Know : Genetically Modified Foods : 20 Questions : WHO’s Answers

Must Know: Find the answers to these 20 questions on Genetically Modified Foods by the World Health Organization, (below the video)

1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?
2. Why are GM foods produced?
3. Are GM foods assessed differently from traditional foods?
4. How are the potential risks to human health determined?
5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
6. How is a risk assessment for the environment performed?
7. What are the issues of concern for the environment?
8. Are GM foods safe?
9. How are GM foods regulated nationally?
10. What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?
11. What happens when GM foods are traded internationally?
12. Have GM products on the international market passed a risk assessment?
13. Why has there been concern about GM foods among some politicians, public interest groups and consumers, especially in Europe?
14. How has this concern affected the marketing of GM foods in the European Union?
15. What is the state of public debate on GM foods in other regions of the world?
16. Are people’s reactions related to the different attitudes to food in various regions of the world?
17. Are there implications for the rights of farmers to own their crops?
18. Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence of the chemical industry on agriculture?
19. What further developments can be expected in the area of GMOs?
20. What is WHO doing to improve the evaluation of GM foods?

Note: This documentary is not by WHO, it is from another source.

These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns by a number of WHO Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food.

Q1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species.

Such methods are used to create GM plants – which are then used to grow GM food crops.

Q2. Why are GM foods produced?

GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers so have concentrated on innovations that farmers (and the food industry more generally) would appreciate.

The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that permanently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high.

Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.

Q3. Are GM foods assessed differently from traditional foods?

Generally consumers consider that traditional foods (that have often been eaten for thousands of years) are safe. When new foods are developed by natural methods, some of the existing characteristics of foods can be altered, either in a positive or a negative way National food authorities may be called upon to examine traditional foods, but this is not always the case. Indeed, new plants developed through traditional breeding techniques may not be evaluated rigorously using risk assessment techniques.

With GM foods most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for traditional foods. Hence there is a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.

One of the objectives of the WHO Food Safety Programme is to assist national authorities in the identification of foods that should be subject to risk assessment, including GM foods, and to recommend the correct assessments.

Q4. How are the potential risks to human health determined?

The safety assessment of GM foods generally investigates: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.

Q5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.

Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Feasibility and methods for post-marketing monitoring of GM food products, for the continued surveillance of the safety of GM food products, are under discussion.

Q6. How is a risk assessment for the environment performed?

Environmental risk assessments cover both the GMO concerned and the potential receiving environment. The assessment process includes evaluation of the characteristics of the GMO and its effect and stability in the environment, combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in which the introduction will take place. The assessment also includes unintended effects which could result from the insertion of the new gene.

Q7. What are the issues of concern for the environment?

Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions.

Current investigations focus on: the potentially detrimental effect on beneficial insects or a faster induction of resistant insects; the potential generation of new plant pathogens; the potential detrimental consequences for plant biodiversity and wildlife, and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations; and the movement of herbicide resistance genes to other plants.

Q8. Are GM foods safe?

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.

Q9. How are GM foods regulated nationally?

The way governments have regulated GM foods varies. In some countries GM foods are not yet regulated. Countries which have legislation in place focus primarily on assessment of risks for consumer health. Countries which have provisions for GM foods usually also regulate GMOs in general, taking into account health and environmental risks, as well as control- and trade-related issues (such as potential testing and labelling regimes). In view of the dynamics of the debate on GM foods, legislation is likely to continue to evolve.

Q10. What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?

All GM crops available on the international market today have been designed using one of three basic traits: resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards certain herbicides. All the genes used to modify crops are derived from microorganisms.

Q11. What happens when GM foods are traded internationally?

No specific international regulatory systems are currently in place. However, several international organizations are involved in developing protocols for GMOs.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the joint FAO/WHO body responsible for compiling the standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex Alimentarius: the international food code. Codex is developing principles for the human health risk analysis of GM foods. The premise of these principles dictates a premarket assessment, performed on a case-by-case basis and including an evaluation of both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended effects (that may arise as a consequence of insertion of the new gene). The principles are at an advanced stage of development and are expected to be adopted in July 2003. Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national legislation, but are referred to specifically in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization (SPS Agreement), and can be used as a reference in case of trade disputes.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), an environmental treaty legally binding for its Parties, regulates transboundary movements of living modified organisms (LMOs). GM foods are within the scope of the Protocol only if they contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating genetic material. The cornerstone of the CPB is a requirement that exporters seek consent from importers before the first shipment of LMOs intended for release into the environment. The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after the 50th country has ratified it, which may be in early 2003 in view of the accelerated depositions registered since June 2002.

Q12. Have GM products on the international market passed a risk assessment?

The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed risk assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. These assessments are thorough, they have not indicated any risk to human health.

Q13. Why has there been concern about GM foods among some politicians, public interest groups and consumers, especially in Europe?

Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a major GM food (herbicide-resistant soybeans), there has been increasing concern about such food among politicians, activists and consumers, especially in Europe. Several factors are involved.

In the late 1980s – early 1990s, the results of decades of molecular research reached the public domain. Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the potential of this research. In the case of food, consumers started to wonder about safety because they perceive that modern biotechnology is leading to the creation of new species.

Consumers frequently ask, “what is in it for me?”. Where medicines are concerned, many consumers more readily accept biotechnology as beneficial for their health (e.g. medicines with improved treatment potential). In the case of the first GM foods introduced onto the European market, the products were of no apparent direct benefit to consumers (not cheaper, no increased shelf-life, no better taste). The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per cultivated area should lead to lower prices. However, public attention has focused on the risk side of the risk-benefit equation.

Consumer confidence in the safety of food supplies in Europe has decreased significantly as a result of a number of food scares that took place in the second half of the 1990s that are unrelated to GM foods. This has also had an impact on discussions about the acceptability of GM foods. Consumers have questioned the validity of risk assessments, both with regard to consumer health and environmental risks, focusing in particular on long-term effects. Other topics for debate by consumer organizations have included allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance. Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods, allowing an informed choice. At the same time, it has proved difficult to detect traces of GMOs in foods: this means that very low concentrations often cannot be detected.

Q14. How has this concern affected the marketing of GM foods in the European Union?

The public concerns about GM food and GMOs in general have had a significant impact on the marketing of GM products in the European Union (EU). In fact, they have resulted in the so-called moratorium on approval of GM products to be placed on the market. Marketing of GM food and GMOs in general are the subject of extensive legislation. Community legislation has been in place since the early 1990s. The procedure for approval of the release of GMOs into the environment is rather complex and basically requires agreement between the Member States and the European Commission. Between 1991 and 1998, the marketing of 18 GMOs was authorized in the EU by a Commission decision.

As of October 1998, no further authorizations have been granted and there are currently 12 applications pending. Some Member States have invoked a safeguard clause to temporarily ban the placing on the market in their country of GM maize and oilseed rape products. There are currently nine ongoing cases. Eight of these have been examined by the Scientific Committee on Plants, which in all cases deemed that the information submitted by Member States did not justify their bans.

During the 1990s, the regulatory framework was further extended and refined in response to the legitimate concerns of citizens, consumer organizations and economic operators (described under Question 13). A revised directive will come into force in October 2002. It will update and strengthen the existing rules concerning the process of risk assessment, risk management and decision-making with regard to the release of GMOs into the environment. The new directive also foresees mandatory monitoring of long-term effects associated with the interaction between GMOs and the environment.

Labelling in the EU is mandatory for products derived from modern biotechnology or products containing GM organisms. Legislation also addresses the problem of accidental contamination of conventional food by GM material. It introduces a 1% minimum threshold for DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification, below which labelling is not required.

In 2001, the European Commission adopted two new legislative proposals on GMOs concerning traceability, reinforcing current labelling rules and streamlining the authorization procedure for GMOs in food and feed and for their deliberate release into the environment.

The European Commission is of the opinion that these new proposals, building on existing legislation, aim to address the concerns of Member States and to build consumer confidence in the authorization of GM products. The Commission expects that adoption of these proposals will pave the way for resuming the authorization of new GM products in the EU.

Q15. What is the state of public debate on GM foods in other regions of the world?

The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM foods have resulted in a public debate in many parts of the world. This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader context of other uses of biotechnology (e.g. in human medicine) and their consequences for human societies. Even though the issues under debate are usually very similar (costs and benefits, safety issues), the outcome of the debate differs from country to country. On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer concerns, there is no consensus to date. This has become apparent during discussions within the Codex Alimentarius Commission over the past few years. Despite the lack of consensus on these topics, significant progress has been made on the harmonization of views concerning risk assessment. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is about to adopt principles on premarket risk assessment, and the provisions of the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety also reveal a growing understanding at the international level.

Most recently, the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa has drawn attention to the use of GM food as food aid in emergency situations. A number of governments in the region raised concerns relating to environmental and food safety fears. Although workable solutions have been found for distribution of milled grain in some countries, others have restricted the use of GM food aid and obtained commodities which do not contain GMOs.

Q16. Are people’s reactions related to the different attitudes to food in various regions of the world?

Depending on the region of the world, people often have different attitudes to food. In addition to nutritional value, food often has societal and historical connotations, and in some instances may have religious importance. Technological modification of food and food production can evoke a negative response among consumers, especially in the absence of good communication on risk assessment efforts and cost/benefit evaluations.

Q17. Are there implications for the rights of farmers to own their crops?

Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. Intellectual property rights (IPRs), especially patenting obligations of the TRIPS Agreement (an agreement under the World Trade Organization concerning trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) have been discussed in the light of their consequences on the further availability of a diversity of crops. In the context of the related subject of the use of gene technology in medicine, WHO has reviewed the conflict between IPRs and an equal access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits. The review has considered potential problems of monopolization and doubts about new patent regulations in the field of genetic sequences in human medicine. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.

