Deputy David Johnson. Picture: ROB CURRIE. (30001047)
The review follows a vote by States Members last month to approve, in principle, the Island’s participation in the deal, which is subject to a 90-day cooling-off
period.
Members have until 31 March to terminate their involvement in the arrangement if they wish to do so.
As part of the successful proposition which led to the Island’s participation in the agreement, the Scrutiny panel is due to present a report on the TECA and the impact it will have on the transit of goods and trading with the EU.
Meanwhile, the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel is due to conduct a separate review of how the deal will affect fishing.
Brexit Review Scrutiny Panel chairman Deputy David Johnson said: ‘Participation in the UK-EU Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement will mark a fundamental change in Jersey’s trading relationship with the European Union.
‘We want to understand what the public, industry representatives, freight operators, supermarkets and wholesalers think about the implications of TECA for the Jersey-EU trade in goods.’
He added: ‘We will scrutinise the sections of TECA relating to Jersey goods and trade, to further inform the Council of Ministers and States Members about whether the TECA reflects the best interests of our Island.’
Ahead of writing the review, panel members are due to engage with interested parties such as industry representatives, legal experts and ministers.
The National Secular Society has said it is justifiable to restrict communal religious activities during the Covid-19 pandemic in a submission to a parliamentary committee.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights recently launched a call for evidence as part of a consultation on the impact of lockdown restrictions on human rights.
As part of its work the JCHR is considering the impact on the freedom of religion and belief, and whether interferences with that right have been “proportionate”.
The NSS said permitting collective worship while it is unsafe to allow similar communal activities would put public health in jeopardy and undermine the principle that citizens should be treated equally.
The society said restrictions on the right to freedom of religion or belief should only be introduced if they were necessary and proportionate. But it added that this right is qualified and can be abridged if it poses a significant threat to public health.
Communal worship and current lockdown
The NSS also questioned the government’s decision to continue to allow communal worship in England even after the recent introduction of localised tier 4 restrictions, and during the current national lockdown.
The society said this would strike many people as “an incongruous, irresponsible, unnecessary and unfair privilege” when compared to the restrictions on everyday life elsewhere.
The NSS added that inconsistencies and perceived double standards could reduce compliance with the rules more widely.
This week the NSS has written to Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove to question the current double standard in government policy.
The NSS noted evidence from the UK and abroad that communal religious gatherings raised the risk of transmission, infection and mortality.
The society also noted that the risk of mortality was especially high in some minority religious communities.
The NSS noted evidence that there was significant concern within religious communities over the impact of allowing communal religious activities to continue.
And it highlighted examples where religious groups had not followed the rules, adding that this showed the importance of sending the message that the rules applied equally regardless of religion.
NSS comment
NSS head of policy and research Megan Manson said: “The restrictions on individual freedoms in recent months have been regrettable but understandable, given the nature of the current public health crisis. Qualified rights can be limited where necessary and proportionate, and that includes the right to freedom of religion or belief.
“Assertive religious leaders have increasingly pushed for religious gatherings to receive special treatment as the pandemic has gone on, even as secular activities with similar benefits and risks have been forced to close. The JCHR should be wary of these groups’ claims.
“As many people including those within religious communities have pointed out, giving religious groups exemptions from lockdown restrictions exposes all of us to heightened risk, and can foster feelings of inequality and unfairness.”
ROME (AP) — The vaunted Mediterranean diet and the French “bon gout” are getting some competition: The European Union’s food safety agency says worms are safe to eat.
The Parma-based agency published a scientific opinion yesterday on the safety of dried yellow mealworms and gave them the thumbs up.
Researchers said the worms, either eaten whole or in powdered form, are a protein-rich snack or ingredient for other foods.
Allergic reactions may occur, especially depending on the type of feed given to the bugs, known officially as Tenebrio molitor larva.
But overall, “the panel concludes that the (novel food) is safe under the proposed uses and use levels.”
Thus, the European Union has now thrown its weight behind worms in much the same way the United Nations has.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization in 2013 championed edible bugs as a low-fat, high-protein food for people, pets and livestock that are good for the environment and help feed the hungry.
Now you can read the Jamaica Observer ePaper anytime, anywhere. The Jamaica Observer ePaper is available to you at home or at work, and is the same edition as the printed copy available at https://bit.ly/epaper-login
Almost everyone who keeps pets that are not cats or dogs are familiar with the mealworms. They are great snacks for more exotic pets. However, they may no longer just be pet foods as the EU just labeled them safe for human consumption.
