fbpx

Month: February 2020

Un nouveau classement européen étrille l’accueil dans les gares françaises

L’Agence pour le choix du consommateur (Consumer Choice Center) a lancé aujourd’hui son indice des gares européennes, afin d’informer les consommateurs et les opérateurs sur les infrastructures qui font le meilleur travail en matière d’accueil des passagers. Les gares françaises sont loin des premières places…

Le Consumer Choice Center a classé les 50 gares les plus utilisée d’Europe (en nombre de passagers) en fonction de leur convivialité, en termes de praticité et de confort. Les cinq premières gares selon l’indice sont Londres St. Pancras, Zurich, Leipzig, Roma Termini et Munich. Elles sont suivies par Hambourg, Berlin, Milan, Francfort et Moscou. La première gare française est Paris Gare de Lyon …à la 17ème place. Paris-Magenta occupe la dernière place du classement.

« Londres St. Pancras ne ressemble pas seulement à une gare d’un autre monde, elle est également en tête de cet indice en tant que meilleure gare ferroviaire d’Europe. En général, l’Allemagne et l’Italie sont en tête en Europe. La moitié des dix meilleures gares d’Europe se trouvent en Allemagne et deux en Italie. Pas une seule gare française ne figure dans le top 10« , souligne Fred Roeder, directeur général du Consumer Choice Center.

« Comme tout voyageur le sait aux heures de pointe, de nombreuses gares sont confrontées au maximum de leur capacité, et cette expérience se répercute sur tous ceux qui prennent le train. Les points les plus élevés ont été attribués aux gares qui offraient de superbes destinations à travers le continent, mais aussi un mélange sain de boutiques, de restaurants et de commodités que l’on trouve dans la gare. Nous avons également récompensé les gares qui connaissent le plus faible nombre de jours de grève, ce que les passagers de nombreux pays ne pouvaient que souhaiter» a poursuivi Fred Roeder.

D’autres facteurs ont été pris en compte dans le classement, notamment l’accessibilité pour les passagers en fauteuil roulant, l’existence de salons ou encore la disponibilité de VTC. La liste complète est accessible en cliquant ici


Originally published here.

Zürcher HB zum zweitbesten Bahnhof Europas gekürt

Der European Railway Station Index zeichnet die Passagier-freundlichsten Bahnhöfe Europas aus. Auf Platz zwei hat es der Hauptbahnhof Zürich geschafft.

In Zeiten, in denen die Zug-Reisen immer attraktiver werden, kürt das Consumer Choice Center den besten Bahnhof Europas. Im Fokus standen bei der erstmaligen Wahl die 50 grössten Bahnhöfe in Europa. Der Gewinner 2020 kommt aus London. Die Schweiz landet mit dem Zürcher HB auf dem zweiten Platz.

Passagierfreundlichkeit, Sauberkeit und erreichbare Destinationen

Bewertet wurde insbesondere Faktoren rund um die Passagierfreundlichkeit. Die Menschenmengen auf dem Bahnsteig sowie die Anzahl angeschlossener Destinationen und die Sauberkeit waren dabei Kriterien. Auch die Anzahl Restaurants, Einkaufsmöglichkeiten und Streiktage flossen in die Bewertungen ein.

Zusammengetragen wurden die Informationen über Anfragen, Bahnhofswebsites und Online-Statistiken. Natürlich forschte das Consumer Choice Center auch selbst an den jeweiligen Bahnhöfen nach.

Nordeuropa dominiert die Top 10

Als erstmaliger Gewinner ging der St. Pancras International Bahnhof in London mit 116 Punkten aus dem Rennen. Die tiefe Anzahl an Streiktagen, hohe Kundenzufriedenheit und guter internationaler Anschluss zeichnen den Gewinner aus, so die Begründung. Auf Platz zwei folgt der Zürcher HB mit 111 Punkten und der Bahnhof in Leipzig mit 110 Punkten.

Unter den Top 10 sind bis auf zwei Ausnahmen nur Bahnhöfe Nordeuropas zu finden. Einzig der Hauptbahnhof in Rom und jener in Milano vertreten Südeuropa im Ranking.

