fbpx

Month: May 2023

Dutch Farmers’ Party Election Win Foreshadows Europe’s Environmental Battles

The Farmer-Citizen Movement, or BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), won big in the recent Dutch provincial elections, raking up a whopping 15 of the 75 seats in the Senate. This makes it the strongest party in the Netherlands’ upper chamber, with the ability to undermine the government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte. The BBB was created in 2019, but it gathered popular support after the government decided to cut nitrogen emissions by closing down about a third of Dutch farms.

Last summer, Dutch farmers protested the government’s planned policy by blocking roads and airports, and throwing manure on government officials. The government in The Hague attempts to follow EU guidelines by slashing nitrogen emissions by 50 percent by 2030. Nitrous oxide and methane emissions are byproducts of livestock, for instance, when manure deposes. 

The Netherlands — along with Denmark, Ireland and the Flanders region of Belgium — had exemptions on EU manure caps because of their small land areas, but that exemption is set to end for Dutch farmers. Rutte’s government aims to reduce emissions by buying out livestock farmers — even though they have expressed little interest in gift cards.

BBB has faced criticism for its anti-immigration views and hostility toward EU enlargement, but its success in the polls has little to do with a right-wing shift in the Netherlands. In fact, not only did the recent election attract voters who used the provincial election as a poll on the government, but it also was a significant blow to far-right parties who lost big — most severely the Forum for Democracy party.

This leaves the Dutch government with one of two options. Pretend it’s a phase, exploit the fact that this new party will inevitably make errors in communication, and carry on — or change policy. The latter might become inevitable, not merely because the government needs Senate approval for these reduction targets. While Rutte’s coalition can find the votes on the far left, this strategy would come with its own downsides. Green and far-left senators are likely to support the targets but demand even more ambitious goals going forward, which would only aggravate the political climate. Rutte, known as “Teflon Mark” (for his ability to weather multiple political crises), is also confronted with the possibility of members of his own four-party coalition getting cold feet in the process.

The political happenings in the Netherlands are a symptom of what is likely to happen around Europe. Agriculture, a field usually reserved for wonky policy debates and hourlong yawn-inducing committee meetings, is becoming center-stage in Europe’s green ambitions. The farm sector is undeniably responsible for a large part of greenhouse gas emissions, but it has unjustly ended up on the chopping block of simplistic rulemaking. 

The Dutch policy of phasing out one-third of farms came from the fact that the only realistic way of cutting emissions reliably would be to severely downsize the aviation and construction sector, neither of which the Netherlands can realistically afford given its economic activity. The decision to target farmers as a last resort is emblematic of the European approach that will create a lot of hostility: It is the perfect story for creating populist movements.

For the past decade, Europe has made far-reaching promises on emissions targets. But now that the EU and its member states face the reality of how those will be achieved, it will likely get ugly. 

The “Farm to Fork” strategy of the European Union is experiencing the same fate: the European Commission’s agriculture commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski, has said he believes that F2F unfairly puts Eastern European member states at a disadvantage even though he is the person supposed to defend the policies of reducing pesticide, fertilizer and farmland use.

 According to an impact assessment conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the strategy would lead to a decline in agricultural production between 7 percent and 12 percent. Meanwhile, the EU’s decline in GDP would represent 76 percent of the decline in the worldwide GDP. This would hit low-income households, which are already suffering from inflation.

The last few years saw the marches of young climate activists who issued ambitious policy wish lists. In the next few years, it will be the marches of those who must pay for them.

Originally published here

LA NOUVELLE CIBLE RÉGLEMENTAIRE DE L’UE

Nos régulateurs et leur approche paternaliste risquent de faire encore des ravages. 

Si vous vous parfumez avant une soirée ou que vous appliquez un anti-moustique cet été, il se peut que vous utilisiez des huiles essentielles. Ces extraits concentrés de plantes sont largement utilisés à la maison, et pas seulement par les blogueurs spécialisés dans le bien-être : ils rafraîchissent le linge, traitent l’acné et éloignent les mouches à fruits. Pourtant, en vertu des nouvelles règles de l’UE, l’utilisation des huiles essentielles pourrait être gravement perturbée.

L’Agence européenne des produits chimiques (ECHA) a annoncé son intention de passer d’une évaluation basée sur les risques à une évaluation basée sur les hasards pour mesurer les composés chimiques (y compris les simples extraits de plantes). La différence n’est pas simplement sémantique. Dans les communications sur les risques, les termes « hasards » et « danger » ont des significations différentes en anglais.

