fbpx

Day: April 18, 2022

Liberal Housing Plan Misses The Mark

Ottawa, ON: Today the Federal government released their budget, which includes a significant portion addressing the housing crisis. Major policy announcements include a ban on blind bidding, a new tax-free First Home Savings Account, a foreign buyer ban, and $4 billion for municipalities who grow quicker than the historical average.

The Consumer Choice Center’s Toronto based North American Affairs Manager David Clement responded stating “Unfortunately, the government’s housing plan is not bold enough to properly tackle the housing crisis and effectively deal with the issue of chronic undersupply.”

“They’ve proposed a ban on blind bidding, which has already been shown to have no impact on prices and does nothing to increase supply. Their foreign buyer ban is yet another policy that is attempting to tinker with demand, without addressing supply. And while some of Ottawa’s response will allow for consumers to save more, like the Tax Free First Home Savings Account, these tax policy changes also do nothing to increase the supply of housing,” said Clement

“The only supply side policy the federal government has announced is their earmark for communities that grow at a quicker pace than the historical average. The government’s own estimate states that this could result in the building of 100,000 new homes by 2025, but the problem is that a province like Ontario needs another 650,000 new homes just to get to the national average, which wouldn’t be much to celebrate considering that Canada ranks dead last in the G7 for housing units per 1000 people,” said Clement.

“Rather than tinkering with demand and an underwhelming earmark program, the federal government should have focused on zoning reform. The federal government could quite easily tie federal funding for affordable housing and public infrastructure to density goals, with zoning reform as the core mechanism to achieve it. This would be broadly similar to the recent child care agreements which involve the transfer of federal dollars in exchange for a set of provincial deliverables,” said Clement.

Big Tech’deki antitröst baskıları tüketicilere yardımcı olmayacak

Son on yılda ağ tarafsızlığı mücadelesinin en parlak döneminde, teknoloji aktivistleri ve işletmeler ağ tarafsızlığının olmadığı bir kıyamet senaryosu konusunda uyardılar: internet geçiş ücretleri, veri yasakları ve daha düşük hızlar.

Washington, ISP’leri kamu hizmetleri olarak yeniden sınıflandırmazsa ve Federal İletişim Komisyonu’na denetim verirse, tüm çevrimiçi deneyimimizin daha da kötüye gideceğini savundular.

Şimdi, FCC Başkanı Ajit Pai’nin net tarafsızlığı yürürlükten kaldırmasından beş yıl sonra, çevrimiçi hızlar rekor seviyelere ulaştı, her zamankinden daha fazla Amerikalı çevrimiçi durumda ve internet ekonomisi Amerikan toplumunda baskın bir güç haline geldi. Her zamankinden daha açık.

Bununla birlikte, her zaman huzursuz olan bu aktivistlerin çoğu, yeni bir siyasi mücadele için ağ tarafsızlığı savaş bayrağını bir kenara attı: yenilikçi teknoloji şirketlerini ezmek ve kısıtlamak için antitröst yasalarını kullanmak.

Günümüzün aktivistleri ve politikacıları, despotik bir çevrimiçi geleceğe başvurmak yerine, sayısız “teknoloji tekeli”nden ve onların yaşamlarımız ve verilerimiz üzerindeki bariz kontrollerinden yakınıyorlar.

En çok etkilenen şirketler, birlikte on milyonlarca Amerikalıyı istihdam eden, İnternet kullanıcılarının ezici bir çoğunluğu tarafından kullanılan ve sayısız girişimci ve şirkete değer katan bir dizi ürün ve hizmet sunan Amazon, Meta Platforms, Google ve Apple’dır. ayrıldıklarına odaklanılmıştır.

Bununla birlikte, bu şirketlerin her biri, Kongre tarafından bekleyen mevzuat veya işletmelerinin operasyonlarının daha sıkı düzenleyici incelemesi bekleyen başsavcılardan davalarla karşı karşıyadır.

Sosyal medya hesaplarını yasaklamak veya yasaklamak ya da kendi ürünlerini pazarlarında tercih etmek olsun, her şirketi kendi eylemleri ve politikaları nedeniyle eleştirmek için birçok neden olsa da, düzenleyicileri bu şirketlerin nasıl daha fazla kontrol sahibi olmaya davet etmek için bir adımdır. işletmek çok ileri gidiyor.

