fbpx

Month: November 2021

End The War on Sugar: Ist der Zucker unser Feind?

Übergewicht und Diabetes stellen ein großes Problem dar. Berichte der WHO veranschaulichen
die Verdreifachung von Fettleibigen in den letzten 45 Jahren.
2016 waren laut den Daten der WHO 39% von Erwachsenen übergewichtig, 13% sogar
fettleibig. Etwa 38 Millionen von Kindern waren 2019 fettleibig oder übergewichtig.
Eine Lösung für das Problem sieht die WHO in der Besteuerung von zuckerhaltigen Getränken.
Durch die Besteuerung soll ein niedrigerer Zuckerkonsum von Verbrauchern erreicht werden.


Zu sagen, dass Zucker eine schlechte Reputation hat, wäre untertrieben. Der Zucker wird für
Übergewicht und Fettleibigkeit verantwortlich gemacht. Er sei der Grund für die
Zivilisationskrankheit Diabetes.


Doch kann Zucker wirklich als Hauptverursacher von Fettleibigkeit verantwortlich gemacht werden?

Zunehmen, Abnehmen und Makronährstoffe

Wir bauen Fett auf indem wir mehr zu uns nehmen, als wir verbrauchen. Der Mensch
konsumiert Produkte, um zu überleben und Energie aufzunehmen.
Diese Energie wird in Kilokalorien (kCal) gemessen. So verbraucht der durchschnittliche
Mensch etwa 2000 kCal am Tag. Der Gesamtumsatz setzt sich zusammen aus dem
Grundumsatz, der dazu benötigt wird um die Grundfunktionen unseres Körpers zu nutzen und
dem Arbeitsumsatz, das sind die Kalorien die verbraucht werden, indem wir (vor Allem)
körperlich arbeiten. Die größten Unterschiede innerhalb der Bevölkerung ergeben sich aus
diesem Arbeitsumsatz. Wer sich mehr bewegt, ob bei der Arbeit oder in der Freizeit, der
verbraucht auch mehr. Unterschiede von mehreren Tausend Kalorien sind dabei nicht
ungewöhnlich. Nimmt man mehr Kalorien auf, als unser Gesamtumsatz befinden wir uns in
einem Kalorienüberschuss.


Wir sehen: Neben der Nahrungsaufnahme steht der Faktor des Energieverbrauchs.


Geht es um den Körperfettanteil ist es auch egal, ob wir den Kalorienüberschuss durch eine
überhöhte Anzahl von Kohlenhydraten, Fett, oder Proteinen erreicht haben. Letztendlich ist die
Kalorienbilanz entscheidend, d.h. ob wir mehr zu uns nehmen, als wir verbrauchen. In einer
vielzahl von belastbaren Studien konnten keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen
kohlenhydratreichen und kohlenhydratarmen Diäten festgestellt werden.

Zucker und Übergewicht

Ist Zucker der Grund für den Speckbauch?

In den Vereinigten Staaten kann eine gute Datenlage und Langzeitstudien zu diesem Thema vorgefunden werden. Durch eine Studie des US Department of Agriculture wurde das Essverhalten der Amerikaner zwischen 1970 und 2014 untersucht. US-Amerikaner

konsumierten 2014 täglich etwa 374 kCal mehr als im Jahre 1970. Von diesen 374 kCal machen Zucker und andere kalorische Süßungsmittel etwa 33 kCal aus. Nur als Vergleich: Um 1 kg Fett aufzubauen, muss man einen Kalorienüberschuss von etwa 7000 kCal erreichen. Hier eine Liste von Lebensmitteln mit einer ähnlichen Kalorienanzahl, wie 33 kCal: Eine Scheibe Roggenknäckebrot (38 kCal), 100g Erdbeeren (das sind etwa 5 Erdbeeren: 33 kCal), 50g von einem Apfel (das ist in etwa ein Drittel eines ganzen Apfels: 27 kCal). 

Das ist nicht alles. Analysiert man die Daten des USDA im Bezug auf Zucker, kann man beobachten, dass der Zuckerkonsum in den USA seit Erreichen eines Höchstwerts in 1999 stetig sinkt. 1999 machten zugesetzte Zucker 422,6 KCal in der amerikanischen Diät aus. 2016 sind es 357,7 KCal. Die Raten an Übergewichtigen steigen dennoch. So waren 1999 30,5% der Erwachsenen und 13,9% der Jugendlichen übergewichtig. 2016 waren es 39,6% bei Erwachsenen, sowie 18,5% bei Jugendlichen. 

Wie sieht die Datenlage in Deutschland aus? Zwischen 1990 und 2001 ist der Zuckerverbrauch pro Kopf in Deutschland von 35,1 kg auf jährlich 35,3 kg gestiegen. 2011 lag der Konsum bei 35,6 kg. Das sind 0,5 kg Zucker mehr pro Jahr. Zucker hat eine Kaloriendichte von 405 kCal pro 100 Gramm. Umgerechnet bedeutet das, dass die deutschen jährlich 2025 kCal mehr an Zucker konsumieren. Umgerechnet pro Tag, sind das etwa 5,5 KCal. Auch in Deutschland kann es deshalb nicht alleine am Zucker liegen. 

