fbpx

Month: October 2020

WHO Reverses Course, Now Advises Against Use of ‘Punishing’ Lockdowns

Even as the WHO calls on nations to refrain from imposing lockdowns, many governments continue to use this strategy.

For months, an overwhelming majority of the planet’s population has been subject to cruel and unnerving lockdowns: businesses closed, travel restricted, and social gatherings kept to a minimum.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have sunk our economies, kept loved ones apart, derailed funerals, and made personal and economic liberty a casualty as much as our health. One report states it could cost us $82 trillion globally over the next five years – roughly the same as our yearly global GDP.

Many of these initial lockdowns were justified by policy recommendations by the World Health Organization.

The WHO’s director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, writing in a strategy update in April, called on nations to continue lockdowns until the disease was under control.

But now, more than six months since lockdowns became a favored political tool of global governments, the WHO is calling for their swift end.

Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO’s Special Envoy on COVID-19, told Spectator UK’s Andrew Neil last week that politicians have been wrong in using lockdowns as the “primary control method” to combat COVID-19.

“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” said Nabarro.

Dr. Michael Ryan, Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, offered a similar sentiment.

“What we want to try to avoid – and sometimes it’s unavoidable and we accept that – but what we want to try and avoid is these massive lockdowns that are so punishing to communities, to society and to everything else,” said Dr. Ryan, speaking at a briefing in Geneva. 

These are stunning statements from an organization that has been a key authority and moral voice responsible for handling the global response to the pandemic.

Cues from the WHO have underpinned each and every national and local lockdown, threatening to push 150 million people into poverty by the end of the year.

As Nabarro stated, the vast majority of the people harmed by these lockdowns have been the worse off.

We all know people who have lost their businesses, lost work, and seen their life savings go up in smoke. That’s especially true for those who work in the service and hospitality industries, which have been decimated by lockdown policies.

And even as the WHO calls on nations to refrain from imposing lockdowns, many governments continue to use this strategy. Schools in many US states remain closed, bars and restaurants are off-limits, and large gatherings–apart from social justice protests–are condemned and shut down by force.

The effects of the prolonged lockdowns on young people are now becoming more clear. A recent study from Edinburgh University says keeping schools shut down will increase the number of deaths due to COVID-19. Added to that, the study says lockdowns “prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long-term.”

If we want to avoid any more harm, we should immediately end these disastrous policies. Any fresh calls to impose lockdowns should now be viewed with the utmost skepticism.

It’s time for the madness to end. Not only because the World Health Organization says so, but because our very lives depend on it.

As the doctors and scientists stated in the Grand Barrington Declaration signed this month in Massachusetts, the “physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies” have themselves caused devastating effects on both short and long-term health.

We cannot continue to risk our health and well-being in the long-term by shutting in our economies and our people in the short-term. That’s the only way forward if we seek to recover from the ruinous effects of government policy surrounding COVID-19.

Originally published here.

Trump’s drug import plan will make us all pay

Make Canada Great Again?

Believe it or not, that’s what is at the center of President Donald Trump’s latest executive order aimed at trying to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans.

Trump’s plan, dubbed the “Most-Favored-Nation-Price” model, would effectively import price controls on pharmaceuticals from other nations with single-payer, government-run health systems, including Canada.

With this order, Trump will force Medicare to pay the same negotiated rates as other countries that don’t have the same level of innovation or access to medicines as the U.S

That means that while drug prices for certain seniors will be lower in the short term, it will mean higher costs in the long-term, jeopardizing future drug development, and access. And that will be bad for every American, not to mention our retirees on Medicare.

As an example, modern drug development requires not only massive investment but also time and the ability to experiment through trial and error. Only one of every 5,000-10,000 substances synthesized will make it successfully through all stages of product development to become an approved drug. That’s a big risk and one that only pays off if these drugs can be sold and used. 

Many projects fail to bring even one drug to market. Investing in life sciences requires a healthy risk appetite, and therefore an incentive scheme that rewards those able to create value is necessary. 

By the time a medical drug reaches the regular patient, an average of 12.5 years will have elapsed since the first discovery of the new active substance. The total investment needed to get to one active substance that can be accessed by a patient is around $2 billion. And that is just for medicines we already know we need.

There are over 10,000 known diseases in the world but approved treatment for merely 500 of them. It may be easy to dictate lower prices for these medicines, but that will mean that drug developers will not have the same means to invest in research for the remaining 95% of diseases we cannot yet cure.

Added to that, the U.S. can count on access to all sorts of innovative medicines because of our innovators and inventors.

By forcing lower prescription drug prices for our elderly, Trump seems eager to harm our ability to find cures for those who still hope for the development of a cure for their untreatable diseases and future access to the medicines we need.