Deutschland ist gut vertreten

Es sticht zudem heraus, dass fünf der besten zehn aus Deutschland kommen. Gemäss Auswertung bestechen Leipzig, München, Hamburg, Berlin und Frankfurt mit wenigen Streiktagen und gutem Anschluss für Menschen im Rollstuhl.


Originally published here.

To fight severe coronavirus disease and even ageing, make metformin an OTC drug, now!

This is a post by a Guest Author
Disclaimer: The author’s views are entirely his or her own, and don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of the Consumer Choice Center.


For more than a month now, the COVID-19 epidemic that struck China and risks spreading globally has understandably captured the attention of much of the world. While apparently less fatal than its close relative SARS, COVID-19 is much more easily spread and, like the former, capable of causing severe lung pathology and aberrant immune responses that kill 1–3% of the patients and probably cause serious disability in those with severe illness who recover.

As Zumla et al. note in the recent Lancet piece, much of the response so far has understandably been aimed at arresting the spread of the disease from central China, however, this should not undermine the urgency of developing treatments against it, especially its severe form. While Gilead’s novel anti-Ebola drug remdesivir has shown glimpses of promise against COVID-19 and could even see mass production in China in generic form, according to Zumla et al., there is another, extremely cheap and widely available drug that could potentially help those that need help the most. The drug in question is the wonder-drug against diabetes type II, metformin:

Specific drugs to treat 2019-nCoV will take several years to develop and evaluate. In the meantime, a range of existing host-directed therapies that have proven to be safe could potentially be repurposed to treat 2019-nCoV infection. Several marketed drugs with excellent safety profiles such as metformin, glitazones, fibrates, sartans, and atorvastin, as well as nutrient supplements and biologics could reduce immunopathology, boost immune responses, and prevent or curb ARDS [acute respiratory distress syndrome — D.G.].

Thus, even though metformin is not a direct treatment for the Wuhan coronavirus itself, it is quite possibly a means of preventing severe, potentially fatal complications in the already infected people, which is a significant benefit, in my book.

There is even more to this drug, however, than its role in treating diabetes and potentially helping save people with COVID-19.

Basic facts and history of metformin

Metformin is the most widely used treatment against diabetes type II. As David Sinclair, tells us, “Metformin is a derivative of a natural molecule called a “biguanide,” from a flower called Galega officinalis, also known as “goat’s rue” or “French lilac.” It has been used as a herbal medicine in Europe for centuries. In 1957, Frenchman Jean Sterne published a paper demonstrating the effectiveness of oral dimethyl biguanide to treat type 2 diabetes. Since then, the drug has become one of the most widely taken and effective medicines on the globe.” Metformin’s mechanism of action in diabetes is through decreasing glucose production in the liver.

It is one of the cheapest medicines and is universally considered as highly safe and effective, and only causes the severe complication of lactic acidosis in a small proportion of users, usually those with impaired renal and (or) hepatic function. Some researchers think that it may actually not cause lactic acidosis at all.

Metformin, ageing and diseases of ageing

Even though the exact mechanism of how metformin might slow down ageing is not well-understood, it has been known at least since 2002 that its administration activates the AMPK pathway, at least in the human skeletal muscle cells of type II diabetics.

The most fascinating hint that metformin could have significant anti-ageing benefits in humans has been provided by the recent study conducted by Bannister et al. In it, they compared the mortality of British diabetics who were prescribed metformin to those who were prescribed another drug and that of non-diabetics. Astonishingly, the results suggest that people taking metformin could live longer than even non-diabetics, even though diabetes is supposed to be a systemic, debilitating disease.

Another extremely impressive result that directly relates to humans comes from the study in which metformin was one of the three drugs administered to nine volunteers for a year (the other two were human growth hormone and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)). Astonishingly, the volunteers have shown signs of reversal of their epigenetic age as measured by their epigenetic clocks (by on average 2.5 years).

Finally, metformin is a potential drug candidate against several severe particular pathologies of ageing such as Alzheimer’ssome cancersheart diseasechronic inflammation and leaky gut. Even outside aging, it could help treat debilitating conditions like inflammatory bowel disease.

Metformin’s restricted status is a global disgrace

The fact that metformin could help save people struck by severe Wuhan coronavirus disease, that it could prolong people’s lives and make them better able to benefit from more revolutionary anti-ageing treatments down the road, while being safe for the vast majority of people makes it astonishing, jaw-dropping, if you will, that there is apparently only one country in the world where it is officially available over-the-counter — Thailand.