Die Daten aus den Vereinigten Staaten und Deutschland sind sind keineswegs einzigartig. Ein weiterer Staat mit ähnlichen Daten ist Australien. 

Auch dort konnte man beobachten, dass der Zuckerkonsum sinkt und gleichzeitig die immer mehr Menschen übergewichtig sind

Noch viel interessanter ist die Datenlage im Vereinigten Königreich. Aus verschiedenen Studien ergibt sich, dass sowohl die Anzahl von Kalorien, als auch die Menge von Zucker, die die Briten verbrauchen seit Jahren sinken. Die Briten sind vorbildlich, wenn es um gesunde Ernährung und Kaufverhalten geht. Beispielsweise konsumieren sie tendenziell mehr Früchte und Gemüse, als die meisten anderen europäischen Staaten. Dennoch steigt auch dort die Zahl von Übergewichtigen. 

Die Diskrepanz zwischen steigendem Übergewicht und teilweise sogar sinkendem Zuckerkonsum lässt sich jedoch erklären. Seit Jahren nehmen Menschen in diesen Ländern mehr Kalorien zu sich, als sie verbrennen. Im Vereinigten Königreich ging in den letzten 50 Jahren die Kalorieneinnahme stetig zurück. Die tägliche Kalorienverbrennung jedoch noch stärker und das verursacht Gewichtszunahme, Zucker als Teil unserer Ernährung ist naturgemäß ein Teil der Gleichung, aber nicht der entscheidende. Weder in den USA, Deutschland, UK, oder in anderen Ländern passiert etwas untypisches. Was zählt, ist die Kalorienbilanz.

Insulinresistenz, Diabetes und andere Krankheiten 

Eine weitere Krankheit, die mit Zucker und Kohlenhydraten in Verbindung gebracht wird, ist Diabetes Typ2. Aber wird Diabetes tatsächlich durch Zucker verursacht? Diabetes ist eine komplexe Krankheit. Die Ernährung spielt eine Rolle, darüber hinaus der Körperfettanteil, sowie davon unabhängige genetische Umstände. 

Wie genau wird Diabetes verursacht? Es ist ein Zusammenfallen von Insulinresistenz und vom Versagen der Betazellen in der Bauchspeicheldrüse, die für die Insulinproduktion und dessen

Transport ins Blut verantwortlich sind. Die Produktion der Betazellen ist genetisch determiniert. Die Begriffe Insulinsensitivität und -resistenz beschreiben die Fähigkeit von Organen auf Insulin zu reagieren. Ein Mensch mit hoher Insulinsensibilität reagiert stärker auf Insulin. Umgekehrt kann eine Insulinresistenz entstehen, die zu Diabetes (und anderen Krankheiten) führen kann. Der Umstand der dabei die größte Rolle spielt, ist der Körperfettanteil, beziehungsweise Übergewicht. Menschen mit Übergewicht haben grundsätzlich eine schlechtere Insulinsensitivität. 

Weitere belastende Faktoren, die eine bedeutende Rolle spielen, sind beispielsweise, aber nicht abschließend der physische und psychische Stress, Rauchen von Tabak, Alkoholkonsum, sowie eine fehlende körperliche Betätigung. Es ist das Gewicht, beziehungsweise der hohe BMI der am Stärksten mit Diabetes-Typ-2 korreliert

Welche Rolle spielt dabei der Zucker? 

In einer Zusammenfassung von Studien aus dem Jahr 2016 wird gezeigt, dass eine Verbindung von Zucker und Diabetes nicht festgestellt werden kann. Gerade in Mengen, in denen Zucker von der Allgemeinbevölkerung verzehrt wird, scheint keine Auswirkung auf die Insulinsensitivität vorzuliegen. 

Zuckerkonsum- und Diabetesstatsitiken aus verschiedenen Ländern untermauern diese Feststellung. So kann man in den USA seit 1999 einen Rückgang an Zuckerverbrauch beobachten (USDA Daten). Dennoch steigt die Anzahl an Diabetikern deutlich. China, mit einer deutlich niedrigeren Rate an Zuckerkonsum in der Bevölkerung, hat einen vergleichbaren Anteil an Diabetikern wie die Vereinigten Staaten

Im Vereinigten Königreich können wir, wie oben schon beschrieben sowohl einen Rückgang von Zuckerverbrauch, als auch von der Menge an täglich verzehrten Kalorien beobachten. Auch hier steigt die Rate von Diabetes. 

Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die meisten Behauptungen über die gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen von Zucker nicht isoliert betrachtet werden sollten. Die Gründe für Übergewicht sind eine zu hohe Energiezufuhr bei zu wenig körperlicher Betätigung. 

Dieses Übergewicht führt zu gesundheitlichen Problemen, wie Insulinresistenz und Diabetes. Zwar ist Zucker als Teil unserer Ernährung indirekt ein Teil des Problems. Das ist es aber nur in dem Zusammenhang mit allen anderen Nährstoffen und Produkten, die wir konsumieren. Unsere Ernährung besteht aus verschiedenen Produkten. Nur wenige davon haben direkt schädliche Auswirkungen auf unsere Gesundheit. Vielmehr sollte unsere Ernährung und die Produkte, die sie ausmachen immer gemeinsam in einem Kontext betrachtet werden. 

Im zweiten Teil dieser Serie zum Thema Zucker wird analysiert, inwiefern Zuckersteuern zu einem Rückgang von Übergewicht führen können. Dazu werden die Erfahrungen in verschiedenen Ländern betrachtet.

Consumer Choice Center Praises Rep. Nancy Mace’s Smart Cannabis Legalization Bill

1acdbea962554e6ea67b12e24ed7f06e.png

Consumer Choice Center Praises Rep. Nancy Mace’s Smart Cannabis Legalization Bill

Washington, D.C. – On Monday, U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) unveiled the first comprehensive federal cannabis decriminalization and legalization bill by a Republican member of Congress.

The Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group that advocates for smart cannabis policies, praises Rep. Mace’s bill as a significant first step in ending the war on cannabis and providing a consumer-friendly model for sales and distribution to spur entrepreneurship. They join the coalition of the Cannabis Freedom Alliance in endorsing the bill.

“The Consumer Choice Center applauds Rep. Mace’s effort to provide Americans with a smart, safe, and consumer-friendly path to legal cannabis,” said Yaël Ossowski, deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center. “A focus on establishing legal and safe markets will benefit all of society by finally eliminating the black market, restoring justice, and giving the incentive for creative entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace. It is past time America had smart cannabis policies.”

The bill text will be introduced by the end of the day on Monday.

“For too long, lives and resources have been wasted in the failed War on Drugs. By calling on federal lawmakers to legalize recreational cannabis, Rep. Mace is taking the next practical step to save lives and improve our communities,” said David Clement, North American Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center.

“The benefits of legalization have already paid out massive dividends to the people in Colorado, California, Michigan, Oregon, and more, via tax revenues and also by reversing the harsh criminalization that has had a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority communities. Now is the opportunity to make it national,” said Clement.

“We must ensure that the federal government embraces smart cannabis policy, one that encourages competition, entrepreneurship, avoids red tape and eradicates the black market to spur a new revolution in entrepreneurship and opportunity.

“The Consumer Choice Center applauds Rep. Mace’s efforts, and hopes legislators line up behind this proposal,” said Clement.

Read more about the Consumer Choice Center’s Smart Cannabis Policy Recommendations

CONTACT:

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

yael@consumerchoicecenter.org

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

Electric or motor vehicle? Let consumers decide

Emissions from the transportation sector account for 25% of all EU emissions. In an effort to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55%, the European commission announced its plan to ban the sales of new cars that produce carbon emissions by 2035. Enabling this sales ban would require approval from all member states, and it could take up to 2 years to obtain it. The EU has set an ambitious goal of becoming the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, and achieving this goal requires equally ambitious changes to be made.

Massive adoption of electric cars is thought to be a good strategy to fight climate change. Green groups, like Greenpeace, are advocating for financial incentives for EVs while disincentivizing the sale of diesel and petrol cars. But there are many aspects that have to be taken into consideration before EVs are dubbed as environmentally friendly. 

EVs have a lot of advantages: they are low maintenance, don’t run on fuel, therefore produce no emissions, fully charging them is a lot cheaper than filling up a tank of a motor vehicle. But they come with downsides too.  EVs require electricity to be charged and if the electricity itself does not come from clean sources such as hydro, solar or nuclear power and is instead produced by burning fossil fuels, would they make any difference? Adopting electric vehicles only makes sense if countries rely on low-carbon energy supply sources and have the ability to store renewable energy. As of today, it is a big challenge for many European countries, not to mention developing countries.

Another problem with electric vehicles is the lack of infrastructure. Currently, most EU countries lack charging stations, and it would require 1.8 billion investment to deploy the target number of charging points. Recently, auditors have also dubbed the deployment of electric vehicle charging stations as too slow

However, while it is important to discuss how exactly our transition to EVs is going to work, there is a greater issue at play. Banning the sales of motor vehicles reinforces the dangerous precedent of the government picking winners and losers. Drivers of the internal combustion engine cars are already some of the most heavily taxed consumers. They face various taxes and charges that account for most of their mobility costs. Price of petrol and diesel is excessively high and the average government share of fuel price across the EU varies between 44-59%. (Read our recent paper to find out more on this topic)

Arguments can be made for and against both electric and internal combustion engine vehicles. The main issue is that rather than leaving it up to consumers to choose their desired technology, the government is making the final call for us. Automobile companies are already working towards making internal combustion engines more fuel efficient and according to EEA “carbon intensity of newly-registered gasoline-powered cars in Europe fell an average of 25% between 2006 and 2016”.  


Transition to EVs should happen naturally and not forced upon us by government bodies. Many companies are voluntarily shifting their manufacturing process towards the EVs and European consumers are quite open to the idea of purchasing electric cars. And all of this is happening without government mandates! The European Union should adhere to technology neutrality to preserve consumer choice and foster innovation.

Chemical bothers – how Britain can get better at regulating synthetic substances

If there’s one area where Britain can benefit from better post-Brexit regulation, it’s pulling ourselves away from blanket bans on chemicals that are critical to making the modern world cleaner, cheaper and faster.

PFAS, or Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of over 4,700 individual chemicals, each with specific purposes, that are fundamental to our technologically advanced civilisation. In the medical sector, PFAS are crucial to catheter tubes, stent grafts (used to repair heart damage and heart attacks), and in the anti-viral robes that medical professionals use. Meanwhile, in the fight against climate change, PFAS have been of great importance to sustainability entrepreneurs. Without PFAS, lithium-ion batteries (the key ingredient in electric cars) would be uneconomical and impractical. The gold in catalytic converters, which efficiently catalyses diesel and petrol pollution, is extracted with PFAS products for higher yields, making a reduction in pollution much more effective. Whether it’s heart-stents, fire-protection equipment or fibre-optic cables, PFAS are instrumental in the production of many consumer products. 

These chemicals are not, however, without controversy. Multiple, multi-million-dollar lawsuits have resulted from these hardy and resistant substances infecting the environment and entering our bodies. PFAS, when present in water, food, or livestock, can pose a devastating threat to life and health.

However, that does not mean there should be a cross-substance ban on all PFAS, as is being called for by some activists. After all, there are dozens of technologies and processes which have been proven to effectively treat PFAS contamination before it poses a real threat to the environment or human health. 

It’s a question that’s particularly relevant to the UK at the moment. In March of this year, the Government launched their flagship chemicals regulatory regime; UK Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, & restriction of CHemicals (UK REACH), which has committed to investigating whether a ban for all PFAS substances is suitable. Rebecca Pow, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Department of Food, Rural Affairs, and Agriculture has indicated she supports treating all PFAS as a group, rather than on a case-by-case basis. This is a mistake. Chemical regulation is a matter of risk management and mitigation – something that, in our increasingly centralised and planned economy, does not seem to wash with Whitehall.

Activist groups, like Fidra, call for a total ban on PFAS. Would this solve the pollution problem? Not necessarily. Canada, for example, does not produce any PFAS at all, but that just means it relies on imports when it needs these vital chemicals. 

The EU has been keen to promote the removal of PFAS through a movement towards zero-pollutant materials. Whilst an honourable initiative, banning PFAS altogether would be the wrong move.

Instead, by encouraging manufacturers to innovate through tax-free R&D research and other smart incentives, Britain can lead the way in protecting our superior technological products and making the environment safer for us all. Brexit allows for greater diligence in our regulatory sphere, providing us with the opportunity to pursue sensible, risk-conscious regulations.

A ban on PFAS would be a set-back not jut in the fight against Covid, but also climate change and so many other areas of human progress. Indeed, it would be no less than an act of national self-harm – it must not be allowed to happen.

Originally published here

Verzweiflung an der Tanksäule: Ein Überblick über die Besteuerung von Kraftstoff in der EU

Einführung

In diesem Aufsatz wird dargestellt in welchen EU-Staaten die Nutzer von Verbrennungsmotoren die größte Freiheit genießen und welche wiederum die höchsten Steuern zahlen müssen. Ein bedeutender Anteil der Mobilitätskosten in den meisten Mitgliedsstaaten der EU besteht aus Steuern und anderen Abgaben. Hier konzentrieren wir uns auf PKWs. Es werden die Zulassungsgebühren innerhalb der EU analysiert. Darüber hinaus blicken wir in die Zukunft und auf die potentiellen Auswirkungen des kommenden Verbrennerverbots.

Wir sind der Meinung, dass der Anteil der staatlichen Abgaben im Benzin- und Dieselpreis exzessiv hoch ist und dass die EU eine technologieneutrale Politik verfolgen sollte.

Eigentümer von Verbrennungsfahrzeugen zahlen nicht nur beim Kauf (Mehrwertsteuer, sowie KfZ-Zulassung).

Auch das bloße Eigentum am Fahrzeug wird besteuert (z.B. die KfZ-Steuer). Darüber hinaus bestehen länderspezifisch verschiedene Steuern und Abgaben unterschiedlicher Höhe, die sich direkt auf die Kraftstoffpreise auswirken (Energiesteuern, CO2-Abgaben etc.).

Die Mehrwertsteuer für den Kauf eines Fahrzeugs liegt innerhalb der EU zwischen 17 und 27%, wobei Luxemburg den höchsten und Ungarn den niedrigsten Steuersatz aufweisen können. Interessanterweise wird die Mehrwertsteuer auch für Benzin und Diesel angerechnet.

Da Benzin mehr CO2 ausstößt, ist es (bis auf Ungarn) in allen Staaten höher besteuert. In Ungarn und Rumänien zahlt der Verbraucher beim Tanken durchschnittlich die niedrigsten Abgaben, während Italiener, Niederländer und Franzosen am meisten an den Staat zahlen müssen.

Um unlauteren Wettbewerb zu verhindern besteht in der EU eine Mindesthöhe an Abgaben, mit denen die Mitgliedstaaten verschiedene Energieprodukte belasten müssen. Durchschnittlich beträgt die Quote an staatlichen Abgaben zwischen 44 und 59% des Kraftstoffpreises. 

Hohe Zulassungskosten

Die Anmeldegebühren sind länderspezifisch, teilweise bestehen auch Anmeldesteuern. Bulgarien, Estland, Deutschland, Lettland, Luxemburg, und Rumänien sind die einzigen Staaten, die einen Fixbetrag nutzen. In allen anderen Staaten beeinflussen andere Faktoren, wie der Wert des Autos, Effizienz und CO2-Emissionen die Höhe der Gebühren. Schweden ist der einzige Staat, in dem keine Anmeldegebühren anfallen.

In 11 von den 27 Mitgliedsstaaten fallen verschiedene CO2-Steuern beim Autokauf an.

Die höchsten Gebühren bestehen in Dänemark. Die Kosten setzen sich zusammen aus einer Gebühr für den “versteuerbaren Wert des Fahrzeugs” (definiert als der Verkaufspreis inkl. einer Mindestgewinnspanne von 9% (sowohl von Verkäufer als auch Importeur), plus Mehrwertsteuer). Die Zulassungssteuer kann bis zu 150% des versteuerbaren Werts des Fahrzeugs betragen, wenn der Wert 27 174€ übersteigt. Die steuerliche Politik und deren Folgen und Komplexität sind mögliche Erklärungsansätze für die niedrige pro-Kopf Anzahl an Fahrzeugen in Dänemark, die an osteuropäische Staaten erinnert.

In Staaten mit einem ähnlichen pro Kopf BIP beträgt die Anzahl an Fahrzeugen durchschnittlich 563 pro 1000 Einwohner. Dänemark weist lediglich 480 pro 1000 auf.

Die gesetzlich vorgegebene Versicherung wird mit einer Steuer von 25% belastet. Jede Fahrt ohne Versicherung kostet um die 33€, bei einer Polizeikontrolle können sogar um die 134€ anfallen.

Die EU sollte technologieneutral werden

Sowohl für Elektro-, als auch für Verbrennungsmotoren gibt es verschiedene Argumente. Der wichtigste Kritikpunkt ist aber, dass durch das Verbrennerverbot eine Technologie der anderen vorgezogen wird. Das ist der falsche Ansatz: Der langsame Ausbau von Ladestationen erweist sich als Problem, darüber hinaus bestehen beträchtliche Unterschiede bei der Verfügbarkeit je nach Mitgliedstaat. Die Wahl sollte bei Verbrauchern liegen: bei einer gesteigerten Nachfrage nach Elektrofahrzeugen, würden Hersteller ihr Angebot freiwillig anpassen und stärker auf E-Autos ausrichten. 

Die EU und andere staatliche Institutionen sollten keine spezifischen Technologien fördern, aufzwingen, oder umgekehrt bekämpfen.

Um die Freiheit der Verbraucher zu schützen, sowie um Innovationen zu fördern, sollten Staaten und Regierungen neutral sein. Sie dürfen nicht “per Dekret” bestimmen, wer Gewinner und wer Verlierer ist. In manchen Situationen ist es die beste Strategie den Markt zu beobachten und ihn machen zu lassen, sodass Verbraucher die Option wählen können, die am Ende gewinnt.

Illicit trade: challenges and solutions

On the 10th of November, the Consumer Choice Center hosted a webinar titled “Illicit trade challenges and solutions.” To discuss how illicit activities endanger consumers and undermine brands, CCC’s Maria Chaplia was joined by David Haigh, CEO of BrandFinance, and Tamara Pirojkova, Marketing Director Leading Brands of Spain Forum. Sean Kelly, a Member of the European Parliament for Ireland, couldn’t join the event but shared his views in a pre-recorded video message.

Illicit trade is a severe and growing threat to our societies. Smuggling and counterfeit products undermine governments and legal businesses and expose consumers to poorly made and unregulated products. 

A 2021 report by Brand Finance concluded that brands help in the fight against illicit trade and that brand protection is key to ensuring consumers have access to safe and credible products. At the same time, illicit trade is a complex, multi-layered issue and should be analysed through multiple lenses. Commenting on the findings of the report, David Haigh said: “Illicit trade is usually strongest when brands are strongest because the profit margins are highest. So, on the one hand, the illicit trade people want to get on the back of profitable brands, but meanwhile, brands are being criticised for not being socially desirable.” According to the findings of the said report, while consumers want some regulation of brands, they also like brands and find them “extremely helpful”. 95 per cent of consumers agreed that brands improved the quality of their product choice, and 93 per cent said that brands improve the quality of the products themselves.

Expanding on David’s comments, Tamara Pirojkova elaborated on how brands contribute to society as a whole and individuals, and how much innovation, creativity, and effort goes into brand building and positioning. “It is also important to think about the role of advertising and marketing, through which brands can explain to consumers what we do and why, and how we improve the lives of people by introducing new – or old – products to the market. Brands are also very concerned about how they can be more sustainable and project human rights. On the opposite end, illicit trade is not conscious about any of these things,” said Tamara. 

One of the main takeaways of the event is that it is key that the European Union and member states focus not only on the enforcement side of anti-illicit trade policies, but also ensure that the policies in place do not stimulate illicit activities. Some examples of the latter include high taxation and branding, as well as marketing bans. A policy brief, published by the Consumer Choice Center, concluded that “branding and brand promotion should be encouraged as the most trusted way of presenting quality and confidence to consumers.” In the words of David Haigh, “There needs to be a slight change in the governments’ attitude towards brands. They need to be supportive rather than indifferent or aggressive.” 

Tamara Pirojkova added: “I see many opportunities for brands and consumers to build trustworthy relationships, which normally takes years. However, the high level of trust allows companies to be transparent when they are at risk and communicate their fears about illicit trade to their consumers”.

The Consumer Choice Center would like to thank the speakers for their participation in our event. As a global consumer advocacy group speaking on behalf of consumers globally, we will keep communicating the dangers of illicit trade and raise awareness about intrusive policies that undermine brands and encourage criminal activities. Be sure to keep an eye on our work to learn more.

Crypto Hunters: Why Elites are Anxious About Cryptocurrencies

Over the last decade, while we have lived through the ebbs and flows of global crises, triumphs, and changes, a ‘paradigm shift’ has been happening across a network of interconnected computers. This shift began in 2008 when the pseudonymous ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ unveiled his new project: a trustless peer-to-peer network of monetary transactions that would be recorded on a decentralized public ledger. This new version of ‘electronic cash’ was called Bitcoin.

A Bitcoin is created by computers attempting to solve a cryptographic algorithm—a process known as “mining”—which are then ‘rewarded’ with units of monetary representation for having solved the block of code. Once miners have these monetary units, they can send them across the network to other addresses, quickly and with minimal fees.

What made this process wholly unique was its decentralized nature: multiple nodes connected to a network to verify transactions and blocks, and to ensure that every line of code was accurate to the ledger—also known as a ‘blockchain.’

The Bitcoin source code became the envy of computer programmers, hackers, and an entire generation of “cypherpunks”: technology activists who advocated the use of cryptography to achieve true privacy. This was the dawn of the cryptocurrency age.

As users of the network grew, so did copycat projects. The numbers of vendors accepting cryptocurrencies also grew and eventually an entire economy of digital assets emerged, far from the heavily regulated (and policed) financial sector.

Today, that global cryptocurrency and digital asset economy is worth more than $2 trillion, surpassing the GDP of some G7 nations, including Canada and Italy.

Cryptos in the crosshairs

Today—owing to their size, reach, and utility—cryptocurrencies are no longer mere projects of tinkering computer programmers. Prices of Bitcoin and other digital currencies are commonplace on stock tickers. They are found in the portfolios of large financial institutions. And, at least in the case of Bitcoin, they are now considered legal tender in a country like El Salvador.

But the growth and mainstream adoption of cryptocurrencies has necessarily put them in the crosshairs of various regulatory authorities who want to restrict their use. Often authorities have said that this is because of the volatile, speculative nature of cryptocurrencies, which can sometimes have a percentage rise (or fall) in the double digits in just a matter of hours. Authorities have also pointed to various scams that have swindled users of their ‘coins.’ 

At other times, however, there is a worrying sense that ‘crypto’ is evolving faster than regulators can even grasp, offering unique lending, payment, and exchange options that exist—without a central authority.   

In a recent Bloomberg podcast, Christine Lagarde, former IMF director and now president of the European Central Bank, said: “Cryptos are not currencies, full stop. Cryptos are highly speculative assets that claim their fame as currency, possibly, but they’re not. They are not.” Lagarde thus joins the chorus of central bank chiefs, finance ministers, and treasury secretaries that have warned of the unique threat posed by cryptos to the global system of traditional financial markets.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has been one of the more vocal Bitcoin foes, saying recently that he “always believed it’ll be made illegal someplace, like China made it illegal, so I think it’s a little bit of fool’s gold,” and calling on lawmakers to “regulate the hell out of it.”

As decentralized digital assets proliferate, the limited ability of established agencies to oversee and limit transactions means that value is being exchanged outside a guarded or protected system—far from the prying eyes of tax authorities, banking chiefs, and issuers of national currencies.

This, however, is one of the main advantages of using digital assets clocked according to cryptographic algorithms and a real, free market of floating prices: without a central authority, the ability to inflate or deflate the currencies via a printing press or by minting coins is rendered null.

A hedge against the state

When the main unit of exchange is a national currency, the value of that currency is subject to exchange prices. But it also may be inflated or deflated on a whim, based on the needs of the state—for instance, to pay back debts, wage wars, or boost or reduce exports.

Whether it was Roman Emperor Diocletian—who debased the Roman currency and instituted price controls in his 301 AD Edict on Maximum Prices—or the hyperinflation of the German Weimar Republic in the 1920s, or even the abandoning of the Gold Standard by Richard Nixon in 1971, the debasing of currencies serves a purpose that befits a nation and its institutions, and not necessarily its people.

Furthermore, today we see this: U.S. $100 in 1960 are the equivalent of US$886 in 2021. This makes life generally more expensive for those who use U.S. dollars, who must purchase goods and services that may or may not follow the trendline of inflation.

By fixing supply indefinitely—21 million, in the case of Bitcoin—holders of the coin are assured that its value will never be artificially inflated or deflated based on the whims of central monetary authorities, offering peace of mind to investors, savers, and holders (or HODLers).

What’s more, because of the cryptographic process of mining coins and the distributed public ledger of the blockchain, no one can cheat the system. Double-spending, mining new coins without proof of work, or conducting fake transactions cannot happen. And because each account or ‘wallet’ is protected by a “seed phrase”—essentially a private key—there is no way to physically seize accounts or stop payments.

These basic features of cryptocurrencies, as well as their ability to be traded without intermediaries demanding strict compliance (using things like social security numbers, identification cards, tax numbers, etc.) entirely removes governments from transactions. If the financial system were based on these principles and methods, it would make it difficult for the European Central Bank or the Federal Reserve to create new currency, adjust prices, or bail out firms or entities that have made mistakes in times of crisis.

Adapt or die

Given how widespread the trading and use of crypto has become, many in positions of authority have realized that they must reckon with its power. As voiced by Gary Gensler, head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the innovative nature of Bitcoin has been a ‘wake-up call’ to the financial sector. “Nakamoto’s innovation, not only Bitcoin as the first sort of one but this whole distributed ledger technology, has been a catalyst for change that, around the globe, central banks and the private sector are looking in on how we can enhance our payment systems,” Gentler told The Washington Post.

Gensler’s comments demonstrate that officials and ruling elites are taking crypto innovations more seriously. They also suggest that they recognize that the revolution that has begun cannot be stopped.

A group at the U.S. Department of Treasury, led by Gensler and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, will soon debut official recommendations on regulating the crypto sector by focusing on “stablecoins,” which are digital assets pegged to the value of national currencies for easier convertibility. And in the European Union, the European Commission has tabled a proposal on “Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation,” focusing on the investment trends of cryptocurrencies and how consumers and users could be impacted by wild price swings.

Core to each of these regulatory efforts are mechanisms designed to tame the so-called “wild West” of crypto. These include plans to regulate fiat-to-crypto exchanges, deeming various cryptocurrencies as securities, and increasing financial surveillance of the crypto market in order to ensure tax compliance.

There is little doubt that many of these regulations will come to pass. Whether firms or crypto users continue to stay in these jurisdictions, however, remains to be seen. While our current monetary system rests on national currencies and regulated banks, every new user of a cryptocurrency unlocks the potential of a system that cannot be overruled, made redundant, or inflated away.

While regulators can claim significant authority on regulated exchanges or payment providers, the decentralized, distributed nature of crypto means that the currencies themselves cannot be controlled or influenced arbitrarily—and perhaps that is the fact that scares authorities the most.

Originally published here

The obscure UN conflab that seeks to cut off the world from vaping and harm reduction

While most popular attention this month has been on the vital discussions at the United Nation’s COP26 Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, there is an equally important UN conference happening in Geneva that also contemplates the fate of millions of lives.

There are also questions on the importance of science, the role of activists and industry, and how humanity can forget a better path based on common agreements to be implemented in each country.

This year, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an obscure World Health Organization treaty dedicated to eradicating tobacco use, is having its ninth iteration, known as COP9 in Switzerland.

At this conference, 168 member delegations — as well as a narrowly selected group of tobacco control advocates — participate in discussions and debates to forge global standards on taxation, restrictions, and rules on tobacco products.

While no one would object to these goals, the conference threatens to put one of the largest public health victories in recent memory at stake: tobacco harm reduction by innovative technologies.

Though the well-documented scientific evidence on the life-saving potential of smokers switching to less harmful vaping devices is clear and undeniable, it is one scientific fact that is ignored or denied throughout the event.

As I have uncovered in my two trips to the COP FCTC event, one of the most dogmatic conclusions of the event organizers is that they consider nicotine vaping devices, what they label Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (or ENDS), as ordinary tobacco products that should be as harshly taxed, regulated, and eventually eradicated from the market altogether.

It is this nuance — that alternative harm reducing technologies like vaping or heat-not-burn devices pose the same threat as traditional cigarettes — that so animates activists, former smokers, and some health officials who criticise the FCTC and its proceedings. Not to mention the yearly mission of several delegations to completely bar journalists and media from any of the debates.

Considering that many countries represented have embraced policies that elevate harm reduction and acceptance of vaping at home, including the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and New Zealand, it is perhaps most frustrating that this nuance is stopped at the door and reiterated by the power brokers at COP.

What makes COP9 FCTC different from its climate change cousin is the elevated role of public health lobbies and advocacy groups throughout the proceeding.

Groups such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention, and the Framework Convention Alliance on Tobacco Control are the recognised NGOs that are able to intervene in parts of the discussions and help set the agenda.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has pledged millions directly to these organizations and similar entities, with hopes that any tobacco-related products— including vaping devices — are regulated, restricted, and banned. It is no surprise, then, that any efforts to recognise the life-saving potential of vaping devices are blocked immediately.

These lobby groups have routinely been caught bribing and funding various political bodies in developing nations with the goal of restricting and banning vaping devices.

What’s more, they often bully and shame delegations if they do not adopt a strict prohibitionist attitude on tobacco alternatives like vaping, awarding countries like the Philippines, Honduras, or Guatemala with “Dirty Ashtray” awards for “insisting on amendments with unhelpful and often confusing wording” or for requesting “further discussion” on various amendments.

The Filipino delegation, in their video statement to open the conference, said that it was important to recognise vaping devices and “products that deliver a similar satisfaction but with far less harm”.

The recognition of this fact — and the potential to save millions of smokers’ lives — by the delegations at the FCTC’s COP9 is realistically the most pressing issue that should be addressed. It is one that millions of vapers, who have added years to their life by switching away from tobacco, should have represented in an international body.

Whether delegations will understand this key point, and whether they will embrace science over prohibitionist ideology, however, remains to be seen.

Originally published here

Why ‘hazard based’ agricultural chemical regulation doesn’t work

In many ways, various governments have passed regulations with a “one size fits all” mentality. More often than not, however, this approach wrongly limits consumer choice, and more importantly creates tremendous externalities which are often left unaddressed. Our goal is to highlight instances where the “one size fits all” approach has failed consumers and explain why.

Concern over glyphosate in food has become a major topic the last couple of years and has gained a lot of media attention in a recent study where they found that organic beers and wines contained small traces of glyphosate – a pre-harvest herbicide and harvest aid used on cereal crops like wheat, oats and vegetable seed oils like canola and sunflower. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit for glyphosate is 100 times greater than the amounts found in the beer and wine samples, and thus, the risk of human contamination is extremely low.Nevertheless, policymakers want to ban glyphosate which would reduce crop yields and make beer and wine even more expensive.

You probably heard about the “Beepocalypse” – the catastrophic scenario in which declining honeybee population is caused by pesticides. However, honeybees aren’t actually declining but increasing. Occasional reductions in honeybee populations are multifactorial, but varrora mites and the viruses they carry are likely the leading drivers, nutrition being another big factor. According to a USDA bee researcher: “If there’s a top ten list of what’s killing honey bee colonies, I’d put pesticides at number 11″. By creating a “one size fits all” regulation and thus banning pesticides, policymakers could make the mite problem worse which would actually harm honey bee colonies instead of protecting them.

Read more here

El vapeo y tu derecho a consumir

No es algo novedoso encontrarnos con algún político deseoso de regularnos nuestra vida personal: como lo es con el alcohol, el azúcar, el tabaco o las demás drogas, también el acto de vapear ha caído dentro de la misma bolsa.

Como sucede con todo, a los políticos y demás legisladores poco les importa la voz del consumidor, mucho menos la defensa de los derechos de los usuarios.

Pero vayamos por partes. Aunque nunca o quizás alguna vez hayas oído el término “vapeo”, muy probablemente hayas visto a alguien “vapear”. Pues, vapear es, simple y sencillamente, el acto de fumar un cigarrillo electrónico o también llamado “vaporizador”.

Qué nos importan los cigarrillos electrónicos, podrás preguntarte. Pues, quizás a muchos no les importe, pero hay personas a las que sí. Y más importante aún, existen legislaciones, regulaciones y prohibiciones que además de violar las libertades de los consumidores, están perjudicando a los individuos y, como siempre, causando consecuencias opuestas a las que dichas legislaciones buscan conseguir.

Read the full article here

Scroll to top
en_USEN