Day: August 8, 2022

Generasi Penamat dan cabaran penyeludupan rokok

PETALING JAYA: Pelbagai kempen bagi membantu mengatasi tabiat merokok telah dilaksanakan Kementerian Kesihatan sejak dahulu, namun dilihat tidak efektif dan gagal mencapai sasaran.

Buktinya dapat dilihat berdasarkan Tinjauan Kesihatan dan Morbiditi Kebangsaan (NHMS) 2019 yang menunjukkan bilangan perokok di Malaysia terus meningkat kepada 4.8 juta orang pada 2021 berbanding 4.7 juta pada 2011.

Malah, kekerapan merokok di negara ini berada pada tahap yang tinggi iaitu sebanyak 21.3 peratus.

Justeru, bagi menangani tabiat itu, Kabinet baru-baru ini meluluskan Rang Undang-Undang (RUU) kawalan tembakau dan merokok yang melarang aktiviti merokok dan pemilikan sebarang produk berkaitan rokok termasuk jenis elektronik bagi generasi muda yang lahir selepas 2007.

Polisi dikenali sebagai Generational End Game (Generasi Penamat) itu telah dibentang di Parlimen.

Namun, langkah drastik yang diambil itu mencetuskan seribu satu persoalan sehingga mendapat reaksi pelbagai pihak mengenai keberkesanannya dan kebolehlaksanaan terutama dalam beberapa situasi terkini negara ini.

Read the full text here

Canada’s shaky rules on cryptocurrencies have their root in Ontario

The notoriously volatile cryptocurrency market has seen more downs than ups, lately. But for Canadians curious about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency — which, notwithstanding the crash of earlier this year is now once again a $1 trillion global asset class — buying and selling any of these digital assets will hinge on where you live.

Quebecers or British Columbians will have an easier time, while Ontario residents will find their choices limited. Exchanges like Binance have learned the hard way, publicly battling with the Ontario Securities Commission over whether they can serve Ontario users.

Though Binance is registered through Canada’s FINTRAC as a money service business, it must comply with Ontario’s securities rules before it can legally accept users in Ontario. That has left millions of Ontarians blocked from Binance and other platforms.

Plenty of Canadians complain about Quebec’s unique status on other matters of regulation, but Ontario is the outlier when it comes to securities.

Canada’s decentralized system gives each province autonomy in the regulation of securities and investor protection. The two most important, due to population, are the Ontario Securities Commission and Quebec’s Autorité des marchés financiers. 

However, Quebec has an advantage as a signatory to a 2004 memorandum of understanding between securities regulators that acts as a “passport” to allow licenses to be accepted in other provinces. Every province and territory has accepted this passport system and works to foster more integrated rules across the country. All except Ontario.

Though the Ontario regulator is fairly busy, it has so far avoided joining hands with other provinces.

In 2020, Canadian Securities Administrators, the umbrella organization of other provinces’ securities regulators, chastised Ontario for not including the passport rule in their highly-praised taskforce to modernize capital markets.

These piecemeal licenses and exemptions, as well as the lack of any significant cryptocurrency rules at the federal level, mean Canadians who want to use these services are forced to adopt creative —if not technically illegal — methods of bypassing restrictions.

Using the second-largest global crypto exchange FTX, for example, is out of bounds. But if you fire up a Virtual Private Network (VPN) and set it to a U.S. IP address, you can easily log in, provide some information, and get to trading.

While FTX is registered with the federal government through FINTRAC, it still does not have the license necessary to offer its services to residents in Ontario. Recent acquisitions by FTX and other firms may change that, but only if the OSC accepts the new license. 

Considering dozens of other shady offshore crypto exchanges are all too happy to accept Canadians without following financial regulations or disclosures, this system is obviously broken and full of risk. Without smart rules, entrepreneurs and consumers have no other options, setting them up for a world of pain.

