fbpx

Month: March 2021

Only the individual can solve Britain’s obesity crisis

As Britain becomes the fat man of Europe, a blanket approach to large-scale policy-making will not solve Britain’s obesity crisis. Only the individual can do the work, argues Bill Wirtz.

Am I overeating? This question is, in essence, a modern one. Our ancestors would have stood in awe at the sheer availability of refrigerated and affordable meat in our supermarkets. Even items such as salt or sugar, once luxury items, are now abundantly available in everyone’s cupboards.

With this luxury, we also face the genuine problem of obesity. Eating habits are complicated: we are stressed and strapped for time, and work-related lunch breaks are either a quick sandwich over our desks or lush business buffets to get someone to sign a deal. All too often, we “treat” ourselves to something that exceeds our optimal calorie intake, especially during this pandemic, which has upset our regular schedules.

As I’ve been explaining on this site on a few occasions, the path of lifestyle regulations is neither practical nor modelled after what we want a free society to be. Banning “buy one get one free” pizza options or banning fast-food ads on public transport is infantilising. It presumes that consumers aren’t free to make their own choices, and far worse, assumes the government ought to be the judge of a healthy diet. However, despite hiring highly educated individuals, the government isn’t free from monumental failures on dietary recommendations. Those readers who remember being instructed on the old-school food pyramid will be able to attest to that.

Personal responsibility is complex, and it will not always provide a workable solution for each individual in a matter of months. Yet, the idea that consumers are left defenceless against big sugary food machinery is dystopian and has very little to do with the truth. From personal experience, I am blessed with being naturally tall and a forgiving metabolism. Still, I revert to easy steps to keeping myself in shape without following a painful or time-consuming routine.

Exercise is one of the keys to a healthier life without depriving myself of the joys of the occasional treat. In fact, exercise is all too often a forgotten key to the solution. In October 2018, Public Health England indicated that more than 37 per cent of 10 and 11-year-olds in London are overweight or obese. It is often mistakenly argued that this is caused by high energy intake, but the obesity rates are dependent on physical activity, which according to Public Health England, has decreased by 24 per cent since the 1960s. Daily calorie intake in the UK is also decreasing each decade.

On top of making sure I go on regular (fast) walks, I also keep myself informed on down-to-earth solutions for regulating my appetite. This 2011 study found that chewing gum reduces the desire for snacks by 10%, which makes a significant dent in my afternoon cravings for those foods that are unhealthy. The benefit is also that this applies just as well to sugar-free gum. On top of the widely known added benefit of preventing tooth decay between regular dental hygiene, it has also been shown that chewing gum leads to increased cognitive performance and productivity. Given that I, as much as many others, currently spend their days on Zoom calls, chained to our desks, I find that sugar-free gum has been one of many practical solutions that helps me snack less and be more focused.

Many people regulate their diets with new apps, calorie counters, or making radical shifts in their diets. Be it getting rid of meat or only eating meat, the array of digital solutions and dietary diversity shows that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. To many governments, the response to obesity has too often been targeting consumption itself. Instead of using the scientific knowledge we have to our advantage and leading us to individual responses, regulators prefer to find a culprit, then advocating abstinence.

Yes, we lust for high sugar and fat, but that does not make us children that need to be penalised. In our community, in our families, we can be a positive nudge that gets friends or siblings to try new ways of regulating their behaviour. For me, it’s been regular breaks, walks in the fresh air with a podcast, sugar-free gum, and a green smoothie for my veggie intake. For you, it might be a Paleo diet.

Let’s celebrate our responsibility instead of a blanket approach to large-scale policy-making.

Originally published here.

Are we thinking correctly about rail passenger rights?

“Rail passenger rights” are paid by consumers…

The European Parliament’s TRAN committee recently approved new rail passenger rights legislation. With this new text, rail companies will be obligated to re-route passengers for delays of more than 100 minutes, provide bike racks, and assure “through-ticketing” under a single operator. This last requirement means that passengers will be eligible for the right of arriving at their final ticket destinations and that consumer rights requirements do not only apply to one leg of the journey. In essence, if you’re taking a Deutsche Bahn ticket from Cologne via Frankfurt to Munich, and start the journey with a delay in Cologne, then DB will be required to get you to your final destination no matter what.

The conversation about rail passenger rights is somewhat similar to that of air passenger rights, drawing the distinction between reimbursement rules and rights to active services. If a company fails to fulfil the service that the customer purchased, then from a mere contractual obligation, the customer ought to be able to choose between reimbursement and re-routing. However, adding additional layers such as compensation models and services on top of the existing services is not something that consumers should be burdened with.

An easy comparison for the purpose of this argument is that of a low-cost airline. Say you fly to a city for a short two-night trip, and you manage to pack all your belongings in a small personal item (like a backpack). With carriers such as RyanAir and EasyJet, you can get the lowest price in the cabin by choosing the most basic options, and sometimes flying to a regional airport that’s further away from the destination you’re trying to reach. Those wishing to get extra luggage, transport over-sized baggage, more spacious seats, airport lounge also pay additional fees for these privileges. We should not take the highest standard on the aircraft as the norm, and then derive that the basic options are somewhat “deprived” of these rights. 

In contrast, the basic options are opt-outs of these services that some consumers simply don’t want or need. On more high-end airlines, some of these services are included in the price, but end up alienating consumers looking for a cheap fare.

The same approach should be taken in the domain of railway mobility. While bike racks are a convenient addition, they do prevent rail operators from selling more access to seats and bring additional financial burden that consumers will end up paying. For state operators running deficits, this is of no particular concern. However, with an increasing number of private rail operators, we cannot pretend as if these companies provide certain services out of mere altruism. If consumers choose certain services, they should be able to pick those services they really want. The same applies to insurances to reach the final destination: as the number of rail operators multiplies, so do the expectations for different service levels. Low-cost providers will make cheap tickets available, with fewer expectations of support in case of delays, while more high-end operators will make sure that customers enjoy the highest possible comfort. Adding to that, insurance companies, sometimes through credit and debit cards, can also offer certain insurances as complementary services.