Q18. Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence of the chemical industry on agriculture?

Certain groups are concerned about what they consider to be an undesirable level of control of seed markets by a few chemical companies. Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity benefit most from the use of a rich variety of crops, both in terms of good crop protection practices as well as from the perspective of society at large and the values attached to food. These groups fear that as a result of the interest of the chemical industry in seed markets, the range of varieties used by farmers may be reduced mainly to GM crops. This would impact on the food basket of a society as well as in the long run on crop protection (for example, with the development of resistance against insect pests and tolerance of certain herbicides). The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farmer dependent on these chemicals. These groups fear a dominant position of the chemical industry in agricultural development, a trend which they do not consider to be sustainable.

Q19. What further developments can be expected in the area of GMOs?

Future GM organisms are likely to include plants with improved disease or drought resistance, crops with increased nutrient levels, fish species with enhanced growth characteristics and plants or animals producing pharmaceutically important proteins such as vaccines. At the international level, the response to new developments can be found in the expert consultations organized by FAO and WHO in 2000 and 2001, and the subsequent work of the Codex ad hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. This work has resulted in an improved and harmonized framework for the risk assessment of GM foods in general. Specific questions, such as the evaluation of allergenicity of GM foods or the safety of foods derived from GM microorganisms, have been covered and an expert consultation organized by FAO and WHO will focus on foods derived from GM animals in 2003.

Q20. What is WHO doing to improve the evaluation of GM foods?

WHO will take an active role in relation to GM foods, primarily for two reasons:

(1) on the grounds that public health could benefit enormously from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient food production; and (2) based on the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification, also at the global level. It is clear that modern technologies must be thoroughly evaluated if they are to constitute a true improvement in the way food is produced. Such evaluations must be holistic and all-inclusive, and cannot stop at the previously separated, non-coherent systems of evaluation focusing solely on human health or environmental effects in isolation.

Work is therefore under way in WHO to present a broader view of the evaluation of GM foods in order to enable the consideration of other important factors. This more holistic evaluation of GM organisms and GM products will consider not only safety but also food security, social and ethical aspects, access and capacity building. International work in this new direction presupposes the involvement of other key international organizations in this area. As a first step, the WHO Executive Board will discuss the content of a WHO report covering this subject in January 2003. The report is being developed in collaboration with other key organizations, notably FAO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It is hoped that this report could form the basis for a future initiative towards a more systematic, coordinated, multi-organizational and international evaluation of certain GM foods.


Courtesy : Anna Kopecky via Youtube, BBC, WHO

Story :) Stock (Monkey) Market Funny Explanation

You might have read this funny story about how stock markets work.

Monkey MarketOnce upon a time in a village, a man appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10/-

The villagers seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest and started catching them. The man bought thousands at $10/- and as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He further announced that he would now buy at $20/- This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again.

Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer rate increased to $25/- and the supply of monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey, let alone catch it! The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on behalf of him.

In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers. Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell it to him for $50/-

The villagers squeezed up with all their savings and bought all the monkeys.

Then they never saw the man nor his assistant, only monkeys everywhere!! !

Welcome to the ‘Stock’ Market!


For More Stories Click Here

 

Know : List of International Airlines Ratings

Beautiful Airlines

Do you know how many airlines have 5 star ratings in the world? Just 7 airlines from China, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Qatar, Singapore, South Korea holds 5 Star Rated Airlines!

The only one airline to hold a single star rating is North Korean Airline. How many Indian Airlines are there?  Find the complete list below.

Airline Rating is based on detailed Quality analysis of more than 800 different items across an airline’s front-line product and staff service standards, applied to the Airport and Cabin Service environments.

Source: Skytrax World Airline Rating is the global airline rating system established in 1999. Skytrax Airline Star Ratings are recognised as a global Benchmark of airline standards, developed with the unique Skytrax expertise and experience of the world airline industry.