Such a move may play well in voter rich Florida, with a large population of seniors anxious about drug prices, but it shatters the unique mix of both innovation and entrepreneurship that leads the U.S. to be the world’s top creator and supplier of badly-needed drugs. Half of the top pharmaceutical companies in the world are headquartered in our country, and for good reason.

Trump, for his part, claims that this will stop “free-riding” from other nations on the US’ relatively high drug prices. And that is indeed a concern that touches many of us. But such a rash plan will put a chokehold on innovation across the entire sector of our drug industry.

If Trump wants other countries to “pay their fair share” on drug prices, the best method is by trade agreements and negotiation, not by emulating anti-innovation policies from other nations.

To achieve cheaper drug prices, there are simpler and cheaper ways to tackle this.

For one, the president should be open to a reform of the Food and Drug Administration. Too much time is lost trying to get drugs approved across every industrialized country. If we recognized drug approvals from all other countries in the OECD, this would lower costs and accelerate the pace of bringing drugs to the US market.

We cannot risk our entire drug infrastructure for the hope of short-term lower costs. If the Trump administration wants our nation to remain a shining beacon of innovation and allows its patients to access state-of-the-art medicine, we should not import bad policies from abroad.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center.

Europe Looks Backwards On Agriculture, Endangers A Trade Deal With The U.S.

The EU’s new “Farm to Fork” strategy pines for nature-friendly farming that’s completely disconnected from reality.

12:01 AM BILL WIRTZ

Most people look at a gluten-free, vegan, sugar-free, organic, non-GMO, palm oil-free candy being advertised in a store with bemusement. Yet in the United States, aisles in supermarkets, entire retail chains, are dedicated to these kinds of products, which over the years have attracted a loyal customer base. This is quintessentially American, because consumers have choices.

In Europe, critics of modern agriculture seek not to convince the public with slogans and brands; instead they’ve launched an open attack on the free choices of consumers. Almost all GMOs have been made illegal in Europe, and an increasing number of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides are being banned, despite scientific research showing their safety. This has led to rising food prices in Europe—while the EU average price increase is 2.5 percent a year, some member states saw up to 5 percent in pre-pandemic times, which outperforms inflation. More increases are to be expected if new plans come into motion.

The European Union’s executive body, the European Commission, recently published a new roadmap for agriculture, known as the “Farm to Fork” strategy. It is the cornerstone of fundamental agriculture reform, a move intended to foster sustainable agriculture. The strategy contains two flagship proposals: reducing pesticide use 50 percent by 2030 and increasing organic agriculture to 25 percent of total production by 2030.

On pesticide reduction, there is no ambiguity about the fact that this is a political ambition and not a scientific one. In the European Union, chemical crop protection products are approved by a government food safety agency. Requesting a reduction of 50 percent of products that are considered harmless in the first place has nothing to do with reasonable agricultural policy. 

The origins of the hostility towards modern agriculture are multifactorial. There’s the skepticism of food from the United States, which is regarded as unsafe, as well as the ready availability and multitude of choices, which are perceived as unhealthy consumerism.

One of the most cited reasons is that American chicken is treated with chlorine—which has scared many European consumers (despite them happily eating chicken on a visit to the United States). This attitude arose from the misconception that EU regulators had deemed the process of using chlorine unsafe. In reality, those regulators expressed concern that the process, which is safe, would lead poultry farmers in the U.S. to be more negligent in the keeping of their chickens.

Another key factor relating to the reduction targets on pesticides is how Europe increasingly views risk assessment. In the English language, the words “hazard” and “risk” are used interchangeably, yet in the scientific world, they mean different things. “Hazard” is the ability of something to cause harm, while “risk” is the degree to which it actually is harmful. For instance, the sun is a hazard when going to the beach, yet sunlight enables the body’s production of vitamin D and some exposure to it is essential. As with everything else, it is the amount of exposure that matters. A hazard-based regulatory approach to sunlight would shut us all indoors and ban all beach excursions, rather than cautioning beachgoers to limit their exposure by applying sunscreen. The end result would be to harm, not protect human health. A risk-based assessment would take into account the varying factors present in the real world.

The twisted logic of hazard-based regulation is all too often applied in crop protection regulation, where it creates equally absurd inconsistencies. For instance, if wine was sprayed on vineyards as a pesticide, it would have to be banned under EU law, as alcohol is a known and quite potent carcinogen at high levels of consumption. All this is rationalized through an inconsistent and distorted application of what Europeans call the “precautionary principle.” Needless to say, Europe is practically the only region in the world that governs food standards in this fashion, and many countries have complained about this before the World Trade Organization.

