Status quo on fighting planned obsolescence

Some of our readers might have noticed a news item posted yesterday on the BBC website 'Climate change: 'Right to repair' gathers force'. Despite what the title suggests, consumers of course already have the right to repair a non-conforming good, pursuant to Article 3 of the Consumer Sales Directive. The discussed issue pertains rather to the problem of planned obsolescence, that is: designing goods in a way that they malfunction shortly after the warranty period lapses. This not only causes inconvenience and burdens consumers financially, but is also bad for the environment as it increases the amount of industrial waste (most of the time the goods are impossible or too expensive to repair, so consumers purchase a new replacement product instead). 

This problem has been repeatedly raised in the news, scholarship and on a political scene in the past few years. Are there any solutions coming on the EU level? The BBC article mentions that European environment ministers are planning 'to force manufacturers to make goods that last longer and are easier to mend'. However, the EU Ecodesign Directive, mentioned in the article is already in force for quite a few years and as it is a framework directive, it only defines general principles of ecodesign, without placing any specific, restrictive conditions on the manufacturers. Such specific requirements could be adopted through further implementing measures, i.e. regulations adopted by the European Commission. Some of the implementing measures adopted so far concern sectors such as lighting, televisions and large home appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators etc.). More details on the Ecodesign and Labelling can be found on this portal.

What the BBC article does not mention are the changes proposed to the Consumer Sales Directive in the amended proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contract for the online and other distance sales of goods (COM/2017/0637 final) (we have reported on the general approach being agreed by the Council in December, see: 2019 forecast...). This new measure aims to further prioritise the right to repair of consumers. Draft recital 26 mentions "...enabling consumer to require repair should encourage a sustainable consumption and could contribute to a greater durability of products." So far, the draft text of the new directive does not really reflect this priority though, to the contrary - disposing of the strict hierarchy of remedies might facilitate easier contract's termination. The Council added one beneficial provision though: the goods' conformity will be assessed also on the basis of such goods meeting consumers' expectations as to their durability (see draft recitals 19, 27 and art. 5(1)(c) of the General Approach). Will the Council and the Parliament introduce further changes to the draft proposal in the coming months?

New EU fuel labelling - is this the best we can do?

Last week the European Commission announced adoption of a new harmonised set of fuel labels. The objective behind their introduction is, as usual, to provide consumers with better information. This time we are supposed to be better informed about the suitability of fuels for our vehicles. Whilst the harmonisation aspect of fuel labelling seems important considering the increase in cross-border travel and in consumers tanking their vehicles abroad, the standardised labels don't seem particularly informative to me (disclaimer though: I don't own the car, so maybe I'm not as informed in this area as I should be to begin with as I drive only occasionally).

My issue lies with the design of the labels that will be used. The Commission claims that they will be easily distinguished as: gasoline will be marked with an E inside a circle; diesel with a B inside a square; and gas with a rhombus shaped label... Why hasn't this been simplified further? For example, by labelling gasoline-type fuels with a G instead of an E; diesel with a D instead of a B; or using colours instead of/ or next to shapes on fuel labels? I would think that this would have made a selection of the appropriate fuel for the consumer's vehicle even easier at a glance. Further complication lies in the fact that, as is common practice in labelling policies, other information may be placed on the refuelling pumps aside the fuel identifiers, which may further hinder the transparency of this information.

This new fuel labelling system has been developed by European standardisation bodies (CEN), apparently with the input acquired from the industry, consumer and civic society representatives (New EU fuel marking Q&A). I wonder whether they conducted any consumer surveys as to the effectiveness of these labels in conveying information to consumers. Let's hope that there will at least be some education plan developed to draw consumers' attention to these new labels and differences between them.

Commission investigates collusion among car manufacturers

Guest post by dr Kati Cseres, Associate Professor at the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance, University of Amsterdam

On 18 September the European Commission has announced that it has opened an investigation against BMW, Daimler and Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche from the VW group, based on information that they had colluded, in breach of EU competition rules, to avoid competition on the development and roll-out of technology to clean the emissions of petrol and diesel passenger cars.