Tartışmalı bir hesabın Twitter veya Facebook tarafından askıya alınması, federal bir düzenleyicinin bir şirketin hangi hizmetleri sunması gerektiğine karar vermesi için tetikleyici olmamalıdır.

Gerçek şu ki, teknoloji sektörü inanılmaz derecede rekabetçi ve tüketici çıkarlarına hitap eden çeşitli farklı ürünler ve hizmetler sunuyor.

Facebook veya Twitter’dan sıkıldıysanız, kendi Mastodon sunucunuzu veya Matrix sohbetinizi barındırabilirsiniz. YouTube, istediğiniz içeriği barındırmıyorsa, Rumble veya Odyssey’e kolayca kaydolabilirsiniz. Amazon’a tahammül edemiyorsanız, Shopify, ürünlerini müşterilere listelemeleri için milyonlarca girişimciye bir satış noktası daha sağlar. Seçimler sonsuzdur.

Bu nedenle, bir tüketici savunucusu olarak, Fight for the Future gibi geniş bir koalisyonun yükselişini gördüğümde hayal kırıklığı yaşıyorum.

Bu koalisyon, Automattic (WordPress), Brave Browser, Protonmail ve Spotify dahil olmak üzere sevdiğim ve sık kullandığım birçok şirketi ve aynı zamanda uzun süredir yenilikçileri ve serbest girişimi kısıtlamaya çalışan birçok çıkar grubunu içeriyor.

Bu şirketlerin büyük teknoloji şirketleri tarafından tehdit edildiğini hissetmeleri beklenebilir, ancak hükümetten doğrudan veya dolaylı rakiplerini ayırmasını istemek için siyasi güçlerle güçlerini birleştirmeleri tüketicileri endişelendirmeli.

Kongre, teknolojinin gücünü dizginlemek için antitröst yasalarını değiştirmeyi başarırsa, bu tipik İnternet kullanıcısı ve tüketicisinin yararına olmayacaktır. Bunun yerine, birleşme ve satın almaları kısıtlamaktan çok daha fazlasını yapmak isteyen bir koalisyonun politika hedeflerini karşılayacaktır: belirli siyasi konuşmalar, düşmanca gördüğü hareketler ve tüketicilerin erişmek istemediği ürünler.

Antitröst baskısı, Facebook’taki tipik muhafazakarlara veya YouTube’daki liberal çevrecilere yardımcı olmaz. Hükümeti haber akışınızda ne olduğu veya e-postanızı kimin teslim ettiği konusunda çok daha fazla söz sahibi olmaya davet etmek, yalnızca tüketici seçimini sınırlayacak ve engelleyecektir.

Antitröst eylemi çok ileri giderse, bize mükemmel bir rekabet veya geniş seçenekler çağı getirmez. İnternet kullanıcılarını yenilikçi seçeneklerden mahrum bırakacak ve büyümelerine ve değer yaratmalarına izin veren girişimci güçleri engelleyecektir. Önceden uyarmalıyız.

Originally published here

POLITIQUE AGRICOLE : À QUAND LA FIN DES UTOPIES ?

Le secteur énergétique n’est pas le seul concerné par la guerre en Ukraine, les sanctions qui l’ont suivie, et des problèmes d’approvisionnement en ressources essentielles. La stratégie de l’UE semble en revanche faite pour aggraver la situation…

En Europe, tous les consensus politiques des dernières années et décennies sont jetés par la fenêtre. Le pacifisme allemand, la conviction de Macron que l’Otan est « en mort cérébrale » et, maintenant, toute la stratégie de durabilité du continent en matière d’agriculture sont remis en question.

Le Parti populaire européen (PPE), le plus grand groupe parlementaire du Parlement européen, demande en effet que la stratégie « Farm to Fork » soit annulée.

Une stratégie remise en cause… depuis le début

Pour rappel, cette stratégie de la Commission européenne vise à réduire de 50% l’utilisation de pesticides et de 20% celle des engrais, ainsi qu’à consacrer 25% des terres agricoles à l’agriculture biologique. Critiquée dans un premier temps par les représentants du monde agricole, puis confrontée à une étude de l’USDA montrant que cette politique causerait une réduction considérable de la production agricole, la Commission européenne a néanmoins poursuivi le processus législatif.

