Mediaboss Marketing

European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document Fitness Check of the EU Animal Welfare Legislation (European Commission, 2022).

Wieck, C. & Dusel, S. in Commission Staff Working Document Fitness Check of the EU Animal Welfare Legislation (European Commission, 2022).

Deconinck, K., Giner, C., Jackson, L. A. & Toyama, L. Overcoming Evidence Gaps on Food Systems (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2021).

European Commission. Overview Report: The Use of Indicators for Animal Welfare at Farm Level (European Commission, 2022).

European Court of Auditors. Special Report No. 31/2018: Animal Welfare in the EU: Closing the Gap Between Ambitious Goals and Practical Implementation (European Court of Auditors, 2018).

FADN Database. Standard Results About the Economic Situation of EU Farms by Different Groups (European Commission); https://go.nature.com/3GeBFS2

Devot, A. et al. Study on CAP Measures and Instruments Promoting Animal Welfare and Reduction of Antimicrobials Use (Agrosynergie, 2022).

Maestre, M., Campbell, L., Etienne, J., Cook, E. & Matulina, A. Study on Animal Welfare Labelling (ICF, 2022).

Becker, S., Grajewski, R. & Rehburg, P. Where Does the Money Go? Working Paper on the Common Agricultural Policy 2023-2027. Thnen Working Paper 191 [German] (Thnen Institute, 2022); https://go.nature.com/415RKSD

Bock, A.-K., Bontoux, L. & Rudkin, J.-E. Concepts for a Sustainable EU Food System. Reflections from a Participatory Process (European Commission, 2022).

Van der Stede, Y. et al. Theme (Concept) Paper More Welfare: Towards New Risk Assessment Methodologies and Harmonised Animal Welfare Data in the EU (European Food Safety Authority, 2022).

EU Platform on Animal Welfare. Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the Sub-group on Animal Welfare Labelling (EU Platform on Animal Welfare, 2022); https://go.nature.com/3lYEMXz

Borchert Commission. Recommendations of the Competence Network on Animal Husbandry [German] (Borchert Commission, 2020); https://go.nature.com/3zvSMuU

Read the rest here:
Evidence gaps hinder animal welfare progress in the European Union - Nature.com

LONDON, April 19 (Reuters) - The rest of the world should copy European Union rules for cryptoassets to create a robust global approach that protects consumers and financial stability, the EU's financial services chief said on Wednesday.

The European Parliament is due on Thursday to rubber stamp the EU's markets in cryptoassets regulation (MiCA), the world's first comprehensive set of rules for the hitherto unregulated sector. EU states have already given their approval.

The crypto sector has been rocked by the failure of crypto exchange FTX and other collapses, sending benchmark bitcoin prices tumbling, though it has begun to recover.

"I hope that our rules could become a model for other countries," EU financial services commissioner Mairead McGuinness told the parliament.

MiCA requires crypto firms to be authorised by the EU to serve customers in the bloc, and to comply with safeguards against money laundering and terrorism finance.

It is being rolled out in phases from July 2024 to give the sector time to adapt.

Crypto firms authorised in one EU state would be allowed to offer their services across all 27. EU cities including Paris are already wooing firms in the sector.

"It marks the end of the Wild West era for cryptoassets," Green Party lawmaker Ernest Urtasun told parliament.

But other countries need to play their part by introducing robust rules as well, said McGuinness, whose officials drafted MiCA. "Global convergence is absolutely key."

Britain has just set out draft rules to regulate cryptoassets.

McGuinness said the commission will study whether further rules are needed for decentralised finance, and for lending and borrowing in cryptoassets.

"We believe had FTX been captured under the EU's jurisdiction, many of its practices would not have been permissible under MiCA," she added.

Reporting by Huw Jones; editing by John Stonestreet

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read more here:
EU urges others to copy its rules for cryptoassets - Reuters

The European Union (EU) will be able to join efforts with UNESCO in the reconstruction and recomposition of collections of the National Museum, partially destroyed by a fire in 2018 in Rio de Janeiro. The Museu Nacional Vive project was presented to 17 ambassadors from European countries in a meeting held last Monday (17 April) at the EU Delegation in Braslia, Brazil.

The meeting was attended by the EU Ambassador to Brazil, Ignacio Ybez; the Director of the National Museum, Alexander Kellner; the Director and Representative of UNESCO in Brazil, Marlova Noleto; and the Coordinator of the UNESCO Culture Sector, Isabel de Paula.

During the meeting, it was also discussed about the possibility of assistance from the EU member countries for the recomposition of the collections of ethnographic and natural objects of the National Museum, which include architecture, engineering and museography projects, already underway, with completion scheduled for 2026. The ambassadors who attended the meeting will share this information with cultural institutions in their countries, museums, possible business partners and others who may join the project.

The rest is here:
UNESCO in Brazil meets with representatives of the European ... - UNESCO

LONDON, April 18 (Reuters) - The European Union set out draft reforms to rules for closing down failing banks on Tuesday. The original rules were introduced after the 2007-09 global financial crisis when taxpayers had to bail out lenders.