To say that this situation is outrageous would be a severe understatement. There is no remotely reasonable justification under any possible risk model to continue classifying metformin as a prescription drug. The only plausible result of doing that is massive suffering and premature deaths. Public health authorities all over the world must follow the example of Thailand and release metformin over the counter.

The World Health Organization (WHO) must play its role, too. It lists metformin among the world’s essential medicines but the best possible way of ensuring access to it, if it is so sorely needed and safe, is to make it an OTC drug. It should call upon countries to do just that. The WHO’s position on ageing also needs to be thoroughly revised. Its current approach is to promote something called “healthy ageing.” It should lead in recognizing that ageing is a pathology, and the one that causes the most suffering at that. Ageing cannot be healthy by definition.

Recognizing ageing as the pathology it is would quickly pave the way to making drugs like metformin available to everyone who would like to try to prolong their lives.

Guest post by Daniil Gorbatenko.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

La taxe digitale est mauvaise pour les consommateurs

Le Royaume-Uni a annoncé pendant le Forum économique mondial à Davos qu’elle va introduire une taxe digitale. Depuis trois ans, l’Union européenne (UE) discute d’une proposition similaire pour le reste du continent. Les États Unis soulèvent la question de l’équité au niveau des échanges commerciaux, et le Grand-Duché propose de trouver une solution à l’échelle de l’OCDE. Avant tout par contre, la taxe digitale (ou taxe GAFA) est mauvaise pour les consommateurs.

Le concept de la taxe digitale date de moins de cinq ans. Le concept est celui que dans un aspect de justice sociale, il ne serait pas acceptable que les grandes entreprises du net ne paient pas leurs impôts. Une taxe digitale fera en sorte de remédier à cette injustice — et pourra aussi remplir les trésoreries des États avec de nouvelles recettes.

Le ministre des finances français, Bruno Le Maire, avait commencé à l’automne de l’année 2017 à s’orienter vers ce qui était alors connu sous le nom de «taxe numérique». Le Maire avait mené une campagne primaire de centre droit pour le parti républicain français, en tant que conservateur fiscal. Tout de même, il semble avoir trouvé le social-démocrate en lui depuis qu’il a rejoint le gouvernement d’Emmanuel Macron. Qualifiant cette situation de «question de justice», Le Maire a appelé à l’unité européenne sur la matière de cette taxe digitale. Pendant la présidence estonienne de l’Union européenne, il a réuni les ministres des Finances pour obtenir un soutien.

Cependant, les ministres du Danemark, de la Suède, de Malte et de l’Irlande ont rapidement manifesté leur opposition. Certains critiques ont fait valoir que cette mesure pourrait être considérée comme une punition des entreprises américaines, car la plupart des entreprises concernées seraient américaines.

Ces pays n’avaient pas tort : Donald Trump a clairement indiqué qu’une taxe digitale sera considérée comme mesure protectionniste par Washington, et aura des conséquences en matière de politique commerciale. Le débat sur les droits de douane sur le vin français, qui date de l’été de l’année dernière, était une conséquence de l’introduction de la taxe digitale (dite taxe GAFA) en France.

Le Luxembourg a abandonné le camp de ceux qui s’opposent à la poursuite cette taxe, et propose plutôt de négocier au niveau de l’OCDE. Est-ce que le gouvernement oppose toujours la taxe, et la proposition OCDE est en connaissance du fait que les États-Unis ne donneront jamais leur accord, ou estce que le Luxembourg va ultimement soutenir la proposition de la Commission européenne ? Le temps nous le dira.

Il est difficile de donner un sens à ce débat – et aux propositions concrètes. Pour commencer, la Commission européenne ne précise pas ce qui fait qu’une entreprise est numérique, et encore moins où tracer une ligne entre les modèles économiques plus numériques, moins numériques ou non numériques. De plus, elle reste ouverte sur ce qui relève exactement d’une taxe sur les revenus numériques. En effet, le groupe de l’OCDE sur l’économie numérique, qui s’est penché sur cette même question pendant plus de 2 ans, a conclu qu’il était en fait impossible de mettre une clôture autour de l’»économie numérique». L’opposition de l’Allemagne – qui a bloqué l’avance de cette taxe pendant les trois dernières années – n’est ainsi pas seulement une réaction de peur face à Donald Trump, mais aussi une réaction informée.