*Data Sorted Country-wise

STAR RATING AIRLINE COUNTRY REGION
3 Star Rating Air Algerie Algeria Africa
3 Star Rating TAAG Angola Airlines Angola Africa
3 Star Rating Aerolineas Argentinas Argentina South America
0 Star Rating Armavia Armenia Central Asia
3 Star Rating JetStar Airways Australia Australia/Oceania
4 Star Rating Qantas Airways Australia Australia/Oceania
4 Star Rating Virgin Australia Australia Australia/Oceania
4 Star Rating Austrian Airlines Austria Europe
0 Star Rating Lauda Air Austria Europe
3 Star Rating Azerbaijan Airlines Azerbaijan Europe
3 Star Rating SATA Air Azores Azores Europe
2 Star Rating Bahamasair Bahamas North America
0 Star Rating Bahrain Air Bahrain Middle East
3 Star Rating Gulf Air Bahrain Middle East
2 Star Rating Biman Bangladesh Bangladesh Asia
3 Star Rating Brussels Airlines Belgium Europe
3 Star Rating GOL Linhas Aereas Brazil South America
3 Star Rating TAM Airlines Brazil South America
3 Star Rating Royal Brunei Airlines Brunei Asia
2 Star Rating Bulgaria Air Bulgaria Europe
4 Star Rating Air Canada Canada North America
3 Star Rating Air Transat Canada North America
4 Star Rating Porter Airlines Canada North America
3 Star Rating Westjet Canada North America
3 Star Rating TACV Cabo Verde Airlines Cape Verde Africa
3 Star Rating LAN Airlines Chile South America
3 Star Rating Air China China Asia
3 Star Rating China Eastern Airlines China Asia
4 Star Rating China Southern Airlines China Asia
2 Star Rating China United Airlines China Asia
https://i1.wp.com/www.airlinequality.com/Airlines/5airport.gif Rating Hainan Airlines China Asia
3 Star Rating Juneyao Airlines China Asia
3 Star Rating Okay Airways China Asia
3 Star Rating Shandong Airlines China Asia
3 Star Rating Shanghai Airlines China Asia
3 Star Rating Shenzhen Airlines China Asia
3 Star Rating Sichuan Airlines China Asia
3 Star Rating Spring Airlines China Asia
4 Star Rating Tianjin Airlines China Asia
3 Star Rating Xiamen Airlines China Asia
3 Star Rating Avianca Colombia South America
3 Star Rating Croatia Airlines Croatia Europe
2 Star Rating Cubana Airlines Cuba Central America/Caribbean
3 Star Rating Cyprus Airways Cyprus Europe
3 Star Rating Czech Airlines Czech Republic Europe
2 Star Rating SmartWings Czech Republic Europe
3 Star Rating SAS Scandinavian Airlines Denmark/Norway/Sweden Europe
3 Star Rating Egyptair Egypt Africa
3 Star Rating TACA El Salvador Central America/Caribbean
3 Star Rating Estonian Air Estonia Europe
3 Star Rating Ethiopian Airlines Ethiopian Africa
3 Star Rating Fiji Airways Fiji Australia/Oceania
0 Star Rating Air Finland Finland Europe
0 Star Rating Blue1 Finland Europe
4 Star Rating Finnair Finland Europe
4 Star Rating Air France France Europe
3 Star Rating Air Caraibes French Caribbean Central America/Caribbean
3 Star Rating Gambia Bird Airlines Gambia Africa
3 Star Rating Air Berlin Germany Europe
3 Star Rating Condor Airlines Germany Europe
0 Star Rating Eurowings Germany Europe
3 Star Rating Germanwings Germany Europe
4 Star Rating Lufthansa Germany Europe
3 Star Rating NIKI Germany Europe
3 Star Rating Aegean Airlines Greece Europe
3 Star Rating Olympic Air Greece Europe
https://i1.wp.com/www.airlinequality.com/Airlines/5airport.gif Rating Cathay Pacific Airways Hong Kong Asia
4 Star Rating Dragonair Hong Kong Asia
3 Star Rating Wizz Air Hungary Europe
3 Star Rating Icelandair Iceland Europe
3 Star Rating WOW air Iceland Europe
3 Star Rating Air India India Asia
3 Star Rating Jet Airways India Asia
0 Star Rating Kingfisher Airlines India Asia
4 Star Rating Garuda Indonesia Indonesia Asia
2 Star Rating Lion Air Indonesia Asia
0 Star Rating Merpati Nusantara Airlines Indonesia Asia
3 Star Rating Tigerair Mandala Indonesia Asia
2 Star Rating Iran Air Iran Middle East
2 Star Rating Mahan Air Iran Middle East
3 Star Rating Aer Lingus Ireland Europe
3 Star Rating CityJet Ireland Europe
2 Star Rating Ryanair Ireland Europe
3 Star Rating El Al Israel Airlines Israel Middle East
4 Star Rating Air Dolomiti Italy Europe
2 Star Rating Air Italy Italy Europe
3 Star Rating Alitalia Italy Europe
3 Star Rating Meridiana Italy Europe
https://i1.wp.com/www.airlinequality.com/Airlines/5airport.gif Rating ANA All Nippon Airways Japan Asia
4 Star Rating Japan Airlines Japan Asia
3 Star Rating Royal Jordanian Airlines Jordan Middle East
4 Star Rating Air Astana Kazakhstan Central Asia
3 Star Rating Kenya Airways Kenya Africa
3 Star Rating Jazeera Airways Kuwait Middle East
3 Star Rating Kuwait Airways Kuwait Middle East
3 Star Rating Air Baltic Latvia Europe
3 Star Rating Middle East Airlines Lebanon Middle East
0 Star Rating Afriqiyah Airways Libya Africa
3 Star Rating Luxair Luxembourg Europe
3 Star Rating Air Macau Macau Asia
3 Star Rating AirAsia Malaysia Asia
3 Star Rating AirAsia X Malaysia Asia
https://i1.wp.com/www.airlinequality.com/Airlines/5airport.gif Rating Malaysia Airlines Malaysia Asia