Consumers aren’t a monolithic bloc. Some are students who instead of hitchhiking to a summer camp prefer the cheapest possible ticket, with the longest possible itinerary. These students have different expectations than the Brussels bubble business traveller, and they should not be penalised with ticket price hikes because of additional service and insurance requirements.

Originally published here.

[UK] A consultation on the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015

Health text and picture warnings

Question 1: How far do you agree or disagree that the introduction of rotating combined (photo and text) health warnings on cigarette and hand rolling tobacco has encouraged smokers to quit?

  • strongly agree
  • agree
  • neither agree or disagree
  • disagree
  • strongly disagree
  • don’t know

Disagree. Despite a persistent belief that nannying consumers out of smoking, health warning labels haven’t proved to be effective in helping smokers quit. For example, in 2012, the US Court of Appeal stated the following: “The Food and Drug Administration has not provided a shred of evidence—much less the “substantial evidence”— showing that the graphic warnings will “directly advance” its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke.” Сonsumers are already knowledgeable about the harms and risks associated with smoking, which is why there isn’t much evidence to suggest that the warnings actually deter tobacco use.

It is especially difficult to establish a clear causal relationship between the introduction of health warning labels and its impact on the reduction of smoking rates. Furthermore, the potential causality is complicated by the distinction between heavy and non-heavy smokers, and how they respond to health warning labels. The very same applies to all sorts of marketing and branding bans.

A 2019 experiment published in Health Education Research found that the presence of graphic health warning labels did not influence participants’ purchase of cigarettes as a main effect. The said study also found that smokers who were highly dependent on nicotine dependence were slightly more likely to purchase cigarettes when graphic health warning labels were present. It might also be likely that health warning labels have the opposite effect and entice defensive reaction and, in the end, fail to achieve the expected goal of reducing the smoking rates.

Further scientific research in the United Kingdom would be necessary to determine whether a decline in adult smoking cessation can be related to display bans.

Tobacco products should not see any further scrutiny. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of health warning labels is, therefore, inconclusive. Adult consumers should be encouraged to make responsible choices bearing in mind the consequences of their actions. Long-shot policies based on respect for consumer choice such as education should be preferred over health warning labels. 

Question 2: How far do you agree or disagree that the introduction of rotating combined (photo and text) health warnings on cigarette and hand rolling tobacco has deterred young people from smoking?

Disagree.

First, taking into account the arguments mentioned above, health warnings on cigarettes haven’t proved to be successful in deterring smokers, especially heavy smokers, from smoking. Young people should be educated about smoking and freedom to choose so that they become responsible adult consumers later in life. 

For instance, a 2019 study conducted in Australia found that both smoking and non-smoking university students perceived current cigarette packaging warnings in Australia as having lost much of their effectiveness as tobacco control interventions. Non-smokers perceived health warnings on cigarettes as preventive and needed to raise awareness about smoking. Smokers, on the contrary, were pessimistic about such interventions.

Question 3: Should all tobacco products have a combined (photo and text) health warning on their packaging?

Characterising flavours

Question 4: How far do you agree or disagree that the prohibition of characterising flavours has helped smokers quit smoking?

Question 5: How far do you agree or disagree that the prohibition of characterising flavours has deterred young people from taking up smoking?

E-cigarettes

Question 6: How far do you agree or disagree that the current regulations on e-cigarettes have been proportionate in protecting young people from taking up use of these products?

A report commissioned by PHE in early 2020 affirmed that nearly two-thirds of 11-to-17-year-olds in the United Kingdom who currently vape more than once a month had bought products themselves. Numbers like this often lead to prohibitionist calls for further bans and restrictions on vaping products. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between the need to ensure that teens should not be able to purchase vaping products while encouraging adult smokers to quit.

Another report commissioned by the PHE showed that 38% of smokers believed that vaping is as harmful as smoking while 15% believed that vaping is more harmful. This misconception of risk is a huge concern, because it discourages many current smokers to switch to the less harmful alternative – vaping. It is crucial that smokers are educated about the possibility to switch and reduce health risks associated with conventional smoking. Marketing of vaping products needs to be encouraged so that consumers have access to the necessary information about vaping as means to quit.

Further bans of vaping products will drive more consumers to illegal products on the unregulated black market, where there is no guarantee of safety or quality. A larger black market will make it even easier for minors to purchase vaping products with no age verifications at all. 

However, the use of vaping products among adolescents isn’t widespread. Out of 11-18 year olds never smokers only 0.1% vape more than once a week. 

Question 7: How far do you agree or disagree that the current regulations have ensured that e-cigarettes are available for those smokers who wish to switch to these products?

Agree. The UK’s pro-vaping approach should be applauded: it saves lives, and other countries should follow the UK’s example. In particular, that concerns other European countries since as long as the UK continues to remain open to innovation aimed at reducing rates, there is a chance that they might choose to drift away from paternalism that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Despite calls to restrict access to vaping, in particular those that seek to frame vaping as a gateway to smoking, the UK should preserve its role as a global harm reduction advocate.

An analysis of 61 countries showed that 196 million smokers could switch to vaping if other countries treated vaping in the same way as the UK.

However, the UK should further improve its current regulatory framework to achieve its smoke-free 2030 goal (see question 8).

Question 8: What effect do you think the regulations have had on smokers considering switching to e-cigarettes?

Unfortunately, as was mentioned previously, 38% of smokers in the UK believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking while 15% believed that vaping is more harmful. Many regulations have made it more difficult for current smokers to obtain correct information about vaping. The EU Tobacco Products Directive has prevented switching efforts, and after Brexit, the UK has a unique chance to walk away from the EU’s restrictive approach. Excessive bans on advertising of vaping should be lifted in order to ensure smokers – especially heavy smokers – are able to gain all the necessary information about vaping. Significant communication efforts should be channeled to help raise awareness about vaping as a safe means to quit smoking.

Question 9: Do you consider the restrictions on e-cigarette advertising to be an effective way to discourage young people and non-smokers from using e-cigarettes?