Les données financières passées et récentes révèlent que les niveaux de rentabilité sont très divers pour les entreprises numériques, moins numériques et non numériques. Les données du monde réel montrent également que les secteurs traditionnels comptent un grand nombre d’entreprises traditionnelles très rentables. Dans le même temps, ce sont les entreprises numériques qui affichent les taux d’imposition effectifs les plus élevés – et non les entreprises traditionnelles. En outre, les données concernant les taux effectifs d’imposition des sociétés suggèrent qu’il n’y a pas de différence systématique entre les impôts sur le revenu payés par les sociétés numériques et ceux payés par leurs homologues traditionnelles.

Comme d’autres taxes, l’impact d’une «taxe numérique» sur les revenus des entreprises numériques se répercuterait sur les activités commerciales moins numériques dans l’UE et ailleurs, affectant ainsi l’emploi et les recettes fiscales des entreprises numériques comme les PME ainsi que les taxes sur les revenus personnels générés dans les industries numériques et moins numériques de l’UE. Avant tout, une taxe numérique est aussi une taxe sur la consommation de leurs produits.

Très souvent, l’augmentation des impôts indirects implique inévitablement une augmentation des prix pour les consommateurs sur le continent européen. La TVA a longtemps été reconnue comme la taxe qui affecte le plus durement les plus pauvres. Il semble cruel de restreindre leur pouvoir d’achat à un moment où les personnes à faible revenu en particulier peuvent avoir un accès plus simple à de nombreux produits grâce à l’Internet.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Level the cannabis ingesting field by legalizing consumption in commercial spaces

Basements and garages were once the only places you could consume cannabis in peace. But now, if the provincial consultation process advances the interests of consumers, millions of Ontario residents will be able to try some forms of the newly legal substance in licensed commercial settings, including bars, lounges and outdoor festivals. One caveat to this development is that the province will not revise the Smoke Free Ontario Act, so only ingesting cannabis products, not smoking them, will be considered for enclosed public spaces.

By significantly increasing consumer choice, moving forward with commercial consumption would be a big win for cannabis consumers in Ontario. This move would bring cannabis regulation closer to alcohol regulation, a big improvement over current “lock-and-key” cannabis rules. More importantly, this would elevate the legal market over the illegal market by giving consumers something the black market never could: a legal and controlled place to consume.

That said, the specifics of how Ontario regulates consumption are key. Edibles and beverages should be available in any restaurant, bar, or clubs currently licensed to sell alcohol, as well as in stand-alone establishments dedicated solely to cannabis consumption. Ready access to legal consuming space is what can ultimately make the legal market more attractive than the alternative. The black market has always had various forms of edible cannabis available for sale but it has never offered a controlled and legal place for users to ingest or consume it. By liberalizing where it allows cannabis consumption the Ontario government can empower the legal and regulated market at the expense of illicit trade.

There are those who say cannabis and alcohol shouldn’t be mixed, and such behaviour shouldn’t be encouraged by allowing their sale in the same places. It’s true: people shouldn’t mix cannabis and alcohol. But that doesn’t mean these products shouldn’t be made available alongside each other, subject to appropriate regulation. Provincial certification programs could train servers both in the risks of combining alcohol and cannabis and in how to avoid abuse where possible. We already trust certified servers to understand the harms of alcohol intoxication and to cut customers off when they are intoxicated. It is not unreasonable to believe they can help enforce responsible consumption of cannabis.

In addition to commercial consumption, the province is also considering a special occasions permit (SOP) to accommodate cannabis consumption at concerts and outdoor festivals, to be used either separately or alongside an alcohol SOP. This should be reasonably simple to implement. Festivals would be able to offer their adult attendees a wider range of products, thus benefiting both vendors and future customers. As to smoking or vaping cannabis, festivals would be well within their rights to allow this in roped-off or age-restricted areas or wherever they currently allow tobacco use. Edibles and beverages could be sold alongside alcohol so long as the servers have the proper certification.