Cependant, maintenant que la guerre en Ukraine et les sanctions contre la Russie mettent l’approvisionnement alimentaire européen sur des marges plus étroites que jamais, une conclusion de l’USDA cause de grandes inquiétudes à Bruxelles. En effet, selon cette étude américaine, suite à l’application de cette stratégie, les prix agricoles s’envoleraient de 20 à 53%. Cette étude prédit aussi une baisse de la production agricole en Europe comprise entre 7 et 12%.

Parallèlement, la baisse du PIB de l’UE représenterait 76% de la baisse du PIB mondial. Et la situation de la sécurité alimentaire et des prix des produits alimentaires de base se détériorerait considérablement, dans le cadre d’un scénario d’adoption mondiale, comme l’ont constaté les chercheurs de l’USDA.

Maintenant, les politiciens du PPE, comme l’italien Herbert Dorfmann, disent que la Commission européenne « devrait éviter de présenter d’autres propositions législatives qui ont des impacts négatifs sur la sécurité alimentaire européenne ». Le fait que l’une des plus fortes influences politiques de l’UE déclare que nous devrions oublier la réforme agricole la plus importante depuis des décennies « pour le moment » devrait soulever des questions.

Si un nouveau système alimentaire est si intrinsèquement vulnérable aux changements géopolitiques, cela ne le disqualifie-t-il pas sur le long terme plutôt que sur le court terme ?

Et ce principe n’est pas attaqué qu’au niveau européen. Emmanuel Macron a rajouté son grain de sel, expliquant que « [les] objectifs [de la stratégie] doivent être revus car l’Europe ne peut en aucun cas se permettre de produire moins », avant de mettre en garde contre une « crise alimentaire profonde » qui pourrait survenir dans les mois à venir.

L’Ukraine représente 30% des échanges mondiaux de blé et d’orge, 17% du maïs et plus de la moitié de l’huile et des graines de tournesol (88% pour l’Europe). Elle est également le principal partenaire commercial de l’UE pour le soja non-OGM, utilisé pour l’alimentation animale, ainsi que pour 41% du colza et 26% du miel.

Les prix du blé et du maïs se sont déjà envolé depuis le début de la guerre. Maintenant que l’Ukraine a également interdit toute exportation de denrées alimentaires essentielles vers l’Europe afin de garantir son propre approvisionnement, le Vieux Continent se trouve face à une situation catastrophique pour le secteur agricole.

Que peut faire l’Europe ?

L’UE pourrait réagir en réactivant les anciennes boîtes à outils pour la protection des cultures, en autorisant le génie génétique moderne et sûr, et en réduisant les droits d’importation sur les pays qui pourraient fournir à ce continent les biens dont il a besoin.

Ce n’est vraiment pas le moment de faire un discours de vertu sur le fait que l’Europe possède les normes alimentaires imaginaires les plus élevées, qui n’ont ni protégé l’environnement ni fourni une alimentation plus saine aux citoyens. Ce n’est pas non plus le moment de miser sur les aliments biologiques, qui nécessitent plus d’eau et de terres agricoles, tout en exigeant une abondance de pesticides.

Malheureusement, de nombreux écologistes voient dans cette crise une raison de revoir leurs ambitions à la hausse, et non de revoir leurs promesses. Pour l’instant, l’Union européenne à Bruxelles s’en tient à l’objectif de réduction de 50% des pesticides, malgré les avertissements des représentants des agriculteurs sur la baisse des rendements.

Tout récemment, l’UE a cependant publié un document qui appelle les Etats membres à faire davantage pour atteindre les objectifs fixés : au lieu de la réduction de 25% convenue précédemment, l’UE vise désormais 40 % des terres agricoles dédiés au bio. Et peu importe que de nombreux Etats membres soient aux prises avec des problèmes de chaîne d’approvisionnement causés par le Covid-19, un taux d’inflation record et la guerre en Ukraine…

Nous devons supposer que, comme elle le fait si souvent, Bruxelles estime que la nourriture est tout simplement trop bon marché actuellement.