Agree, we should not tolerate teen vaping, and any rise in numbers is concerning. Still, we cannot at the same time deprive millions of adult smokers of safer alternatives (according to Public Health England, vaping is at least 95% less harmful than traditional smoking) because of activities that are already illegal. All studies and surveys show that regular use among minors is rare, so the effort should be placed on helping adult smokers quit or for those who do not want to or are not able to quit to switch to vaping or similar alternatives. It is, therefore, crucial to distinguish between communication regarding age restrictions and access to e-cigarettes for minors as such and that aimed at adult smokers.

Novel tobacco products

Question 10: How far do you agree or disagree that the requirements of TRPR on novel tobacco products are proportionate?

Strongly agree, it is crucial that the ucomining legislation update distinguishes between TRPR and conventional tobacco. Vaping was initially invented as a safer alternative aimed at reducing health-associated risks and should be seen as such. We need an on-ramp for harm reduction that is vaping: endorse e-cigarettes as an effective tool to help smokers move to a safer alternative to consume nicotine and eventually quit if they desire to do so.

Enforcement

Question 11: Do you agree or disagree that the penalties for a breach of the regulations are an effective deterrent to ensure compliance with the regulations?

Agree. In the United Kingdom, a video game seller can be fined up to 20,000 GBP for selling age-restricted games to underaged customers. At the same time, a vendor selling vaping liquids to minors comes with a maximum fine of merely 2,500 GBP, an eighth compared to video games. Given that one study found that 5 out of 9 shops sell vaping products to minors, the UK’s fines might need to be adjusted upwards.

The UK should abstain from stricter regulation that target adults, and consequently discourage them from switching. Better and smarter enforcement of existing restrictions on sales should be the focus.

Other question

Question 12: How far do you agree or disagree that there has been an economic impact of TRPR, either positive, negative or both?

Anything else on TRPR?

Question 13: Is there anything else you would like to share on negative or positive impacts the regulations have had on topics not covered above? If so, please explain and include any evidence and research you may have to back your response.

As a global consumer group representing millions of consumers in Europe and globally, we have been working on spreading the harm reduction message to help spread awareness about vaping as a life-saving tool both among smokers and non-smokers. We applaud the UK’s progressive approach to vaping and believe it can do even better after Brexit. In particular, that concerns advertising restrictions and stricter enforcement of the rules concerned with teen vaping. 

We are hopeful that the UK doesn’t give in to scientifically unjustified calls against vaping, and remains an advocate of harm reduction. Added to that, it is also crucial to ensure that the upcoming legislation doesn’t unintentionally target adult smokers in pursuit of reducing vaping rates among teens. Although the UK is the example for Europe and the world, there is room for improvement.

SPoT requirements

Question 14: How far do you agree or disagree that the requirements on the packaging and labelling of tobacco products have been an effective way to protect young people from taking up smoking?

Neither agree or disagree. The only way to protect young people from taking up smoking is through education and enforcement of age restrictions. Moreover, plain packaging as a policy hasn’t proved to be effective in the long.

Question 15: How far do you agree or disagree that the requirements on the packaging and labelling of tobacco products have helped existing smokers quit?

Regardless of noble motives in place, the failures of plain packaging are numerous and evident. In 2012, Australia passed a nation-wide plain packaging decree. The goal was to reduce smoking rates. During the first years of the ban, more young people started to smoke. The smoking rates among Australians in the age range of 12-24-year-olds increased from 12 per cent in 2012 to 16 per cent in 2013. Little or no improvement was made among people aged 30 or older between 2013 and 2016. People aged 40–49 continued to be the age group most likely to smoke daily (16.9%) and the smoking rates among this age group went up from 16.2% in 2013. At the same time, Australia has seen an enormous increase in roll-your-own cigarettes: 26% in 2007, to 33% in 2013 and to 36% in 2016. 

Plain packaging, like taxation, is intended to push consumers away from particular products considered by governments to be harmful, unhealthy and detrimental to the wellbeing of society. What policymakers tend to overlook, though, is that demand for cigarettes is inelastic and thus neither taxes nor branding bans can substantially affect consumer behaviour. 

Question 16: SPoT regulations apply to cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco. How far do you agree or disagree that SPoT regulations should be restricted to cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco (and not other tobacco products)?

Pack size

Question 17: How far do you agree or disagree that the introduction of a minimum pack size or weight is an effective way to protect young people from taking up smoking?

The UK government should abstain from introduction of further interventions not only because those are costly and paternalistic, but also because they haven’t proved to be successful in achieving the set goal. Instead, the government should focus on endorsing vaping as a means to quit smoking

Appearance of cigarettes

Question 18: How far do you agree or disagree that the requirements on the appearance of cigarettes are proportionate?

Enforcement

Question 19: Do you agree or disagree that the penalties for a breach of the regulations are an effective deterrent to ensure compliance with the regulations?

  • agree
  • disagree
  • don’t know

Other question

Question 20: How far do you agree or disagree that there has been an economic impact of SPoT, either positive, negative or both?

Anything else on SPoT?

Question 21: Is there anything else you would like to share on negative or positive impacts the regulations have had on topics not covered above? If so, please explain and include any evidence and research you may have to back your response.

CONSULTATION IS AVAILABLE HERE

The obesity crisis? Innovation, not nannying, will cut our calories

Britain’s obesity crisis is acute and urgent. The government’s decision to make tackling it the number one public health priority has an empirical basis. Britons are fatter than ever before, with excess body fat responsible for more deaths than smoking every year since 2014. But as sound as the public health concerns might be, when they are translated into policy, we find ourselves running into a world of problems.

A few years ago, Boris Johnson liked to talk about rolling back the “continuing creep of the nanny state”. He once promised to put an end to “sin taxes” on sugary drinks. He liked to talkabout Britain as a “land of liberty” and, for many, he represented a break with the past. Theresa May had denounced what she called the “libertarian right” upon her elevation to 10 Downing Street, opting instead for “a new centre-ground”. Boris, we were assured, would be something entirely different.

So how did we get here? We have somehow reached a point where the pillars of the Government’s anti-obesity strategy are the regressive sugar tax – which remains firmly in place – along with a draconian advertising ban on foods high in salt, sugar or fat. Plus a bizarre £100 million fund which, one way or another, will supposedly help people to drop the pounds and keep them off.