How do municipalities fit in? Ontario made the huge mistake of giving local city councillors veto rights on cannabis retail within their city limits. A city or town that opts out of cannabis retail obviously doesn’t mean consumers in those cities and towns can’t buy cannabis. It just pushes them back into the illegal market, which is precisely what we want to avoid.

Ontario should not make the same mistake with consumption. If a restaurant, bar, club or lounge can meet the provincial licensing required to sell edibles and beverages, it should be free to do so without busybody city councillors intruding into their business.

Green-lighting commercial cannabis consumption is the right thing to do. But the province must get it right. Competitive and consumer-friendly policies for commercial consumption would give consumers greater choice and convenience and help put a dent in the still-prevalent black market.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The Myth of the Vaping Crisis is Sparking a New War on Flavored Nicotine Products – And That Harms Consumers

Washington, D.C. – In the lull after impeachment, members of the U.S. House are pushing a bill to eradicate entire categories of flavored nicotine products.

This sweeping ban would target menthol tobacco, flavored cigars, snus, and vaping products.

Yaël Ossowski, Consumer Choice Center Deputy Director, said “The goal is to significantly reduce or eliminate youth use of these products, which is a noble pursuit. But unfortunately, the proposed bill would fall short.

“The proposed law comes in the wake of the much-hyped “vaping crisis” that transpired over the summer, in which thousands of individuals suffered lung damage from inhaling vapor products.

“In the end, the culprit was revealed to be illegal cannabis vaping cartridges loaded with Vitamin E acetate and not nicotine vaping products, according to the Centers for Disease Control,” said Ossowski.

“Despite those facts, the bill uses the debunked narrative on vaping to push a ban on unrelated items such as flavored cigars and smokeless products, and would outlaw menthol products that are used primarily in minority communities.

“This comes as both youth and adult-use of tobacco are at an all-time low. New harm-reducing technologies and education are already bringing down the use of tobacco in our country, and this bill does nothing but chase ghosts and punish responsible adult consumers,” said Ossowski.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

February 2020

Leap year: take a leap for Consumer Choice

Dear Friend of Consumer Choice!

It’s February, but this year it’s a little bit more special: 2020 is a leap year, which means that the shortest month of the year just got an extra day!

Customarily on leap years, and especially on leap day, we are challenged to take a leap ourselves. What’s the one thing we could all use more of? Money? Probably. Fun?  Sure. Time? Absolutely.  We could all use more hours in the day.  Every four years we kind of get our wish and are given the rare February 29th, a calendar anomaly and the time equivalent of found money: found time. Make the most of your extra day and do something special, fun, different, daring, brave, spontaneous, unexpected. Take a leap! 

Here are our latest updates and what the Consumer Choice Center team is doing with our extra time:

Changing policies and winning in Brazil

Excellent News for Brazilians: The telco regulator Anatel announced that vertical integration of foreign-owned PayTV and Streaming Companies are legal – What this means: Services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, but also traditional PayTV can continue offering their wide content to Brazilians.

This is the positive end of a 9 months campaign my Brazilian colleagues lead to allow choice and innovation in the Brazilian entertainment content market!

We are very proud of Andre Freo, Bia Nobrega, Ivanildo Santos Terceiro, Andrea Giuricin, and everyone else who helped to make this campaign a success. The Consumer Choice Center is delighted about this victory and we are confident that our campaign, reaching nearly 4 million consumers and meeting over 25 policymakers, has helped to get to this positive outcome.


Talking green farming using GMOs in London

On February 3rd, the Consumer Choice Center joined the Genetic Literacy Project and the British Conservation Alliance at the Adam Smith Institute in London to discuss “The Future of Food in a Climate-Changing World“. The event had over 60 attendees.

To learn more about Why GMO and Gene Edited Crops are more sustainable than Organic Farming, click here.


Leading the Cannabis Revolution in Davos

On January 23rd, we hosted our second Cannabis Conclave in Davos, Switzerland with over 100 attendees. It was a great event, with lots of social media echo and media hits. Thank you all who joined us over 1,500 meters above sea level to advance the legalization discussion internationally, for both medical and recreational cannabis.

You can listen to the Rebels of Davos special radio recording in Davos by Yaël Ossowski and David Clement here.


Launching the First Gene Editing Regulation Index

We launched in partnership with the Genetic Literacy Project the first Gene Editing Regulation Index. The index illustrates the existing differences in regulation for gene editing in plants, animals and humans and the frameworks for gene drives. It was created to help journalists, regulators, and policy-makers understand how their actions can help or stifle innovation. 