EU institutions have a rigid and fundamentalist view on nature and agriculture. In a speech in May, the EU’s commissioner for environment talked about the European food strategy in a nature-based way: “When you have adequate protection, properly enforced, nature pays you back.” He added, “This is a strategy for reconnection with nature, for helping Europe to heal.” To do so, Brussels endorses organic agriculture and “agro-ecological practices.” The science (or lack thereof) of “agro-ecology” deserves an article all its own, but in essence, it means no pesticides, no genetic engineering, no synthetic fertilizers, and in many cases no mechanization. This method of farming has been described as “peasant farming” and “indigenous farming,” and rejects all the progress of modern agriculture. According to its own proponents, it reduces agricultural output by 35 percent on average.

With the current recession, one wonders what the consequences of these radical changes will be in Europe. U.S Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue has been very present in European media, reminding authorities that modern farming is a great asset, that their choices will lead to bad outcomes, and that a trade deal across the Atlantic will be virtually impossible if Europe diverges even more from reasonable norms. 

He’s right: the view of modern agriculture as a destroyer of nature is seriously flawed. Stanford University researchers have found that if we farmed in the same manner as 60 years ago, an area equal to the entire land mass of Russia—three times the size of the Amazon, four times that of the European Union—would have to be cleared of forest and natural habitat and brought into agricultural production. Adding to that, high-yield farming has avoided 161 gigatons of carbon dioxide since 1961, while research from the United Kingdom has shown that moving all current agriculture to organic farming would increase greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70 percent.

The black-and-white view from which organic is good while conventional agriculture destroys ecosystems is a mere caricature of the reality of farming. If EU member states do not reject the “Farm to Fork” strategy, then they’ll lead their continent down a dangerous path towards less food security and higher prices. That isn’t in the interests of nature, farmers, or consumers.

Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English, French, and German. His work has appeared in Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, CityAM, Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Die Welt.

Originally published here.

Inside Sources Logo

Americans Need to Divorce Health Insurance From Our Jobs

In between the jabs during the first presidential debate, both President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden stumbled through their visions for healthcare reform.

While Biden wants to expand a “public option,” a kind of Obamacare plus, Trump focused on his executive orders mandating cheaper drug prices and the congressional repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate.

Neither leaves voters feeling heard.

That there was no substantive health debate is a shame, considering health insurance costs and coverage personally affect every American. Who doesn’t have their own health insurance horror story?

If we want to radically improve insurance and healthcare in our country to ensure that every American receives the care they need, we have to be bold. And that begins with divorcing insurance from where we work.

Not only would that improve the choices of consumers, but it would also help lower costs and provide more options for people who aren’t covered in the current system. That would empower individuals to choose their health plans according to their needs.

As of March 2019, the U.S. Census estimates that 91 percent of the population had health insurance. Nearly one third receive coverage from government health insurance, whether Medicare, Medicaid or state employees. Left out are approximately 29.9 million Americans without health insurance — public, private or otherwise.

The number of uninsured is an important metric because it is the target group for most substantial health insurance reforms of the past decade, including Obamacare at the federal level and the expansion of Medicaid eligibility at the state level, both problematic in their own right.

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 45 percent of the uninsured say the cost is too high, while 31 percent of the uninsured lost their coverage because they made too much money for Medicaid or they changed employers.

The single largest category of the insured in our country is those who receive insurance through their jobs, approximately 54 percent. Why is that?

Since 1973, the federal government provided incentives to employers who set up Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) for their employees. Since then, our health insurance market has pivoted to match having a job with health insurance.

Incentives to employers to cover healthcare for their employees is good policy on its face, but it has led to unforeseen economic consequences.

Employee health plans, managed by state-based health insurers (another worthy reform to consider), often become a headache for workers and firms alike.

These plans aim to define benefits and coverage according to a firm’s needs and often have to hire several people to oversee them. Then, bureaucracy balloons, administrative costs creep up, and whatever advantage these plans initially offered is now buried in red tape.

Added to that, if you leave your job for another one or find yourself unemployed, you are now one of the 9 percent without health insurance, which puts you at risk.

There has to be a better way.

The alternative to this system would be a free and open marketplace in which individuals would be empowered to choose their healthcare insurance plan according to their needs, just like car insurance. Employers could offer cash subsidies in line with current federal incentives, but the choice of plan would remain that of the workers.

Such a plan would then empower people to try new innovative healthcare delivery models, such as direct primary care, concierge medicine, and medical startups.

As a relatively young and healthy person, for example, I opt for high deductible emergency insurance that is there when I need it. Smaller health expenses are paid in cash or with a health savings account that offers tax benefits. If I have a more serious injury or illness, my insurance covers the costs.