(Photo : Raimond Spekking via WIkimedia Commons) Mealworms as food
The EU food safety agency came to a conclusion after following-up on an application from the French company Agronutris.
The ‘insect-for-food’ production company is tasked to lead the EU-wide approval of mealworm food production. Their goal has been to convince the market that yellow mealworm products fit supermarkets and kitchens across the continent.
After quite some time, they successfully managed to make the mealworms the first EU approved insect food.
Tenebrio molitor larvae, also known as a mealworm, is the larval form of a darkling beetle.
Pet food
Mealworms are commonly used as pet food for reptiles, fishes, and birds in captivity. They are great snacks for the animals because of their high protein content.
The mealworms are commonly bought by pet owners in bulk from their suppliers or any local pet shops. They had to be sold as quickly as possible because of a limited shelf time. Because if kept for a long time, the larva may grow into a fully developed beetle.
Human Consumption
Before the European Union’s declaration, a few people in the continent are already eating the worms, a handful of people really into more “exotic” kinds of cuisine. However, they are more widely accepted and more commonly eaten in the SEA (Southeast Asian) regions.
(Photo : Photo by Moritz Bruder on Unsplash) Woman selling insects from a street-food stand
The mealworms are edible for humans and are cooked in many variations, processed into different food items, and even eaten raw for those intense exotic foodies.
Their main components are fat, fiber, and protein.
The creepy crawlies are seen by health buffs as a more “eco-friendly low carbon emission” white meat substitute because of their nutritional value claiming that they are potential food alternatives.
“This first EFSA risk assessment of an insect as novel food can pave the way for the first EU-wide approval. Our risk evaluation is a decisive and necessary step in the regulation of novel foods by supporting policymakers in the EU in making science-based decisions and ensuring the safety of consumers,” according to Ermolaos Ververis, one of the scientific officers from the agency.
Because of Union approval, many mealworm production companies are psyched up and ready to ramp up their operations if demands start rising.
Foods made from insects are seen as an effective solution in the global goal of cutting the food industry’s greenhouse gases emission.
According to Mario Mazocchi, an economic professor at the University of Bologna, “There are clear environmental and economic benefits if you substitute traditional sources of animal proteins with those that require less feed, produce less waste and result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Lower costs and prices could enhance food security, and new demand will open economic opportunities too, but these could also affect existing sectors.”
It’s cheaper to mass-produce, and it takes a significantly lesser environmental risk. Mealworms, being considered one of the primary sources of food instead of being labeled as an exotic snack, is a massive landmark in the food industry.
Britain's leading supermarket groups have called for "urgent intervention" to prevent major disruption to Northern Ireland food supplies amid new post-Brexit regulations, while customers at one major retailer's European stores have already reported several days of empty shelves.
</p><div readability="140.62336946537">
<div class="m-interstitial">
<div data-readmore-target="" class="m-interstitial__ad">
<div class="m-block-ad " data-tms-ad-type="box" data-tms-ad-status="idle" data-tms-ad-pos="1">
<div class="m-block-ad__label m-block-ad__label--report-enabled">
<span class="m-block-ad__label__text">Advertising</span>
<button title="Report this ad" class="m-block-ad__label__report-link" rel="noopener" data-tms-ad-report=""><svg xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="26.077" height="16.107" viewbox="0 0 26.077 16.107"><g transform="translate(1.325 0.5)"><path d="M6.669,15.107a1.5,1.5,0,0,1-1.5-1.5V10.184H0L5.169,5.637V1.5A1.5,1.5,0,0,1,6.669,0H22.752a1.5,1.5,0,0,1,1.5,1.5V13.607a1.5,1.5,0,0,1-1.5,1.5Z" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="1"/><g transform="translate(29.422 15.107) rotate(-180)"><path d="M-2119.5-2724.245v7.84" transform="translate(2134.21 2729.348)" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2"/><path d="M-2119.5-2732v1.732" transform="translate(2134.21 2734.165)" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2"/></g></g></svg>
Britain may no longer be a part of the European Union’s single market and customs union, but Northern Ireland has a foot in both camps as part of the UK’s customs territory while still aligned with the EU’s single market for goods.
Under the Northern Irish protocol, which covers post-Brexit trade between Britain and Northern Ireland, supermarkets selling into the territory have a three-month grace period to adapt their supply systems to the new trading reality.
