Discussion on ‘Beter Leven’ labelled meat escalates

The right balance between the price of meat and the welfare of the animals that died for it, has still not been found. This is proved by the fact that many supermarkets such as Jumbo and Dirk do not have the ‘Beter Leven’ one star label yet. People are saying they are willingly to pay more for their meat if the welfare of the animals improves, but is this really the case? Do the poorest people in our society also agree to this?

Welfare organizations keep pushing the supermarkets to get the ‘Beter Leven’ one star label. Therefore the welfare organizations and the supermarkets Jumbo and Dirk have come to an agreement in 2013 to stop selling pig meat without the label in 2015. However according to ‘Varkens in Nood’ the supermarkets have violated this agreement. This resulted in a trial in which ‘Varkens in Nood’ sues Jumbo and Dirk.

Dirk responds to this by saying they have never even come to such an agreement. They say to have only received letters from ‘Varkens in Nood’ and ‘Dier & Recht’ in which is stated that the supermarket violates the law. As a response they have asked for more information but they never received it. ‘Varkens in Nood’ keeps recalling the agreement made that states the supermarkets will only sell pig meat with the animal protection label in 2015. Dirk says they only have agreed to produce meat that is more durable, but that they had never agreed to any kind of label.

Jumbo says their meat is durable enough, but that they just do not want to put the animal protection label on their meat. They say their meat suffices the welfare standards for the one star label; it is just not shown by the label.

Other supermarkets are also selling pig meat without any label, but among these supermarkets Dirk and Jumbo sell the most of it according to an investigation done in January. Another investigation proves that last year 40% more non-durable meat was sold than the year before.

On the other hand the supermarkets are already selling more durable meat, even double the amount of last year. However this increase is still not big enough to cope with the amount of non-durable meat sold, because in four out of five cases the offers include non-durable meat. With the trial the animal welfare organizations are trying to force the supermarkets to advertise the durable meat more than the other types of meat.

The victims of the more expensive, durable meat would be the people on social assistance. They are said not to have the money for more expensive meat. However it is proven to be much healthier to eat less meat, so when the meat gets more expensive those people are immediately improving their eating habits.

To my opinion the supermarkets do not have convincing arguments why they would not sell meat with a label on it. They say that their meat is up to the standards of the one star label, so why not put the label on it? In that way people can see they are buying the right kind of meat. I agree with the animal welfare organization that the alternatives for non-durable meat should be advertised more; as long as the supermarkets will keep advertising the regular meat, the durable meat or the meat replacement products will stand no chance. The low price of meat will also result in people eating more and more meat what is bad for the environment. Actually it is a never ending circle: the supermarkets sell cheap, non-durable meat, so if one supermarket sells the more expensive durable meat, it will not be able to compete with those other supermarkets anymore and that results in no supermarket daring to take a step in the right direction. The meat lovers will just have to take a step back or be prepared to pay more for their o-so-loved meat.

Watch out: Zika outbreak

The Zika virus is an alarming and disturbing infection that may be linked to thousands of babies being born with underdeveloped brains, is spreading through America.  And there are already 5 people who has the Zika virus in Germany.

The dangerous virus was discovered in a forest in the East African state of Uganda seven decades ago. The Zika virus is now spreading explosively in the Americas, says the World Health Organization. They estimated between 3 million to 4 million infections in the region of a 12-month period. 80% of those who are infected with the Zika virus don’t even feel sick. The major worry is for the pregnant women and their babies face. Researchers say that there’s been a corresponding increase in the birth of babies with abnormally small heads.

No medicines are available to threat those with the Zika virus, and there are no vaccines to prevent it. But the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said that the vaccine could be in the beginning of this year. The preventive option is to advise women to avoid getting pregnant as long as the Zika virus remains. The WHO will focus more on advising women in America who want to get pregnant to reduce their risk of mosquito bites.

Deaths are rare and only one in five people are infected is thought to develop symptoms such as: mild fever, conjunctivitis, headache, joint pain and a rash. Patients are advised to rest and drink plenty of fluids. This is only very dangerous for babies who are developing in the womb. The Zika virus can cause an abnormally small head of a baby, so their brain cannot developed properly. It can be deadly if the brain is so underdeveloped that it can’t regulate the functions vital to life. Children that do survive face intellectual disability and development delays.