For me, and likely for millions of other individuals, this arrangement works. It is how insurance is supposed to work. We take out insurance to cover the costs and the risks we don’t foresee, not to cover each routine transaction we make with a provider. It’s the same reason we don’t insure windshield wipers or tires on our cars.

If someone wants more comprehensive insurance, they should be free to take it. And the costs should be reflective of that option.

If employees could be encouraged to build their plans, that would remove administrative and bureaucratic hurdles from existing insurance arrangements or mandates. It would also encourage more competition and lower prices from health insurers, helping bring down costs for employers and employees alike.

But doing so will require a huge shift in the way we think as Americans. We can no longer marry our health insurance to our jobs.

Separation of job and insurance should be a mantra as much as separation of church and state. And federal policy should encourage Americans who take control of their own private health insurance plan.

Originally published here.

Americans need to separate health insurance from our jobs

If we want to radically improve insurance and health care in our country to ensure that every American receives the care they need, we have to be bold. And that begins with divorcing insurance from where we work.

Not only would that improve the choices of consumers, but it would also help lower costs and provide more options for people who aren’t covered in the current system. That would empower individuals to choose their health plans according to their needs.

As of March 2019, the U.S. Census estimates that 91% of the population had health insurance. Nearly one third receive coverage from government health insurance, whether Medicare, Medicaid or state employees. Left out are approximately 29.9 million Americans without health insurance — public, private or otherwise.

The number of uninsured is an important metric because it is the target group for most substantial health insurance reforms of the past decade, including Obamacare at the federal level and the expansion of Medicaid eligibility at the state level, both problematic in their own right.

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 45% of the uninsured say the cost is too high, while 31% of the uninsured lost their coverage because they made too much money for Medicaid or they changed employers.

The single largest category of the insured in our country is those who receive insurance through their jobs, approximately 54%. Why is that?

Since 1973, the federal government provided incentives to employers who set up Health Maintenance Organizations for their employees. Since then, our health insurance market has pivoted to match having a job with health insurance. Incentives to employers to cover health care for their employees is good policy on its face, but it has led to unforeseen economic consequences.

Employee health plans, managed by state-based health insurers (another worthy reform to consider), often become a headache for workers and firms alike.

These plans aim to define benefits and coverage according to a firm’s needs and often have to hire several people to oversee them. Then, bureaucracy balloons, administrative costs creep up, and whatever advantage these plans initially offered is now buried in red tape.

Added to that, if you leave your job for another one or find yourself unemployed, you are now one of the 9% without health insurance, which puts you at risk.

There has to be a better way.

The alternative to this system would be a free and open marketplace in which individuals would be empowered to choose their health care insurance plan according to their needs, just like car insurance. Employers could offer cash subsidies in line with current federal incentives, but the choice of plan would remain that of the workers.

Such a plan would then empower people to try new innovative health care delivery models, such as direct primary care, concierge medicine and medical startups.

We take out insurance to cover the costs and the risks we don’t foresee, not to cover each routine transaction we make with a provider. It’s the same reason we don’t insure windshield wipers or tires on our cars.

If someone wants more comprehensive insurance, they should be free to take it. And the costs should be reflective of that option.

If employees could be encouraged to build their plans, that would remove administrative and bureaucratic hurdles from existing insurance arrangements or mandates. It would also encourage more competition and lower prices from health insurers, helping bring down costs for employers and employees alike.

But doing so will require a huge shift in the way we think as Americans. We can no longer marry our health insurance to our jobs.

Separation of job and insurance should be a mantra as much as separation of church and state. And federal policy should encourage Americans who take control of their own private health insurance plan.

Yaël Ossowski is a writer and deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

Originally published here.

Vaping Today

A dónde ir (y a dónde no) si eres un viajero vapeador en Estados Unidos

¿Sabes cuáles son los estados más amigables con el vapeo en Estados Unidos y cuáles debes evitar si eres un vapeador haciendo turismo en la tierra del tío Sam? El Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor) publicó un índice que mide qué tan amistosas son las regulaciones de cada estado con los consumidores de vaporizadores de nicotina.

La metodología

El Consumer Choice Center, que representa a consumidores de más de 100 países del mundo, creó un índice donde califica qué tan favorables son las regulaciones de cada estado de Estados Unidos con los vapeadores. Para clasificarlos crearon un sistema de puntuación con ponderación única que analiza restricciones de sabores diferentes al tabaco, impuestos y posibilidad de vender productos de vapeo por internet. Las regulaciones se evaluaron en función de cuán estrictas son. Cabe anotar que el índice tiene en cuenta las regulaciones adicionales a las promulgadas por la FDA.