EU Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, in charge of the competition policy portfolio, said: "The Commission is investigating whether BMW, Daimler and VW agreed not to compete against each other on the development and roll-out of important systems to reduce harmful emissions from petrol and diesel passenger cars. These technologies aim at making passenger cars less damaging to the environment. If proven, this collusion may have denied consumers the opportunity to buy less polluting cars, despite the technology being available to the manufacturers."

The Commission's investigation focusses on information indicating that BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche participated in meetings where they discussed inter alia the development and deployment of technologies to limit harmful car exhaust emissions. In particular, the Commission is assessing whether the companies colluded to limit the development and roll-out of certain emissions control systems for cars sold in the European Economic Area (Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). While the EU competition rules certainly leave room for technical cooperation aimed at improving product quality, the current investigation concerns specific cooperation that is suspected to have aimed at limiting the technical development or preventing the roll-out of technical devices. The Commission has, however, stated that at this stage of the investigation it “has no indications that the parties coordinated with each other in relation to the use of illegal defeat devices to cheat regulatory testing”.

The Commission’s statement and act comes three years after  the Dieselgate scandal started with a violation notice issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the VW group revealing that “defeat devices”, meant to game emissions testing, had been fitted to nearly half a million cars.

EU Commissioner Vera Jourová, responsible for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality  has also been actively pursuing a solution for European consumers by way of legislation and proposing a New Deal for consumers as well as obtaining action plans from Volkswagen.

Should the current investigation of the Commission, Vestager’s DG Competition indeed find that Volkswagen group, Daimler and BMW has colluded on, consumers will have another strong case to bring before national courts and claim damages for the harm they suffered. At the same time, this is another strong signal for the other EU institutions that there should be further hesitation to support an EU wide collective action mechanism which effectively compensates harmed consumers.

Shopper-gate going on in Italy

Assuming at least some of our readers will be interested in the interface between consumer issues and environmental measures, what follows are some highlights on a dispute that is dominating the news in Italy. 

As of 1 January, the Italian legislator has finally implemented the 2015 Plastic Bags Directive, requiring member states to take measures securing they meet set targets in the reduction of waste from plastic bags. Lightweight shoppers, one should keep in mind, are a major source of pollution - particularly at sea. 

So, what is the matter in the Mediterranean? While bigger supermarket bags have already for some time been replaced by biodegradable bags that supermarkets provide for a fee (of around 10 eurocents), the new law puts a ban on free "very lightweight" bags for fresh produce, mainly fruit and vegetables. These will also have to be made of at least partially biodegradable material and shops will have to charge consumers per bag. The exact fee may vary from shop to shop, likely ranging from 1-5 eurocents. 

Image from: cianciullo.blogautore.repubblica.it

In the midst of what promises to be a very heated electoral campaign, consumer association and some opposition parties have been very vocal in criticising the law, which, one must say, goes beyond the requirements of the 2015 Directive: the latter, indeed, allowed MS to exempt these "very lightweight" plastic bags. Many have observed, however, that imposing a fee and composition rules on this specific form of packaging was made necessary by the frequent abuse consumers make of the availability of free veggie bags and the vast number of them which households consume. 

Local practices, such as the fact that fruit and vegetables are usually weighted and price-tagged within the fresh department rather than at cashier desk and the supermarkets' expectation that consumer use separate bags for different sorts of produce, may have contributed to aggravating the situation. Fact is, the solution is quite radical in comparison with other countries, where the same bags continue to be available for free. 

The consumer associations that have complained about the new measure also seem not to be appeased by the fact that consumers will be able to use the bags for their organic waste (which is collected separately in large parts of the country) instead of buying those bags separately - perhaps they think their "constituents" are also not that interested in waste recycling?

All in all, an interesting not-so-small example of a clash between consumer and environmental advocacy (one may think turtle and fish lovers should be pretty happy with the measure). Have a good Thursday! More info (in Italian) here.