Our job as advocates for choice and science will continue to be making the case for the innovation principle – allowing scientists and scientific agencies to make determinations of efficacy and safety, and not being at the mercy of the theatre of our broken political process.

Where does your country stand? Find out here.


Going to LibertyCon Madrid

We are pleased to announce that we will be joining the Students for Liberty at the amazing LibertyCon in Madrid on March 7th.

Less than 14% of U.S. adults are now smokers, the lowest rate ever recorded. To talk about that and other Myths and Facts on Vaping, our Managing Director Fred Roeder and our Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski will be hosting a panel discussion on the topic of Harm Reduction.

Our European Affairs Associate, Maria Chaplia will also be at LibertyCon, joining a very interesting panel on feminism to talk about gender neutrality in trade agreements.

Don’t have tickets yet? Sign-up now for exclusive access to the latest ticket offer here.


Talking about Ridesharing Victory in British Columbia

The Uber battle in British Columbia continues. The provincial (FINALLY!) approved Uber, and Yaël Ossowski discusses with David Clement about Mobility in BC in the Consumer Choice Radio. 

Listen to the Consumer Choice Radio here.


Growing our team in Brazil

We are pleased to announce the newest member of the Consumer Choice Center branch in Brazil, Beatriz Nobrega.

As Brazilian Affairs Associate, she will help us spread the word of Consumer Choice in Brasilia. 

You can welcome her to the team here.


As you can see, we are using our leap year to advocate and push consumer choice in 2020. As always, you can help support our work by making a small donation or becoming a member! Please consider supporting consumer choice around the world.

Stay tuned for our spring updates and please keep supporting our work on Social Media!


Fabio Fernandes

Digital identity verification could present big opportunities for Ontario — but big risks, too

A proposed overhaul of Ontario’s justice system could set the province on track toward digital identity verification, the attorney general has hinted. 

Bill 161 would include changes to the Notaries Act to “allow for remote or virtual commissioning and notarization online.” Although the change would only happen “once appropriate data and privacy safeguards are put into place by regulation,” Attorney General Doug Downey indicated in a December interview with Law Times that he was interested in hearing feedback from the legal profession and examining what other jurisdictions are doing for “paving the way for online document verification and signing” in real estate and wills. 

When Downey announced the proposed changes to the Notaries Act, he cited David Clement, North American affairs manager at the Consumer Choice Center, who said it “makes the system more consumer friendly and more responsive.” Lena Koke, CEO and co-Founder of Axess Law, is also quoted by the office of the attorney general.

“This bill is a breakthrough needed to modernize Ontario’s legal system. Permitting online verification of an individual’s identity and legal documents will level the legal services playing field for all Ontarians,” she said in the press release. “No matter where a person lives, when they work, or what mobility or ability challenges they may face, they will soon be able to access the same high-quality legal services that are easily accessible in urban centres across Ontario.”

Downey’s announcement comes as companies like Oakville’s FCT — a title insurer and real estate services provider — team up with Toronto-based SecureKey Technologies for identity verification. SecureKey is best known for Verified.Me, which cross-checks traditional IDs, such as drivers’ licenses, with other secure services like banking records, without revealing any of the information to the third party.

The result, says SecureKey CEO Greg Wolfond, is more secure than simply checking a single form of ID. He says that the bar set by Verified.Me is appropriately high, given the importance and speed needed for big deals like mortgage transactions.

“I could do identity validation just by scanning a driver’s license and digital verification of the driver’s license. And I think that’s going to move us towards digital, faster, for sure. But it’s going to move us to fraud much, much faster. It’s not hard for someone to make a fake copy of a piece of plastic that is in their wallet,” he says.

“So how do we find a way to keep our consumer safer, where they can go places to share who they are and be trusted, but also make it harder for the bad guy to impersonate our customers? . . . . The existing system, I would say, is broken.” 

Wolfond notes that real estate scammers, in particular, are known to try and dupe lawyers, making it vital that the province use strong identity verification if the process moves online.  About 27.8 per cent of LawPro claims in 2018 were real-estate related, second only to litigation claims in volume.