Los estados que recibieron entre 0 y 10 puntos obtuvieron la calificación “F”, que es la menos amistosa con el vapeo. Entre 11 y 20 puntos fueron calificados “C”, que es el intermedio. Los Estados que obtuvieron entre 21 y 30 puntos recibieron la calificación “A”, que indica que sus regulaciones son las más favorables para los usuarios de vaporizadores de nicotina. 

Estados amigables

Si eres vapeador y estás buscando un destino para visitar en Estados Unidos, el índice identifica 24 estados con una regulación amistosa con el vapeo. Estos son: 

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia 

Estos estados tienen plena disponibilidad de sabores, no cobran impuestos adicionales y permiten la venta de productos por medios digitales con controles para imposibilitar la compra por parte de menores de edad.

Estados cuasi amigables 

Hay 20 estados que cuentan con regulaciones parcialmente favorables para los vaporizadores. Estos, clasificados en la categoría “C”, son: 

Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming 

La puntuación de estos estados generalmente disminuyó por la aplicación de impuestos que hacen más caro optar por el vapeo. Estos pueden ir desde los 0,5 dólares por mililitro en Delaware y Lousiana hasta impuestos del 95% –iguales a los de los letales cigarros de combustión–, como en el caso de D.C. y Minnesota. Sin embargo, estos estados no tienen restricciones para la compra de líquidos de vapeo de sabores diferentes a tabaco y permiten adquirir productos por internet.

A dónde no ir

Para quienes vapeamos, saber que podemos adquirir productos de vapeo sin participar en una cruzada o en un “asalto a mano armada” a nuestras finanzas es importante. No importa si estamos de vacaciones o en un viaje de negocios. En ese sentido y si está en nuestras manos, podríamos evitar 6 estados. Estos son los clasificados con “F”, muy probablemente por “fail”, pues definitivamente les fallan a las personas que buscan una forma al menos 95% menos nociva que el tabaco combustible para dejar de fumar.

Así las cosas, los estados no recomendados son: 

California
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island 

Con excepción de Illinois, estos estados restringen los sabores. Así, encontrar un líquido con un delicioso sabor a cheesecake de fresa sería legalmente imposible. Además cobran impuestos sustanciales a los productos de vapeo, a pesar de que son la forma de “terminar con el tabaquismo dentro de nuestro tiempo de vida”. Finalmente, algunos de estos estados aún cuentan con regulaciones que no permiten adquirir los productos en línea. 

Déjanos saber en los comentarios si el acceso a productos de vapeo es importante durante tus viajes. 

Originally published here.

Inside Sources Logo

Massachusetts Tops List of Worst States for Vaping Regs

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC), a consumer and lifestyle freedom advocacy organization, has declared Massachusetts one of the worst U.S. states for vaping regulation.

California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island are the other five states considered hostile environments for the product category, according to the center’s recently published United States vaping index.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, announced a multifaceted campaign against vaping products amid a rash of lung injuries associated with the behavior.

As a result, the Baker administration has backed the implementation of invasive flavor bans and heavy taxation on flavored vaping products. The center’s rankings on Massachusetts’ cases speaks for itself — with a 75 percent sales tax on wholesale products.

“Massachusetts is far behind all the other states because of its flavor ban and its exorbitant taxation on vaping products,” said David Clement, North American affairs manager for CCC. “Our research indicates Massachusetts’ policies deter adult smokers from turning to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”

Nearby New Hampshire is believed to be more welcoming to vaping and the industry, while still having a moderate score on the CCC’s vaping index. Unlike Massachusetts, the state government in New Hampshire has only levied an 8 percent excise tax on wholesale products.

The tax is still higher compared to states with lower tax rates and none at all.

In addition, the vaping industry in New Hampshire is extensively more active than other states that have similar ratings to that of Massachusetts. Alex Norcia, a contributor to Filter, reported in July that vape shops in New York state are setting up on Native American reservations to circumvent the Cuomo administration’s aggressive vaping regulations.

The freedom to use a vaping product exists heavily in states where there is already a more relaxed approach to recreational drug regulations.

A study by Dr. Abigail Friedman, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health, found that states with liberalized marijuana industries saw the least reported cases of the noncommunicable e-cigarette and vaping associated lung injury (EVALI) that was widely reported throughout 2019.

“If e-cigarette or marijuana use per se drove this outbreak, areas with more engagement in those behaviors should show a higher EVALI prevalence,” Friedman said in her study. “This study finds the opposite result. Alongside geographic clusters of high EVALI prevalence states, these findings are more consistent with locally available e-liquids or additives driving the EVALI outbreak than a widely used, nationally-available product.”