I think a lot of people don’t even know that the Zika virus is spreading rapidly. People have to make sure that they don’t get pregnant when the Zika virus is spreading close to the place where the mosquitoes are present. It is a big disappointment when you get a baby that has an abnormally small head and will development all kinds of disabilities. We have to help each other to avoid the virus and reduce it.

It’s getting hotter and hotter…

Recently NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have reported that 2015 was the year with the highest global temperatures since they could record temperatures in 1880. The average temperature has risen 0.13 degrees since last year. Every year it’s getting hotter and hotter. “Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and NASA’s vital work on this important issue affects every person on Earth,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

Climate change and extreme weather, these are some of the signs of global warming. To first know what global warming is causing you have to know what global warming is. Global warming is an increase in the earth’s average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. The main cause of this global issue is that there is too much carbon dioxide in the air. This gas acts a blanket which traps heat and as a consequence heats the planet. We get this carbon dioxide in the air through the burning of fossil fuels. This means that every day we do so much damage just by driving in our car and letting the factories work to create our products.

We are already suffering the consequences of global warming: ice is beginning to melt worldwide, some animals are beginning to disappear or move to other colder places and precipitation has increased globally. These are just the consequences for the climate. It also has a great effect on humans. There is a significant increase in the risk of illness and death related to extreme heat, some diseases transmitted by food and insects are likely to increase and the elderly and children are the most vulnerable to the extreme weather.

The good news is that because we humans caused this global issue we can still do something about it. We have to do something now before it too late. Some solutions we can start using are:

• Biofuels. We have to start thinking of a way we can make biofuels replace fossil fuels.
• Consume less. We humans always buy too much food, for example, and then throw a lot of it away.
• Solar panels. We have to start building more solar panels to provide the energy needed for houses.

I think we have to start making changes quick. If it’s starts affecting our health it’s a serious issue. People these days are selfish and don’t think about what their actions could have as consequences. They only think about making money and so using fossil fuels in factories for example. This only makes everything worse and passes on the problem to the future generations. This means that they have to solve the problem we caused. Not really fair, is it?

Paying taxes over inheritance

 

Recent times there has been a lot of discussion about the issue about inheritance taxes: Should those be payed directly or should they be payed when the heir is possessing the inheritance? The current system is not working for 100%, but would a new system work more effectively?

This seems to be a simple issue, because you always own the inheritance directly after your fellow one dies right? And at that moment you pay taxes? Yes, in most cases this is true. But, there are a lot of cases still in which this changes. Imagine; a father of two under-age children dies. The children owe a part of the inheritance, but because they are under-age, the inheritance goes to the mother, temporarily. The children (officially) have to pay taxes over their own part at that moment still. In this case, this problem won’t be too big probably because the mother will pay it for them. But this is not always the case. This shows the unlogical and ineffective system for inheritance taxing which is working now.

But, on the other side, a delay of paying the taxes would make it more difficult to ensure the payment in the end. Opposers claim heirs will be able to escape the taxes in the end. However, as tax academic Reinier Kooiman claims, the annual tax system for inheritance has so many different rules and exceptions that it gives the possibility to heirs to escape the tax payments as well, if they try to. So this makes clear that the opposing parties of delaying inheritance taxes don’t have a very strong argument.

To me the best solution for this issue is clear enough. The taxes over the inheritance should be payed when the heir possesses its inheritance. This is the fairest solution for everyone: the heirs pay taxes over what they receive, and the tax authorities receive their taxes when they pay out the inheritance to the heir. In this way both parties get what they deserve after paying what the other one deserves. This makes the tax system for inheritance not simpler, to be honest, because of the delay of payments over the inheritance. But the current tax system for inheritance isn’t simple either so that won’t be much of a difference. So in short: the heirs should pay taxes over the inheritance at the moment they receive the inheritance. Easier? No, not really. Fairer? That’s for sure!