Tax increase on consumer goods - an effective nudging tool?

There is an interesting article in today's The Guardian by P. Barkham on how the introduction of a 5p charge for plastic bags last year in the UK has led to significant changes in consumer purchasing behaviours and ultimately contributed to better environment protection (Six billion plastic bags can't be wrong - so what do we tax next?). Logically, you wouldn't think that just the fact that consumers were faced with having a choice of paying less for their groceries if they brought their own bags, would lead to significant behavioural changes, considering the diminutive amount of the price increase. But still... of course, just the fact of having to confirm this additional charge might have been discouraging, as well as could have brought consumers' attention to the reason behind this sudden charge - environmental protection. The author poses a valid question whether tax policy is where we may expect more nudges to occur in the future.

Press digest

Air passengers

While the Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights is still under review, BBC reported recently on the investigation conducted in the UK by the consumer group Which?. Pursuant to their data between June 2014 and May 2015, ca 900.000 people could be eligible for a compensation for a delayed flight but only ca 38% of them claimed this compensation. Many passengers still don't know about their rights and are not informed about them by the airline. Even worse, airlines often discourage passengers from making this claim by arguing that the delay was beyond their control and therefore an extraordinary circumstance. The process of how to claim this compensation is also often complex. Our advice: see whether any of the online flight claim services operates in your country (such as euclaim, flightclaimservice, flightright). (Delayed airline passengers 'missing out on millions in compensation')

***

Taping client financial consultations

UK financial advisers were worried that they would have to tape meetings with their clients in order to be able to prove that they were acting in clients' best interests. While MIFID II only demands recordings of phone and electronic communications to be made and store, it also recommends such measures for face-to-face meetings. The Financial Conduct Authority, however, does not expect such far-reaching measures to be taken by financial advisers. (FCA will not demand advisers tape client meetings)

***

Mobile phone operators in Ireland breach CRD information duties on the right of withdrawal

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission in Ireland is taking enforcement action against various mobile phone providers (Vodafone, Eircom, Meteor, Three and UPC) for not providing with sufficient and accurate information on how to withdraw from their contract, in accordance with the Consumer Rights Directive. The service providers are asked to update this information and to inform their most recent consumers of their right to withdraw from the contract. (Mobile operator avoids penalty; Consumer watchdog takes action against Vodafone; Action taken against Eircom, Meteor, Three and UPC)

***

Price discrimination based on nationality in Disneyland Paris

The European Commission has received complaints about Disneyland Paris charging different prices for consumers depending on their nationality. According to the complaints British and German consumers would pay more than French consumers. Generally, it could be considered price discrimination if for the same service people pay more because of their nationality or country of residence, unless Disneyland Paris could justify the need for this price variation. (Disneyland Paris is being investigated for allegedly charging British and German visitors more than the French)

***

European Commission vs Hollywood

The European Commission has started an antitrust procedure against Sky UK and six major US film studios: Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount Pictures, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros. These six studios have placed contractual restrictions on Sky UK pursuant to which Sky UK may only make their pay-TV services available in the UK and Ireland and not to EU consumers located elsewhere. Since due to these contractual provisions Sky UK cannot choose its clientele based on commercial reasons, incl. national copyright laws, these rules may amount to anti-competitive agreements, prohibited in the EU. US movie studios tend to, however, choose a broadcaster to license for their products in a single Member State and limit their options to share these services cross-border. Considering the increase in the demand for cross-border services in the EU, incl. (online) pay-TV services, these restrictions may be stifling competition. (Commission sends Statement of Objections on cross-border provision of pay-TV services available in UK and Ireland)

***

Uber at the ECJ

On July 20 it was announced that a Spanish court referred to the ECJ for an estimation of the legal character of Uber, and more specifically UberPop services. Uber is one of the examples of the sharing economy companies that enables peer-to-peer transactions through an online P2P platform. There are a lot of uncertainties as to the legal position of the online P2P platform, its rights and obligations and its liability. Can it be seen as merely an (electronic) intermediary in a transaction between two peers or could it be seen as a service provider, etc.? In more and more European countries Uber's operations are questioned (and even banned) under national laws, since the courts do not see the activity of Uber as limited to only providing intermediation services. (EU court to classify Uber: taxi or information company?)