Dozens of liquidations and so-called “rug pulls” are cascading in the current bear market, putting millions of Canadian investments at risk. This includes Quebec’s major pension fund, which participated in a $400 million round in Celsius Network, a crypto lending and staking platform close to bankruptcy and default.

We already know that Canada, while a wealthy and free country, does not have interprovincial free trade, as we’re all too reminded in political campaigns and frequent cases before the Supreme Court. It’s no different with cryptocurrency rules.

While we await the unlocking of provincial trade barriers, there is something we can do to provide better clarity and security for Canadians who want in on the crypto economy.

Considering the billions of dollars from both institutions and Canadian investors at risk in the cryptocurrency space, it is true that there is currently no clear regulatory oversight or remedies apart from those we would traditionally apply to banking institutions. 

The current Capital Adequacy Requirements for banks in Canada can range up to 8 percent depending on the institution and holdings, usually owing to a level of risk exposure. This is a convoluted and complicated formula and keeps the number of banks in Canada quite low when compared to other industrialized and financialized countries.

While it may seem attractive to automatically lump cryptocurrency projects and protocols into Canadian banking rules and requirements, we recognize that virtual currencies are different than traditional investments and thus should also have their own set of rules. 

Disclosures, protections against fraud, and legal certainty, however, are key principles that would prove very beneficial to Canadian crypto consumers, as we have proposed elsewhere. But what can be done today?

First, Ontario should sign the memorandum to adopt the passport rule and other securities rules, like all other Canadian provinces. Second, if Ontario refuses to budge and there’s no appetite for a federal securities regulator, Canada should at least pass a law granting reciprocity of provincial securities licenses. Third, and most importantly, Ottawa should embrace smart cryptocurrency regulations that promote innovation, competition, and legally allow Canadians to buy and trade cryptocurrencies if they choose.

There are many advantages to being Canadian. We have a robust economy with plenty of opportunities that help raise our standard of living to punch above our weight. We must ensure that our rules reflect that, no matter our postal code and provincial flag. It’s time for our political leaders to follow through.

Originally published here

Checking In on the Bees

The conversation over pollinator health has sparked a heated debate on using crop protection chemicals. In Europe, both neonicotinoid pesticides (marketed since the 1990s) and its competitor sulfoxaflor (registered with the EPA since 2013) have been banned over concerns the insecticides adversely affect bee health. 

“Should other politicians vote down the (National Front’s) proposals on principle, even if they share the same opinion?” wrote EU-focused media outlet Euractiv in 2015 after Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Front had vigorously argued for a ban on sulfoxaflor.

In any case, for Europeans, the ban of each additional pesticide is a win from the political viewpoint, notably because the European Commission’s soon-to-be-released Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive aims to cut pesticide use in half by 2030. The longer the list of banned products, the more likely this aim will be achieved, even if the goal is more political than scientific, and even though it elevates precaution to a level difficult to achieve for products that farmers need.

The United States continues to use both neonics and sulfoxaflor successfully, thus escaping the downsides of a phase-out: France had to reauthorize the use of neonics in 2020 after its sugar beet industry faced collapse. In fact, the EPA calls sulfoxaflor “better for species across the board,” which is probably why the U.S sent a complaint letter to the World Trade Organization in April. Any export products treated with products banned in the European Union could face barriers to entering the market.

This outlines a distinct difference in policymaking between Europe and the United States. Europe is more willing to accept collateral damage from its biodiversity policies than the United States, despite the war in Ukraine causing significant disruptions in the continent’s food supply chain and the effects of COVID-19 have burdened households with substantial food price inflation. For consumers, the effects of a more efficient food production system are palpable: in 2020, Americans spent 5 percent of their disposable income on groceries, compared to8.7 percent in Ireland (the lowest in the EU), 10.8 percent in Germany, 12 percent in Sweden, 17 percent in Hungary and 25 percent in Romania.