 

 

Consumer fireworks, a do or don’t

The firework discussions have been fired up again. This is due to the fact that there are 90.000 reports of firework inconvenience which are 18.000 more than the year before. A staggering number of 39 fires were caused by fireworks at New Year’s Eve! Another problem is that fireworks are used more and more often to do people harm or to destruct things. Mostly this is done by illegal fireworks which are imported to the Netherlands more than ever before. On the other hand people like to fire fireworks and a large part of the Dutch population does know how to handle fireworks. So the big question is: should we or should we not allow people to light their own fireworks unhindered?

It does sound quite shocking; 90.000 reports of firework inconvenience.However this might be partially caused by the fact that the hotline of firework inconvenience was opened for five more days. All of these reports were made possible by the hotline set up by the municipal councils of GroenLinks. This is a part of the plan GroenLinks has set up to lower the number of firework inconvenience. The actual goal of GroenLinks is to only allow professionals to light up fireworks.. Most of these reports are about hard bangs caused by firework bombs but also firework stress by pets and dangerous situations and damage caused by fireworks was often the subject of these reports. You should also consider that there were 10.000 false reports, but those were filtered out for 99 % according to Bonte, a council member of GroenLinks.

GroenLinks is not the only one who wants to ban the fireworks for consumers; a big group of doctor organizations agree with them. They want to prevent that people get burns or even lose limbs because of fireworks. Every year more and more people get hurt due to fireworks. This is partially caused by the increasing import of illegal fireworks but also by the making of firework bombs. An example of such a dangerous firework bomb is the accident in Hoensbroek, Limburg. In that place the windows of six houses broke because of a big bang caused by a firework bomb. In this explosion two children of six and three years old got slightly injured and two cars got damaged.  The children could leave the hospital within a few days and two suspects were arrested. “This case does not have really serious consequences yet but this could have been worse” the doctors say. In Den Bosch, Beilen, Vlaardingen and Rotterdam boys even lost one of their hands because of illegal fireworks. However most of the eye injuries are caused by the legal decorative fireworks. Eye doctor Tjeerd de Faber concludes the eye injuries are worse than the previous New Year and if we do not stop individuals from firing more fireworks, it will be worse next New Year.

On the other hand measures have already been taken such as the delayed time (18.00) on which you can legally fire your fireworks and the firework-free-zones. Even the firework discussion has its effects; people are more aware of the dangers of fireworks and think better before they light fireworks. In Groningen there are already some places where it is illegal to fire fireworks. Seven out of ten people does not light fireworks themselves and one out of eight people does not even buy fireworks. Fireworks is already very expensive what restrains the number of buyers. Six municipalities are also testing a detection system for fireworks. With this system they can trace where the firework noise comes from and identify the hotspots. In this way they can prevent more firework inconvenience from occurring by arresting the offenders.

You can conclude the firework resistance is increasing; more and more people want the fireworks only to be lit by professionals. GroenLinks and the doctors organizations are accompanied by the Animal Party, the 50-plus party and individual citizens. They are in favour of big firework shows instead of everybody lighting his own firework. In this way they hope to prevent many of the accidents and inconvenience of fireworks. On the other hand other measures have already been taken with success; people are more aware and can go to a firework-free-zone if that is what they want. However despite those measures the severeness of eye injuries and the number of accidents caused by fireworks have actually risen last New Year, so are these measures reaching far enough?

I think fireworks cause a lot of unnecessary accidents which could have been prevented. The pleasure of firing fireworks yourself does not weigh up to the number of accidents in my eyes. Therefore I am in favour of the firework shows organized by the municipality. In such a show you can still enjoy the beauty of fireworks, but there is a much smaller chance you get hurt. The fireworks are professional and therefore much more beautiful than the fireworks consumers can buy. So I think it is a win-win situation; you have a minor chance to get injured and the fireworks are more beautiful! What more would you wish for? Except for most of the boys and their dads, because for them it is a tradition and a part of being the man by showing off what they are capable off. They will probably miss the excitement and the loud bangs.

Developing cancer is not only about having bad luck

Developing cancer involves a lot more than just a bit of bad luck. External factors such as exposure to toxins and radiation are major risk factors in developing cancer, the new study’s says.