The emphasis is on faster handling to ensure a "bail-in" of failing banks using their internal resources such as bonds that can be written down, to avoid a "bail-out" by taxpayers, so that depositors are treated the same across the EU.

Failing big banks in the EU are closed down by the Single Resolution Board, while small and medium sized lenders come under national watchdogs and have usually been dealt with either by courts, or differing national practices.

This has often involved public money and the EU reform seeks to make it easier to apply its resolution rules to all sizes of banks to minimise taxpayer involvement.

Italy injected 5.4 billion euros ($5.9 billion) of state aid into Monte dei Paschi di Siena in 2017 under the precautionary capital mechanism, helping to circumvent resolution rules.

The reforms propose stricter conditions, emphasising its temporary nature, exclusion for banks that are likely to fail or have failed, and a ban for plugging potential losses.

There must also be a clearly defined date for the sale of the bank, or repayment of the aid.

The proposals make it easier for regulators to use cash from industry-funded deposit guarantee schemes in a bank that has gone bust. Regulators will be able to use this cash to shift deposits to another lender to avoid the need to make payouts to account holders, currently capped at 100,000 euros per account.

The proposals make no fresh push for a pan-EU deposit guarantee scheme, long seen as a critical missing piece in the EU's banking union.

Several EU countries, including Germany, have national industry-funded institutional protection schemes that can be used to deal with failing banks, in return for lower capital and liquidity requirements. Germany wants a carve-out for these schemes. The EU commission says there is no carve-out, but that a balanced deal has been struck to introduce new safeguards.

EU states and the European Parliament have the final say on the draft reforms, with changes likely during the approval process.

($1 = 0.9129 euros)

Reporting by Huw Jones; Editing by Alexander Smith

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Continued here:
Factbox: EU updates bank crisis rules to strengthen taxpayer shield - Reuters

Use of health data for secondary purposes

Health data is collected in several different health care settings. However, this data is invaluable for other purposes as well that are not directly related to the purposes for which it is originally collected. The intention of this legislation is to enable health data to be re-used more widely for research, innovation, policy making, regulatory purposes, and patient safety.

The European Health Data Space Regulation (the EHDS) proposal expressly states that health data contained in electronic health records (EHRs) can be processed for training, testing and evaluating of algorithms, including in medical devices, AI systems and digital health applications.

However, there is a condition: this secondary use must satisfy any of the following purposes:

The requester (data user) shall be in a position to prove that the access is necessary for any of those purposes.

However, the data user shall take into account that there are prohibited purposes, so any algorithm benefited from the accessed data shall not be used to (among others):

The EHDS envisages a quite broad list of categories of data that shall be available to reuse, including; (i) EHRs, (ii) pathogen genomic data, (iii) genetic data, (iv) identification data related to health professionals, (v) electronic health data from clinical trials, and (vi) electronic health data from biobanks.

The data user shall lay down in the data access request whether it needs to access anonymized or pseudonymized data. If the data user only needs anonymized data, the process is easier, as the health data access body (if the request is granted) will provide that non-personal dataset.

However, if the data user requires pseudonymized data (meaning data where any information which could be used to identify an individual has been replaced with a pseudonym or other value which does not allow the individual to be directly identified), the applicant should explain why this is necessary and why anonymous data would not suffice. Besides, it shall identify the legal basis of processing under art. 6 GDPR (either exercise of a task in the public interest assigned by lawor legitimate interest). In this case, an ethical assessment may be requested based on national law.

The EDHS does not change the qualification or not of personal data or anonymization: general GDPR principles will apply.

The access applications will be managed by a unique body: the health data access body. Data users seeking access to electronic health data from more than one Member State shall submit a single application to one of the concerned health data access bodies of their choice. However, where an applicant requests access to electronic health data only from a single data holder, that applicant may file a data access application or a data request directly to this data holder.

The applicant shall submit a data access application detailing:

The health data access body shall issue or refuse a data permit within 2 months of receiving the data access application (that can be extended for another 2 months). Where a health data access body fails to provide a decision within the time limit, the data permit shall be issued.

The data permit shall set out the general conditions applicable to the data user. A data permit shall be issued for the duration necessary to fulfil the requested purposes which shall not exceed 5 years (that may be extended once).

Once the request has been granted, the health data access body will request the data from the data holder, that will need to provide the data to the data user within 2 months.

Data users shall make public the results or output of the secondary use of electronic health data, including information relevant for the provision of healthcare, no later than 18 months after the completion of the electronic health data processing.

The health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data only through a secure processing environment. The data users shall only be able to download non-personal electronic health data from the secure processing environment.

Yes. Where the data in question are not held by a public body (e.g. a private healthcare provider), the fees may also include compensation for part of the costs for collecting the electronic health data.

Fees shall be transparent and proportionate to the cost of collecting and making electronic health data available.

The EHDS is clear about this. Health data access bodies and data users shall be deemed joint controllers. Data holders do not have any data processor or joint controllership role vis--vis data users, except when there is a single data provider and the request is directly handled by the same, in which case they will be considered joint controllers.

Read this article:
Re-use of health data to train algorithms: European Union EDHS ... - JD Supra