“The problem with the old way of doing things is, number one, it puts a lot of burden on society. It takes a lot of time. It’s expensive, and it’s slow. And at the same time, susceptible to fraud,” he says. “And law firms today are already dealing with that . .  . . that’s costing lawyers and law firms and trusts, and it’s costing them real dollars.” 

Wolfond says Notarius is another type of service that’s been adopted by some legal groups, including the Law Society of Alberta and Chambre des huissiers de justice du Québec. The company claims to “ensure the legal reliability of an electronic document and confirm the identity and professional status of the signatory at the time of signing.” 

Either way, says Wolfond, multi-factor authentication of some sort is key.

“This is a really good idea, and we should do it,” he says of online verification. “My concern is, we have to do it right.”

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Why are juries awarding millions of dollars based on shoddy baby powder science?

There’s something amiss in our nation’s courts.

Just last week, a New Jersey jury awarded $750 million to four people who claimed baby powder products made by Johnson & Johnson had contributed to their cancer diagnoses.

In the end, that amount will actually be reduced to $186 million, a feature of New Jersey law that caps award amounts to five times the damages declared by previous rulings.

What’s amiss in this ruling is just how much the jury verdicts stray from actual scientific opinion.

Plaintiffs and their attorneys claim the company has knowingly sold asbestos-tainted talc in its baby powder for years, even though scientific studies have yet to prove a definite link between modern-day talc and any cancers.

The same has been echoed by the American Cancer Society, and the same conclusion was reached by a wide-ranging 2014 study published in the Journal of National Cancer Research Institute.

Last month, the largest-ever study on baby powder and talc was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It followed 250,000 women who used the product and found “there was not a statistically significant association” between using baby powder and any link to ovarian or other cancers.

Why, then, would the juries have sided against the science?

In the last verdict in a similar case, a St. Louis jury sided with Johnson & Johnson, finding no proof in the cases furthered by plaintiffs.

Others, though, have delivered record awards. But why?

It’s a combination of ambitious tort lawyers and misleading journalism.

Tort Lawyers and the Long Legal Pursuit

In the trial mentioned above, and in other cases I profiled in my article in the Miami Herald, attorneys specializing in injury cases have elevated what would otherwise be an open-shut case based on science to become a cause célèbre based on penalizing a large company with a familiar brand.

Indeed, the lawyers who argued this case against Johnson & Johnson made the company’s global revenue and its CEO’s compensation the baseline for compensation. It was the first trial in which J&J Chief Executive Alex Gorsky testified before a court.

In his final words to the jury, Panatier made it clear that the focus of their verdict should be on Johnson & Johnson’s conduct. “So when you think about the punitive damages, what number punishes and deters them, you’ve got to think in Johnson & Johnson terms,” he said, noting that Johnson & Johnson was a “$60 billion company.” “And you can make them pay attention. And that is an immense responsibility and it is an immense, immense task that you’ll have to try amongst the 10 of you to determine what that number should be.”

New Jersey Law Journal

What was missing from their core argument was any definitive proof that the plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos from the talc in the baby powder – or that this is how they contracted mesothelioma, a specific lung cancer.

An analysis provided by FDA and mineral experts last week could only conclude that the mineral products in question are likely too small to be adequately tested, and thus new testing would be required.

But again, that conclusion does not negate the various and recent studies that have found no connection between the baby powder and cancer.

Despite that, it hasn’t stopped leagues of injury lawyers from lining up to take their shot at winning a multi-million dollar verdict. More than 16,000 class-action plaintiffs have been assembled to sue the company in other jurisdictions.

The interest of injury lawyers, who receive sometimes up to 40% or more of the winnings, is quite clear.

Media Malpractice?

When it comes to reporting on the facts of these trials, the science is often downplayed in favor of convincing legal arguments and sensationalist headlines.

For news outlets such as Reuters and the New York Times, the decades of scientific studies are often overlooked – or at the very worst, neglected.

An oft-cited example is on the company’s cautious recall of thousands of baby powder products in October. But further tests concluded none of the batches of the company’s baby powder contained asbestos, a fact admitted by Reuters.

Most internal J&J asbestos test reports Reuters reviewed do not find asbestos. However, while J&J’s testing methods improved over time, they have always had limitations that allow trace contaminants to go undetected – and only a tiny fraction of the company’s talc is tested.