3 Star Rating Air Malta Malta Europe
3 Star Rating Air Mauritius Mauritius Africa
3 Star Rating Aeromexico Mexico North America
3 Star Rating Interjet Mexico North America
3 Star Rating Moldavian Airlines Moldova Europe
3 Star Rating MIAT Mongolian Airlines Mongolia Asia
0 Star Rating Atlas Blue Morocco Africa
3 Star Rating Royal Air Maroc Morocco Africa
3 Star Rating LAM Mozambique Airlines Mozambique Africa
3 Star Rating Air Bagan Myanmar Asia
3 Star Rating Myanmar Airways International Myanmar Asia
3 Star Rating Air Namibia Namibia Africa
2 Star Rating Nepal Airlines Nepal Asia
3 Star Rating Arkefly Netherlands Europe
4 Star Rating KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Netherlands Europe
3 Star Rating Transavia Airlines Netherlands Europe
3 Star Rating Aircalin New Caledonia Australia/Oceania
4 Star Rating Air New Zealand New Zealand Australia/Oceania
3 Star Rating Arik Air Nigeria Africa
1 Star Rating Air Koryo North Korea Asia
3 Star Rating Norwegian Norway Europe
4 Star Rating Oman Air Oman Middle East
3 Star Rating Pakistan International Pakistan Asia
3 Star Rating Copa Airlines Panama Central America/Caribbean
3 Star Rating Air Niugini Papua New Guinea Australia/Oceania
3 Star Rating Cebu Pacific Philippines Asia
3 Star Rating Philippine Airlines Philippines Asia
3 Star Rating LOT Polish Airlines Poland Europe
3 Star Rating TAP Air Portugal Portugal Europe
https://i1.wp.com/www.airlinequality.com/Airlines/5airport.gif Rating Qatar Airways Qatar Middle East
3 Star Rating Tarom Romania Europe
3 Star Rating Aeroflot Russian Airlines Russia Europe
0 Star Rating Avianova Russia Europe
2 Star Rating Rossiya Airlines Russia Europe
3 Star Rating S7 Siberia Airlines Russia Europe
3 Star Rating Transaero Airlines Russia Europe
3 Star Rating Air Austral R�union Africa
3 Star Rating Saudia Arabian Airlines Saudia Arabia Middle East
3 Star Rating Air Serbia Serbia Europe
4 Star Rating Air Seychelles Seychelles Africa
3 Star Rating Jetstar Asia Airways Singapore Asia
3 Star Rating Scoot Singapore Asia
4 Star Rating Silk Air Singapore Asia
https://i1.wp.com/www.airlinequality.com/Airlines/5airport.gif Rating Singapore Airlines Singapore Asia
3 Star Rating Tigerair Singapore Asia
3 Star Rating Adria Airways Slovenia Europe
4 Star Rating South African Airways South Africa Africa
https://i1.wp.com/www.airlinequality.com/Airlines/5airport.gif Rating Asiana Airlines South Korea Asia
4 Star Rating Korean Air South Korea Asia
3 Star Rating Air Europa Spain Europe
3 Star Rating Air Nostrum Spain Europe
3 Star Rating Iberia Spain Europe
3 Star Rating Vueling Airlines Spain Europe
3 Star Rating SriLankan Airlines Sri Lanka Asia
2 Star Rating Sudan Airways Sudan Africa
4 Star Rating Edelweiss Air Switzerland Europe
4 Star Rating Swiss International Air Lines Switzerland Europe
2 Star Rating Syrianair Syria Middle East
3 Star Rating Air Tahiti Nui Tahiti Australia/Oceania
4 Star Rating China Airlines Taiwan Asia
4 Star Rating EVA Airways Taiwan Asia
3 Star Rating Far Eastern Air Transport Taiwan Asia
2 Star Rating Tajik Air Tajikistan Central Asia
4 Star Rating Bangkok Airways Thailand Asia
3 Star Rating Nok Air Thailand Asia
4 Star Rating Thai Airways Thailand Asia
3 Star Rating Caribbean Airlines Trinidad & Tobago Central America/Caribbean
3 Star Rating Tunisair Tunisia Africa
2 Star Rating Onur Air Turkey Europe
2 Star Rating Pegasus Airlines Turkey Europe
4 Star Rating Turkish Airlines Turkey Europe
2 Star Rating Turkmenistan Airlines Turkmenistan Asia
3 Star Rating Air Arabia UAE Middle East
4 Star Rating Emirates UAE Middle East
4 Star Rating Etihad Airways UAE Middle East
0 Star Rating Aerosvit Airlines Ukraine Europe
2 Star Rating Ukraine Int’l Airlines Ukraine Europe
4 Star Rating British Airways United Kingdom Europe
3 Star Rating easyJet United Kingdom Europe
3 Star Rating FlyBe United Kingdom Europe
3 Star Rating Jet2.com United Kingdom Europe
3 Star Rating Monarch Airlines United Kingdom Europe
3 Star Rating Thomas Cook Airlines United Kingdom Europe
4 Star Rating Virgin Atlantic Airways United Kingdom Europe
3 Star Rating Alaska Airlines USA North America
3 Star Rating Allegiant Air USA North America
3 Star Rating American Airlines USA North America
3 Star Rating Delta Air Lines USA North America
3 Star Rating Frontier Airlines USA North America
3 Star Rating Hawaiian Airlines USA North America
4 Star Rating JetBlue Airways USA North America
3 Star Rating Southwest Airlines USA North America
2 Star Rating Spirit Airlines USA North America
3 Star Rating United Airlines USA North America
3 Star Rating US Airways USA North America
4 Star Rating Virgin America USA North America
3 Star Rating Uzbekistan Airways Uzbekistan Central Asia
3 Star Rating Vietnam Airlines Vietnam Asia
2 Star Rating Yemenia Yemen Middle East

