Aspen is the only southern hemisphere manufacturer selected by the US-based Clinton Foundation to produce cheaper HIV/Aids ARV medicines. The 2006 agreement between former US President Bill Clinton and Aspen focuses on reducing costs and scaling up production of ARVs. It has resulted in the cost of generic ARVs in developing countries being reduced by one-third to one-half of the original price. Saad was recognised for his leadership and entrepreneurial spirit when he won the coveted Ernst & Young 2004 World Entrepreneur of the year award for South Africa. He narrowly lost the World Entrepreneur title in a vote-out. Antiretrovirals (ARVs) substantially extend the lives of people living with HIV/Aids and help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. When Steven Saad established Aspen Pharmacare in a suburban home in 1997 at the age of 33, little did he think his small sales company would one day become South Africa’s leading pharmaceuticals producer and play a pivotal role – with support from two United States presidents – in tackling a global pandemic. Speaking of his love for the Eastern Cape, Saad said he decided to establish Aspen’s primary plant in Port Elizabeth because he believed in the capability and intellectual property of the local manufacturing facility. The Port Elizabeth plant is South Africa’s leading producer of tablets and capsules, and also manufactures liquid dosage forms such as syrups, suspensions and solutions, as well as creams, ointments and suppositories. Backing from two US presidents Part of the approval process involved a rigorous assessment of Aspen’s R200-million oral solid dosage facility in Port Elizabeth, which manufactures generic ARVs and capsules. The facility is considered to be the most modern of its kind in Africa. “Aspen is committed to the development and upliftment of the South African pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. At a time when most pharmaceutical manufacturers are divesting locally, Aspen has continued to show commitment with a capital injection of more than R1-billion in the Eastern Cape.” Aspen’s East London-based facility has extensive manufacturing capability and capacity in various categories, including penicillin, oral contraceptives, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs), complementary medicines, cosmetics, capsules, powders, creams, ointments, lotions, liquids and tinctures. Aspen, which has its primary plant in Nelson Mandela Bay and a second facility in East London, is one of the top 20 manufacturers of generic medicines globally. December 2007 statistics confirm its local generic market share at 34%, compared to its nearest rival at 14%. Continual enhancements to the plant include additional bottle packing capabilities to service a growing need in the ARV market for delivery of product in this format. 29 July 2008 Believing in the Eastern Cape Port Elizabeth, East London plants “Treatment, once started, is a lifelong commitment, and over time patients move from low-price first-line drugs to second-line combinations that are at least 10 times more expensive,” Clinton is on record as saying. “Keeping the global cost of Aids treatment sustainable will only be possible if we lower the prices of these medicines.” Apart from developing Africa’s first generic ARV (Stavudine), launched in 2003, Aspen also manufactures an extensive basket of ARVs all registered with the SA Medicines Control Council. Aspen was also chosen as the world’s first supplier of generic ARVs under US President George Bush’s $15-billion Emergency Plan for Aids Relief. In March 2006, Aspen began construction of a R400-million sterile facility in Port Elizabeth, with production capabilities in injectables (including hormonals), freeze-dried vials for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, and other products. Commercial production was scheduled to commence by the end of 2008. This article was first published in Eastern Cape Madiba Action, winter 2008 edition. Republished here with kind permission. The site continues to grow, with increased volume being driven by buoyant toothpaste and penicillin sales. Production capabilities have been enhanced through ongoing investment, and further increase in output is planned with the re-alignment of products from other facilities that suit East London’s flexible short-run production profile. This achievement is thanks to Saad’s foresight in securing voluntary licences from multinational pharmaceutical companies for the manufacture of more affordable generic antiretrovirals.