Friedman found that five states with some of the earliest legalization of recreational marijuana all had less than one EVALI diagnosis per 100,000 residents in the 12 to 64 age group.

These states include Alaska, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Since most of the EVALI cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention focus on adulterated and illicit marijuana vaping products, the epidemiological analysis in

Friedman’s study shows further evidence that bans on nicotine vaping products are implemented on the backs of EVALI injury outrage.

The Consumer Choice Center’s vaping index reports that Alaska, Colorado and Oregon are three of the most friendly states for vaping.

California is one of the worst; Washington has a better rating than most states.

These collective findings are well-founded when considering the impact of state-level regulation on the vaping industry and, therefore, the accessibility of vaping products.

Originally published here.

Allocate funding to curtail e-commerce black market, group tells govt

PETALING JAYA: A consumer advocacy group has called on the government to allocate funding to curtail the “growing threat” of the e-commerce black market.

In a statement, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) said such funding was required due to the explosion of online purchases during the Covid-19 pandemic, which has provided black market perpetrators new avenues and opportunities.

The recommendation is part of the CCC’s three-point recommendations for Budget 2021 aimed at protecting consumers from the black market.

Apart from recommending that relevant enforcement agencies should be provided with the resources required to curtail the black market, CCC also suggested that the government allocate funding for consumer education.

Another recommendation is for a special allocation to be put in place for relevant government ministries and agencies to conduct roadshows throughout the country to educate consumers against buying black market products.

CCC also suggested that the government review the excise structure and reform taxes as structural reforms were required to close the price gap between legitimate products, which carried an artificially inflated price due to taxes and excise duties, versus black market products.

CCC said if the price difference was small, consumers would prefer to buy legal products and black market perpetrators would lose their motivation to smuggle in illegal goods.

“The 2021 Budget provides an ideal opportunity for the Malaysian government to address the black market in an urgent and comprehensive manner to safeguard Malaysian consumers and re-energise the country’s economy,” said CCC managing director Fred Roeder.

“The tobacco black market hurts all Malaysian consumers as it causes the government to lose RM5 billion in uncollected tax annually, harms legitimate retailers and fuels corruption at all levels of the public sector.

“Malaysia currently tops the world in the tobacco black market, commanding a market share of over 62% in total cigarettes sold. If such products can easily enter the marketplace, what about other items like drugs, unregulated pharmaceuticals or fake goods?”

Originally published here.

Sinar harian

Tiga cadangan dalam Bajet 2021 untuk lindungi pengguna

KUALA LUMPUR – Tiga perkara telah dikemukakan oleh The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk dimasukkan dalam Bajet 2021 yang bertujuan melindungi pengguna daripada isu pasaran gelap.

Kumpulan advokasi pengguna global itu dalam satu kenyataan berkata, perkara pertama yang dicadangkan ialah menyediakan peruntukan untuk tujuan pendidikan kepada pengguna agar tidak membeli produk pasaran gelap.

“Peruntukan khas perlu disediakan oleh kementerian dan agensi kerajaan yang berkaitan bagi mengadakan jerayawara ke seluruh negara untuk mendidik pengguna daripada membeli produk pasaran gelap,” kata kenyataan itu hari ini.

Kedua, mengkaji semula struktur eksais dan melakukan perubahan terhadap cukai bagi menutup jurang harga antara produk sah yang kini diletakkan pada harga yang jauh tinggi disebabkan cukai dan duti eksais berbanding produk seludup.

“Jika perbezaan harga adalah kecil, sudah tentu pengguna akan memilih produk sah dan penjenayah pasaran gelap akan kehilangan motivasi untuk menyeludup masuk barangan tidak sah,” kata kenyataan itu lagi.

Ketiga, pembiayaan untuk penguatkuasaan yang lebih baik terutama di ruang e-dagang kerana agensi penguatkuasaan berkaitan seharusnya dilengkapkan dengan sumber-sumber yang diperlukan bagi membanteras pasaran gelap.

CCC mengemukakan tiga perkara kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk dimasukkan dalam Bajet 2021 yang bertujuan melindungi pengguna daripada isu pasaran gelap.
“Ledakan pengguna membeli barangan secara dalam talian di bawah norma baharu ini telah memberikan penjenayah pasaran gelap satu kaedah dan peluang baharu.

“Pihak berkuasa mestilah diberikan pembiayaan dan teknologi baharu bagi mencantas ancaman ini sebelum menjadi tidak dapat dikawal,” kata organisasi yang mewakili pengguna di lebih 100 negara di seluruh dunia itu.

Menurut CCC lagi, pasaran gelap hari ini merupakan ancaman paling serius dan semakin meningkat terhadap pengguna-pengguna di Malaysia

Bukan itu sahaja, produk-produk yang tidak sah ini turut membahayakan pengguna kerana ia tidak dikawal selia dan kualitinya sangat buruk, malah bertoksik.