Des effets négatifs plus ou moins probables

Prenons l’exemple du simple fait d’être à l’extérieur. Le soleil représente un « hasard », car en plus de donner des coups de soleil en raison de ses rayons UV, il peut provoquer des maladies plus graves telles que le cancer de la peau. Les gens gèrent ce risque en limitant leur exposition, par exemple en se mettant à l’ombre, en apportant un parasol ou en appliquant de la crème solaire. L’équation est donc la suivante : risque = hasard x exposition.

La question de toute évaluation des risques est ainsi : quelle est la probabilité qu’un produit donné ait des effets négatifs sur ses utilisateurs ?

Si l’on appliquait à la vie une approche fondée sur les hasards, on craindrait les voitures sur les routes que l’on ne traverse pas, on s’abriterait sous les avions qui volent à une altitude normale ou, on ne sortirait pas du tout. Malheureusement, l’ECHA a l’intention d’appliquer cette approche excessivement prudente aux huiles essentielles, en les étiquetant comme hasardeuses.

L’agence est incitée à évaluer les huiles essentielles dans le cadre du règlement (CE) n°1272/2008 relatif à la classification, à l’étiquetage et à l’emballage (CLP), ce qui signifie qu’elle exigerait qu’elles portent des étiquettes d’avertissement indiquant leur dangerosité ou qu’elles soient interdites à la vente.

Comme pour toute chose, c’est le dosage qui fait la différence. Si un verre d’eau ne présente aucun danger, la consommation de plus de cinq litres en moins d’une heure peut entraîner la mort par intoxication hydrique. Il en va de même pour l’huile essentielle : si elle est parfaitement sûre pour l’homme et (heureusement) très désagréable pour les moustiques, elle peut être toxique si vous la buvez.

Si ce fait semble évident pour les consommateurs, à qui l’on conseille également de tenir les huiles essentielles ou les produits chimiques tels que les produits de nettoyage hors de portée des enfants, il semble échapper aux autorités de réglementation, qui estiment qu’il s’agit d’une substance dangereuse.

Des alternatives parfois pires

Si les consommateurs n’ont pas accès aux produits à base d’huiles essentielles ou sont dissuadés de les utiliser, ils se tourneront probablement vers des solutions de remplacement artificielles et peut-être plus nocives, telles que les insectifuges contenant du diéthyltoluamide, connu sous le nom de DEET, qui peut affecter le système nerveux humain et avoir un impact négatif sur les plantes et les animaux.

Les étiquettes d’avertissement peuvent avoir un effet durable sur la façon dont les consommateurs perçoivent les produits qu’ils achètent. Si des étiquettes de danger injustifiées seront ajoutées aux huiles essentielles, les consommateurs pourraient se tourner vers des solutions moins saines, ce qui aurait des répercussions sur un secteur tout aussi important.

En 2022, la valeur du marché mondial des huiles essentielles a dépassé les 24 Mds€. En 2021, la France a exporté pour plus de 450 M€ de produits à base d’huiles essentielles. Cela signifie que la réglementation actuellement soutenue par la présidence suédoise de l’UE affecterait les consommateurs de l’UE et de la Suède. Elle affecterait également certains pays de l’UE plus que d’autres.

Le projet de l’ECHA menace en effet de faire dérailler le développement économique du pays le plus pauvre de l’Union européenne, la Bulgarie. C’est l’un des principaux producteurs mondiaux d’huile de lavande. Les agriculteurs bulgares cultivent plus de 40 000 hectares de lavande dans la région de la vallée des roses, et le pays exporte 99% de sa production vers la France, l’Allemagne, l’Autriche et les Etats-Unis.

Le pays est le premier producteur mondial d’huile de rose, responsable de la création de 800 kg à 2 tonnes de ce produit par an pour les grandes sociétés de cosmétiques et de parfumerie. Le changement de réglementation menace les moyens de subsistance des 35 000 personnes employées à la récolte des roses dans la vallée des roses, célèbre dans le monde entier. Il compromet également les 92 M€ d’exportations totales que la Bulgarie tire des huiles essentielles. L’ECHA pourrait accidentellement rendre le pays le plus pauvre de l’UE encore plus pauvre.

Les parfums affectés

Sa décision ferait également des ravages dans les industries européennes de la parfumerie et de la cosmétique.

Plus que de simples anti-moustiques, les huiles essentielles font partie intégrante des parfums, des produits de toilette et des accessoires de maquillage, créant ainsi le marché des cosmétiques « clean beauty » tel que nous le connaissons aujourd’hui. Parmi les ingrédients indispensables à l’industrie, 992 proviennent de ces extraits naturels. Leurs propriétés hydrophobes, anti-inflammatoires, antimicrobiennes et antioxydantes en font des émulsions idéales, faciles à appliquer, hygiéniques, durables et adaptées à divers types de peau.

Par exemple, la menthe poivrée et la lavande ne dégagent pas seulement une odeur agréable: grâce à leurs propriétés antioxydantes, elles ralentissent le processus de dégradation des cellules (ce qui représente un potentiel important pour tout gel anti-âge). En tant qu’anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens, elles contribuent à réduire la douleur avec un minimum de complications. Enfin, leur nature antifongique et anti microbienne aide à préserver la peau des clients de l’acné ou des infections indésirables.

Sans surprise, les huiles se combinent pour former les 3 225 fragrances qui confèrent aux parfums mondialement connus tels que Givenchy et Chanel leur odeur unique et aux shampooings et kits de maquillage leurs couleurs vibrantes.

La politique chimique, c’est intello, et ce n’est certainement pas aussi attrayant que l’huile essentielle utilisée pour fabriquer nos parfums. Pourtant, il est important de rappeler aux régulateurs qu’une approche paternaliste et basée sur les hasard ou lieu des risques réels, pour leur classification, n’est ni nécessaire ni pratique. Les décideurs politiques doivent évaluer les risques et les avantages de chaque produit et agir en conséquence.

Dans le cas présent, agir en conséquence signifie ne pas étiqueter tout ce qui contient des huiles essentielles comme étant dangereux, surtout… parce qu’elles ne le sont pas dans le cadre d’un usage modéré.

Originally published here

‘Nip’ ban proposal should be thrown in the trash

Earlier this week, local Joplin businessman Jon Thomas Buck proposed that the Joplin City Council ban the sale and distribution of mini bottles of liquor.

Buck wants Joplin to follow the “nip ban” as adopted in the Boston area.

When asked about the proposal, Buck said, “We all know Joplin has struggled with issues related to litter and cleanliness in recent years. … One of the biggest culprits is the abundance of these small, single-serving bottles of alcohol. They are often consumed on the go and then discarded without a second thought, contributing to unsightly and unhealthy conditions in our city.”

But Joplin residents must ask themselves: Is this a good justification for banning what is essentially a small version of an otherwise legal product? The answer is no.

A mini-bottle ban is just another encroachment from the nanny state, this time aimed at adult consumers who prefer smaller bottles because they are convenient, ultimately punishing drinkers who want small serving sizes.

For public health, there is little evidence to suggest that prohibition of smaller-sized products works, certainly not from a harm reduction angle. If Joplin does go down the road of banning mini bottles, consumers will ultimately make one of two choices in response. The first is that they will buy these convenient bottles beyond Joplin’s city limits. This is obviously irritating for consumers and problematic for Joplin retailers as this motion tilts the scales against them.

The alternative to buying mini bottles elsewhere is, ironically, buying larger bottles of alcohol. It is hard to see how fewer alcohol-related incidents will arise from a policy that mandates consumers buy bottles of liquor 3 ounces or larger. Imagine trying to curb obesity by mandating that no meal can be fewer than 800 calories?

By stomping on convenience for consumers, Buck’s motion will actually end up nudging drinkers to larger bottles, and the possibility of more consumption and more alcohol-related incidents. This is a lose-lose scenario.

The second major critique of mini bottles is disposal. Because they are small, too many drinkers dispose of them by simply throwing them out on the street. Of course, this is unacceptable. There are laws against littering, and they need to be enforced. But surely the City Council can identify a problem that needs to be solved without deferring to prohibitionist policies? Other options, such as the expansion of trash bins on city streets or more by-law litter enforcement, should be exhausted before going down the route of a complete ban of a product consumers clearly love.

Those who support the ban highlight that because these bottles are small, they are virtually impossible to recycle. Some municipal websites across the United States explain that they often fall through the cracks of the sorting machines, and thus should be put in your trash bag as opposed to being recycled.

This is only true using dated machinery and recycling technology. Through chemical depolymerization, the repurposing of the bonds in plastics, virtually all plastic can be recycled. Take for example Alterra Energy in Ohio. Their advanced recycling plant takes in 40-50 tons of hard to recycle plastics (like mini bottles) and transforms them back into the building blocks for new plastic production, extending the life cycle of these hard to recycle plastics indefinitely.

Is Buck trying to reinvent the wheel of prohibition?

The prohibition of alcohol 100 years ago failed. The mindset of banning products that were deemed a nuisance caused more harm than good, which is why alcohol was then legalized.

Prohibition always promises results, but ends up creating a long list of negative second-order effects, many of which are worse than the initial issue of substance use.

Buck’s campaign to treat us all like children when it comes to the purchase of nips is going to have all the glory, majesty and success of previous prohibitions. The nip ban motion should be thrown in the trash can, along with your empty nips.

Originally published here

The War Over Gas Stoves Is Arguably Just the Beginning

Gas stove bans made headlines earlier this year, and caused significant uproar. Over concerns about climate change, and air quality, the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission hinted that gas stoves are dangerous and could be banned. Although the Commission later walked those comments back, the debate over gas stoves unfolded, and now New York State has set the table for a gas stove phase out, eliminating these appliances from being built in new residential buildings.  

As it stands right now, 3 states, and 26 cities have passed gas stove phase out plans, while 20 states have banned such bans, preemptively stopping cities from creating “all electric” building codes. 

But the war over your kitchen appliances doesn’t end with gas stoves.

In fact, Maine, through proposed regulations on PFAS, are taking the debate over appliances to the next level. PFAS are man made chemicals, used in a variety of products like microchips, medical devices, waterproof clothing and non-stick cookware. These chemicals can pose a threat to consumers, depending on the circumstances, with the most famous instance being when Dupont criminally dumped these chemicals into water sources.  Maine, in an attempt to limit exposure to PFAS, irrespective of consumer risk, is set to enact a ban on all products which contain intentionally added PFAS by 2030.

Sounds good right? No one wants the products in their homes to be dangerous to our health. It certainly seems like a good idea if all you consider are the headlines, or even worse the rants of late night comedian John Oliver. But, as with everything, the devil is in the details, because as it stands now, most of your appliances in your kitchen would be banned in Maine if nothing changes to the legislation.

Yes, you read that right. Pretty much every appliance you have in your kitchen relies on PFAS in some way shape or form. And ironically, for legislators at least, the use of PFAS in these circumstances are not just better for the environment, but they present no risk for consumer health.

Take refrigerators for example. Modern fridges use HFO (hydrofluoroolefin), which is technically PFAS, and would be subject to the ban in Maine. This is, to put it mildly, a disaster in the making.

The use of HFO for fridges is a huge net benefit for consumer safety and the environment. Historically, refrigeration was only possible by using ammonia and methyl chloride, which are toxic to humans. Understandably that is concerning. 

Then, as technology advanced, refrigeration was made possible by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), but those heavily depleted the ozone. Another big problem. That paved the way for HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) in the 1990s, which still depleted the ozone, then HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) but those significantly contributed to global warming. That is where HFO came into use, which not only have no ozone-depleting potential, but they also represent 0.1% of the Global Warming Potential of previously used HFCs. They’re also low in toxicity and generally non-flammable. 

This is undeniably an upgrade from the days of ammonia cooling, which if humans are exposed to is toxic, causes severe skin burns, and is toxic to aquatic life.

Now supporters of the ban celebrate this as a win, citing that refrigeration can be done with “natural refrigerants”, i.e. CO2 or ammonia. For ammonia, there are good reasons why industry moved on decades ago, as already mentioned. And for CO2, well that isn’t a net benefit for the environment. Target, for example, compared two models for refrigeration, one using HFCs (which have high global warming potential), and one using CO2, and found that the CO2 fridges used 20% more energy. And for systems that use modern HFOs, they found an average annual decrease in energy consumption of 3% when compared to systems using HFCs. The idea that these refrigerants are viable alternatives to the modern use of HFO’s just doesn’t hold up, certainly not if climate change or consumer safety is a serious priority. Legislators need to avoid falling for a naturalistic fallacy.

But now, if lawmakers in Maine have their way, modern fridges are just not an option anymore, and reverting to older technologies like the ones listed above carry a huge list of potential dangers. 

The war over gas stoves was just the beginning. If more states like Maine go rogue creating opaque rules, consumers are in for a world of pain. Everyday items like fridges, or air conditioning units, will have to revert to the dangerous chemicals of distant memory, giving consumers poorer products that are potentially risky.

Originally published here

Efficiently Enact MACPC Amendments for Stronger Aviation Consumer Rights

KUALA LUMPUR, 27th April 2023 – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) urges the Malaysian Aviation Commission (Mavcom) to immediately implement the amendments to the Malaysian Consumer Protection Code (MACPC) which should be implemented in the first quarter of 2023 to improve the rights of aviation users.

Malaysian Consumer Choice Center representative, Tarmizi Anuwar said: “Issues involving consumers such as flight delays and cancellations, reimbursement methods and overdue periods, passenger rights and voucher redemption have become more serious since the outbreak of Covid-19. Although the pandemic has ended, this problem is still recurring and requires immediate action by Mavcom to improve the rights of aviation consumers.”

Consumer Rights

In 2022 alone, Mavcom has received a total of 8,789 cases of complaints from customers of which the three highest complaints involve refunds, lost, damaged and delayed baggage and flight cancellations. This is the highest complaint case since it was first introduced in 2016.

Tarmizi also said that the delay in the implementation of the MACPC amendment may cause the number of customer complaints and problems for this year to increase due to the development of international and domestic passengers as well as the increase in aircraft operations including the resumption of various flight routes after the pandemic.

Read the full text here

The Gas-Powered Banning Bandwagon: Why Politicians Should Leave Leaf Blowers Alone

According to studies on motivation, autonomy, mastery, and purpose are key driversof human behavior. And those embodying an entrepreneurial mindset will capitalize on their desire to create by leveraging networks and opportunities as they arise from the marketplace.

Consumer interests and consumption patterns serve as powerful signals regarding what is of value, and economic pressures ensure that what is pursued is worth producing.

Unfortunately, some innovations are being demanded by politicians, not markets. Take, for example, advancements in electric and battery-powered tools. Such machinery has been gaining significant traction over the past few decades, as iterations and adjustments have occurred through learning by doing.

Major benefits of battery-powered equipment include reduced noise and reduced emissions. As such, for landscapers, battery-powered leaf blowers seem to be an intriguing option. These types of blowers improve working conditions (no need for ear protection or concerns for breathing gas fumes all day), improve workflow (no concerns with disturbances at odd hours), and appease customers who are environmentally conscious.

The disadvantages, however, still outweigh the positives, given that battery blowers are less effective and rather costly compared to those that are gas-powered. For the time being, battery blowers only make sense for homeowners with light maintenance needs.

Be that as it may, industry interests and product improvements are creating incentives for battery options to become the standard choice over time, but government officials are demanding that the time for change is now.

It’s been a little over a year since the District of Columbia phased out gas blowers due to both noise and air pollution. Cities and states have gotten into the act too, banning gas-powered leaf blowers despite the fact that battery-powered blowers increase costs to both landscapers and their customers. Moreover, inefficient leaf cleanup can also create environmental costs due to storm water management matters.

Read the full text here

FTC Chair Lina Khan’s social media crusade is now just an expensive, taxing grudge against consumers who want cool tech

Red X on all your apps (generated by Midjourney AI)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Extending its crusade against select social media firms, the Federal Trade Commission proposed several scathing amendments to a 2020-era privacy order with Meta on Wednesday, hoping to issue a blanket ban on “monetizing” youth data, a halt on all new innovations or product upgrades, and key criteria on privacy provisions.

The FTC has already attempted to halt several high-profile acquisitions by tech firms since Lina Khan’s ascension to FTC chair, including Microsoft’s purchase of video game company Activision, and Meta’s acquisition of the VR fitness app Within.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, responds:

“These retaliatory actions prove the FTC is now subsumed by a hyperactive crusade against all mergers and acquisitions – and effectively consumer choice, especially when it comes to new technologies. This has a chilling effect on any and all new innovators and remains incredibly paternalistic to tech-native consumers who want robust competition.

“Business models come and go, and consumers should be the ones rewarding or punishing firms and services they want or don’t want to use, not the federal agencies temporarily in charge of competition policy,” added Ossowski.

The accusations by the competition agency that Meta has failed with respect to privacy also seem a bridge too far, especially considering the convoluted patchwork of state privacy laws and federal agency mandates that exist in lieu of a comprehensive federal law to safeguard consumer privacy.

“As consumer advocates, we regard privacy and data security as the most fundamental elements of a consumer’s online experience. But while there are true bad actors that exist and are actively committing offenses right now, the FTC is dead-set on pursuing an ideological agenda against a handful of American tech innovators, all the while excusing or remaining blind to the real privacy violations committed by foreign apps that have much larger reach and sway among young people.

“The FTC’s social media crusade is now just an expensive, taxing grudge against consumers who want cool tech. Consumers would prefer the agency punish bad actors and bad behavior rather than corner American tech companies into a labyrinth of compliance no one could ever reasonably pass.

“We as consumers deserve a vibrant online marketplace where the winners are chosen by us instead of whichever political faction happens to control a federal agency,” concluded Ossowski.

##

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, non-partisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life.

We champion smart policies that are fit for growth, promote lifestyle choice, and embrace tech innovation for tens of thousands of our members and society-at-large, using research and educational outreach to policymakers and the broader public. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Scroll to top
en_USEN