In between the old Boris and the new, the man himself slimmed down following his jarring bout of Covid-19. After he came out of hospital and recovered from coronavirus, the Prime Minister embarked on a personal slimming programme of his own, allowing him to make himself the poster boy of his Government’s anti-obesity drive.

“The reason I had such a nasty experience with the disease,” he said in October of last year, “is that although I was superficially in the pink of health when I caught it, I had a very common underlying condition. My friends, I was too fat. And I have since lost 26 pounds… And I’m going to continue that diet because you have got to search for the hero inside yourself in the hope that that individual is considerably slimmer.”

Metafictional interpretations of ‘90s song lyrics aside, Johnson’s point here is essentially correct. All the data bears out the fact that obesity has a substantial effect on the dangers posed by a coronavirus infection. But it is unclear why that should warrant an abandonment of principles of liberty in favour of gratuitous and often random state intervention in people’s lives. No nanny state told the PM how to cut his calories. So if Boris could lose weight on his own, why can’t the rest of us?

It’s not like there are no alternatives on the table, leaving costly and damaging policies like new taxes and ad bans as the only option. The menu of unintrusive and unobtrusive anti-obesity policies, free of cost to the taxpayer, is endless. Studies have shown how simple changes, like marking out a section on shopping trolleys for fruit and veg with yellow tape, or rebranding healthy foods to make them more appealing to children, can have an enormous positive effect over a short period of time.

Plus, Britain is home to some of the best scientists and research institutes in the world. Even in times of economic constraint, thanks to lockdown, innovation in the private sector is booming. It was recently discovered, for instance, that a diabetes drug called semaglutide can also function as a weight-loss “miracle cure”. Something as simple as sugar-free chewing gum can suppress appetites, cutting down on unhealthy snacking by a tenth, with very little effort. Why is the Government not enthused by this constant shower of scientific breakthroughs?

For whatever reason, ministers and officials are unwilling to explore the wealth of opportunities for cost-free nudge policies and innovative scientific investments. It is wedded to its model of centralised diet control and appears to hang on Jamie Oliver’s every word. Obesity is shaping up to be the next global health disaster and if we’re not careful – if we remain blinkered by these short-sighted policies – we might find ourselves as unprepared for the next pandemic as we were for the present one.

The Government must step up to the plate now and offer real solutions that work. That is our only hope of preventing the looming catastrophe.

Originally published here.

Vape dan Pentingnya Mempromosikan Harm Reduction di Indonesia

Harm Reduction merupakan istilah yang mungkin masih terdengar asing bagi banyak masyarakat Indonesia. Istilah ini umumnya merujuk pada advokasi dan upaya untuk mengurangi resiko dampak suatu hal atau perilaku yang bisa membahayakan kesehatan seorang individu, atau sebuah komunitas, seperti rokok, alkohol, atau obat-obatan terlarang.

Saat ini, sudah hampir mustahil bisa dibantah lagi, bahwa obat-obatan terlarang seperti penggunaan narkoba dan zat-zat psikotropika, konsumsi rokok dan minuman beralkohol secara berlebihan, atau perilaku kegiatan seksual yang berganti-ganti pasangan adalah hal yang berbahaya. Rokok misalnya, secara ilmiah sudah terbukti dapat menyebabkan berbagai penyakit kronis seperti kanker dan serangan jantung, dan perilaku seksual yang berganti-ganti pasangan dapat berpotensi menimbulkan berbagai penyakit menular seksual seperti HIV/AIDS.Untuk itu, advokasi harm reduction adalah hal yang sangat penting untuk digaungkan demi mencegah dampak buruk dari berbagai hal tersebut terhadap individu dan masyarakat. Terkait dengan penyebaran penyakit menular seksual misalnya, advokasi penggunaan alat kontrasepsi seperti kondom merupakan salah satu advokasi harm reduction yang kerap digaungkan oleh berbagai aktivis dan organisasi-organisasi sipil.

Sementara itu, terkait dengan penggunaan zat-zat psikotropika, beberapa negara di dunia sudah mengeluarkan berbagai kebijakan yang berujuan untuk harm reduction dampak dari zat-zat tersebut. Portugal misalnya, pada tahun 2001 menjadi negara pelopor yang mengeluarkan kebijakan dekriminalisasi terhadap penggunaan seluruh narkoba. Tidak hanya itu, Pemerintah Portugal juga menyediakan layanan pemberian narkoba seperti heroin dan kokain kepada para pecandu dengan dosis yang dianggap aman (Time.com, 1/8/2018).

Sebagaimana dengan pengunaan obat-obatan terlarang dan perilaku seksual yang berganti-ganti pasangan, berbagai pihak juga mengusahakan upaya harm reduction untuk konsumsi produk tembakau seperti rokok yang berbahaya bagi kesehatan. Sebagaimana yang sudah diketahui secara umum, rokok adalah salah satu produk yang paling adiktif, dan mereka yang sudah menjadi penggunanya, terlebih yang sudah mengkonsumsi rokok setiap hari selama bertahun-tahun, sangat sulit untuk menghentikan kebiasaan yang sangat berbahaya tersebut.

Indonesia sendiri misalnya, merupakan salah satu negara dengan persentase perokok aktif yang tertinggi di dunia. Pada tahun 2020 lalu, 39,9% penduduk Indonesia, atau sekitar 57 juta orang, adalah perokok aktif (economy.okezone.com, 13/12/2020). Perokok di Indonesia juga didominasi oleh laki-laki dewasa, yakni sebanyak 62,9% laki-laki dewasa di Indonesia adalah perokok aktif (suara.com, 19/11/2020).Hal ini tentu adalah sesuatu yang sangat memprihatinkan. Konsumsi rokok yang tinggi di Indonesia telah menyebabkan banyak penyakit kronis hingga kematian yang disebabkan oleh konsumsi produk tersebut, Setiap tahunnya misalnya, di Indonesia, sekitar 225.000 orang meninggal disebabkan karena penyakit akibat penggunaan rokok (who.int, 30/5/2020).