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Peggy Hall, director of agricultural law, Ohio State University Agricultural and Resource Law ProgramWhen you think of “agritourism,” corn mazes and hay rides may first come to mind. While those activities can fall under Ohio’s definition of agritourism, you may be surprised to find that farm markets, you-pick operations, farm tours, wineries and other types of farm-based activities can also fit into the legal definition of “agritourism” in Ohio. This definition is important for purposes of Ohio’s agritourism immunity law, which can protect agritourism providers from liability for harm incurred during agritourism activities. The law shifts the risk of liability from agritourism operators to the participants who willingly choose to engage in agritourism activities on a farm.It’s important to understand that in order to receive the law’s liability protection, each of the following conditions must exist. Conditions for immunity from liabilityQualify as an “agritourism provider.” The law specifically protects only those who are “agritourism providers,” which means someone “who owns, operates, provides, or sponsors an agritourism activity, or an employee of such a person who engages in or provides agritourism activities, whether or not for a fee. An important term within this definition is ‘agritourism,’ which means ‘an agriculturally related educational, entertainment, historical, cultural or recreational activity, including you-pick operations or farm markets, conducted on a farm that allows or invites members of the general public to observe, participate in, or enjoy that activity.’” This definition can include a broad range of activities, such as wine tastings, educational classes, corn mazes and other recreational activities, farm tours, and farm festivals. Note, however, that the agritourism definition requires that the activity be on a “farm,” which the law further defines as:At least 10 acres of land (composed of tracts, lots, or parcels), that is used for “agricultural production,” which means the land is used for “commercial aquaculture, algaculture, apiculture, animal husbandry, poultry husbandry; the production for a commercial purpose of timber, field crops, tobacco, fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, flowers, or sod; the growth of timber for a noncommercial purpose if the land on which the timber is grown is contiguous to or part of a parcel of land under common ownership that is otherwise devoted exclusively to agricultural use; or any combination of such husbandry, production, or growth; and includes the processing, drying, storage, and marketing of agricultural products when those activities are conducted in conjunction with such husbandry, production, or growth”Or, less than 10 acres of land if there is an average yearly gross income of at least $2,500 from “agricultural production” on the land.Post required signs. Every “agritourism provider” must “post and maintain” warning signs in order to receive the law’s liability protection. The purpose of this provision is to inform participants that they are voluntarily assuming the risks of many of the harms that are inherent to being on a farm. The warning signs or sign templates are available through Ohio State University Extension South Centers and Ohio Farm Bureau. Each sign must:Be placed in a clearly visible location at or near each entrance to the agritourism location or at the site of each agritourism activity;Contain the following statement, in black letters measuring at least one inch high:WARNING: Under Ohio law, there is no liability for an injury to or death of a participant in an agritourism activity conducted at this agritourism location if that injury or death results from the inherent risks of that agritourism activity. Inherent risks of agritourism activities include, but are not limited to, the risk of injury inherent to land, equipment, and animals as well as the potential for you as a participant to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to your injury or death. You are assuming the risk of participating in this agritourism activity. Immunity from what?The agritourism immunity law states that an agritourism provider is immune, or protected from liability, in any civil action for an injury to a person participating in the agritourism activity as long as that person was injured due to a “risk inherent in an agritourism activity.” An “inherent risk” is a “danger or condition that is an integral part of an agritourism activity,” that would be difficult for an agritourism provider to completely minimize. According to the law, “inherent risks” include:The surface and subsurface conditions of the land;The behavior or actions of wild animals not kept by or under the control of an agritourism provider;The behavior or actions of domestic animals other than vicious or dangerous dogs;The ordinary dangers associated with structures or equipment ordinarily used in farming or ranching operations;The possibility of contracting illness resulting from physical contact with animals, animal feed, animal waste, or surfaces contaminated by animal waste;The possibility that a participant may act in a negligent manner, including by failing to follow instructions given by the agritourism provider or by failing to exercise reasonable caution while engaging in the agritourism activity that may contribute to injury to that participant or another participant.If a participant in an agritourism activity is harmed and sues the agritourism provider for injuries caused by any of the above situations, the law protects the provider from any liability or monetary responsibility for those injuries. In addition, the law specifically states that an agritourism provider is not required to eliminate such inherent risks on the property. Exceptions to immunityAlthough the agritourism immunity law provides civil immunity under certain circumstances, the immunity is not absolute. The law also states that an agritourism provider could be legally responsible for injury to a participant if the agritourism provider:Fails to post and maintain signs (discussed above)Acts with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant,Purposefully causes harm to the participant,Acts or fails to act in a way that constitutes criminal conduct that causes harm to the participant,Has or should have actual knowledge of an existing dangerous condition that is not an inherent risk, and does not make the dangerous condition known to the participant. Use the agritourism law to your advantageAgritourism activities can provide many benefits, such as additional income and diversification opportunities for farmers, unique cultural and recreational experiences for farm visitors and education about agriculture. But there are always liability risks to having people on the farm, which can impact a farmer’s risk exposure. Take advantage of the agritourism immunity law by ensuring that the operation qualifies for its provisions and does not fall within any of the exceptions from immunity protection. Even with this liability protection, however, operators should continuously assess the property for safety risks to minimize the possibility of visitor injuries.The agritourism immunity law is in Ohio Revised Code section 901.80. For further information, see our Agritourism Law Bulletin and a previous post, which also explain the agritourism law’s protections from county and township zoning for agritourism operations.