Courtesy : Wikipedia and www.airlinequality.com

Disclaimer : We do represent any of the Airlines or brands and we just shared the ratings for educational purposes only.

 

Story : Just Knowing is not Intelligence

Wise JudgementThere was a man who sold hot dogs by the roadside. He was illiterate, so he never read newspapers . He was hard of hearing, so he never listened to the radio. His eyes were weak, so he never watched television. But enthusiastically, he sold lots of hot dogs. His sales and profit went up. He ordered more meat and got himself a bigger and a better stove.

As his business was growing, the son, who had recently graduated from college, joined his father. Then something strange happened. The son asked, “Dad, aren’t you aware of the great recession that is coming our way?” The father replied, “No, but tell me about it.” The son said, “The international situation is terrible. The domestic is even worse. We should be prepared for the coming bad time.”

The man thought that since his son had been to college, read the papers, and listened to the radio, he ought to know and his advice should not be taken lightly. So the next day, the father cut down his order for the meat and buns, took down the sign and was no longer enthusiastic. Very soon, fewer and fewer people bothered to stop at his hot dog stand. And his sales started coming down rapidly.

The father said to his son, “Son, you were right. We are in the middle of a recession. I am glad you warned me ahead of time.”

Author: Unknown


Insights :

  • Many times we confuse knowledge with good judgment.
  • A person may have high knowledge but poor judgment.
  • Choose your advisers carefully and use your judgment.
  • A person can and will be successful with or without formal education if they have the 5 Cs: character, commitment, conviction, courtesy and courage
  • The tragedy is that there are many walking encyclopedias who are living failures.

 

Courtesy: Facebook

Know : Rankings of Countries : Global Innovation Index

The core of the Global Innovation Index Report consists of a ranking of world economies’ innovation capabilities and results. Recognizing the key role of innovation as a driver of economic growth and prosperity, and the need for a broad horizontal vision of innovation applicable to developed and emerging economies, the GII includes indicators that go beyond the traditional measures of innovation such as the level of research and development.

Global Innovation Index

The top-ranked countries in the GII come from different parts of the globe, confirming the global dispersion of innovation. The top 10 this year are ranked as follows:

1. Switzerland (1st in 2012)
2. Sweden (2nd)
3. United Kingdom (5th)
4. Netherlands (6th)
5. United States of America (10th)
6. Finland (4th)
7. Hong Kong (China) (8th)
8. Singapore (3rd)
9. Denmark (7th), and
10. Ireland (9th).