Tingkat penggunaan rokok yang tinggi di Indonesia tentu juga tidak bisa dihilangkan atau diatasi dengan mudah, seperti dengan melarang paksa produk tersebut. Rokok merupakan bagian dari keseharian jutaan masyarakat Indonesia selama berhari-hari, dan pelarangan atau pembatasan penggunaan rokok tentu adalah kebijakan yang tidak efektif. Selain itu, bukan tidak mungkin langkah tersebut justru menjadi kebijakan yang kontra-produktif karena akan semakin meningkatkan penjualan rokok ilegal yang pastinya jauh lebih berbahaya karena peredarannya tidak diatur dan diregulasi oleh pemerintah.

Untuk itu, adanya produk yang lebih aman untuk dapat menggantikan rokok merupakan sesuatu yang sangat penting, demi mereduksi dampak negatif yang disebabkan dari rokok. Salah satu dari produk tersebut yang terbukti jauh lebih aman daripada rokok adalah rokok elektronik, atau yang dikenal dengan nama vape.Berdasarkan laporan yang dikeluarkan oleh lembaga kesehatan publik Inggris, Public Health England (PHE), rokok elektronik atau vape adalah produk yang 95% lebih aman daripada rokok konvensional yang dibakar (Public Health England, 2015). Hal ini disebabkan karena dua bahan utama yang terkandung dalam cairan yang digunakan oleh rokok elektronik adalah bahan yang dikenal dengan nama propylene glycol (PG) dan vegetable glycerin (VG).

PG dan VG sendiri adalah bahan yang digunakan untuk membentuk uap dan menambah rasa di produk rokok elektronik. Kedua bahan tersebut merupakan bahan yang umum dan digunakan dalam berbagai makanan, seperti perasa kue, dan telah dinyatakan aman oleh berbagai lembaga regulator di seluruh dunia, salah satunya adalah oleh lembaga regulasi obat dan makanan Amerika Serikat, U.S. Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) (U.S. Food and Drugs Administration, 2019). Dengan melegalkan dan menyediakan produk alternatif yang lebih aman, diharapkan para perokok di Indonesia dapat semakin terbantu untuk mereka dapat menghilangkan kebiasaan merokok mereka, yang sangat berbahaya bagi kesehatan. Kebijakan yang berorientasi pada harm reduction terhadap dampak negatif rokok sendiri merupakan kebijakan yang sudah diberlakukan di berbagai negara, salah satunya adalah di Inggris.

Pasca laporan PHE tahun 2015 mengenai dampak vape yang lebih aman dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar, Pemerintah Inggris lantas memberlakukan kebijakan kesehatan publik yang berorientasi pada harm reduction. Lembaga kesehatan nasional Inggris, National Health Service (NHS) misalnya, mengadvokasi penggunaan vape kepada para perokok untuk membantu mereka berhenti dari kebiasaan merokoknya. Produk-produk vape juga dijual di berbagai rumah sakit di Inggris (Consumer Choice Center, 2020).

Hal ini pula yang diungkapkan oleh Direktur World Vaper’s Alliance (WVA), Michael Landl. WVA sendiri merupakan organisasi pegiat hak-hak vapers di seluruh dunia dan untuk melawan berbagai miskonsepsi terhadap produk-produk vape, dan mendukung regulasi yang baik.Landl, dalam salah satu interview yang saya lakukan, mengatakan bahwa saat ini, Inggris merupakan salah satu negara yang memiliki kebijakan paling baik terkait dengan regulasi vape. Pemerintah Inggris secara aktif mengadvokasi warganya yang perokok, yang belum siap berhenti, untuk mengganti kebiasaannya ke rokok elektronik atau vape (Landl, 2021). Dampak dari kebijakan tersebut sangat positif. Kebijakan kesehatan publik yang berorientasi pada harm reduction dampak rokok melalui advokasi penggunaan vape telah berhasil membuat 1,5 juta perokok di Inggris menghentikan kebiasaan merokoknya (Consumer Choice Center, 2020).

Di Indonesia sendiri, agar upaya harm reduction dapat berhasil, ada beberapa aspek yang sangat penting untuk diperhatikan. Dosen Departemen Politik dan Pemerintahan, FISIPOL, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Wawan Mas’udi, menulis bahwa setidaknya ada empat poin penting agar upaya harm reduction dapat berjalan dengan baik di negeri kita (vapemagz.co.id, 18/9/2020).

Pertama, harus ada sistem dan rezim pemerintahan yang berorientasi pada resiko untuk mempertimbangkan kebijakan yang akan diambil. Hal tersebut merupakan prasyarat pokok yang sangat penting. Kedua, harus ada sistem kelembagaan yang dapat mendukung pemberlakuan dari upaya harm reduction, dan harus ada sinergi yang baik antar sektor kelembagaan tersebut.

Ketiga, harus ada langkah yang menguatkan keterlibatan dari komunitas agar upaya tersebut dapat berjalan efektif dan mendapat dukungan dari masyarakat. Dan yang terakhir, harus ada sumber daya personil yang terampil dan memiliki kemampuan untuk mengkomunikasikan serta meyakinkan para pemangku kepentingan agar upaya harm reduction tersebut dapat berjalan dengan baik. Melalui keempat aspek tersebut, diharapkan upaya harm reduction dalam rangak mengurangi dampak negatif dari rokok bisa berjalan lancar di Indonesia.

Sebagai penutup, upaya harm reduction sangat penting untuk meminimalisir dampak negatif dari berbagai produk atau perilaku yang dapat membahayakan kesehatan seseorang atau komunitas. Untuk itu, diharapkan Pemerintah Indonesia serta berbagai kelompok masyarakat di Indonesia dapat mendukung berbagai upaya tersebut, untuk menciptakan Indonesia yang lebih sehat di masa yang akan datang.

Originally published here.

Sugar is the new tobacco. Here’s what we should do about it!

Whichever way you look at it, Britain is facing an obesity crisis. A study into long-term public health in England and Scotland published earlier this month reached the startling conclusion that obesity is causing more deaths than smoking, with nearly two thirds of British adults now overweight.