***

Ban of a chemical in imported textiles

Over 10 years ago the use of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE) in textile manufacture in Europe was banned. This toxic substance is used as a cleaning, dyeing and rinsing agent in textile production, however, when it degrades in the environment it ends up in the bodies of fish, disrupting their hormones. Despite the ban, the negative effect of NPE's degradation did not disappear, since imported textiles contained it and when washed released it into the environment. The Council has now voted unanimously on extending this ban to imports of clothing and other products (to become effective 5 years after the adoption of the new rule). (EU countries agree textile chemical ban)

Surveillance of dangerous products and plastic bags' use

In its fight to increase product safety in the EU the European Commission published a yearly overview showing that ca 2500 products have been stopped from entering the EU market or removed from it in 2014 ("2014 Keeping European Consumers Safe"). In 2014 toys (28%) and textile and clothing products (23%) dominated among the products against which safety measures were taken. The predominant risks notified as associated with these products were these of injury, chemical risks and choking. Unfortunately, China remains the number one offender, despite increased cooperation between the European and Chinese authorities in this area (Keeping consumers safe: nearly 2500 dangerous products withdrawn from the EU market in 2014).

***********

Aside protecting consumers from dangerous products, the EU intends to protect the environment from some dubious consumer products, such as plastic bags. European consumers on average throw out ca 200 plastic bags a year and the particles in these bags may enter water or even the food cycle. If the Parliament votes for the proposal on this new law EU countries would either need to bring down the number of lightweight plastic bags used by a person to 90 bags pp per year (until 2019; in 2025 - 40 bags) or prohibit these bags from being given away for free (until 2018). (EU restricts the use of plastic bags to protect the environment)

Press digest

Consumer Products & Sustainability

Some of the recent press articles express concerns that some of popular consumer products will be soon disappearing from the market if they do not meet new European requirements on efficiency and sustainability set by the Ecodesign Directive. (Europe's ban on 'wasteful' gadgets - doest it cost or save?) 

Another article points out to the decreased life span of consumer electronic products, where wasteful consumption of goods may result from the consumer's need to update their products to newer, better versions more often (Lifespan of consumer electronics is getting shorter, study finds). 

You may also read in recent press more about the problems of marketing of sustainable products. While some researchers discovered that consumer care about e.g. environmental impact of their purchases, this often still doesn't influence their purchasing behaviour. Could this be explained by the fact that consumers don't see what's in it for them to change their decision-making to reflect sustainability trends? (The problem with sustainability marketing? Not enough me, me, me)

Customer service & consumer information

Interesting findings of two studies on customer service in the UK have been discussed in Forbes by Adrian Swinscoe (Is Customer Service Going to Get Worse Before It Gets Better?). Tentative conclusions that could be drawn from this article are that while customer services seems to be improving, the improvement may be too slow for the dramatic raise in consumer expectations as to what level of customer service they should be receiving.

Speaking of customer services, some banks are considering to start texting their customers that it may be in their interest to switch a financial service provider, lower balance levels, avoid overdraft charges, etc. This may be the result of the reported inefficiency of bank statements that consumers currently receive. (British watchdog tells banks to text time-poor customers)

Are the European institutions looking for a way out from the promises they have made to deliver roaming-free phone services to Europeans in 2015? This is the subject of an article discussed in Deutsche Welle (Europeans free to 'roam if you want to' - but without phones, without data).

Press digest

Food

An interesting article in Newsweek on food consumption in the EU, health concerns as well as environmental issues related to our eating habits: Why Europeans Should Be Paying More for Their Food.