“Pasaran gelap Malaysia bernilai RM300 bilion kini menuju ke tahap `boom’ disebabkan ramai yang kehilangan kerja, kebimbangan terhadap jaminan pekerjaan dan perubahan tabiat membeli akibat pandemik Covid-19 yang berterusan sekarang,” katanya.

Sementara itu, Pengarah Urusan CCC, Fred Roeder berkata, pasaran rokok seludup misalnya telah menjejaskan semua pengguna di Malaysia kerana ia mengakibatkan kerajaan kerugian RM5 bilion dari segi cukai yang tidak dapat dikutip setiap tahun, merosakkan peruncit sah dan menyemarakkan rasuah di semua peringkat sektor awam.

Malah katanya, Malaysia kini menerajui dunia dari segi pasaran rokok seludup, menguasai pasaran lebih 62 peratus dari segi jumlah keseluruhan rokok yang dijual.

“Jika produk sebegitu boleh dengan mudah memasuki pasaran negara, bagaimana barangan lain seperti dadah, bahan farmaseutikal yang tiada tauliah atau barangan palsu?” katanya.

Beliau berkata, Bajet 2021 memberikan peluang ideal kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk menangani pasaran gelap secara tegas dan menyeluruh bagi menjaga kesejahteraan pengguna Malaysia dan memperkasa semula ekonomi negara.

Originally published here.

Promotheus

WIE KANN MAN 11 MILLIARDEN MENSCHEN ERNÄHREN?

Von Frederik C. Roeder, Gesundheitsökonom und Geschäftsführer des Consumer Choice Centers.

Im Jahr 2070 wird die Welt von etwa 10,5 Milliarden Menschen bevölkert sein. Das bedeutet, dass wir in der Lage sein müssen, zusätzliche 3 Milliarden Menschen zu ernähren. Glücklicherweise hat uns der technische Fortschritt in der Landwirtschaft bereits dabei geholfen, in den letzten hundert Jahren 5,5 Milliarden zusätzliche Menschen zu ernähren, ausgehend von 2 Milliarden Menschen, die 1920 die Erde bevölkerten. Nach Angaben des Welternährungsgipfels ist die Zahl der Hungernden in Ländern mit niedrigem bis mittlerem Einkommen seit 1992 um über 200 Millionen von 991 Millionen auf 790,7 Millionen zurückgegangen. Forscher der Stanford University haben berechten: Wenn wir weiterhin die landwirtschaftliche Technik aus dem Jahr 1960 einsetzen würden, benötigten wir landwirtschaftliche Flächen von der Größe Russlands, des größten Landes der Welt, um die gleichen Erträge zu erzielen, die wir heute dank des Einsatzes moderner Technik brauchen. Dies ist ein großer Erfolg, stellt uns aber auch die Aufgabe, die Situation der verbliebenen Kinder und Erwachsenen zu verbessern, die immer noch täglich mit Hunger konfrontiert sind.

Leider scheint die aktuelle politische Debatte in einer der reichsten Regionen der Welt die vor uns liegenden Herausforderungen zu ignorieren. Sie zielt darauf ab, dass wir uns einer weniger effizienten Landwirtschaft zuwenden. Die Strategie Farm to Fork (F2F) der Europäischen Union will bis zum Ende dieses Jahrzehnts ein ‘nachhaltigeres’ Ernährungssystem zu schaffen. Die Ideen, die derzeit kursieren, deuten jedoch eher auf ein anderes Ergebnis hin: Nicht nur ist unklar, ob die neue Strategie nicht im Ergebnis dem Ziel der Nachhaltigkeit eher entgegenlaufen wird. Es steht auch dahin, ob damit womöglich nicht nur Europa, sondern die ganze Welt in eine Nahrungsmittelkrise mit massiven geopolitischen Auswirkungen gestürzt werden könnte.

Die EU plant, den Anteil der ökologischen Landwirtschaft an der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Produktion von derzeit 7,5% auf 25% zu erhöhen. Zusätzlich plant sie eine Reduzierung der Pestizide um 50%. Dabei umfasst die F2F-Strategie keine neuen Technologien, die es den Landwirten ermöglichen würden, die gleichen Erträge zu erzielen, die sie mit dem derzeitigen Pestizideinsatz erzielen. Unter anderem wegen der geringeren Erträge und der daraus resultierenden Notwendigkeit, mehr Land für die landwirtschaftliche Produktion bereitzustellen, ist die biologische Landwirtschaft in der Regel ungeeignet für die Deckung des weltweiten Nahrungsmittelbedarfs.