This past year has brought rising obesity levels into sharp focus because of the effect that being overweight seems to have on the fatality of Covid-19. According to research from the World Obesity Federation, nine out of ten deaths from coronavirus occurred in countries with high obesity levels, which might go some way towards explaining why the UK has seen a disproportionately high death toll.

This issue has not passed the Government by. Led by a man who was elected on a platform of halting ‘the continuing creep of the nanny state’, this Conservative Government has unveiled a raft of policies designed to ease the pressure on Britain’s weighing scales, including the sugar tax, a ‘junk food’ advertising ban and even a fund – with a £100m price tag – which is apparently designed to bribe people into losing weight.

The problems with these policies are too numerous to count. Sin taxes hit the poor harder than anyone else, making the weekly shopping trip more expensive for families who are already struggling. The junk food ad ban is set to remove around 1.7 calories, or half a Smartie’s worth of energy intake, from children’s diets per day – according to the Government’s analysis of its own policy. And the state-funded version of Slimming World sounds like something that comes out of a pop-up book of policies. Yes, and ho!

It is unclear why Boris Johnson, who was able to lose weight after his brush with Covid without any of these new Government-sponsored initiatives in place, is now so firmly of the belief that the Government must crack down on unhealthy eating if we are to have any hope of slowing down the increase in obesity rates – especially when the private sector is doing most of the hard work voluntarily.

Tesco, for instance, recently bowed to external pressure by committing itself to increasing its sales of healthy foods to 65% of total sales by 2025. Time and time again, when there is an issue people care about, companies go out of their way to do their bit – even at the expense of their bottom line. We saw the same thing happen when the world woke up to the reality of climate change, with businesses eagerly signing up to costly net-zero plans.

Positive moves like this from incumbent giants are complemented by the wealth of innovation taking place around obesity. Semaglutide, a diabetes drug, was recently found to be extraordinarily effective in helping people lose weight. Even something as innocuous as sugar-free chewing gum might just represent part of the solution. Datasuggests that the mere act of idle chewing suppresses the appetite, resulting in a 10% reduction in the consumption of sweet and salty snacks.

Crucially, these remarkable steps towards a less obese Britain can take place at no cost to the taxpayer, free of the grip of Whitehall bureaucracy and at an astonishing pace. We have just lived through a year in which the Government pumped billions into a near-useless ‘test and trace’ system and repeatedly failed to clarify whether or not drinking coffee on a park bench is illegal. If there is one incontrovertible lesson we can surely take from that, it is that we should not leave such important tasks to the state.

Sugar is the new tobacco, so we need to be smart in how we tackle it. Sporadic, ill-thought-out Government interventions like banning Marmite adverts are not the answer. Private-sector innovation, not centralised policy, is Britain’s best hope of slimming down.

Originally published here

DelVal Communities Sue for Right to Ban Plastic Bags. But What Does the Science Say?

Earlier this month, a handful of Delaware Valley communities sued the state over their right to choose to ban the sale and use of plastic shopping bags. The issue raises questions about local authority vs. state power, one that got tangled up in the public policy over handling the threat of COVID-19.

Interestingly the question few people are asking is “What does the science say?” The answer is far more complicated than plastic bag opponents have acknowledged.

On March 3, Philadelphia, West Chester, Narberth, and Lower Merion filed suit claiming GOP state lawmakers violated the constitution when they inserted a ban on banning plastic bags, straws and other single-use plastic products into the budget last year. However, Philly’s efforts to ban the bags go back to well before December 2019, when the city council passed an anti-bag ordinance. Four previous attempts to ban plastic bag use in the city failed.

That ban was blocked, not only by state lawmakers, but by the coronavirus pandemic, which gave plastic shopping bags a second life.

Concerns about “surface contagion” made reusable cloth bags, carried in and out of homes and stores, a pathogen-carrying pariah. Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney announced on April 22 — Earth Day, ironically — the city was postponing the July 1, 2020 start date for its bag ban.

“This is not an announcement we want to make during Earth Week. We know the climate crisis and plastic pollution remain two very serious threats to our planet and society, even during the global pandemic,” the mayor said.

Politicians throughout the country took similar steps. New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, issued an executive order urging residents “to keep reusable bags at home given potential risks to baggers, grocers, and customers.” In New York, a state senator called for the state’s plastic bag prohibition to be suspended for similar reasons.

Meanwhile, in Harrisburg, lawmakers in 2020 extended a 2019 moratorium on plastic bag bans by placing it inside a budget bill (HB1083) just hours before a full vote by the General Assembly. The measure banned municipalities from imitating fees or restrictions on single-use plastics, such as bags and utensils.

The measure, in effect, prevented Philadelphia from implementing its 2019 plastic bag ban It also postponed bag bans in West Chester and Narberth, and stalled a similar ban from going forward in Lower Merion. Left unchallenged, this meant bag bans in all four municipalities could not be implemented until November 2021.

And so now they’re suing.

“In Philadelphia and across the commonwealth, local governments are increasingly concerned about the health and environmental effects of plastic bags,” Mayor Kenney said. “Yet, once again, we face a state legislature that is focused more on tying the hands of cities and towns than on solving the actual problems facing Pennsylvania.”

According to a WHYY report, the Commonwealth Court lawsuit challenges “the state’s ban on the bans, at least until July 1, 2021, or six months after Gov. Tom Wolf lifted the COVID-19 state of emergency. Under the current state of emergency, that would delay the implementation of the municipal bans at least until November of this year.”

Philadelphia officials say they will enact the bag ban on July 1, regardless of state law. If that happens, the result could be Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Democrat Josh Shapiro, representing the state against the liberal stronghold of Philadelphia and over an issue Democrats have widely embraced.

Meanwhile, state Rep. John Hershey (R-Juniata County), who supports the state’s actions, said the bans would have a negative effect on the livelihoods of the families who live and work near the Novolex plastics plant in Milesburg.

This puts the “small-government” GOP in a fight against local governance, a principle Republicans tend to embrace.

Amid the complex politics, however, a larger issue remains largely ignored: Are plastic bag bans smart environmental policy?