So environmental factors play important role in cancer incidence and they are through lifestyle changes and/or vaccination.

The large risk of cancer is a property of the changing environment such as smoking and air pollution. But also too much exposure to the sun and a poor diet plays a big role.  Because of the study, it will build up a conversation about why there is some variability in the types of cancer.

The media interpreted that many of the cancers were due to bad luck. Some people develop cancer because of bad luck at the cellular level. two thirds of the cancer types analysed were caused just by chance mutations rather than lifestyle and came up during DNA replication. some tissues are millions of times more vulnerable to cancer than others. That is the biggest reason why people say that it is due to bad luck.  But this of course do not give people license to smoke or start using tanning banks. The most deadly types of cancer are still influenced by lifestyle. smoking accounts for a fifth of all cancers worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) says that nearly half of cancers, could be prevented if people changed their lifestyle or reduced their environmental exposure to cancer-causing agents. They said the results suggested 70-90% of the risk was due to extrinsic factors.

While healthy habits like not smoking, keeping a healthy weight, eating a healthy diet and cutting back on alcohol are not a guarantee against cancer, they do dramatically reduce the risk of developing the disease. more than four in 10 cancers could be prevented by lifestyle changes,

I think that everybody has to be aware of the fact that you can see that getting cancer is not only because of bad luck. We all have to help each other to reduce the change of getting cancer and we have to change the environment. The globe is facing a “tidal wave” of cancer. Researches predict that the number of cancer cases will reach 24 million a year by 2035 if we go on like we are doing right now, but half could be prevented. You can do a lot to reduce your cancer risk, and you can’t just blame “bad luck” for getting sick.

Stop the production of cheap meat!

In the Netherlands, on Tuesday the 8^th of December, the Second Chamber didn’t get an majority on the issue that these so called ‘kiloknallers’ should be prohibited. ‘Kiloknallers’ is the name in the Netherlands for very cheaply produced meat that is sold in grocery stores for almost next to nothing. The plan was proposed by the PvdA, but is declined as they got no majority.

This is an issue that is going on for years now. The core to this issue lies within the grocery stores. There are five major import organizations that decided what the consumer in the Netherlands gets to eat: Albert Heijn, Jumbo, Superunie, Lidl and Aldi. There is strong competition between these organizations and every one of them offers their products cheaply to be ‘the cheapest one’. The meat is made extra cheaply, because this will lure the consumers into the supermarkets. These ‘kiloknallers’ have as consequence that many farmers can’t earn enough to live on and then stop or go bankrupt. The ones that are still producing are doing it on a large scale and want to get the most out of the animals as possible.

What are the consequences for the animals? They suffer a lot. The first consequence is that they have very little space. They put a lot of animals together on one small square meter to increase profit. The animal’s beaks and tails are cut off to fit the spaces. Anesthesia isn’t used, because that would cost too much time and money. The second consequence is that they are bred to grow very quickly. The organs and skeleton can’t keep up with this fast increase in size and causes the animals to become ill. The last consequence is that the farmers mess with their circadian rhythm. They do this in two ways: letting the light on longer, so they will be awake longer to eat and grow even more or shorter, so they sleep more and eat less animal feed. All these things they do to these animals are horrible and will only cause them to be ill and who wants to buy meat made from an ill animal?

I think that they should prohibit these ‘kiloknallers’, because it effects the farmers, the animals and consumers. The farmers earn way too less this way and that’s why many quit, which is logical. The animals are the worst effected of all. They get treated like rubbish and not like living beings. The consumers also get effected indirectly, because they eat this meat. I don’t think this meat can be very healthy for them. I think that we as the consumers should think twice befor we buy these ‘kiloknallers’.

Welfare state models: the perfect balance?

The Netherlands is a welfare state which means the government plays an active role in ensuring the welfare and the well being of people. There are three welfare models: the Scandinavian model, the Anglo-Saxon model and the Rhineland model. They differ in the way of how the government interferes with the citizen’s way of living. An important aspect is the solidarity concept, but what should the level of solidarity be?

The model that has the most government interference is the Scandinavian model. The keyword is flexicurity: a flexible labour market with a strong social security system. The ideology of this model is that everybody deserves a good basic life.