Top GII by region

Complete List of Rankings

Country/Economy Score (0–100) Overall Rank Income  Income Rank Region Regional Rank Efficiency Ratio  Rank
Switzerland 66.59 1 HI 1 EUR 1 1 12
Sweden 61.36 2 HI 2 EUR 2 0.81 55
United Kingdom 61.25 3 HI 3 EUR 3 0.8 60
Netherlands 61.14 4 HI 4 EUR 4 0.91 26
United States of America 60.31 5 HI 5 NAC 1 0.74 86
Finland 59.51 6 HI 6 EUR 5 0.79 67
Hong Kong (China) 59.43 7 HI 7 SEAO 1 0.68 109
Singapore 59.41 8 HI 8 SEAO 2 0.64 121
Denmark 58.34 9 HI 9 EUR 6 0.76 78
Ireland 57.91 10 HI 10 EUR 7 0.81 57
Canada 57.6 11 HI 11 NAC 2 0.78 68
Luxembourg 56.57 12 HI 12 EUR 8 0.89 33
Iceland 56.4 13 HI 13 EUR 9 0.89 30
Israel 55.98 14 HI 14 NAWA 1 0.87 38
Germany 55.83 15 HI 15 EUR 10 0.87 40
Norway 55.64 16 HI 16 EUR 11 0.76 81
New Zealand 54.46 17 HI 17 SEAO 3 0.74 90
Korea Rep. 53.31 18 HI 18 SEAO 4 0.72 95
Australia 53.07 19 HI 19 SEAO 5 0.65 116
France 52.83 20 HI 20 EUR 12 0.79 63
Belgium 52.49 21 HI 21 EUR 13 0.76 75
Japan 52.23 22 HI 22 SEAO 6 0.66 112
Austria 51.87 23 HI 23 EUR 14 0.71 98
Malta 51.79 24 HI 24 EUR 15 1.06 4
Estonia 50.6 25 HI 25 EUR 16 0.82 51
Spain 49.41 26 HI 26 EUR 17 0.71 101
Cyprus 49.32 27 HI 27 NAWA 2 0.86 43
Czech Republic 48.36 28 HI 28 EUR 18 0.81 53
Italy 47.85 29 HI 29 EUR 19 0.79 62
Slovenia 47.32 30 HI 30 EUR 20 0.78 70
Hungary 46.93 31 HI 31 EUR 21 0.94 23
Malaysia 46.92 32 UM 1 SEAO 7 0.81 52
Latvia 45.24 33 UM 2 EUR 22 0.77 74
Portugal 45.1 34 HI 32 EUR 23 0.73 92
China 44.66 35 UM 3 SEAO 8 0.98 14
Slovakia 42.25 36 HI 33 EUR 24 0.75 84
Croatia 41.95 37 HI 34 EUR 25 0.82 50
United Arab Emirates 41.87 38 HI 35 NAWA 3 0.55 133
Costa Rica 41.54 39 UM 4 LCN 1 1.02 9
Lithuania 41.39 40 UM 5 EUR 26 0.69 105
Bulgaria 41.33 41 UM 6 EUR 27 0.88 35
Saudi Arabia 41.21 42 HI 36 NAWA 4 0.8 61
Qatar 41 43 HI 37 NAWA 5 0.71 97
Montenegro 40.95 44 UM 7 EUR 28 0.72 94
Moldova Rep. 40.94 45 LM 1 EUR 29 1.08 2
Chile 40.58 46 UM 8 LCN 2 0.74 88
Barbados 40.48 47 HI 38 LCN 3 0.73 91
Romania 40.33 48 UM 9 EUR 30 0.88 34
Poland 40.12 49 HI 39 EUR 31 0.68 110
Kuwait 40.02 50 HI 40 NAWA 6 1.03 8
TFYR of Macedonia 38.18 51 UM 10 EUR 32 0.72 96
Uruguay 38.08 52 UM 11 LCN 4 0.85 45
Mauritius 38 53 UM 12 SSF 1 0.8 59
Serbia 37.87 54 UM 13 EUR 33 0.82 49
Greece 37.71 55 HI 41 EUR 34 0.65 118
Argentina 37.66 56 UM 14 LCN 5 0.94 20
Thailand 37.63 57 UM 15 SEAO 9 0.76 76
South Africa 37.6 58 UM 16 SSF 2 0.71 99
Armenia 37.59 59 LM 2 NAWA 7 0.86 42
Colombia 37.38 60 UM 17 LCN 6 0.76 79
Jordan 37.3 61 UM 18 NAWA 8 0.77 73
Russian Federation 37.2 62 UM 19 EUR 35 0.7 104
Mexico 36.82 63 UM 20 LCN 7 0.81 56
Brazil 36.33 64 UM 21 LCN 8 0.78 69
Bosnia and Herzegovina 36.24 65 UM 22 EUR 36 0.7 103
India 36.17 66 LM 3 CSA 1 1.02 11
Bahrain 36.13 67 HI 42 NAWA 9 0.62 123
Turkey 36.03 68 UM 23 NAWA 10 0.9 29
Peru 35.96 69 UM 24 LCN 9 0.77 72
Tunisia 35.82 70 UM 25 NAWA 11 0.88 36
Ukraine 35.78 71 LM 4 EUR 37 0.89 31
Mongolia 35.77 72 LM 5 SEAO 10 0.62 122
Georgia 35.56 73 LM 6 NAWA 12 0.71 100
Brunei Darussalam 35.53 74 HI 43 SEAO 11 0.65 119
Lebanon 35.47 75 UM 26 NAWA 13 0.66 114
Viet Nam 34.82 76 LM 7 SEAO 12 0.96 17
Belarus 34.62 77 UM 27 EUR 38 0.75 82
Guyana 34.36 78 LM 8 LCN 10 0.97 15
Dominican Republic 33.28 79 UM 28 LCN 11 0.9 28