If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the science is settled: No. Multiple studies have confirmed that, as Stanford Magazine put it,”single-use plastic bags have the smallest carbon footprint.” A report from the MIT Office of Sustainability concluded: “Based on greenhouse gas emissions of material production, the paper bag would require five uses in order to have a lower impact per use than the polyethylene bag, whereas the jute bag would require 19.”

And it’s not just in the U.S. David Clement of the Consumer Choice Center wrote for InsideSources: “When Denmark considered a ban on single-use plastic grocery bags, its studies found they were far superior in comparison to alternatives. The Danes came to that conclusion based on 15 environmental benchmarks, including climate change, toxicity, ozone depletion, resource depletion, and ecosystem impact. They calculated paper bags would need to be reused 43 times to have the same total impact as a plastic bag.”

But what about litter and plastic pollution in the water? Delaware Valley Journal recently reportedon a study from the nonprofit environmental advocacy group PennEnvironment Research and Policy Center that found samples from every one of the state’s 53 popular waterways contained microplastics.

But despite complaints about plastic bags fouling our streets and sewers, the definitive litter study—the 2009 Keep America Beautiful Survey—found all retail plastic bags (which includes sandwich bags, dry cleaning bags, etc) account for just 0.6 percent of visible litter nationwide.

And a recent study revealed the United States is responsible for about 1 percent of the plastic litter in the world’s oceans.

Jenn Kocher, a spokeswoman for Republican state Sen. Jake Corman, said the desire of local municipalities to enact bans on single-use plastic ought to be balanced with economic concerns, as well as the loss of jobs. Corman stated that “bans hurt the economy” and that “the employers that manufacture these bags provide family-sustaining jobs in communities throughout Pennsylvania.”

Originally published here

Заохочення вейпінгу в Україні може врятувати понад 2 мільйони життів

Глобально – вейпінг може врятувати понад 200 мільйонів життів.

За результатами нового дослідження, ефективніше регулювання електронних цигарок може врятувати понад 200 мільйонів життів у ​​61-ій країні. В Україні – понад 2 мільйони.

Минулого тижня World Vapers Alliance опублікували унікальне дослідження, в ході якого було проаналізовано регулювання електронних цигарок у 61-й країні. Згідно з отриманими висновками, завдяки спрощеному регуляторному режиму, який заохочує електронні цигарки як спосіб кинути палити, 196 мільйонів нинішніх курців у цих країнах можуть перейти на вейпінг, який був визнаний як на 95% менш шкідлива альтернатива.

Переваги вейпінгу відомі вже давно. Електронні сигарети або вейп-пристрої були створені як більш безпечна альтернатива курінню з метою допомогти курцям – особливо важким – кинути курити і споживати нікотин у менш шкідливий спосіб. Цільова аудиторія вейп-пристроїв – споживачі, які курять звичайні сигарети. Про успіх електронних цигарок можна судити тільки шляхом оцінки кількості курців, які змогли або повністю кинути або почати курити менше за допомогою згаданих інноваційних пристроїв, або ймовірності, що вони це зроблять.

COVID нагадав нам всім, що наше здоров’я має першорядне значення, і регуляторні органи, які зацікавлені в тому, щоб люди кинули палити, повинні керуватися наукою, а не піддаватись ідеології.

Інтерактивну карту та всі дані можна знайти тут

Автори карти порівняли поточну кількість постійних та непостійних вейперів. Політика Сполученого Королівства щодо зменшення шкоди тютюну була взята як орієнтир і приклад ефективного регулювання. На підставі цих даних було пораховано, скільки курців могли би перейти на вейпінг, і таким чином кинути палити.

Незважаючи на те, що Україна відносно ліберально поки підходила до регулювання вейпінгу, дискусія починає набирати нових не дуже позитивних обертів.

З 1-го січня 2021-го року, для електронних сигарет було введено окрему товарну підгрупу і встановлено ставку акцизного податку на рівні 1456,33 грн за 1 тис. штук в 2021 році. Щорічно ця ставка буде підвищуватись на 20% до рівня 2516,54 грн за 1 тис. штук в 2024 році. Електронні сигарети допомагають кинути курити, а тому обмеження доступу до вейпінгу шляхом підняття акцизних податків зробить тільки гірше для всіх і в першу чергу для хронічних курців.

У Сполученому Королівстві Public Health England, агентство Міністерства охорони здоров’я, активно рекомендує курцям переходити на електронні сигарети, і, відповідно, були запроваджені дуже прогресивні умови для підтримки і заохочення вейпінгу. Завдяки цій політиці, там спостерігається позитивна тенденція щодо зменшення кількості курців у порівнянні з країнами з надмірним рівнем регулювання вейпінгу. У Великобританії сьогодні курять приблизно на 25% менше людей порівняно з 2013-м роком, коли вейпінг ставав популярним, тоді як, наприклад, в Австралії – одній з країн з найсуворішими правилами вейпінгу, за той самий період було зафіксовано падіння лише на 8%. Франція, Канада та Нова Зеландія дотримувалися підходу, подібного до Великобританії, і в цих країнах спостерігаються позитивні результати.

Важливо пам’ятати, що попит на сигарети сам по собі є нееластичним, і такі заходи, як заборона реклами та акцизні податки не є ефективними у боротьбі з курінням. Навпаки, вейпінг служить рятівною альтернативою, яка надає курцям можливість зменшити ризики, пов’язані зі здоров’ям, і врешті-решт кинути палити.

Тому політики також повинні переосмислити сучасний підхід до вейпінгу і розглядати його як шанс поліпшити здоров’я населення.

Originally published here

Will new EU digital regulations lead us to innovation or stagnation?

A recent event organised by the Consumer Choice Center looked at the role the Digital Services and Markets Acts will play in shaping Europe’s digital innovation future.

In December 2020, the European Commission presented the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). Both are aimed at regulating digital platforms, however, it remains unclear whether they will succeed in boosting innovation in the EU and ensuring fair rules of the game for all participants.

In particular, the DMA puts in place a series of ex-ante restrictions telling tech platforms how to behave and introduces a new “competition tool”. Although noble in its intentions, the worry is that the Act might fail to strike a balance between the need to incentivise European SMEs to innovate while preserving our freedom to choose services delivered by so-called “Big Tech” without excessive burdens.