Since the turn of the year, however, some supermarkets in Northern Ireland have had shortages of fresh goods usually imported from Britain because they have struggled to shift to new processes and bureaucratic procedures.
The bosses of retailers including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Marks & Spencer have written to Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, warning that the situation could worsen.
In the letter, seen by Reuters, they said it was essential a long-term solution is agreed with the EU before the grace period for simplified controls ends on March 31.
“All our businesses and suppliers have invested significantly in the last few months to avoid disruption, but that will become inevitable if the proposals governing movement of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are adopted,” the letter said.
“We recognise the European Commission needs to see increased compliance to support the concessions it granted through the Northern Ireland protocol, but the current proposals, increased bureaucracy and certification in such a short timescale are unworkable.”
Working group
The chief executives called on Gove to create a dedicated working group to co-ordinate government agencies to integrate customs and food controls.
“It also requires an open discussion with the EU explaining why we can’t accommodate changes to the current approach to transporting food to Northern Ireland but stressing we are working towards a robust system as quickly as possible,” the letter said, urging the government and EU to agree that more time is required to implement a new system.
Gove said on Wednesday that a dedicated team has been set up and was working to find a solution.
“We will make it clear to the European Commission what the consequences would be if supermarkets are not in a position [after March 31] to carry on with the service they provide to Northern Ireland consumers,” he told parliament.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said there were “teething problems” in trade between Britain and Northern Ireland but that goods were flowing effectively and in normal volumes.
“But I can confirm … that if there are problems that we believe are disproportionate, then we will have no hesitation in invoking Article 16,” he told parliament.
Article 16 of the Northern Irish protocol details so-called safeguard measures that allow either party to take unilateral action if there is an unexpected negative effect arising from the agreement.
The shortages witnessed in Northern Ireland are part of trade disruption that has become increasingly evident since Britain’s Brexit divorce was finalised on December 31.
Many British businesses are swiftly discovering that they must now pay duties on exports bound for the EU, despite the breakthrough Brexit free trade deal clinched over Christmas.
This is due to the so-called “rules of origin” condition applied to all goods crossing borders, which means any good will be subject to a customs levy if it arrives in Britain from abroad and is then exported back into the EU.
High-street retail giant Marks & Spencer (M&S) warned last week that the trade deal would “significantly impact” business in the Czech Republic, Ireland and France, adding that around 2,000 of its food products could be affected by the rules of origin clause.
Since Britain’s exit from the single market, M&S has struggled to restock shelves in its EU stores and has even temporarily closed some of its shops, with customers taking to Twitter to bemoan the shortages of ready-meals, curry boxes and cheddar cheese.
As Steve Rowe, the company’s chief executive, put it: “Tariff-free does not feel like tariff-free when you read the fine print.”
Other companies have run into similar trouble since January 1, complaining of red tape and additional levies.
“At least 50 of our members face potential tariffs for re-exporting goods to the EU,” William Bain, trade policy adviser at the British Retail Consortium industry organisation, told AFP.
“We are working with members on short-term options and are seeking dialogue with the [UK] government and the EU on longer-term solutions to mitigate the effects of new tariffs,” he added.
On December 30, 2020, leaders from China and the EU announced they had agreed in principle on the text of a long-awaited Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), after seven long years of negotiation. Meeting the end-of-2020 goal was no mean feat; as late as September 2020, after a China-EU virtual meeting, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen cautioned that “a lot – a lot – still remains to be done” on the CAI, adding, “China has to convince us that it’s worth having an investment agreement.”
But it’s too early for negotiators to celebrate even now. The text of the CAI still needs to be finalized and undergo a legal review. Then it will have to be approved by the European Council, the heads of government of the EU’s member states. Finally, the investment deal will face what may be its steepest hurdle: approval by the European Parliament. In addition to geopolitical concerns about the implications for transatlantic ties, the investment pact is also coming under heavy fire from those concerned about China’s human rights abuses.
The EU and China are “two parties with opposing ideologies,” according to Valbona Zeneli, the chair of the Strategic Initiatives Department at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. “To belong to the EU, countries must pursue a values ideology that agrees to values supporting human dignity, human rights, freedom, democracy, equality, and rule of law. China, or more appropriately the CCP, is a one party totalitarian government.”
She adds, “In this regard, the CAI is in reality a deal between the EU and the CCP. Semantics, some would say, but this is an important point that must factor into every decision.”
