Search

The discussion about alternatives for tobacco cultivation is a very conflicting issue as it strikes into the heart of the tobacco industry which is the tobacco leaf. The aim of the paper is to contribute to this discussion and support the policy makers. To this end, the paper provides an evidence based approach for modeling the phasing-out of tobacco which describes the possible effects on farm income, labor demand and environmental impacts. In the context of the EU Research Project DIVTOB a model was developed to study the impacts of tobacco phasing-out on a specific region approach. The methodological approach can support the policy makers to overcome constraints related with the future implementation of alternative livelihoods to tobacco cultivation on the basis of evidence. In the broader context of tobacco control, the paper presents a method for an effective implementation of articles 17 and 18 of the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC). The paper also shows a transparent approach to overcome in an effective way the uncertainties spread by the tobacco industry and their allies about phasing-out of tobacco especially in low-income and middle-income countries. The application of the proposed model to four case studies in Greece and Spain achieves, under different scenarios, important results useful for policy makers and policy implications.

Overweightness and diabetes are global epidemics and the worldwide increase of diabetes has the potential to destroy any healthcare system. One cause is the excessively high sugar content in foods, especially in soft drinks. Meanwhile, 43 % of consumers have a preference for sugar-free beverages and another 26 % for low sugar beverages. Finding alternatives to sugar is not just a trend it is an economic necessity. The new WHO guidelines on sugar intake recommend a daily maximum of six teaspoons of sugar (ca. 25 g) from processed foodstuffs such as cola, ketchup, frozen pizza, etc. The recommendation only refers to added sugars (‘‘free sugars’’) and not to naturally occurring ones in fresh fruits, vegetables, and milk. ‘‘The risk of overweightness, obesity, and cavities will be reduced, if sugar intake is less than 10 %’’. Percentages of sugar in various food groups indicate how much our foods contain sugar or alternative substances. Just to name a few: candies 97 %, gummy bears 77 %, chocolate drink powder 75 %, chocolate-coated marshmallow treats 65 %, nougat cream 60 %, jams 60 %, whole milk chocolate 56 %, fruit preserves 15–55 %, breakfast cereals and muesli (granola) bars 40 %, ketchup 30 %, fruit yoghurt 13 %, lemonade 12 %, colas 11 %, fruit juice 10 %, salad dressing 10 %, sausage 1 %. However, the only way to reduce sugar content (and thus calories) in many foods is to use zero calorie sweeteners (Poppitt 1995). But artificial sweeteners are often viewed critically by consumers, especially in terms of presumed health risks, even though these have been ruled out by the rigorous testing process of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Consumers would prefer a natural sweetener (Breitenstein 2010), but are not satisfied with steviol