Some advantages of this system are that people can find another job easily, and if it takes a longer while the unemployed get a training course available. During the unemployment they get good benefits on the term that you keep training to get a new job. Because of these factors the people are never unemployed for a long period of time. The people also get high benefits and a substantial parental leave of 96 days. There are also great efforts made in the education and child care which results in a relatively high participation of women in the labour market.

The same flexicurity principle also causes disadvantages such as the easy dismissal of employees because of the flexible labour market. Another disadvantage is the heavy tax burden caused by the high benefits and long maternity leave. The long- lasting maternity leave is also a disadvantage for the companies. You are well treated by the government but it comes at a cost.

The Anglo-Saxon model is almost the opposite of the Scandinavian model. In this model the goal is to create a good entrepreneurial climate. To make this possible they have set up a flexible labour market, so the wages are determined by the market forces. Liberal values such as freedom and self sufficiency are considered important. The social security system is minimal and so is the interference of the government. The ideology is that the people who are successful should be rewarded and the people who are not should accept the consequences.

The advantages of this system are that you do not have to pay many taxes and premiums. This results in an enormous possibility for economic growth; you can really be successful (with your company). Once you have made it, you are rewarded with the fact you have to pay fewer taxes than the people with a regular loan.

The advantages also come with some disadvantages: the fact that you do not have to pay many taxes and premiums has the consequence that the social security is minimal and that there are not many collective services. You need to pay for many things yourself such as the healthcare and the education. Some people can not afford paying for all these facilities which causes a big gap in the living standards between rich and poor. People also have to work very hard to be able to pay for all the private facilities. They are also afraid to get fired, because there is almost no social security, so then you are on your own.

The model that is a kind of combination of the Scandinavian and the Anglo-Saxon model, is the Rhineland model. This model has got a big collective sector and a harmonious collaboration between the government, the employers’ organizations and the trade unions. Social security plays an important role in this model. The ideology is that there should be a right division between the amount of taxes paid and the role of social security and the collective sector.

The advantages of this model are the fact that the employees are well protected against the risk of dismissal and illness. There are unemployment benefits implemented via the UWV. There are retirement premiums so you can continue to have a good income after your retirement.

This system comes with some disadvantages as well such as the fact that women do not benefit well from the retirement premiums because those are based on the time you have worked for a company. The education and child care is not as well regulated as it is in the Scandinavian countries. The taxes and premiums are increasing, but the benefits for the people are not, which results in an increasing opposition of the Rhineland model.

The article clearly promotes the Scandinavian model by presenting arguments and examples of the good sides of the Scandinavian model. The article already starts off with “generous social benefits are not always a barrier to high employment rates”. This shows off in the fact that the highest employment rates are in the countries with the highest taxes and the most generous welfare system. This is caused by the public services such as subsidized child and elderly care, the generous sick leave policies, good education and the cheap and accessible transportation. These are all part of a well-working welfare plan: it is more important in which way the money is spent rather than how much is spent. The article keeps comparing the Scandinavian model to the Anglo-Saxon model which is used in America by presenting examples how America could stimulate the people in another way than with low taxes. Instead they could use the social system to promote working. The article wants to make clear that a way that makes it is easier to work, causes more people to start working. The Scandinavian government policy is a good example of this because they do everything to make it as easy as possible to work.

My personal preference would be the Scandinavian welfare system. This is because this system makes sure everybody has a good basic life and many people work. You do have to pay high taxes but the government also rewards you with many benefits such as the subsidized child care, the extensive parental leave, the good education, a high minimum wage and cheap and accessible transportation.

The people are also stimulated more to work because they want to do something back for their country; they are very grateful for all the benefits, so they would not dare to cheat on the system. This welfare system is very well organized because many people work and in that way the government costs can be divided over a big number of people—> the costs per person drop considerably. Actually it is a reenforcing circle: thanks to those benefits you are able to work more/ they make it easier to work and so you are able to pay the high taxes.

The Anglo-Saxon model is in my opinion the survival of the fittest. The people are either treated very well or very badly. People are living in horrible circumstances under the poverty line in America, which is a shame for a Western world country!