WINNING CAPTION: “Photographic evidence of Rapture Caching!” – Snoogans GeocacherExercise your caption writing wit and wisdom in the 24th installment of our Geocaching.com Caption Contest. You could earn a barely coveted prize! What caption would you write? “Cache contains: Travel Bug®, rubber ball, and anti-gravity!” You can do better!Barely coveted prizeSubmit your caption by clicking on “Comments” below. Please include your geocaching username in all entries. Then, explore the captions that other geocachers have crafted.You can influence the voting. “Like” the caption that you think should win. If you think your caption should win, convince your fellow geocachers to “like” your caption. Lackeys and fans of the Geocaching.com Facebook Page vote to decide the winner of the contest.Click on the image to discover the winner of the previous caption contestThe winner receives a barely coveted prize from Groundspeak Headquarters. This contest the barely coveted prize is a Cache In Trash Out pin.27 Lackeys and more than 450 Geocaching.com Facebook users voted to award the winner of the 23rd Geocaching.com Caption Contest a barely coveted prize. Click on the image at right to discover the winning caption from the previous Geocaching.com Caption Contest.Explore all the past winners by checking out all the Geocaching.com Caption Contests.Share with your Friends:More SharePrint RelatedGeocaching.com Caption Contest 25 – Win a Barely Coveted PrizeJune 30, 2011In “Community”Geocaching Caption Contest 20 – Win a Barely Coveted PrizeJanuary 18, 2011In “Community”Geocaching.com Caption Contest 26 – Win a Barely Coveted PrizeAugust 10, 2011In “Community”
To some degree, consumers have become overly skeptical of claims that a product is green, healthy, energy-saving, or similarly virtuous. Problem is, there are so many ways to twist the truth, our BS detectors sometimes overheat and shut down. A recent blog by SmartPlanet contributor Heather Clancy highlighted the fact that the House subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection was concerned enough about this issue to hold a hearing on the subject earlier this month. The hearing was titled “It’s Too Easy Being Green: Defining Fair Green Marketing Practices.”One of the five witnesses invited to testify, M. Scot Case, vice president of TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, suggested that the Federal Trade Commission require third-party verification of every environmental marketing claim; that the Environmental Protection Agency form an office to create a single national label to recognize environmental leadership; and that the government should fund the EPA and the National Academies to create a national lifecycle inventory that could be used in making environmental performance assessments.Clearly, it is going to take time to sort things out. As I noted, most of us have already learned to navigate at least some of the vast advertising waters, although we still often use claims, as marketers may intend, mainly to assuage guilt over a particular purchase. So we eat the “healthy” food product (zero trans-fats!) while willfully ignoring a nutritional assessment of its ingredients (16 grams of monosaturated fat and lots of sugar!). When it comes to big-dollar renovation and construction, though, things get considerably more complicated.Issues of simplicity, regulation, and demandA few homeowners do dig deep into the details of energy efficiency and sustainability (we’ve recently written about two who live in Chicago, Tim Heppner and Michael Yannell). But most consumers predisposed to go green seem to prefer the conciseness and potential marketability of a well known green-certification label over immersion in performance and sourcing data.Of course, remodelers and builders don’t have that luxury. They’ve had to stay agile as building codes get greener, national and local green rating systems evolve, and homebuyers and homeowners respond to it all.So far, national ratings systems such as LEED for Homes and the National Association of Home Builders’ National Green Building Standard have become well established and reasonably well recognized by the public, and programs such as EarthCraft House have fairly high public profiles. Consumers’ green-homebuilding savvy, in other words, continues to inch along. But as blogger Clancy points out, if the government decides to get tough on misleading and false claims, green marketing could get a lot more verifiably green in short order.