Electronic payments

Forbes addresses the opposition of European consumers supported by the American lobby toward the newly agreed on EU plans to cap interchange fees for electronic payment transactions. Apparently, similar laws previously adopted in the US didn't lead to any savings for the consumers but only contributed to raising products' prices: EU's Plan To Implement Interchange Fee Caps Will Raise Costs for Consumers. Interestingly, BEUC supports the change: EU deal struck to curb card transaction fees.

The European Banking Authority published its guidelines on the security of Internet payments in December 2014 (see here) that are to apply at the latest as of 1st of August 2015. Payment Service Providers will have to among other strengthen the consumer authentication process online to prevent fraud. Guidelines to strengthen requirements for the security of internet payments.

Energy efficiency of household appliances

New EU rules on how to save energy on the consumption and use of household appliances started binding as of 1 January. These rules require that household appliances switch to a stand by mode, requiring lower energy consumption after a short period of inactivity. The average saving on electricity per year for a household should amount to ca 30 GBP. E.g.: Tepid coffee anyone?..., Smart TVs will have to switch themselves OFF overnight... .

Apple

Apple has adopted its terms and conditions for European consumers that fall in line with the Consumer Rights Directive. Contrary to customers e.g. in the US, European consumers of e.g. iTunes are granted the 14-day right of withdrawal from a digital purchase, except when they purchase digital gift cards that have been redeemed in this period. E.g.: Apple gives EU consumers refund option for apps, music. While the Directive allows for already consumed digital content to be excluded from the application of the right of withdrawal Apple doesn't seem to introduce such a distinction. Apple's Lenient Return Policy in Europe for Digital Purchases Draws Ire of Developers.

More GMO products for EU consumers?

This morning the European Parliament debates a possibility to grant more flexibility and authority to the Member States with respect to regulating GMOs on their own territory. So far the EU laws were quite strict as to the risk assessment that needed to be conducted by the European Food Safety Authority prior to allowing the GMOs on the territory of the EU. Currently only one GMO crop is allowed in the EU, but some Member States prohibited even this crop (GMO cultivation in the EU).

Vehicles should be quieter but not silent

The newest trend among my friends is to invest some money into buying noise-cancelling headphones. You use them not only in public spaces where on the one hand you may want to block out noise made by traffic and strangers and on the other hand you could try to limit the noise you are making. No, you use them also at work, at home, to improve your concentration by eliminating any external noise. Surrounding yourself with silence seems to be a goal nowadays. In similar spirit, the European Parliament´s Environment Committee endorsed on Wednesday new proposals for regulating traffic noise in order to protect pedestrians´ health (noise made by standard cars would need to be limited from 74db to 68db in 12 years).  Consumers would be better informed as to the noise level their vehicles make due to an introduction of a new labeling system. Interestingly, the soundless electric and hybrid cars raise worries among the MEPs, since they are seen as potential threat to pedestrians who won’t expect their approach and therefore, a cause for more accidents. The proposal would be to add some acoustic to these vehicles in order to increase road safety. (Environment MEPs back law to turn down harmful traffic noise)  It seems then that the goal is to limit the noise but not to cancel it.

Additionally, on Tuesday MEPs and member states’ negotiators reached an informal deal regarding new rules on CO2 emissions that should be achieved by 2020 (95g/km as mandatory target applicable to 95% of new cars). (Car CO2 emissions: MEPs reach a deal with Lithuanian Presidency of the Council)

Back to the future vehicles

In January 2013 the European Commission proposed a new Directive pursuant to which the Member States would be required to set up a specific minimum of alternative fuels stations (electricity, hydrogen and natural gas) across the EU, with common standards. This would enable European consumers to easier choose for alternative fuels vehicles, since they would be assured they could use them with ease traveling in the EU. Currently, the problem is that not many refueling stations are built since not enough consumers purchase such vehicles, while consumers do not choose for these vehicles due to lack of support system. On Tuesday the European Parliament´s Transport Committee voted in these measures. The MEPs proposal strengthened Commission’s, e.g., by requiring that consumers were better informed about the different prices of fuels offered, so that they could easily compare them; that the colors of hoses and nuzzles were harmonized across the EU facilitating consumer use thereof; that electricity was made available at airports and that consumers could recharge electric vehicles during off-peak times, when prices are lower. The Commission criticizes, however, the lack of provisions on recharging points not accessible to the public, as potentially reducing the consumers’ confidence in the electric cars market. (Alternative fuels for transport: Parliament committee vote supportsroll-out of refueling infrastructure)