However, the question remains to what extent the products — especially those like sulfoxaflor, which were pitched as the replacement for more controversial neonicotinoids — affect bees. A  study in Switzerland recently found no evidence for the claim that the product affects the fitness of bees. Researchers in Ireland equally detected no effect on bumblebees’ ability to learn through smell and taste, essential features of their pollination.

On top of that, for all the talk about “bee-killing pesticides,” strikingly few bees are dying. The data show that as of 2020, there has been a 17 percent increase in beehives, a 35 percent increase since 2000, and a 90 percent increase since 1961. The number of bee colonies in the United States has been stable for 30 years, while in Europe, where farmers use insecticides, the number has increased by 20 percent. Regional declines in bee populations are often due to a reduced demand for beeswax or honey, which makes beekeepers shrink their supply of managed bees. As honey prices increase, we will likely see the opposite effect.

The problem with pesticides and bee health claims is that you can make them up as you go along. The claim that pesticides make bees stupid leads to the study of the learning abilities of bees; the scientific community is just always running years behind the claims of environmental activists. As with every good conspiracy, it is hard by design to disprove it completely.

Meanwhile, agricultural output is likely to suffer as the crop protection catalog is reduced by the year in places like Europe. Organic food, by comparison, requires 130 percent more farmland to achieve the same yield. A method that is hard to reconcile with reducing the amount of cropland we need, most notably to protect natural areas for wild bees.

Originally published here

Milano Centrale è la seconda migliore stazione d’Europa

Il Consumer Choice Center, un gruppo di difesa dei consumatori, ha redatto la classificadelle migliori stazioni d’Europa, esaminando le 50 stazioni europee più grandi e classificandole in base all’esperienza dei passeggeri e a una serie di fattori, come l’affollamento, l’accessibilità e il numero di destinazioni.

Come spiega il CCC, l’indice complessivo dell’esperienza del passeggero comprende la disponibilità di servizi di ride-hailing, la concorrenza delle compagnie ferroviarie, i ristoranti e i punti di asporto in loco, negozi, il numero di destinazioni nazionali e internazionali, l’accessibilità per i disabili, l’esistenza di lounge di prima classe, il Wi-Fi e la comodità per accedere ai binari.

Zürich HB a Zurigo, in Svizzera, è al primo posto nella classifica delle migliori stazioni ferroviarie d’Europa. Anche se la stazione non ha il maggior numero di destinazioni internazionali e nazionali, ha un elevato numero di negozi/chioschi, ristoranti e punti di ristoro per allietare il viaggio.

Read the full text here


Na quarta-feira (27), o Federal Reserve elevou sua taxa básica de juros em robustos três quartos de ponto pela segunda vez consecutiva em seu esforço mais agressivo em três décadas para domar a alta inflação. Na visão de Fabio Fernandes, Head de Comunicação do Consumer Choice Center, os juros mais altos terão consequências dolorosas para os consumidores.

“Temos observado o impacto da inflação sobre os consumidores americanos, e isso os está prejudicando, especialmente porque está superando o crescimento salarial historicamente forte. A inflação mais alta significa que o Fed precisa agir de forma mais agressiva, que foi o que fez hoje.”

“No entanto, o remédio também é doloroso para os consumidores. Taxas de juros mais altas se traduzem em financiamentos mais caros para os mutuários. Isso vale para hipotecas, empréstimos estudantis, empréstimos para automóveis e cartões de crédito, e quanto mais altas as taxas, mais os consumidores têm que pagar”, disse Fernandes

“Os consumidores estão sendo pressionados por preços muito mais altos para praticamente tudo em suas listas de compras e, como muitos consumidores não têm muito dinheiro extra em seus orçamentos, empréstimos a taxas mais altas prejudicarão especialmente as famílias de baixa renda”, acrescentou Fernandes.

“De fato, a inflação continua sendo a principal preocupação dos consumidores e, com o crescente medo com relação ao rumo que a economia está seguindo, os consumidores passarão a gastar com mais cautela”, concluiu Fernandes

Originally published here

Generational End Game: An attack on personal liberty

RECENTLY, a polemic arose when Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin wanted to table a Bill to ban tobacco and vaping for future generation of Malaysians in Parliament, which is in session until Aug 4.

Consumer Choice Centre (CCC) firmly disagrees with the proposed ban for many reasons. Primarily, we believe that such a ban will infringe on the rights of Malaysians to choose and make decisions regarding their own lifestyle.

The Government and Members of Parliament (MPs) should examine this matter holistically, especially matters involving consumer preferences.

All of us, smokers or non-smokers alike, have a fundamental interest in defending our personal and civic freedom so that we can live our lives as we think best rather than as what the Government tells or wants us to do.

In a free society, adults must be allowed to make choices concerning their lifestyle without excessive intervention.

Freedom to seek alternatives

CCC does not condone smoking. We understand the health risks and the impact of second hand smoke.

Long-term tobacco consumption or smoking can cause health disorders to the nervous system, lungs and heart, digestive system and even the human reproductive system.

Almost 99% of tobacco-related deaths are caused by smoking rather than from the use of nicotine in other forms. The Yorkshire Cancer Research says nicotine is not the cause of smoking-related deaths. In fact, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease are not caused by nicotine.

As a consequence, the idea of nicotine replacement or tobacco harm reduction has proven to help reduce the above risks. Stopping tobacco use with harm reduction products and technologies such as vape can also reduce the risk of getting or dying from cancer.

This is agreed by international organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) Euro Office which states that the complete replacement of burning tobacco with electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems is capable of reducing the exposure of consumers to a wide toxic range.

In addition, Public Health England also stated that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking.

Consumer safety

In the Illegal Cigarette Survey (ICS) released by Nielsen in 2021, Malaysia ranked highest in the world for the existence of illegal cigarette syndicates and smuggling.

Meanwhile, according to a study by the Datametrics Research and Information Research Centre (DARE) entitled Clearing the Smoke: Reducing Tobacco Harm, the incidence of illicit tobacco trade is expected to surge by 61.7% from 58.4% in March 2022 if the Government pursues a “Generational End Game (GEG)” policy.

It is more worrying when this illegal trade is more harmful to consumers because the products sold in the market do not meet the local health regulations. In fact, some of them are also mixed with ingredients that are not suitable for human consumption.

Every user has the right to receive accurate information in making a decision to ensure what is best for him, including information on the importance of switching to vaping or alternatives to smoking.

Consumer rights in tobacco harm reduction

Banning tobacco and vaping will restrict the freedom of individuals to obtain alternatives, increase illegal trade as well as spark the re-use of cigarettes. Smoking addiction is a complex issue that needs to be addressed with more effective and creative public policies or strategies.

The Government should see the method of reducing the harmful effects of tobacco as one of the important approaches in reducing the number of smokers in Malaysia. This is especially when we see the trend of switching to vaping as a less harmful product has received a positive response among smokers in Malaysia.

Recognising the rights of consumers towards reducing the harms of tobacco will be able to both educate and provide Malaysian consumers with accurate information. Indirectly, it can provide consumers with knowledge about health risk reduction.

Originally published here

Energy costs struggle against judicial activist squeeze

In the traditional American view of self-government, we prefer decision-making to be as local as possible.

Government works best when decisions are made closest to those affected, whether at the city, municipal, or state level, depending on the question. This makes democratic accountability easier and lets states and municipalities become “laboratories of democracy,” competing among themselves in a kind of marketplace for citizens. For example, the hefty regulations and taxes imposed on Californiaresidents are a key reason why so many Californians are seeking refuge in Texas or Florida.

But what about larger governing questions involving energy policies and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? That’s the question currently burning in state courts throughout the country.

A number of Democratic-run states, counties, and cities have filed lawsuits against oil and gas industries, attempting to extract large settlements for the “harm” caused by emissions, often in friendly courts where they know judges are keen to rule in their favor. But if we’re imposing additional costs on companies for providing us with the energy used to power our homes and cars, costs that will ultimately be passed to consumers, should state judges be the ultimate deciders?

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2021 that “global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. As a result, it calls for the application of federal common law, not state law.” In contrast, the notoriously left-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s climate suits belong in state courts. It’s predictable what those state rulings will be: ones that cost all of us energy consumers dearly.

We should be cautious of sweeping state judicial decisions on energy policies, especially as inflation continues to rise, robbing us of more of our income.

If these lawsuits continue — and each should obviously be evaluated on its individual merits — they belong in federal courts. National energy policy should not be decided by a patchwork of state and local courts that will, inevitably, apply the law inconsistently.

This concern is made even more clear by the flagrant hypocrisy of the White House’s recent attempts to squeeze oil and gas companies. President Joe Biden is demanding cuts in prices and increases in production while severely curtailing new drilling contracts. All the while, Democratic state attorneys general are trying to sue energy companies for emissions.

We need federal courts to deliver decisions that adhere to the Constitution.

Originally published here

The “Fab Four” Sports Betting States

The Consumer Choice Center’s US Sports Betting Index recently conducted an audit of every state in terms of its sports betting affability. 

Below we reveal which states scored the highest, according to the latest report.

What Makes a Good Bookmaking State?

Before the groundbreaking litigation that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the PASPA (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) of 1992, Nevada was the place you had to go if you wanted to make a legal sports bet in America.

But that all changed in 2018 and now you can wager legally in 30-plus states as well as the District of Columbia. Not all sports betting is created equal though, as some states allow you to register for an online account in the comfort of your living room while others mandate you must sign up at one of the state’s casinos.

Getting people off of their couches to travel to a destination they might not otherwise make just to register for an online sports betting account proved to be a step too far in Illinois and they wisely dispensed with the requirement shortly before March Madness this year.

The registrations swelled immediately in the Prairie State which should be a loud and clear signal to all other jurisdictions to do away with it if they want to maximize their revenue potential…and they all do.

Read the full text here

Dem Bericht zufolge befindet sich die Hälfte der 10 wichtigsten Bahnhöfe in Europa in Deutschland

Mit einem 9-Euro-Ticket und einem umfangreichen Fernverkehrsnetz ist Deutschland für seine Eisenbahn berühmt. Nach dem aktuellen europäischen Bahnhofsindex des Consumer Choice Center (CCC) gehören nun fünf Bahnhöfe in deutschen Städten zu den Top 10 in Europa.

Entdecken Sie die wichtigsten Bahnhöfe Europas

Der CCC hat die 50 größten Sender des Kontinents bewertet. Um die Punktzahl für jeden Bahnhof zu berechnen, vergab der CCC eine bestimmte Anzahl von Punkten für die jährliche Anzahl der Passagiere pro Bahnsteig, die Anzahl der Inlands- und Auslandsverbindungen, Zugangsstandards, Terminal-Lounges, Zugang zu Taxis und Internet sowie die Verfügbarkeit von Geschäfte und Restaurants.

Das Ranking einiger Sender sah in diesem Jahr einen starken Rückgang der Bewertungen einiger Sender. Nachdem der Leipziger Hauptbahnhof 2020 als bester Bahnhof in Deutschland und im vergangenen Jahr als bester europäischer Bahnhof ausgezeichnet wurde, rutschte er 2022 aus den Top Ten heraus, während London St. Pancras, Birmingham New Street und der Wiener Hauptbahnhof ebenfalls das Nachsehen hatten. hohe Positionen. Aufgrund der russischen Invasion in der Ukraine wurden die Bahnhöfe in Moskau und Sankt Petersburg nicht berücksichtigt.

Read the full text here

Why Gen Z Should Ditch ‘Virtue’ in Consumer Purchases and Embrace the Trader Principle

The Peter Principle is playing out in Americans’ purchasing decisions. Here’s why that’s creating social disharmony.

In 1969, Laurence J. Peter published “The Peter Principle,” which asserted that “In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” Now, although Dr. Peter claimed to be kidding, we often see the Peter Principle play out—productive employees will be promoted over time, taking on new roles and responsibilities which they are sometimes ill equipped to handle. According to one study, the data were clear: not all great salespeople make great sales managers.

Nevertheless, people like being promoted and tend to take pride in their positions, even when done poorly. If this is how we feel in relation to our employment patterns, perhaps the same can be true for our consumer habits, particularly since Dr. Peter asserted that his principle was “the key to an understanding of the whole structure of civilization.”

So, to shift from internal matters and production practices within an organization to external matters and consumption practices for a firm’s customer base, it seems the Peter Principle can still apply.

As our earning power increases, so too does our purchasing power, and we go from smaller simpler purchases to suit our needs (what groceries should I get for dinner tonight) to complex and bigger purchases to suit our wants (what Traeger grill should I get for the summer season). And given that we lack the expertise for truly knowing the worth of all our product purchases, we are guided by reviews, the news, and marketing messages.

Marketers promote value, or the perception of it, to consumers and change positioning statements and product features according to changing preferences. For instance, mayonnaise marketing campaigns used to focus on flavor, now they focus on nutrition—such as including avocado oil or emphasizing the presence of Omega-3. The recipe tweaks and promotion campaigns tell us we can all feel less guilty about the overuse of this sandwich spread (even though the avocado version isn’t really healthierand few of us know why Omega-3 matters).

Nevertheless, the more we can spend, the more options we want. And although consumers are more educated today than ever before, purchase decisions are becoming increasingly based on emotions—and marketers are leveraging this fact.

Consumers in advanced markets look for psychological attributes rather than primary ones; that is, feelings trump function. This is why people will pay big bucks for a Prada bag even though a Prada knockoff would likely suffice at a fraction of the price. Brands like Prada sell on the basis of exclusivity and esteem, which is why premier labels would rather destroy excess inventory than donate it.

Now all of this is not to say that if someone wants to spend a chunk of change on an expensive purse, they need to justify doing so—it is their money, they can do what they like. Consumers should maintain authority over their purchase decisions. However, consumers should also be educated about when the Peter Principle may be setting in, especially when basing their purchases according to a company’s purpose rather than its product offerings.

For example, take Patagonia patrons. By buying Patagonia, they are showing support for (allegedly) “the world’s most responsible company.” Patagonia is a company that cares for the environment and inclusivity so much so that it has even redirected a greater amount of its marketing resources towards forms of activism rather than the advertising of its products. It has even gone so far as to limit who it will sell to if the customer doesn’t “prioritize the planet.”

Its morality marketing has swooned well-off consumers and its success rates in sales have prompted others within the industry to follow suit by putting “the climate” before the company and its customers.

What is rather laughable though is that a truly environmentally friendly and inclusive business would be your community thrift store—selling what is already in existence and at a cost conducive to nearly every budget. But don’t even think about donating your used Patagonia to those in your local community, instead send it back to Patagonia to receive credit toward more of their products via the Worn Wear collection. Now, instead of getting a windbreaker vest for over $100, you can get a used one for a cool $69.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman would surely call Patagonia’s efforts for social responsibility a lucrative form of window-dressing, but it is more severe than that, particularly when consumers are ill-informed on the positions Patagonia is postulating.

For instance, Patagonia has denounced the use of PFAS despite incorporating this chemical compound in its own products as a moisture barrier for its durable water repellent product offerings. PFAS is found in many household items and although misuse and overuse of these ‘Forever Chemicals’ is problematic, prohibiting use of them in proper form is also problematic given the benefits they bring.

Read the full text here

Scroll to top