Quel étrange phénomène que, dans cette crise, Emmanuel Macron se soit révélé être l’une des voix les plus raisonnables : construction de centrales nucléaires, suppression des règles de durabilité prévues. C’est presque comme si le président français avait tiré des leçons du mouvement des gilets jaunes. Il semble que face à la crise en Ukraine, qui se résume à l’idéologie contre la réalité, Macron a fait son choix.

Cependant, pour que la politique de l’UE soit réellement affectée, il ne suffit pas que Macron soit de la partie. Certaines des pires décisions agricoles de ces dernières années ne pourront être annulées que si les dirigeants sont prêts à voir les erreurs de leurs méthodes.

L’UE devra remettre en question son approche de la durabilité et envisager sérieusement la sécurité alimentaire dans les mois à venir. Tout devrait être sur la table, d’une réévaluation plus rapide des règles relatives au génie génétique à un moratoire sur les nouvelles réglementations agricoles. Ce rapport servira d’avertissement à ceux qui cherchent à modifier radicalement la réglementation des systèmes alimentaires mondiaux et nationaux.

Originally published here

A day late and a dollar short: Liberal budget fails consumers

Ottawa’s housing plan isn’t bold enough to deal with the issue of chronic undersupply

Chrystia Freeland bought a brand new pair of shoes last week, as is tradition for the finance minister when the government introduces a budget, and Canadians are wondering what sort of tracks Freeland the Liberal-NDP “agreement” will be leaving on their day-to-day lives. The 304-page document has a lot to unpack, and plenty of policy changes that will impact consumers.

On the positive side, the federal government has repealed the excise tax on non-alcoholic beer. Yes, you read that right, there was a sin tax on alcohol-free beer. This is a big win for health-conscious consumers, and those who advocate for the principles of harm reduction. Alcohol-free beer doesn’t carry the same risks as traditional beer, so it was always nonsensical that the government would sin-tax these products.

Unfortunately though, the federal government’s smart approach to harm reduction and risk-based tax policy took a quick U-Turn on the topic of vaping. The federal government will implement a new tax on vaping at $1 per 2mL for vape liquid containers less than 10mL; $5 for containers larger than 10mL; and $1 for every additional 10 mL. This is incredibly problematic from a harm-reduction perspective because vaping products are a useful tool for smokers trying to quit, and 95 per cent less harmful than cigarettes according to Public Health England. Scaling taxes up on vaping liquids makes these reduced-risk products more expensive, and thus less attractive for smokers trying to quit. The harder we make it for smokers to access vape products, the more likely they are to continue smoking, and no one wins in that scenario.

On housing affordability, which is the most pressing issue for millennial Canadians, the Liberals are a day late and a dollar short. Unfortunately for millennials priced out of the housing market, like myself, the government’s housing plan is not bold enough to effectively deal with the issue of chronic undersupply.

They’ve proposed a ban on blind bidding, which has already been shown to have no impact on prices and does nothing to increase supply. Their foreign-buyer ban is yet another policy that is attempting to tinker with demand, without addressing supply. And while some of Ottawa’s response will allow for consumers to save more, like the Tax-Free First Home Savings Account, these tax policy changes also do nothing to increase the supply of housing.

The only supply side policy the federal government has announced is its earmark for communities that grow at a quicker pace than the historical average. The government’s own estimate forecasts that this could result in 100,000 new homes by 2025, but the problem is that Ontario alone needs another 650,000 new homes just to get to the national average, which wouldn’t be much to celebrate considering that Canada ranks dead last in the G7 for housing units per 1,000 people.

And while a rate increase will certainly help dampen unprecedented home price inflation, the real policy solution here is zoning reform. The federal government could have quite easily tied federal funding for affordable housing and public infrastructure to density goals, with zoning reform as the core mechanism to achieve it. This would be broadly similar to the recent childcare agreements which involve the transfer of federal dollars in exchange for a set of provincial deliverables. On housing, it looks like millennial consumers will be left waiting — at least until 2025 when the Liberal-NDP agreement expires — for meaningful policy change.

Originally published here

Inside Sources Logo

Don’t Be Fooled by Those Who Want to Save You From Tech Monopolies

In the heyday of the net-neutrality fight last decade, tech activists and companies warned of a doom scenario without it: Internet toll lanes, blocking of data and slower speeds.

If Washington didn’t reclassify internet service providers as public utilities and give the Federal Communications Commission oversight, they argued, our entire online experience would change for the worse.

Now, five years after FCC chair Ajit Pai repealed net neutrality, online speeds are achieving record highs, more Americans are online than ever before, and the internet economy has become a dominant force in American society. It’s more open than ever.

Forever restless, however, many of these same activists have chucked aside the net-neutrality battle flag for a new political fight: using antitrust laws to break up and restrict innovative tech companies.

Rather than soothsaying a despotic online future, today’s activists and politicians lament the multiple “tech monopolies” and their apparent control of our lives and data.

The most severely targeted companies are Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple, which together provide a suite of products and services that employ tens of millions of Americans, are used by an overwhelming majority of internet users, and provide value to countless entrepreneurs and firms that rely on them.

That said, each of these companies is facing lawsuits by state attorneys general, pending legislation by Congress, or higher regulatory scrutiny in their businesses dealings.

While there is plenty of reason to criticize each individual company for its own actions and policies, whether that be banning or suspending social media accounts or preferring their own products on their marketplaces, inviting regulators to take more control of how these companies operate is a step too far.

Twitter or Facebook suspending a controversial account should not be the catalyst for any federal regulator to decide which services a firm should offer.

The fact remains that the tech sector is incredibly competitive and offers a host of different products and services that cater to consumers’ interests.

If you tire of Facebook or Twitter, you’re free to host your own Mastodon server or Matrix chat. If YouTube doesn’t host the content you like, you can easily sign up on Rumble or Odysee. And if you just cannot stand Amazon, Shopify is empowering millions of entrepreneurs with another outlet to list their products for clients. The choices are endless.

As a consumer advocate, that’s why I’m disappointed when I see the rise of a broad coalition such as “Fight for the Future” lobbying for harsher antitrust enforcement on American innovation, and hosting various antitrust campaigns.

This coalition includes many companies I like and use often, including Automattic (WordPress), Brave Browser, Protonmail and Spotify, but also plenty of pressure groups that have long sought to curtail innovators and free enterprise.

That these companies feel threatened by large tech companies is expected, but for them to partner up with political forces to petition the government to carve up their direct or indirect competitors should be worrying to consumers.

If Congress succeeds in changing antitrust laws to curb tech power, it will not be to the benefit of the typical user and consumer online. Rather, it would fulfill the political goals of a coalition that seeks to curtail much more than mergers and acquisitions: certain political speech, movements they view as hostile and products to which they would rather consumers not have access.

An antitrust crackdown won’t help the typical conservative on Facebook or liberal environmentalist on YouTube. Inviting the government to have much more of a say in what is in your newsfeed or who delivers your email will only restrict and harm consumer choice.

If antitrust actions go too far, it wouldn’t deliver us an era of perfect competition or vast choices. It would deny internet consumers of innovative options and stall the entrepreneurial forces that have allowed them to grow and provide value. We should be forewarned.

Originally published here

Herbicide shortage underlines its importance

The United States is facing a historic shortage of weed killers due to ongoing supply chain issues. The manufacturers are struggling to get their hands on some of the inert chemicals needed to make herbicides, as well as cardboard boxes and plastic jugs for caps. Glyphosate is one of the chemicals most affected by these supply chain problems, with farmers scrambling for alternative products to fight off undesired weeds.

This comes conjointly with a regulatory and legislative crackdown on a wide array of herbicides across the country, limiting the ability of farmers to control weeds this year.

The fact that rules vary between counties complicates the matter further, with agriculture professionals confused over which ingredients remain legally accessible, and needing the assistance of weed scientists to sift through the regulatory jungle. This is particularly problematic as many farmers have land extending across different counties.

While shortages affect the day-to-day lives of farmers, law makers’s long-term actions have more far-reaching consequences.

Weed-killers have come under fire by activist groups opposing the use of crop protection, accusing it of harming endangered species. Preventing these species from going extinct is guaranteed through the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a problematic piece of legislation due to its obtuse standards as to what exactly constitutes an endangered species in the first place.

As Hank Campbell at Science 2.0 explains, the ESA has been hijacked by trial lawyers, who use the law to arbitrarily fit their litigation purposes, and perpetuate definitions of “endangered” that are far removed from what the general public understands by the term. In fact, Campbell shows that the numbers of endangered species according to the ESA has skyrocketed under the Clinton and Obama administrations. As a result, we’ve seen a large amount of chemicals companies being sued, then settled, with environmental groups over their manufacturing of pesticides.

As a consumer, why care? As consumers we need to realize that crop protection plays a role in our daily lives, and not in the way it is portrayed by activists and, all too often, the media. When news outlets publish stories with the headline “Glyphosate weed killer found in German beers, study finds,” it makes sense to read through the entire piece and understand that a single person would need to ingest 264 gallons of beer a day for it to be harmful to health. Let’s agree that a person ingesting 264 gallons of beer in one day will supposedly have bigger problems than the exposure to a weed-killer. In turn, herbicides which are so viciously attacked on unscientific grounds provide essential advantages for farmers.

Pre-herbicides we used to hand weed, a practice so painfully visible in developing nations that still practice it. Herbicides alleviate the burden on women and all too often children who are required to hand-weed. In fact, 80% of hand-weeding in Africa is done by women, and 69% of farm children between the ages of 5 through 14 are forced to leave school to work in the agricultural sector during peak weeding periods, leading to long-term spinal deformities.

Herbicides have also increased our agricultural output, and guaranteed food security. Food security– how immense the technological advance is that we don’t even think about the possibilities of food products not being available on our shelves.

That said, the current food price inflation shows how vulnerable our system can actually be. Farming is more than just putting a seed in the ground and hoping it grows. Farming has become an intricate orchestra of players, all interdependent, all relying on technology and modern science. As consumers, if we want safe, available, and affordable food options, we need to recognize the incredibly important work that farmers do, and put our trust in their professional rigor.

Originally published here

Independent Women's Forum

The U.S. Was Right To Warn The EU About Green Agriculture

The United Nations has warned about the looming food crisis in light of the war in Ukraine. The poorest countries in Africa, heavily dependent on Ukraine and Russia’s wheat supplies, are at high risk of starvation and malnutrition. Food security is also crumbling in Europe, packed with refugees from Ukraine and other politically unstable regions.

Until the very last moment, no one in the world⁠—except Russian President Vladimir Putin–knew whether the war would break out. One can then say that the food crisis caught Europe off guard. But that would be wrong. Europe simply ignored the red flags⁠—and now it’s paying the price.

The European Farm to Fork strategy (F2F), presented in 2019, intended to “enable and accelerate the transition to a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system.” That implied reducing pesticides by 50% by 2030 and increasing organic farming by at least 25%. Many European politicians vehemently defended F2F’s green goals. In October 2021, most Members of the European Parliament voted in favor of the F2F. 

The U.S., however, had no illusions about the F2F. A groundbreaking 2020 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that F2F would reduce “agricultural production by 7 to 12% and diminish the EU’s competitiveness in both domestic and export markets.” The U.S. also recognized that the F2F would impose additional burdens on the EU-U.S. trade talks. 

Commenting on the F2F, David Salmonsen, senior director of congressional relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, stressed: “A concern coming out of that for us is, in the future, could [Farm to Fork] result in some new trade barriers if they decide the way they want to produce food is the only way and they only want to let products in from outside that produce food the same way?” These concerns were particularly justified and shared by African countries, especially Kenya, as well. At home, multiple EU farming associations warned about the detrimental impact of F2F.

However, it took the war in Ukraine to make the EU realize the damaging scale of its green ambitions. Ukraine is one of the EU’s major agricultural partners, and it is only natural that the trade disruption has raised questions about the EU’s own food security. Less than two weeks into the war, the realization that the green agenda is not feasible has hit the EU.

On March 8th, European People’s Party (EPP), the parliament’s largest group, asked to call off the F2F. French President Emmanuel Macron also said that “Europe cannot afford to produce less.” It took the EU less than a month of war⁠—not even on its soil⁠—to realize that the green agenda is not fit for the challenges of today. And who needs such unsustainable policies to start with?

On the one hand, it’s great that the EU has now realized that green agriculture is unworkable. On the other hand, the whole drama could have been avoided in the first place if the EU had thoroughly considered the U.S.’s concerns. Moving forward, both the EU and the U.S. should use the F2F as a reminder that green policies sound great on paper⁠—but they are not feasible.

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