Putting an (effective) label on energy

BEUC published today a new study "Lessons learned from past mistakes" (accessible through here) evaluating the Energy Label. The Energy Labelling Directive 2010/30/EU needs to be reviewed by the European Commission by the end of 2014 and the last year's review of Ecodesign Directive showed that there are some improvements that could be argued for. Consumer studies that have been conducted assessing the clarity, comparability, credibility, consistency and simplicity of the Energy Label suggest that consumers' understanding of this label is currently still not full. The BEUC appeals to the European Commission to consider a few changes.

First, the "A plus" classes should be eliminated from the rating scale of the Energy Label. Consumers seem to be more inclined to buy more energy efficient products if the scale is closed between A-G scales rather than when it is broadened by addition of "A plus" classes. National legislators tend also to misapply these classes by awarding them to currently most energy efficient appliances in a given category, which means that they do not leave any room for technological development and improvement. Consumers tend also to believe that the whole range of classes showed on a product should be available to them, even though many labels may show empty classes, where products are not yet on the market since there is no corresponding technology.

Second, disclosure of consumer-relevant information, affecting costs and performance, should be more transparent and comprehensible. The Directive requires the unit of "kilowatt hours per annum" to be displayed on the Engery Label, while survey showed that more than 70% tested German consumers did not understand the meaning of "per annum" on the label. Some research suggests also that consumers may prefer the label to express energy consumption per usage, i.e., "per cycle". More empirical evidence is needed as to which label is more transparent to consumers.

Lastly, BEUC believes that there is a need to reassess the relationship between the energy label, the calculation formula on which it is based and the appliance size. BEUC worries that the Directive may be promoting larger appliances, sine it is easier to receive a higher rating for a larger appliance, and the calculation formula for the energy efficiency classes takes size into account. This is a consumer-unfriendly trend since consumers may prefer to buy a bigger appliance with a higher energy-efficiency class, not understanding that they would end up spending more energy (and more money) due to the larger size of the appliance.

Plastic (bag) is not fantastic!

The multitude of European consumer protection rights in consumer sales sector aims to encourage Europeans to, well, go shopping. However, if we shop and purchase something we need to transport it back to our homes often in a shopping bag. If that shopping bag happens to be a plastic bag and upon coming home we immediately discard of it (since we may not want to start a collection of plastic shopping bags), what we may not realize is that it will take hundreds of years for the environment to get rid of that lightweight plastic bag. (Commission proposes to reduce the use of plastic bags) Therefore, yesterday the European Commission adopted a proposal of a Directive to reduce lightweight plastic bag consumption in the EU, which will amend the existing Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. It will be left to the Member States to choose appropriate measure that would lead to the reduction of plastic bag consumption, e.g., charges or bans (some Member States already have such measures in place).

Where the green products are

The European Commission announced today a draft Communication on Building the Single Market for Green Products and a draft Recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. These drafts of new European provisions constitute a part of the Single Market for Green Products Initiative which was mentioned as a key action in the Single Market Act of 2011 (see: Helping companies and consumers navigate the green maze).

The goal behind these instruments is among others to increase consumers' knowledge and awareness about life-cycle assessment and environmental performance of products. The properly established duty to inform (with preferably one harmonised labelling system across the EU) could facilitate consumers knowledge about environmental qualities of the goods they would be purchasing. At this point data shows that 48% of EU consumers are confused by all the information they receive on environmental impact of products. It has also been claimed that lack of harmonisation increases industry costs in this respect.