Those concerns were given voice in a open letter to members of the European Parliament (MEPS), von der Leyen, European Council President Charles Michel, and other top EU officials. The appeal, signed by 36 civil society organizations, warned that the CAI, in its current form, “sends a signal that the European Union will push for closer cooperation [with China] regardless of the scale and severity of human rights abuses carried out by the Chinese Communist Party.”
The letter urges the European Union to add a binding human rights clause to the CAI and refrain from from entering into the agreement until China ratifies core human rights conventions like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Labor Organization conventions on forced labor and the right to organize.
The groups signing the letter ran the gamut from general human rights activism (the Human Rights Foundation and International Federation for Human Rights) to groups specifically advocating for Uyghurs and Tibetans (the Uyghur Human Rights Project, World Uyghur Congress, and International Campaign for Tibet) and trade unions (the European Trade Union Confederation and International Trade Union Confederation).
The 36 groups that signed the appeal are far from alone in raising their concerns. The European Parliament (EP) itself passed a resolution on EU trade policy on November 26, 2020, arguing for the “importance of including an ambitious chapter on trade and sustainable development to protect human rights, including core labor standards.” The resolution also “stresses that EU trade and investment relations require full respect for human rights.” It passed overwhelmingly, 593 votes to 50 (with 50 abstentions).
On December 17, just two weeks before the CAI was agreed upon, the EP passed a resolution specifically condemning “the government-led system of forced labor, in particular the exploitation of Uyghur, ethnic Kazakh and Kyrgyz, and other Muslim minority groups, in factories both within and outside of internment camps in Xinjiang.” The EP “[d]eeply deplores the ongoing persecution and the serious and systematic human rights violations that amount to crimes against humanity,” the statement added. With specific regard to the CAI, the resolution said the deal “must include adequate commitments to respect international conventions against forced labor.”
The text of the deal, however, only includes a commitment from China “to make continued and sustained efforts to ratify the ILO fundamental Conventions on forced labor,” according to the EU read-out. And despite the EU’s insistence that it secured “binding commitments” from China on the subject of labor rights, Chinese experts are extremely skeptical. “Can you imagine China with independent labor unions?” Shi Yinhong, a professor at Renmin University and adviser to China’s State Council, rhetorically asked the Financial Times. “Forced labor also relates to Xinjiang, so that’s another ‘no’ for China.”
“It is already clear that the outcome of the negotiations misses an essential criterion set by the European Parliament,” Reinhard Bütikofer, the chairman of the EP’s China delegation, told the South China Morning Post. “When it comes to forced labor in China, the EU Commission is satisfied with superficial lip service.”
Another major concern is China’s crackdown in Hong Kong. The mass arrest of 53 pro-democracy activists and politicians just a week after the CAI was announced may have dealt a fatal blow to the prospect of ratification by the European Parliament by highlighting in the brightest neon the pre-existing concerns.
“If ratified, the CAI will be a de facto recognition that it is acceptable to conduct a wide range of business activity with a totalitarian communist government that has proven itself capable of violating human rights with exacting precision and no apology,” Zeneli argues.
“More importantly, these transgressions have occurred while the CAI was being negotiated…. Essentially, this rewards the CCP and encourages its bad behavior.”
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have been making similar points. MEP Guy Verhofstadt pointed out on Twitter that the crackdown in Hong Kong has “only intensified since the EU-pact with China.” He added, “The EU cannot accept this! If the situation of the #Uighurs, #HongKong and Tibetans won’t change, the EP will not ratify.”
Fellow MEP Engin Eroglu had a similar message: “The @Europarl_EN should not ratify the #CAI investment deal until #China proves it can improve the situation of #Uyghurs, Hong Kongers and others!”
MEP Bernd Lange, chair of the EP’s international trade committee, expressed skepticism as well. “Trade does not take place in a vacuum,” he said in a tweet quoting a story on the Hong Kong arrests. “These actions mark a violation of the spirit of the #EU-#China investment deal sustainability commitments. This is clearly not a basis for constructive cooperation.”
As Lange added in a later tweet: “[W]hat was true in the past will also hold true for the #EU-#China investment agreement: there are no built in majorities for trade deals in the @Europarl_EN.”
.jpg?w=696&resize=696,0&ssl=1 "UK supermarkets warn of N. Ireland shortages as EU customers face empty shelves")