The Rhineland model is trying to find a balance between the Anglo- Saxon model and the Scandinavian model but the result is a suboptimal solution in my opinion.

Models of welfare

There is a lot of criticism on the welfare state in the Netherlands. But is this way the best way to practise the welfare state, or is there another possibility? 

We know the following 3 models of welfare:

1. The Scandinavian model:

This model is based on flexicurity: flexible labour in combination with a strong social security system. Child care and education are considered important, and there’s a lot of attention for unemployment.

These values lead to some advantages: there are good benefits for unemployed and there are training programmes for them if they are unemployed for a long time which helps them to become part of the labour market again; there are high efforts in the field of education and childcare which gives the effect that all people are good educated; there is an extensive parental leave (of 96 weeks) which gives parents time to spend with their children; the working market is flexible and working is promoted.

But these advantages also lead to disadvantages: there is a heavy collective tax burden because of all the benefits, and the high costs for childcare and education.

2. The Anglo-Saxon model

The Anglo-Saxon model is based on liberal values. Self-sufficiency, freedom and private initiative are important values. There’s no extensive social security system. Instead, it gives attention to the entrepreneurial climate.

Of course this leads to low premiums and just a few taxes, which are much lower than in the Scandinavian model.

But on the other hand, the lack of an extensive security system means education and healthcare should be paid by yourselves. This means many people have a lack of good education and bad healthcare. Also it is difficult for unemployed people to get back in the labour market.

3. The Rhineland model

The Rhineland model is a combination of the first 2 models. It contains a free market supported by a well-developed collective sector. Social security is considered to be important. It spends attention on the harmonious collaboration between the government, employers’ organisations and trade unions.

The well-developed collective sector leads to the benefit of protection against the risk of dismissal or illness. Because of the combination, the collective sector is still not as extensive as in the Scandinavian model which means the taxes are also lower.

On the other hand, there’s a lot of protest against this model; there’s not as much solidarity as hoped, education and childcare is not as good as in the Scandinavian model, and it is expensive: taxes are increasing which puts the model under pressure.

 

In the article, the researchers clearly try to promote the Scandinavian model, giving lots of arguments. The title is already gives you a clue about their opinion: “Generous social benefits are not always a barrier to high employment rates”. With this article they want to counter the (incorrect) argument which claims that high benefits will demotivate people to find a job because they get money anyway; an argument often used by opponents of the Scandinavian model. In the text the researchers give facts and arguments which show the efficiency of the Scandinavian model. Also they try to find ways to implant norms of the Scandinavian model into countries with different models to improve their situation. Also it tells stories of people in the different models which make clear the situations and the rate of efficiency of the model in the situation, for example using the story of the Norwegian Marianne Hillestad of Steinberg; a woman with children benefiting from the Scandinavian model: she can continue working because of the benefits the governments provides for day care for her children.

 

My opinion

I prefer the Scandinavian model.

You pay a lot of taxes and premiums, but that all pays off. Every person benefits from the extensive social security sector through-out its life. To start with, Scandinavian countries are one of the best countries on the field of education in the world. Every citizen benefits from this because everyone can attend school, even higher education. Also there’s a low unemployment rate thanks to the unemployment programmes including training. The government pays a lot of attention on keeping the unemployment rate low. This is an important advantage on this time of crisis. This is the only model which can actually respond to unemployment well. The Anglo-Saxon model has little attention and solutions for unemployment. There are nearly to none benefits for unemployed which leaves them with troubles to find a job and money problems. The Rhineland model doesn’t have a collective sector which is strong enough to solve the problem of unemployment either. But if they raise the taxes every time unemployment increases, obviously working people paying higher and higher taxes will start protesting. Besides, the Scandinavian model has a flexible working market which is easily accessible for working parents because of the attention for child care. This combination makes sure that, especially in the first couple of years of the child, the parents can spend enough time with it due to the extensive parental leave, but they can also still continue a successful (full-time) job without having enormous costs for day care.

So, as I said; the Scandinavian model seems to be expensive but this all pays off in good conditions and advantages for everyone.