If the proposal is adopted it would introduce two ways to measure environmental performance throughout the life-cycle of the goods: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF). The weak point of the proposal is that it would only recommend the use of these methods of assessment to Member States and private parties, and would not actually require it. After the adoption of the proposal the Commission intends to open a 3 year testing period for developing new product- and sector-specific rules.

Honk-honk

Another draft law that the European Parliament voted on last week concerned sound level of motor vehicles. The standard for cars would be lowered from 74db to 68db in the next 6-8 years (with some margin of error for more powerful vehicles, incl 81db for lorries). Additionally, the new cars should be labelled on their noise performance so that consumers were informed what type of vehicle they are purchasing (just like currently they can see the fuel efficiency or CO2 emissions' labels on cars). An idea was also brought up in the discussions on this new law that e-cars should have a sound added to it - so that pedestrians are in no danger of being silently run over. (Parliament backs law to tone down harmful traffic noise)

Consumer health update

The French medicines agency (ANSM) announced this week that in the next three months it intends to suspend the marketing authorisation for Diane 35 and its generics for acne treatment in France. This is a commonly used medicine across Europe, used not only to treat acne but also as an oral contraception for women and for treatment of other skin conditions. The ANSM considers the risk of thromboembolism that this medicine increases (which has been known for many years now) to be too high in comparison with its moderate success in treating acne. Pursuant to EU law, the ANSM will notify the European Medicines Agency about its plans and appealed for a EU-wide review of this medicine, which may lead to a harmonized action with respect to its marketing across the EU Member States. In the meantime, women who are taking this medicine are advised NOT to stop. (EMA update on Diane 35 and generics used in the treatment of acne) Of course, that does not mean that if anyone feels uncomfortable with it (though, as I have mentioned, the risks were known for quite awhile now), they may ask their doctors if there are any alternative treatments available.

****

EU Commission in the meantime calls for EU-wide ban on amphetamine-like drug '4-MA', which is a synthetic substance inducing similar physical effects to amphetamines.The Commission appeals to MS to prevent free access across the EU to this drug, since it has been associated with 21 deaths in 4 EU Member States in 2010-2012. So far, it has been made illegal in 10 EU countries. The EU action aims at prohibiting both manufacturing and marketing of this drug, subject to criminal sanctions. (Commission calls for EU-wide ban on amphetamine-like drug '4-MA')

****

World Health Organisation (WHO) released today a new report on long-term exposure to air pollution which apparently can trigger: atherosclerosis, adverse birth outcomes, childhood respiratory diseases. It may also adversely influence neurodevelopment, cognitive function, diabetes, cardiovascular and respiratory systems. (Newly found health effects of air pollution call for stronger EU air policies) Current EU statistics show that over 80% of EU citizens are exposed to air pollution levels above the 2005 WHO Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs), which has been seen as depriving on average each citizen of 8,6 months of life. The new report recommends that EU modifies its law, since already the current limit of permitted air pollution in the EU's Ambient Air Quality Directive is twice as high as the AQG recommendation. The WHO plans on adjusting the AQGs levels, making them even more strict. We'll see what actions will be undertaken by the European Commission. For now, 2013 has been declared as the Year of Air for EU policies. (apparently it's not the first year of air... - see: here)

****

The European Commission also sent this week a statement of objections to the pharmaceutical companies Johnson & Johnson (specifically, its Dutch subsidiary: Janssen-Cilag) and Novartis (and its subsidiary Sandoz). It suspects that these companies concluded a so called 'co-promotion agreement' on a strong pain-killer (fentanyl, which is stronger than morphine), as a result of which the market entry of a cheaper generic medicine was delayed in the Netherlands. This, of course, would breach EU antitrust rules. Dutch consumers, as a result of this agreement, could have been left with no option but to purchase the higher priced fentanyl which goes against the EU policy to provide affordable healthcare to EU citizens. The companies may now respond to the objections raised by the Commission. If the infringement of antitrust rules is confirmed, they will be fined. (see more here) To find out more about other enforcement actions in pharmaceutical sector following recent sector inquiry, see here.