Reuters

As such, it’s difficult to prove what so many lawsuits and investigative allege. Not enough for scientific analysis, but maybe enough for a courtroom and a few headlines. Herein lies the issue.

In the reports of the baby powder cases, these products and cancer are too casually linked. At least according to the studies we have provided to us.

For real understanding about what’s in the products we use and consume, it’s best to adhere to the studies and academic literature. Of course, no one wants to use anything that could prove harmful to them, and consumers should always be wary.

But, in that case, shouldn’t we look to science for those answers rather than 12 men and women sitting in a jury box? Shouldn’t that be the standard we employ for all of the important health issues of our time?

That, along with many other reasons, is why we need true legal reform in this country. We cannot afford to allow real science to be voted away in jury boxes and courtrooms.

East Africa’s #Locust plague shows we need an honest conversation about Pesticides

Devastating locust plague has hit East Africa, with swarms of insects covering an area the size of Moscow. In desperation towards this pest, farmers and police in countries like Kenya and Ethiopia are using every tool available, ranging from pesticides to flamethrowers and even machine guns. Their desperation is real and justified: with large amounts of crops eaten by the hungry insect, the entire region could see a life-threatening food security disaster

The invention of pesticides has solved this problem in practically every other region of the world, and officials should be keen to look to technology, not flamethrowers to deal with this.

These types of pests have previously hit other areas of the world.

In 2015, such a scourge reached Russia, causing the destruction of 10% of its crops after a monstrous attack by thousands of locusts. Standing by their fields, farmers were ruined and desperate. Their losses were enormous. Later, consumers faced rising prices, hitting low-income households the hardest.

Through pesticides, however, modern chemistry has given us the tools to defend ourselves against plagues on our fields and in our cities. Instead of losing a large part of our yields of crops, these products have guaranteed us greater food security. That should be championed.

But in today’s mantra, pesticides are considered undesirable. It goes without saying that a pesticide requires professional and precise use, and certainly not all farmers have been equally rigorous. The general demonisation of all pesticide use has thus failed to deliver an intelligent or even environmentally friendly policy.

Abandoning the use of pesticides completely has ruinous effects.

Over in the Netherlands, the Pest Advice and Knowledge Centre warns in major newspapers that new rat infestations are imminent as the country prepares to restrict the use of rat poison from 2023 onwards. It has already been banned in outdoor areas, but now indoor use will also be banned, as RTL Nieuws reports.

The rat invasion in Paris tells a similar story. In January 2018, the government launched a 1.7 million euro anti-rat campaign to reduce the number of disease-ridden rodents. A total of 4,950 anti-rat operations took place between January 2018 and July 2018 compared to 1,700 the previous year. Not only have these efforts failed, they have also fallen short of appeasing those who desire no human effect on the environment around us. An online petition denouncing the “rat genocide” and calling for an end to the exterminations was widely circulated. It collected 26,000 signatures.

But we cannot allow a rat infestation. If we strive for healthy cities, we cannot have our homes and streets “shared” with rats. Otherwise the consequences of our inaction will lead to considerable health problems. The same applies to other species.

A study by researchers in Biology Letters, including French researcher Céline Bellard PhD, showed in 2016 that alien or invasive species are the “second most common threat” associated with the extinction of animals and wildlife since AD 1500. And for at least three of the five different animal species examined, these invasive species are the number one killer.

This is a significant problem in the European Union. The EU suffers €12 billion worth of damage each year due to the effects of these plagues on human health, damaged infrastructure and agricultural losses.

According to a report from 2015, 354 species are at significant risk, including 229 animals, 124 plants and 1 fungus. Invasive species include Spanish slugs, the bacterium xylella fastidiosa, and the Asian long-horned beetle. The traditional reader will have no direct concept of what they look like, and since there are no domestic equivalents, there will probably be no petition by activists either.

Farmers in Africa should not be scared into giving up all pesticides, as controlled use is essential for a productive agricultural system and a viable ecosystem.

Education is therefore key. Prudence about pesticides cannot and must never become an ideological obsession. Controlled, scientifically based use of pesticides remains an absolute necessity for our farmers and cities. If we fail to understand this crucial fact, we will become our own pest.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Scroll to top
en_USEN