Tags:#film#Government#How To#international#web Related Posts 9 Books That Make Perfect Gifts for Industry Ex… scott fulton 5 Outdoor Activities for Beating Office Burnout 12 Unique Gifts for the Hard-to-Shop-for People… It’s not like Iran’s 33.2 million netizens are all incapable of finding the allegedly blasphemous video by other means, as this Bing search using Iran as the country code clearly demonstrates. (An independent Iranian businessperson said as much to France24 just today.) Videos housed on YouTube may still be visible in Iran through Bing, even without a visit the YouTube URL. And even if they’re not, clearly YouTube is no longer the only source.With oil no longer viable as the country’s only lifeblood, Iran has to take advantage of what opportunities fall into its lap. Think about it, this pitiful little video could be a bandwidth bonanza! Over the weekend, Iran took the bait, banning access to both YouTube and parent Google from clients using its state-owned Internet infrastructure.And to start the viral marketing push with a bang, what could be better than for Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to embark on a world tour? In New York this week, before the United Nations, Ahmadinejad suggested to a conference of scholars and students that the nations of the world should band together in harmony to ban all content that offends religions.Now, even more people want to see the practically unwatchable video that has caused all the hubbub.Smaller Bang, Bigger BoomMaybe it’s too late for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to become the next Steve Jobs, but he seems to already be adopting Apple’s basic lesson of owning the infrastructure, limiting access to the product and making the product more desirable than peace itself. Even as the country rails against the video, the rials (or more preferably, dollars) roll in from active participants in Iran’s state-owned social media platform on its state-owned infrastructure.Hey, maybe Ahmadinejad and filmmaker “Sam Bacile” could work out a little deal. “You provide the blasphemy and the white guys wearing bedsheets,” the president could say, “and I’ll provide the audience.” Mel Brooks couldn’t have worked out a better plot. 4 Keys to a Kid-Safe App Anywhere in the world, the fastest way to make anything popular is to ban it. Certainly Iran, which actually is an Internet infrastructure provider and which has by far the largest Internet using population in the Middle East, undoubtably knows that. So when Iran is handed a gold mine like The Innocence of Muslims, what should it do? The pitiful YouTube trailer for a possibly fake film entitled The Innocence of Muslims, whose very actors are embarrassed to have been hoodwinked into participating, may have become the most popular — or at least, the most popularly viewed — bad movie not to have been lampooned by Rifftrax. Iran is one of the video’s most vocal critics, which was probably as intended.It isn’t immediately obvious to most Americans, for whom Iran is typically portrayed as a backward country, but actually Iran is an Internet power player. Not headquarters to an Internet giant, but an actual Internet giant in itself. A 2010 estimate by China-based communications analyst Globserver states that, of Iran’s total population of nearly 77 million people, 33.2 million – about 43.2% of the population – were registered Internet users. Only 9.8 million Saudis are Internet users. More than half (52.5%) of all the Middle East’s Internet users, and 15.6% of the entire Middle East population, were customers of Iranian services in 2010.Black Rock EastThe government of Iran owns its Internet. In 2007, the country spun off its state-owned telephone service, creating a competitive market for a new breed of mobile phone carrier there, including MTN, MCI (no relation) and Zoha Kish. But for these companies to offer mobile data services with their mobile phones (which they could choose not to do… but what would be the point?) they must pay the government (through its wholly owned Internet subsidiary, TIC) a monthly percentage. In 2010, the minimum monthly payment was sealed at around $1 million.Or, according to 2010 exchange rates, $10.2 billion rials per month. Today, however, for Iran to reap the same value from its mobile data plan resellers, it would have to charge $12.2 billion. You see, one of the unpleasant side effects of developing nuclear technology while threatening to wipe a neighboring country off the map is that the rest of the world sells off your currency. This has resulted in a dramatic devaluation of the Iranian rial. Indeed, the rial hit a historic low today. With U.S. and European sanctions against Iran’s oil exports and banking transactions having the desired effect, Iran has to make a living somehow.And here, you have a video that’s gone viral. Hey, if ReadWriteWeb can make a killing from viral videos, why can’t Iran? And if you want to make a bad video really viral, why not follow in the footsteps of Russia, the Phillipines, Lebanon and Germany and ban access to the video – or at least publicly debate the merits of doing so?Because you know what happens when you threaten to ban a video: Pro-free speech groups launch a public screening of the thing. Widescreen, HD, streaming Wireless-N video, probably with popcorn.Do Not Watch This Video