Oman 33.25 80 HI 44 NAWA 14 0.54 134
Trinidad and Tobago 33.17 81 HI 45 LCN 12 0.75 85
Jamaica 32.89 82 UM 29 LCN 13 0.79 65
Ecuador 32.83 83 UM 30 LCN 14 0.94 21
Kazakhstan 32.73 84 UM 31 CSA 2 0.61 126
Indonesia 31.95 85 LM 9 SEAO 13 1.04 6
Panama 31.82 86 UM 32 LCN 15 0.61 127
Guatemala 31.46 87 LM 10 LCN 16 0.79 66
El Salvador 31.32 88 LM 11 LCN 17 0.76 80
Uganda 31.21 89 LI 1 SSF 3 0.95 19
Philippines 31.18 90 LM 12 SEAO 14 0.93 24
Botswana 31.14 91 UM 33 SSF 4 0.51 136
Morocco 30.89 92 LM 13 NAWA 15 0.75 83
Albania 30.85 93 LM 14 EUR 39 0.58 129
Ghana 30.6 94 LM 15 SSF 5 0.8 58
Bolivia Plurinational St. 30.48 95 LM 16 LCN 18 0.88 37
Senegal 30.48 96 LM 17 SSF 6 0.95 18
Fiji 30.46 97 LM 18 SEAO 15 0.51 137
Sri Lanka 30.45 98 LM 19 CSA 3 0.99 13
Kenya 30.28 99 LI 2 SSF 7 0.78 71
Paraguay 30.28 100 LM 20 LCN 19 0.82 48
Tajikistan 30 101 LI 3 CSA 4 0.9 27
Belize 29.98 102 LM 21 LCN 20 0.73 93
Cape Verde 29.69 103 LM 22 SSF 8 0.57 130
Swaziland 29.6 104 LM 23 SSF 9 1.06 5
Azerbaijan 28.99 105 UM 34 NAWA 16 0.65 117
Mali 28.84 106 LI 4 SSF 10 1.13 1
Honduras 28.8 107 LM 24 LCN 21 0.66 115
Egypt 28.48 108 LM 25 NAWA 17 0.68 108
Namibia 28.36 109 UM 35 SSF 11 0.48 139
Cambodia 28.07 110 LI 5 SEAO 16 0.87 39
Gabon 28.04 111 UM 36 SSF 12 0.81 54
Rwanda 27.64 112 LI 6 SSF 13 0.64 120
Iran Islamic Rep. 27.3 113 UM 37 CSA 5 0.68 107
Venezuela Bolivarian Rep. 27.25 114 UM 38 LCN 22 1.02 10
Nicaragua 27.1 115 LM 26 LCN 23 0.62 125
Burkina Faso 27.03 116 LI 7 SSF 14 0.79 64
Kyrgyzstan 26.98 117 LI 8 CSA 6 0.56 131
Zambia 26.79 118 LM 27 SSF 15 0.89 32
Malawi 26.73 119 LI 9 SSF 16 0.87 41
Nigeria 26.57 120 LM 28 SSF 17 1.03 7
Mozambique 26.5 121 LI 10 SSF 18 0.67 111
Gambia 26.39 122 LI 11 SSF 19 0.86 44
Tanzania United Rep. 26.35 123 LI 12 SSF 20 0.66 113
Lesotho 26.29 124 LM 29 SSF 21 0.47 140
Cameroon 25.71 125 LM 30 SSF 22 0.84 47
Guinea 25.7 126 LI 13 SSF 23 1.07 3
Benin 25.1 127 LI 14 SSF 24 0.69 106
Nepal 24.97 128 LI 15 CSA 7 0.76 77
Ethiopia 24.8 129 LI 16 SSF 25 0.74 87
Bangladesh 24.52 130 LI 17 CSA 8 0.84 46
Niger 24.03 131 LI 18 SSF 26 0.71 102
Zimbabwe 23.98 132 LI 19 SSF 27 0.91 25
Uzbekistan 23.87 133 LM 31 CSA 9 0.52 135
Syrian Arab Republic 23.73 134 LM 32 NAWA 18 0.45 142
Angola 23.46 135 UM 39 SSF 28 0.94 22
Côte d’Ivoire 23.42 136 LM 33 SSF 29 0.74 89
Pakistan 23.33 137 LM 34 CSA 10 0.97 16
Algeria 23.11 138 UM 40 NAWA 19 0.46 141
Togo 23.04 139 LI 20 SSF 30 0.56 132
Madagascar 22.95 140 LI 21 SSF 31 0.59 128
Sudan 19.81 141 LM 35 SSF 32 0.49 138
Yemen 19.32 142 LM 36 NAWA 20 0.62 124

Note: World Bank Income Group Classification (July 2012): LI = low income; LM = lower-middle income; UM = upper-middle income; and HI = high income. Regions are based on the United Nations Classification (11 February 2013): EUR = Europe; NAC = Northern America; LCN = Latin America and the Caribbean; CSA = Central and Southern Asia; SEAO = South East Asia and Oceania; NAWA = Northern Africa and Western Asia; and SSF = Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Global Innovation Index 2013 (GII), in its 6th edition this year, is co-published by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, a specialized agency of the United Nations).


Courtesy: Wikipedia and www.globalinnovationindex.org