On 3 March, the Consumer Choice Center hosted a high-level debate on the future of digital innovation in Europe and the role the said acts will play in shaping it. Below are some of the main points raised by our panellists.

“We need to ensure that the DMA doesn’t turn into an anti-American notion. The DMA must not be a protectionist tool used against companies from certain countries, and this is something I will keep an eye on as we move forward with the digital market reform. Digital innovation requires us to stay open, and this is only possible if we cooperate internationally, especially with our democratic partners such as the US. Small players will benefit from this too. However, safeguarding fair competition is pivotal, and that has to be at the centre of our DMA efforts,” said Svenja Hahn, a Member of the European Parliament for Germany (Renew Europe Group).

Eglė Markevičiūtė, Vice Minister at the Ministry of the Economy and Innovation of the Republic of Lithuania, joined the event in her personal capacity to comment on how to improve the alignment on data protection when it comes to the DSA and DMA. “There really is a need for greater flexibility on the enforcement and specific obligations when moving towards a set of criteria that would be applicable over a wide range of platforms and service providers. The goal is not to restrain big online platforms as a source of potential danger but to ensure that consumers as well as small and medium enterprises are protected,” she said.

“Digital innovation requires us to stay open, and this is only possible if we cooperate internationally, especially with our democratic partners such as the US” Svenja Hahn (DE, RE)

“I think the Commission sets out in the DMA to allow platforms to unlock their full potential by harmonising national rules so as to allow end users and business users alike to reap the full benefits of the platform economy and the digital economy at large. What is needed at the EU level is to ensure that harmonisation. To achieve that, I think you have to use objectives and administered rules as you can’t use very subjective or ambiguous standards,” added Kay Jebelli of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA).

“In the United States we tend to look at things around antitrust or competition using the consumer welfare standard which is basically the question of who’s being harmed. Europe, on the contrary, follows a more precautionary principle that can be summed up as ‘can we get ahead of what we think potential harm might be’, and the American mindset tends to be like ‘why do you want to regulate inefficiency into the system’,” said Shane Tews, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

With the world of technology constantly evolving, it is crucial that the European Union is able to keep up with latest developments, thereby providing European consumers with a wide array of choices.

Originally published here

Carbon tariffs are policy mischief

It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which such tariffs don’t make life more expensive for ordinary Canadians

At their virtual summit last month, Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden talked about how Canada and the U.S. could be partners on future projects. Trudeau’s jab at Donald Trump — “U.S. leadership has been sorely missed” — made all the headlines but there was another important policy discussion that likely will have more important implications. Trudeau and Biden both hinted that Canadian-American climate co-operation could include “carbon adjustments” on goods imported from high-emitting countries.

Carbon adjustments, often referred to as carbon tariffs, are levies on goods from countries that do not maintain our level of environmental protection. Their main purpose is to avoid “carbon leakage,” in which companies move to countries that don’t impose costs on carbon.

No one knows how high a carbon tariff would be but it seems likely it would be imposed at the rate of our own federal carbon tax. A back-of-the-envelope approximation using the example of imports of Chinese and Indian steel shows that the impact would be significant. In 2019, Canada imported 612,000 metric tons of steel from India and China. The emissions associated with those imports are around 1,132,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide, using McKinsey’s estimate of 1.85 tons of carbon dioxide per metric ton of steel produced.

Chinese and Indian steel presumably wouldn’t have to pay the full weight of the carbon tax on every ton of CO2, because we exempt 80-90 per cent of emissions from our domestic industry, and, to be non-discriminatory, the adjustment rate would have to match how we treat domestic producers. That said, even with an exemption rate of 85 per cent a carbon tariff would be costly. At that rate, 169,830 tons of CO2 related to these imports would be subject to the tax, which is currently $40/ton. That gives a cost of more than $6.7 million. At the 2030 rate of $170/ton, it balloons to more than $28.8 million.

Apply this technique across a long list of other products from these and other high-emitters and the costs become substantial.

Beyond cost, however, there are also a number of logistical hurdles, which have been outlined in a report submitted to the European Round Table on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. The report favours carbon adjustments but advises that they be approached with caution. It highlights that the revenue from the adjustment can either be kept domestically or sent abroad. Neither option is problem-free.

If the money is kept in Canada, one option would be to refund it to Canadian businesses — though giving Canadian firms revenue generated from taxing the sale of their competitors’ products seems unfair. In many cases it would also mean inflating the price of goods from developing countries like India to protect industry in the developed world.

If that’s a problem, the rebate could be returned to Canadians, preferably through a revenue-neutral rebate scheme like the one that in principle is used to recycle our domestic carbon tax — though problems with rollout mean it hasn’t been revenue-neutral yet. Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that 40 per cent of Canadian families are paying more in carbon taxes than they receive in rebates.

Sending the rebate back to high-emission countries or to global climate funds to help with decarbonization, as suggested in the report to the European Roundtable, isn’t much more attractive. Sending tax revenue abroad won’t likely sit well with Canadians who have spent the last year worrying about the impact of the pandemic on their financial future. It would also run counter to the prime minister’s December pledge not to raise taxes to deal with the deficit.

Rather than taking a swipe at Trump’s leadership, Trudeau should instead have looked at Trump’s record on trade and how disastrous tariffs can be. Trump’s tariffs on imported washing machines, for example, caused a 12 per cent increase in prices, around $88/unit, which created $1.56 billion in extra costs for consumers. (Americans buy a lot of washing-machines!)

Supporters of tariffs would argue, as Trump did, that inflated prices are worth it to expand domestic industry and create jobs. Trump’s tariffs did create manufacturing jobs in the United States — approximately 1800 new positions. The problem is that those jobs came at an enormous cost to U.S. consumers: $811,000 per job created, which comes nowhere near passing a cost-benefit analysis. Carbon adjustments, no matter how well intended, are likely to involve similar numbers.

Carbon tariffs are hard to calculate and open to abuse by rent-seeking protectionists. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which they don’t make life more expensive for ordinary Canadians. There has to be a better path towards carbon neutrality, one that doesn’t involve drastically raising the costs of importing.

David Clement is North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center.

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