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. — The video of Ray Rice punching his fiancee inside a casino elevator was sent to NFL headquarters to the attention of league security chief Jeffrey Miller in April, a law enforcement official says.The NFL has repeatedly said no one with the league saw the violent images until TMZ Sports released the video earlier this month. Miller said Sept. 25th through an NFL spokesman that he never received the video.The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to release details of the case, said he doesn’t know if Miller ever saw the DVD or opened the package.His only communication with the NFL was a 12-second voice mail on April 9 from league offices confirming receipt of the package, in which a woman says, “You’re right. It’s terrible.”The official told the AP two weeks ago that he sent the video to the NFL, but asked the AP not to report that he had addressed the package to Miller. He eliminated that restriction on Sept. 25.“Since the NFLPA and NFL have launched separate investigations into the league and the Ravens’ handling of Ray Rice’s case, I want to make a few things clear. No one from the NFL ever asked me for the inside-elevator video,” the official said Sept. 25.“I mailed it anonymously to Jeff Miller because he’s their head of security. I attached a note saying: ‘Ray Rice elevator video. You have to see it. It’s terrible.’ I provided a number for a disposable cellphone and asked for confirmation that it was received. I knew there was a possibility Mr. Miller may not get the video, but I hoped it would land in the right hands.”Miller, in London preparing for the Raiders-Dolphins game on Sept. 28, issued a statement to the AP through an NFL spokesman.“I unequivocally deny that I received at any time a copy of the video, and I had not watched it until it was made public on September 8,” he said.Miller joined the league in 2008 as Director of Strategic Security and was promoted to Chief Security Officer in April 2011. Before joining the NFL, Miller spent nearly six years as the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. He worked for the State Police for 24 years.At the NFL, Miller’s responsibilities include overseeing investigative programs and services. He is also in charge of event security and game integrity.When players get arrested, the NFL’s corps of investigators rarely get involved, leaving that to local law enforcement. The league’s security operatives gather court documents and police reports available to the public, but don’t ordinarily interview witnesses or gather evidence independently.It remains unclear what happened to the video once it arrived at league offices. There are two NFL executives named Jeffrey Miller, but the law enforcement official didn’t know that, and intended it to go to the chief of security.NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the other Jeffrey Miller — who is the senior vice president of health and safety policy — did not report receiving the video.The law enforcement official said he wanted to make sure the NFL had the video before deciding on Rice’s punishment. “My intention wasn’t to bring down Commissioner (Roger) Goodell or anyone else at the NFL,” he said.He said he didn’t know the identity of the woman who left him the voice mail. He said he chose Miller because of his law enforcement background, even though he didn’t know him personally.Rice, a former Pro Bowl running back for the Baltimore Ravens, was arrested in Atlantic City on an assault charge for hitting Janay Palmer in February.A police summons stated that Rice had struck Palmer with his hand, knocking her unconscious. Rice has been accepted into New Jersey’s pre-trial intervention program, which enabled him to avoid jail time and could result in having the charge expunged from his record.Initially, Goodell suspended Rice — who has since married Palmer — for two games. After criticism, Goodell announced new stiffer penalties for future domestic violence cases. After video of the punch in the casino elevator was released, the Ravens cut Rice and Goodell suspended him indefinitely.League and Ravens officials said they requested the video from law enforcement but were denied. ESPN and others have reported that the Ravens had a detailed description of the video shortly after Rice was arrested.After the AP reported that the video was sent to NFL headquarters, Goodell announced that former FBI Director Robert Mueller would lead an internal investigation. That probe is ongoing, and there is no timetable for its completion.The law enforcement official said he does not want to speak to NFL investigators, and Mueller, who is now in private practice with a Washington law firm with deep ties to the NFL, has no subpoena power. “I know nothing else about this case,” the official said.Former FBI Chief of Staff Aaron Zebley, who is working with Mueller on the investigation, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment.(ROB MAADDI, AP Pro Football Writer)TweetPinShare0 Shares