requirements." The appellate court stated that "almond milk is not a 'substitute' for dairy milk…because almond milk does not involve literally substituting inferior ingredients for those in dairy milk." The lawsuit failed, therefore, because it tried to impose these requirements which were not identical to, or required by, federal law.

A comparison can be drawn between the US and Europe in how dairy and non-dairy products are labelled. The Dairy Pride Act was introduced in 2017 by two US senators and aimed to prohibit non-dairy brands using terms that are traditionally associated with dairy products. However, the bill failed to pass and any progress on re-introduction has been stalled due to COVID-19. In Europe, however, vegan and vegetarian producers have been prevented from labelling their products as "milk" etc. by an EU law enacted in 2013 which states that products using the terms "milk", "butter", "cream cheese" and "yogurt" can only be designated as such if they are derived from animal milk. This was affirmed in 2017 in a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The case involved a German food producer, TofuTown, which sells plant-based alternatives labelled as butter and cheese etc. TofuTown argued that consumers were not misled by its products because its labels clearly stated that such products were plant-based and that they had not violated EU legislation. The ECJ concluded that "the addition of descriptive or clarifying additions indicating the plant origin of the product concerned, such as those used by TofuTown, has no influence on that prohibition." It is interesting to note that coconut milk, peanut butter, almond milk and almond ice cream are all exempt from the EU Regulation.

With the continued growth of the market, and with more attention being drawn to the environmental impacts of a conventional diet, it is anticipated that there will be more legal disputes between the dairy and non-dairy sectors.

WRITTEN BY: