Month: January 2022

Expect empty shelves, higher food costs due to truck vax policy: Experts

As trucking companies begin to feel the effects of vaccine mandates at the U.S.-Canada border, experts are sounding the alarm about the looming ramifications for consumers across the country.

Over the weekend, new directives from the federal government kicked in that eliminated exemptions for truckers at the U.S. border, who were previously not required to be vaccinated to enter the country because of their “essential worker” status.

Bison Transport Inc. Chief Executive Officer Rob Penner said Monday that his company has already lost nearly 10 per cent of its fleet as a result of the vaccine requirement. 

Read the full article here

On pesticides, “all or nothing” approaches are unhelpful

A Belgian NGO attacks crop protection products that keep food safe and affordable

“Alternatives to sulfoxaflor exist, what are we waiting for?” titles a blog post on the website of the Belgian environmentalist NGO Nature&Progrès.

The post argues that given the available alternatives to modern insecticides, it should be reasonable to phase them out indefinitely. It claims that we are facing an insect apocalypse caused by crop protection tools – however, both statements are untrue.

The warnings of a so-called “insect apocalypse” date back to 2019, when a study titled “Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers” by Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, from the School of Life & Environmental Sciences at the University of Sydney, predicted a spiralling decline of insect populations worldwide.

“It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none” Bayo told The Guardian in February.

This study has since been debunked by researchers at the University of Oxford, who point out that out of the 73 studies Bayo reviewed, he highlights only those that show significant reductions in insect populations, and that he made “false statements on the lack of data for ants”.

The critiques go further. The premise of the insect apocalypse Bayo describes rests on the “red lists” – the presumably growing list of extinct species. However, the red lists contain insects that have regionally disappeared, not those that are globally extinct. In certain regions of the world, due to weather changes, certain insects displace to find more suitable living conditions. While on a case-by-case basis we can identify if human involvement, notably habitat loss, was the cause, this doesn’t mean that the insects are globally extinct.

The intellectual shortcuts in the Bayo study were striking, and not just based on an inaccurate reading of the data: three studies that he cites in support of pesticides being the only cause of insect decline do not actually say that.

Nature&Progrès goes beyond the claims made by Bayo, blaming all neonicotinoid insecticides and the neonics-alternative sulfoxaflor for insect deaths. It provides no data or link to a scientific study that underlines this argument. A hard task in any regard, namely because sulfoxaflor has not been shown to affect honeybee populations, even though this is regularly repeated.

Incidentally, Nature&Progrès dabbles in the same surface-level assumptions that lead the French National Front to demand a ban on sulfoxaflor in 2015 – an amendment rejected by the European Parliament.

Let’s not forget why European farmers use crop protection tools such as insecticides in the first place. Pests threaten crop output each year, to the extent that France has granted an exemption on its ban of neonicotinoids, as beet farmers were facing a complete wipe-out.

Meanwhile, in markets where neonic pesticides continue to be used, honeybee populations are actually steady or increasing. In short, a ban on crop protection tools threatens the livelihood of farmers, the food security of European countries, and can further increase food prices that are already affected by inflation.

Environmentalist NGOs are suggesting to move to an “agro-ecological” baseline of farming instead.

According to its original definition, agroecology is simply the study of ecological practices applied to agriculture. What started out as science, however, has morphed into a political doctrine that not only rules out modern technologies such as genetic engineering, advanced pesticides and synthetic fertilizer but explicitly extols the benefits of “peasant” and “indigenous” farming and in many cases discourages mechanization as a way of freeing the world’s poor from backbreaking agricultural labour. Add on to a hostility to international trade and intellectual property protections for innovators (“seed patents,” which are standard in all advanced crops, not just GMOs, are a frequent cause of complaint) and you can see why agroecology’s promoters so often talk about it as “transformative.”

We should remember that not all “transformations” are good. They can just as easily be bad, even catastrophic.

A study by pro-agroecology activists found that applications of their principles to Europe would decrease agricultural productivity by 35% on average, which they considered a positive, as in their view Europeans eat too much anyway. It’s hard to see how a 35% drop in productivity would protect European from rising food prices, and how a complete phase-out of crop protection equipment would ensure adequate food safety.

Originally published here

Rokok, Vape, dan Perang Terhadap Nikotin

Rokok merupakan salah satu masalah kesehatan publik terbesar yang hingga saat ini masih terus dihadapi oleh berbagai negara di dunia, termasuk juga Indonesia. Negara kita merupakan salah satu negara dengan jumlah populasi perokok terbesar di dunia. Indonesia merupakan negara dengan jumlah populasi perokok ketiga terbesar di dunia setelah China dan India, dengan prevelensi 33,8%, atau 65,7 juta penduduk (jpnn.com, 29/4/2021).

Jumlah tersebut tentu merupakan angka yang sangat tinggi dan bukan masalah yang kecil. Tingginya jumlah perokok di Indonesia tentunya merupakan masalah kesehatan publik yang sangat besar. Tingginya angka perokok di Indonesia tentu menjadi penyebab berbagai penyakit kronis, seperti kanker, dan serangan jantung.

Rokok tidak bisa dipungkiri merupakan produk yang sangat berbahaya dan mengandung banyak bahan beracun. Untuk itu, tidak sedikit negara di dunia menerapkan berbagai kebijakan untuk menanggulangi konsumsi rokok, mulai dari kebijakan yang mengurangi insentif seseorang untuk mengkonsumsi rokok, hingga pelarangan total seluruh produksi dan konsumsi rokok.

Indonesia sendiri juga menerapkan beberapa kebijakan yang bertujuan untuk memitigasi dampak yang sangat negatif dari rokok. Salah satu kebijakan tersebut yang adalah melalui pengenaan cukai rokok yang tinggi terhadap produk-produk tembakau, untuk mengurangi insentif seseorang untuk merokok, karena harganya yang akan semakin mahal.

Salah satu aspek yang sangat berbahaya dari rokok yang tidak bisa kita pungkiri adalah rokok dapat menyebabkan para konsumennya mengalami kecanduan yang menyebabkan mereka sangat sulit untuk menghentikan kebiasaannya. Salah satu zat dalam rokok yang dikaitkan dengan perilaku kecanduan tersebut adalah nikotin yang terkandung di dalam rokok konvensional yang dibakar.

Untuk itu, berbagai pemerintah di dunia banyak mengeluarkan kebijakan yang bukan hanya dalam bentuk “perang terhadap rokok”, tetapi juga “perang terhadap nikotin” secara umum. Dengan demikian, produk-produk yang kerap menjadi sasaran dari kebijakan yang ditujukan untuk “memitigasi” dampak yang sangat berbahaya dari rokok tersebut bukan hanya dikenakan terhadap rokok konvensional yang dibakar, tetapi juga produk-produk alternatif lain yang mengandung nikotin, salah satunya adalah rokok elektronik atau yang juga dikenal dengan nama vape.

Tidak sedikit pula negara-negara yang menerapkan kebijakan “perang terhadap vape” secara keras, bahkan lebih keras daripada terhadap rokok konvensional yang dibakar. Australia misalnya, melarang kegiatan jual beli rokok elektronik tanpa resep dokter. Ini berarti, sebagian besar masyarakat Australia tidak akan bisa untuk mengkonsumsi rokok elektronik (abc.net.au, 8/9/2021).

Indonesia sendiri menerapkan kebijakan vape atau rokok elektronik tidak seketat dengan aturan yang diberlakukan di Australia. Salah satu bentuk kebijakan regulasi terhadap rokok elektornik atau vape yang diberlakukan di Indonesia adalah pengenaan cukai terhadap produk-produk rokok elektronik tersebut.

Namun, bukan berarti lantas tidak ada pihak-pihak yang memiliki keinginan untuk mengetatkan aturan tersebut. Beberapa kelompok dan organisasi di Indonesia misalnya, menginginkan agar produk-produk vape atau rokok elektronik untuk dilarang secara total di negara kita. Beberapa organisasi tersebut diantaranya adalah Ikatan Dokter Indonesia (IDI) dan juga Lembaga Perlindungan Anak Indonesia (LPAI) (mediaindonesia.com, 26/9/2019).

Tetapi pendekatan tersebut bukanlah sesuatu yang tepat. Menyatakan perang terhadap rokok elektronik merupakan langkah yang kontra produktif untuk mengurangi dampak negatif dari rokok. Tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa rokok merupakan produk yang sangat membahayakan kesehatan karena mengandung bahan beracun, namun bukan berarti melarang total produk-produk alternatif seperti rokok elektronik menjadi solusinya.

Salah satu aspek yang membuat sebagian kalangan menganggap bahwa rokok elektronik dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar tidak jauh berbeda adalah kedua produk tersebut sama-sama mengandung nikotin. Padahal, yang membuat rokok konvensional sangat berbahaya bukan semata-mata karena nikotin yang terkandung di dalamnya, melainkan berbagai zat beracun yang bisa menyebabkan berbagai penyakit kronis, seperti kanker dan serangan jantung (Consumer Choice Center, 2021).

Oleh karena itu, melarang produk vape, atau juga produk-produk nikotin lainnya seperti permen karet nikotin, justru akan sangat merugikan khususnya para perokok rokok konvensional yang dibakar. Hal ini dikarenakan mereka menjadi tidak memiliki alternatif produk-produk lainnya. Nikotin memang dapat membuat kecanduan, dan orang-orang yang tidak merokok memang sebaiknya tidak memulai untuk mengkonsumsi rokok. Tetapi, mereka yang sudah terlanjur kecanduan merokok harus diberikan kesempatan untuk memilih produk lain yang bisa membantu mereka untuk menghentikan kebiasaannya tersebut.

Selain itu, sangat penting juga bagi kita untuk kembali berkaca kepada sejarah, bahwa kebijakan prohibisi produk-produk apapun niscaya akan menemui kegagalan. Kebijakan pelarangan produk-produk tertentu, sepeerti minuman beralkohol dan termasuk juga produk-produk nikotin, akan memunculkan pasar gelap yang tentunya akan menguntungkan berbagai organisasi kriminal.

Sebaiknya, nikotin diperlakukan sama dengan hal-hal lain seperti kafein, yang banyak digunakan oleh konsumen untuk rekreasi. Yang dibutuhkan adalah regulasi yang tepat, yang dapat meminimalisir dampak negatif dari zat-zat tersebut, dan bukan pelarangan total yang sangat kontra produktif.

Originally published here

Three priorities for the new European Parliament president

Tomorrow, the European Parliament will elect its new president. As the cases of Omicron spike around Europe, ensuring European solidarity in the face of the new strain will be one of the new president’s top challenges. The sudden death of David Sassoli, praised for keeping the parliament running during the crisis, leaves big shoes to fill. 

Aside from COVID-19, the new president will also need to ensure that the European Parliament takes a pro-consumer, pro-innovation evidence-based approach to several other pressing issues. In line with the goals set out in the European Green New Deal, these, among others, include sustainability of agriculture and energy cost-efficiency. Other significant areas of attention and consideration should be digital and the sharing economy.

Agriculture and sustainability

The EU Farm to Fork strategy is an ambitious attempt to make agriculture in the EU and globally–through trade policy—sustainable. However, cutting the use of pesticides and fertilisers by 50 per cent, as proposed, will not achieve these goals. Instead, the F2F will result in high consumer prices and reduced food production. The F2F will take crucial crop protection tools away from farmers, leaving them unprepared for the next virus. The black market in pesticides, which is already flourishing in the EU, will undoubtedly seize this opportunity. 

The EU shouldn’t restrict the farmers’ freedom to use the preferred crop protection tools to avoid these unintended consequences. Alternatively, the EU should consider enabling genetic modification in the EU.

To learn more about our stance on agriculture and sustainability, check out our policy paper Sustainable Agriculture, available here.

Nuclear 

The European Union remains unjustifiably cautious about nuclear energy. Nuclear is a low-carbon source of energy and an affordable source of energy. It would enable a decarbonised electricity grid. In addition, nuclear can support decarbonised heat and hydrogen production, which can be used as an energy source for hard-to-decarbonise sectors.

The latest IEA and OECD NEA report entitled ‘Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020’ confirms that the long-term operation of nuclear power plants remains the cheapest source of electricity. Furthermore, nuclear is much less vulnerable to price fluctuations, a key point at a time when energy prices are escalating.

To learn more about our stance on nuclear, check out CCC’s Open Letter on Climate Change by our Managing Director Fred Roeder, available here.

Digital

In January 2021, the European Commission presented the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). DMA aims to restrict the market behaviour of big tech giants by introducing a series of ex-ante regulations. However, the current approach lacks nuance and risks hurting the competition in the EU digital market and the EU’s global competitiveness. Instead of going after the success of the high tech companies, the European Union should instead focus on making it easier for smaller European enterprises to operate. One step in that direction would, for example, be to abandon the audiovisual directive, which prevents small and medium enterprises from scaling-up.

To learn more about our stance on the EU digital policies, check out our New Consumer Agenda 2020, available here.

The future resilience of the European Union will be determined by the policy choices made today. It is pivotal that the new president of the European Parliament becomes a champion of innovation, consumer choice, and evidence-based policymaking.

Written by Maria Chaplia and Luca Bertoletti

Smoking is up for the first time in a generation. The public health lobby is to blame

By Yaël Ossowski

It often takes a long time for health policy influencers, advocates, and proponents to admit fault. 

When it is about topics such as diet fads, saturated fats, food pyramids, and sugar consumption, long-held consensus beliefs and government actions later proved erroneous have had a lasting negative impact.

But nothing has been more egregious and harmful in our current age than the public health lobby’s persistent denialism of the harm reduction value of nicotine vaping products and other alternatives to cigarettes.

That denialism has come in many forms: public information campaigns demonizing vaping devices, misinformation on lung illnesses caused by tainted cannabis cartridges, bans, restrictions, and taxes on flavored nicotine products (especially those without tobacco), Kafkaesque market authorization applications handled by the drug regulators, and a never-ending crusade to deny adult consumers from having access to life-saving products because of illicit and risky behavior by teens.

These public health bodies, anti-smoking groups, and allied journalists, whatever their intent, have sought to convince the public that not only is smoking bad and dangerous — an easy admission — but also that alternative nicotine devices like vaping products, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco are just as or even riskier than a pack of smokes.

Those conclusions are easily debunked by the millions of passionate vapers who have long since put down cigarettes and taken up customized tanks, vaporizers, and flavored liquids that give them a familiar nicotine sensation without the tar and combustible byproducts of tobacco.

David Butow for Rolling Stone

The public health mission to muddy the popular perception of nicotine alternatives such as vaping — even though it is scientifically proven to be 95% less harmful than cigarettes — is causing actual damage to American public health. And now we have the proof.

That proof is found both in the increased sales of cigarettes nationwide and also in a highly concentrated study on teen smoking in a jurisdiction where flavored nicotine vaping was outlawed.

According to the sales figures collected by the Federal Trade Commission for its 2020 Cigarette Report, Americans bought more cigarettes in 2020 than they have in more than a generation.

“The total number of cigarettes reported sold by the major manufacturers, 203.7 billion units in 2020, increased by 0.8 billion units (0.4 percent) from 2019, the first increase in cigarettes sold in twenty years,” cites the report.

Americans could be buying more cigarettes for a multitude of reasons: lockdowns, stress from both the pandemic and the government responses to the pandemic, job losses, closed schools, and more. Or perhaps because they’ve been told repeatedly by trusted public health sources and news outlets that vaping, an alternative that millions of adult consumers are now using to quit smoking, is just as dangerous.

Whatever your conclusion, the trend that lowered the percentage of US smokers down to 14 percent in 2019 (when the last complete nationwide survey was completed) is halting. And that should concern us all.

We see anecdotal echoes of this in a recent style piece in the New York Times, highlighting the “comeback” of cigarettes among the bourgeois hipster crowd in Brooklyn, New York. 

“I switched back to cigarettes because I thought it would be healthier than Juuling,” claimed one woman. It seems the public health lobbies have done their job.

On the more evidentiary side, an extensive May 2021 article published in JAMA Pediatrics found that after San Francisco’s ban on flavored vaping and tobacco products, more teens took up smoking.

“San Francisco’s ban on flavored tobacco product sales was associated with increased smoking among minor high school students relative to other school districts,” concludes the paper.

As tobacco harm reduction advocates have claimed for several years, the persistent public health campaigns, echoed by headline-grabbing media outlets, to demonize and restrict access to vaping has led to a predictable rise in smoking rates, both among adults and teens.

Whatever your view on whether vaping devices, heated tobacco, snus, or nicotine pouches are the most attractive and effective gateway away from smoking, this recent uptick in smoking demonstrates actual harms result when politically-charged health lobbies seek to extinguish market alternatives. And we must ask why they persist.

The opposition of these groups, along with affiliated journalists and researchers, to the rise of nicotine alternatives may have less to do with quantitative questions of science and health and more to do with how these products were created and are delivered: by entrepreneurs providing solutions in the market.

These entrepreneurs are vape shop owners, makers of vape liquids, gas station owners, vaping technology firms, tobacco firms pivoting to alternative products, and an entire creative class of vaping influencers both on and offline who are trying to give smokers a second chance at a long life. These are the true heroes of harm reduction in the 21st century.

The fact that spontaneous markets can deliver helpful and healthier solutions because of consumer demand, rather than by edicts, funding, and programs directly controlled by public health bureaucracies and agencies, runs counter to much of the ideology in the tobacco control space. 

It is the former, therefore, that is the true American innovative spirit that has helped make this country so prosperous and competitive, while the latter has failed us again and again.

If we want to reclaim a true public health victory and help smokers quit to give them long and fruitful lives, it is time to cast aside this aversion to the innovations of the market. The future health of our nation depends on it.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center

Нам ще тільки бракувало неефективного і дорогого податку

Податок на цукор не такий ефективний, як стверджує ініціатор.

Михайло Радуцький, голова парламентського комітету з питань здоров’я нації,ініціює введення в Україні податку на солодкі газовані напої. Радуцький посилається на досвід інших країн та рекомендації Всесвітньої Організації Охорони Здоров’я (далі – ВООЗ). Попри красиву риторику про ефективність цього податку, вона більше популістична, аніж підтверджена фактами. 

Ідея податку на цукор виникла в 1930-х роках, коли Данія почала оподатковувати безалкогольні напої та соки. Логіка була зрозуміла: щоб знизити попит на цукор, необхідно підвищувати його ціну. Вища ціна повинна спонукати компанії шукати дешеві замінники цукру, а споживачі двічі подумають, перш ніж купувати солодкі продукти з міркувань бюджету. Зібрані податки потім можуть бути використані для збільшення фінансування громадського здоров’я для лікування діабету або інших захворювань, спричинених споживанням цукру. Але як часто стається в публічній політиці, податок на цукор працює не так, як гадалось.

Податок на цукор доведеться платити українським споживачам, а зокрема сім’ям з низькими доходами. Згідно з дослідженням 2018 року, проведенимUS Tax Foundation, люди з низьким рівнем доходу, як правило, споживають більше солодких напоїв, ніж люди з високими доходами. У Мексиці, де діє податок на цукор, 62% надходжень, сплачуються сім’ями з низькими доходами.

Податок на цукор є дуже сумнівним способом вплинути на поведінку споживачів. Одне дослідження показало, що 62% британських споживачів (Британія ввела податок на цукор у 2018) жодним чином не змінили свою споживчу поведінку через податок на цукор. 

Крім того, податок на цукор має сильний ефект заміщення. Ефект заміщення полягає в тому, що споживачі вибирають дешеві альтернативи подібним продуктам з високою ціною. Якщо солодкі напої зростають у ціні, споживачі, як правило, переходять на інші продукти, які містять менше цукру, але насправді не є більш здоровими, наприклад алкоголь. Дослідження в Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, проведене з січня по грудень 2013 року, показало, що вища ціна на дієтичні напої/напої з низьким вмістом цукру призвела до збільшення продажів пива, сидру та вина. У Франції податок на цукор призвів до незначного зменшення споживання солодких газованих напоїв. Водночас продаж соків та інших безалкогольних напоїв значно виріс (на 7.2% i 15% відповідно). Такими ж були наслідки податку на цукор в Каталонії.

Надмірне споживання цукру є лише однією складовою нездорового способу життя, яке призводить до низки проблем зі здоров’ям. Так, наприклад, лише 30,8% українських міських підлітків (45,4% хлопчиків і 21,4% дівчат) ведуть активний спосіб життя (займаються фізичною активністю принаймні 60 хвилин щодня). Податком на цукор цю проблему не вирішиш – а створенням сприятливого середовища для заохочення актвиного способу життя, як зробила влада Амстердаму, можливо.

Пан Радуцький також стверджує, що більшість країн спрямовують гроші зібрані з податку на цукор на фінансування системи охорони здоров’я, але це не так. Минулого тижня британські активісти звинуватили британський уряд у використання цих грошей не за призначенням. Чи можемо ми тоді надіятись, що в Україні буде інакше?

Податок на цукор – це абсурдна патерналістична ідея. Треба заохочувати особисту відповідальність, а також відповідальність батьків за здорове виховання дітей, адже такий підхід дає більш довготривалі плоди, а не намагатись силою змінити поведінку. Якщо ми презюмуємо, що споживачі настільки інфантильні, що вони не знають, що їсти багато цукру то погано, то як ми тоді можемо думати, що вони вміють приймати правильні рішення як виборці?

Originally published here

Western Standard

Triggered: Real COVID-19 stats & Consumer Choice Center

Cory Morgan’s guests on this episode, Melissa Mbarki of the McDonald Laurier Institute, and David Clement of the Consumer Choice Center. Cory also rants on the need for real COVID-19 hospitalization numbers.

Watch the interview here

Too many government mandates hurt Pennsylvania businesses

Pennsylvania has garnered a great deal of media attention over the last two years concerning restaurant revolts, elusive event gatherings, and parental protests. And with Pennsylvania ranking in as the 5th most populous state, distinct perspectives and positions are par for the course.

Indeed, PA business owners have not shied away from making their preferences and opinions known – and this is a good thing. Individuals and their interests are what have historically powered America’s economic advancements through decentralized decision-making, grassroots initiatives, and an entrepreneurial mindset.

In Warren Buffet’s 2021 annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, he made it clear that he banks on American ingenuity:

“Success stories abound throughout America. Since our country’s birth, individuals with an idea, ambition and often just a pittance of capital have succeeded beyond their dreams by creating something new or by improving the customer’s experience with something old.”

Buffet’s statement highlights two key factors for a successful marketplace – individual choice and an improved customer experience. And it is precisely these two aspects that put business owners on high alert when any new policy may impede either.

Yet, as the new year approaches, new policies are coming into play for some parts of PA.

Philadelphia will be rolling out a vaccine mandate on January 3 for indoor dining experiences. The mandate applies to places like bars, sport venues, and eateries but it doesn’t impact other places where eating may take place such as childcare settings, soup kitchens, and congregated care facilities. The mandate also applies to anyone over the age of 5, and this may prove problematic for those who booked a Philly getaway and are coming from a country where the vaccine has not yet been approved for children (the standard in Europe is for those over the age of 12).

Unlike Philly, Pittsburgh is leaving the vaccination verification up to business owners regarding whether they wish for customers to provide proof or not. For some restaurants, the requisite of requiring patrons to be vaccinated hasn’t hampered business – actually, in some instances, it has helped.

Essentially, Pittsburg is playing a waiting game to see how Philly fares and even what restaurants will require on their own accord. Pitt’s approach allows consumers to choose which retailers and restaurants they wish to frequent, while business owners can choose what policies they wish to enact. It is up to the customer and company to determine how much risk they are comfortable with, and really that is what it all comes down to – determining the hazard present and considering the tradeoffs involved.

When too much emphasis is placed on the hazard aspect, though, blanket bans are often applied from on high, which can sometimes have regrettable results.

David Clement, the North American Affairs Manager for the global think tank Consumer Choice Center, has identified several existing policies, as well as policies being proposed, where the trade-offs simply are not worth the application of risk-based regulations.

An easy analogy Clement uses to illustrate the matter is sun exposure. Although too much can be harmful to one’s health, it would be ill-advised to avoid sunlight altogether since there are beneficial elements derived from the sun’s rays.

With this in mind, one of the cases Clement notes within a policy report is the use glyphosates. Glyphosates are currently under scrutiny in Pennsylvania, but a blanket ban seems counterintuitive given the benefits derived from its use – such as ensuring farmers can have a successful harvest and keeping invasive species at bay. High yield crop productions allow for a greater supply to be brought to market, which then means consumers (and restaurateurs) have more healthy options at a lower cost.

Although traces of glyphosates are found in certain foods and beverages, it is important to keep in mind that traces won’t result in tragedies, and ample evidence attests to this fact.

Clement notes how the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment determined that “in order for glyphosate residues in beer to constitute a health risk, a consumer would need to drink 1,000 liters in one day.” One thousand liters equals 264.172 gallons, and despite Pennsylvania being a bulging hub for craft breweries, consumption to such a degree would be toxic regardless of the presence of glyphosates.

Just like with sunlight, it is the amount that matters – and it is also the individuals involved and the situation at hand. Indeed, some people can down a few more beers than others or partake in a full day of sunbathing without worry, and this is why mitigation efforts mustn’t be made by a centralized power player that is to a large extent separated from the day-to-day aspects of events or actions.

In the New Year, public officials would do well to remember dollar bills from consumers are more powerful in the mind of businesses than House bills from bureaucrats; and as in the words of Elon Musk, it may be best for government to simply “get out of the way” to allow for a 2022 business rebound in PA.

Originally published here

Response to recent media coverage of the CCC’s Harm Reduction work:

A new year means new allegations by so-called journalists that can’t live with the fact that the CCC fights for consumers and is transparent about its work and supporters. This time it’s an article in The Daily Beast in the US, and it feels a bit like Groundhog Day. But we’ll take the opportunity to stress once again how we operate:

 

The CCC has no “Secret backers”!

CCC is transparent that it receives funding from for profit companies, and this is clearly shown on our website. This includes the fact that the CCC receives funding from British American Tobacco, as well as many other companies, individuals and groups. This is not a secret. We are happy to receive donations from companies and individuals who support our mission and respect our independence, and we are not ashamed of it. 

 

The CCC operates with full independence from its donors!

CCC welcomes funding from for profit companies, foundations, and individuals who share our mission. CCC operates with full independence from its donors, and all our donors respect this. The suggestion that any donor ‘ran the show’, or directed any of our activities is completely and demonstrably false. We’ve never met, or even heard of, the individual named in the article, and neither he nor anyone else outside of CCC exercises any direction of our activities. 


Anonymous claims from disgruntled former subcontractors are not facts!

One of our agencies engaged a subcontractor to help us reach the global vaping community on social media. This is a vital way for us to reach vapers who want to stand up and fight for consumer rights. This subcontractor knew that their client was the Consumer Choice Center, not any other company or donor of CCC’s. They failed in their mission and were fired more than a year ago. Their anonymous comments suggest a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the situation, and it’s not clear why. Given how bad they were at their job, maybe it’s not a surprise that they can’t remember who their client was. 

The CCC launched the WVA to fight for vapers!

At CCC we are very proud of our work to save lives by reducing the harm of smoking tobacco. That’s why we created the WVA. You can find a longer read on why we launched the WVA here: https://consumerchoicecenter.org/why-we-launched-the-world-vapers-alliance/ 

 

The CCC is tax compliant and independent!

CCC is a fully independent entity in full compliance with all relevant tax codes. Everything else is a misrepresentation. You can read more here: https://consumerchoicecenter.org/about-us/

 

Pentingnya Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Komunal di Indonesia

Ketika kita mendengar istilah hak kekayaan intelektual, apa yang pertama terlintas di benak kita?

Kemungkinan, yang terlintas di benak kita adalah karya-karya seni seperti lagu dan juga film, yang memang hak kekayaan intelektualnya dilindungi. Bila kita pergi untuk menonton di bioskop misalnya, dengan sangat keras kita dilarang untuk merekam film yang dimainkan, karena hal tersebut merupakan bentuk pelanggaran terhadap perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual.

Contoh lain yang kemunginan muncul di benak kita adalah berbagai logo perusahaan yang sangat akrab dengan kehidupan kita sehari-hari, seperti perusahaan rumah makan ataupun pakaian. Bila kita menggunakan logo perusahaan-perusahaan tersebut untuk keuntungan finansial misalnya, kita bisa dituntut oleh perusahaan tersebut karena telah melanggar hak kekayaan intelektual yang perusahaan tersebut miliki terhadap logo dan nama yang dibuatnya.

Hal tersebut memang sesuatu yang tidak salah. Logo atau nama perusahaan dan juga karya-karya seni seperti lagu dan juga film merupakan bagian dari hak kekayaan intelektual yang harus dilindungi. Bila tidak, maka pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab akan dapat dengan sangat mudah membajak karya-karya tersebut, dan tentunya hal tersebut akan merugikan para inovator dan kreator yang membuat karya tersebut.

Tetapi, hak kekayaan intelektual tidak sebatas hal tersebut. Ada jenis-jenis hak kekayaan intelektual lainnya di Indonesia yang oleh sebagian kalangan kerap kurang menjadi perhatian. Salah satunya adalah hak kekayaan intelektual yang dimiliki oleh komunitas tertentu, seperti komunitas tradisional, secara komunal oleh komunitas tersebut.

Jenis kekayaan intelektual tersebut dikenal dengan nama Kekayaan Intelektual Komunial (KIK). Secara garis besar, KIK sendiri didefinisikan sebagai kekayaan intelektual yang kepemilikannya bersifat kelompok dan bukan pribadi. Hal ini umumnya muncul melalui warisan budaya tradisinal yang berkembang di masyarakat tertentu, yang tidak jarang menjadi bagian identitas dari masyarakkat tersebut, dan karena itu wajib dilindungi agar kekayaan intelektual tersebut dapat dilestarikan (jogja.kemenkumham.go.id, 11/8/2020).

Setidaknya, KIK sendiri dibagi menjadi 4 jenis. Yang pertama adalah Pengetahuan Tradisional, yakni karya intelektual di bidang pengetahuan, teknik, keterampilan, dan praktik yang dikembangkan secara berkelanjutan dari generasi ke generasi. Beberapa contoh produk dari kekayaan intelektual komunal kategori pengetahuan tradisional diantaranya adalah pembuatan produk-produk makanan tradisional yang akrab dengan kehidupan kita sehari-hari, seperti pembuatan tempe (bappeda.purworejokab.go.id, 11/6/2021).

Kedua adalah Ekspresi Budaya Tradisional, yang mendakup bentuk-bentuk ekspresi budaya secara tradisional. Diantaranya adala kesenian atau musik tradisional, ritual upacara adat, dan tarian tradisional. Ketiga adalah Sumber Daya Genetik, yakni tanaman atau hewan yang dipergunakan dan dimanfaatkan serta diyakini memiliki khasiat di masyarakat tertentu, seperti berbagai minuman hasil fermentasi tradisiona, seperti tuak dan lain sebagainya tempe (bappeda.purworejokab.go.id, 11/6/2021).

Yang terakhir adalah Potensi Indikasi Geografis, yang merupakan tanda yang menunjukkan daerah asal suatu barang yang dapat memberikan karakteristik tertentu dari barang tersebut. Beberapa dianara contohnya adalah Apel Batu dari Jawa Timur dan Nanas Subang dari Jawa Barat (bappeda.purworejokab.go.id, 11/6/2021).

Berbagai hasil kekayaan intelektual komunal ini sangat penting untuk dilindungi karena bukan saja hanya karena untuk menjaga dan melestariakan kekayaan intelektual tersebut, tetapi juga sangat penting untuk mengembangkan ekonomi komunitas yang kekayaan intelektual tersebut. Berbagai KIK seperti tarian dan juga upacara adat misalnya, merupakan aset yang sangat besar untuk dapat diolah dan dimanfaatkan sebagai daya tarik wisata, yang tentunya akan membawa banyak manfaat ekonomi kepada masyarakat

Begitu pula hal lain seperti pembuatan makanan dan juga pakaian tradisional misalnya, juga memiliki potensi yang besar untuk meningkatkan perekonomian masyarakat. Kain tenun yang dibuat secara tradisional dan juga berbagai makanan tradisional dapat dimanfaatkan dan juga dijual akan perekonomian masyarakat dapat semakin berkembang. Jangan sampai, pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab membajak dan membuat klaim tertentu atas kekayaan intelektual komunal tersebut, dan memanfaatkannya demi keuntungan mereka sendiri, seraya merugikan kelompok yang memiliki KIK tersebut.

Sehubungan dengan hal tersebut, pencatatan KIK sebagai bagian dari upaya pelestarian kekayaan intelektual komunal juga merupakan hal yang menjadi perhatian Kementerian Hukum dan HAM (Kemenkumham) sebagai kementerian yang membawahi Direktorat Jenderal Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (Dirjen HKI), yang memiliki tugas dan wewenang untuk melindungi kekayaan intelektual yang dimiliki oleh masyarakat. Hal ini diungkapkan oleh Menteri Hukum dan HAM (Menkumham), Yasonna Laoly.

Menkumham Yasonna mengatakan bahwa KIK bukan hanya bisa mendorong pengembangan di daerah dan juga perekonomian masyarakat, namun warisan budaya tersbeut merupakan bagian dari identitas bangsa yang kita miliki. Maka dari itu, berbagai KIK tersebut harus dicatatkan dan didaftarkan sehingga dapat dilindungi dan dilestarikan (beritasatu.com, 26/4/2020).

Sebagai penutup, kekayaan intelektual komunal di Indonesia merupakan hal yang sangat penting untuk dilindungi dan dilestarikan. Semoga, dengan semkain terlindunginya berbagai KIK dari segala penjuru tanah air, perekonomian daerah dapat semakin berkembang, dan akan mendorong tingkat kesejahteraan masyarakat yang lebih tinggi.

Originally published here

Inside Sources Logo

What To Do About PFAS? It’s Complicated.

In the ever-present effort to preserve our environment, the next frontier for regulators is per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). States across the country are narrowing their sights, specifically avoiding their prevalence in water sources. Federally, the PFAS Action Act has been passed in the house, declaring all PFAS hazardous, which could lead to a ban of the entire class of nearly 5,000 chemicals.

It seems obvious that limiting PFAS in water supplies is needed. We know, both from historical cases and recent research, that PFAS can pose a serious threat to human health if it is in the water we drink. It’s the proper role of the government to ensure that dumping is prevented and to punish those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.

But there is good news in this debate that most ignore. Despite alarmist headlines, PFAS has been largely phased out from being used where unnecessary. A  2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry said that “industrial releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several perfluoroalkyls in the early 2000s.” In addition, a CDC report shows that since 2000, “mean blood levels of two respective compounds have declined approximately 84 percent and mean blood levels of PFOA have declined about 70 percent,” and recent reports are showing that bodies of water contain only trace amounts of PFAS, and they have been steadily declining.

While that is great news, the conversation in regards to PFAS appears to be stuck in the early 2000s, when a class-action lawsuit against Dupont was launched for what ended up being an egregious case of chemical dumping. The health impact from this was widespread, and the company settled for over $670 million. Unfortunately, federal legislators are responding to headlines of yesteryear as opposed to taking a measured evidence-based approach.

Despite this, a blanket ban would be incredibly misguided because separate use cases for these chemicals present different risks for Americans. Some present no risk to humans, and in fact, provide great value. Take medical equipment for example. PFAS is used in the production of life-saving medical equipment and is vital for contamination-resistant gowns, implantable medical devices, heart patches, and more.

Embracing a “one size fits all” approach to PFAS without evaluating the risk associated with each use puts lifesaving medical technologies in jeopardy and patient safety at risk. That is the fundamental problem with potential bans, regardless of how these chemicals are used and irrespective of whether or not they present a risk to Americans. When produced in a responsible manner that avoids contaminating water sources, the use of PFAS for medical equipment is a net positive for Americans.

But it isn’t just the availability of medical equipment at risk if bans continue. These compounds are fundamental in the production process for smartphones, used by 290 million Americans every day. Forcibly removing these chemicals from the production process would disrupt supply chains, inflate costs for consumers, which is incredibly regressive, all while this use case of PFAS presents little risk to human health.

Unfortunately, this misguided approach is now creeping into the FDA and their Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). During their upcoming December meeting, the SAB plans on releasing the first round of testing data following the release of the National PFAS Testing Strategy in October 2021. The issue with this is that these test orders were issued far in advance of the Agency’s PFAS categorization framework which is essential to obtain data critical for informing the Agency about PFAS hazards, exposure, and risk.

Essentially the SAB is going to publish their findings, prior to the framework that will outline what appropriate thresholds are, and how regulations should be structured accordingly. As a result, the data that is expected to be presented will be presented without any instruction on what the exposure risks are, and will likely lead to a skewed result adding to the PFAS panic and calls for bans.

Luckily, some voices of reason have emerged in Congress, like Indiana Rep. Larry Buschon. As a heart surgeon by trade, he has rightfully pointed out that the heavy-handed approach would put life-saving medical technologies at risk. Hopefully, more will listen, and Congress can both limit PFAS exposure where it is dangerous while allowing for it to continue to be used where it is safe.

Originally published here

6 Reasons Nicotine Is Not Your Enemy

This month’s Christmas festival has great news on public health. In countries that encouraged and accepted tobacco harm reduction policies, the number of smokers has dropped significantly.

In the UK, for example, smoking levels have dropped by 25% since 2013 (when e-cigarettes became popular). Over the past four years in Japan, cigarette sales have fallen by 34%, while sales of reduced-harm alternatives such as heat-not-burn tobacco surged to 30% in 2019.

This was achieved because people who usually look for nicotine do so in a harmless way.

But while these numbers are important wins for consumers, the entire army of nicotine’s unscientific scapegoats undermines their success. This approach has dire consequences: fewer people switch to less harmful alternatives such as vaping, nicotine pouches, or heat-not-burn tobacco devices.

In the Philippines, additional categories of harm reduction are being legalized, but still failing to achieve the widespread adoption required.

Read the full article here

en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org