Was bedeutet dies für die Ernährung von 10,5 Milliarden Menschen im Jahr 2070?

Mehr ökologischer Landbau in Europa bedeutet geringere Erträge und höhere Preise für Verbraucher. Die Knappheit in Europa wird wahrscheinlich durch zusätzliche Lebensmittelimporte aus anderen Teilen der Welt ausgeglichen werden. Dies wird zu einem weltweiten Anstieg der Lebensmittelpreise führen. Für wohlhabende Regionen der Welt, wie Europa, wird dies für die Verbraucher eine ärgerliche Einschränkung sein. Für Menschen, die bereits am Rande der Existenz leben und Hunger leiden, sind die Folgen katastrophal.

Die Ernährungs- und Landwirtschaftsorganisation der Vereinten Nationen (FAO) schätzt, dass Landwirte weltweit 30 bis 40 Prozent ihrer Ernten aufgrund von Schädlingen und Krankheiten verlieren werden, wenn sie keine Pflanzenschutzmittel wie Insektizide oder Herbizide zur Hand haben. Bis zu 28 Prozent aller Leberkrebs-Erkrankungen weltweit können auf Aflatoxine, eine Mykotoxinart, zurückgeführt werden. Wenn wir den Landwirten nicht erlauben, Fungizide einzusetzen, die die Exposition des Menschen gegenüber diesen Toxinen verringern, riskieren wir weiterhin Millionen von Menschenleben.

In den letzten 100 Jahren hat sich gezeigt, dass Pestizide ein notwendiges Übel sind, um höhere und besser vorhersehbare Ernteerträge zu erzielen. In den vergangenen 60 Jahren haben wir einen Rückgang des Pestizideinsatzes pro Hektar um 40 Prozent erlebt, und viele (weniger sichere) Substanzen wurden schrittweise aus dem Verkehr gezogen. Das Aufkommen gentechnisch veränderter Nutzpflanzen und die jüngsten Durchbrüche bei der Genbearbeitung (Genschere) ermöglichen, dass wir noch weniger Chemikalien auf unseren Feldern versprühen müssen.

Etwa 20 Prozent der Weltbevölkerung lebt in Südasien. Aufgrund des indischen Kastensystems leben und bewirtschaften die Bauern der untersten Kasten Land, das mit größerer Wahrscheinlichkeit regelmäßig überschwemmt wird, was sich nachteilig auf ihre Reisernte auswirkt. Dank gentechnisch veränderter Kulturen kann der Reis bis zu zwei Wochen unter Wasser sein und dennoch hohe Erträge bieten. Solche Technologien bedeuten für die Armen und Hungrigen ein Wendepunkt. Es gibt kein humanitäres Argument gegen Gentechnik, aber ein starkes für sie.

Leider wenden sich viele Kritiker von Pestiziden auch gegen den Einsatz von Gen-Editing. Dies führt zu einem Dilemma, das letztlich zu einer verminderten Lebensmittelproduktion führt, während die weltweite Nachfrage nach Lebensmitteln weiter steigen wird. Man muss kein Wirtschaftswissenschaftler sein, um zu verstehen, dass dies zu höheren Lebensmittelpreisen führen wird.

Wir alle haben die dramatische Flüchtlingskrise im Jahr 2015 gesehen: das schreckliche Leid; ertrinkende Kinder und Frauen im Mittelmeerraum. Auch wenn die Politik der EU diese Krise nicht ausgelöst hat, könnte unsere künftige Agrarpolitik in Teilen Afrikas und Asiens weit verbreitete Hungersnöte verursachen. Sie könnten eine Migrationswelle auslösen, wie wir sie seit der Völkerwanderung im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nicht mehr erlebt haben. Geschichte zeigt leider, dass solche massiven unkontrollierten Migrationsströme in der Regel auch mit Krieg und Unruhen einhergehen.

Die „westliche“ Idee, Landwirtschaft ökologischer zu gestalten, wird zu einer weltweiten Inflation der Lebensmittelpreise führen und denen schaden, die bereits jetzt leiden. Wir teilen in der Tat alle einen Planeten und brauchen daher eine vernünftige Lebensmittelpolitik, die anerkennt, dass Hunger immer noch ein Problem ist, mit dem 10 Prozent der Weltbevölkerung täglich konfrontiert sind. Eine substantielle Anpassung der künftigen Agrarpolitik der EU ist nötig, um Armut und Hunger zu mildern. Die „Farm to Fork“-Strategie der EU muss dem Rechnung tragen und darf unsere Fähigkeit, eine ständig wachsende Bevölkerung zu ernähren, nicht gefährden.

Originally published here.

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN