Day: May 31, 2024

Pentingnya Sosialisasi dan Kampanye Edukasi Hak-Hak Konsumen di Indonesia

Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang sangat pesat. Tidak hanya pertumbuhan ekonomi, Indonesia juga merupakan salah satu negara dengan jumlah penduduk terbesar di dunia, dan mengalami pertumbuhan penduduk yang bergerak naik. Pada tahun 2013 lalu misalnya, jumlah penduduk Indonesia sebesar 248 juta jiwa. 10 tahun kemudian, di tahun 2023 lalu, jumlah tersebut meningkat menjadi 278 juta jiwa (dataindonesia.id, 9/11/2023).

Tidak hanya jumlah penduduk yang besar, Indonesia juga merupakan negaar dengan ekonmoi yang terus tumbuh, dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi rata-rata 5% per tahun dari sejak tahun 1998 (katadata.co.id, 21/5/2018). Adanya jumlah penduduk yang besar tersebut, ditambah dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi dan penduduk yang positif, tentu menyediakan pasar konsumen yang luar biasa, dan bisa menarik banyak pelaku usaha.

Namun di sisi lain, fenomena tersebut juga memunculkan tantangan baru. Tidak sedikit berbagai pelaku usaha dan pedagang yang tidak bertanggung jawab, yang mengambil keuntungan melalui kerugian yang dialami oleh konsumennya.

Untuk mengatasi hal tersebut, Indonesia sendiri sudah memiliki kerangka hukum yang ditujukan untuk melindungi hak-hak konsumen Indonesia dari berbagai praktik yang tidak bertanggung jawab yang dilakukan oleh pelaku usaha. Salah satu kerangka hukum tersebut adalah Undang-Undang No. 8 tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen.

Dalam Undang-Undang tersebut dijelaskan mengenai beberapa hak konsumen yang harus dilindungi. Beberapa diantaranya adalah hak katas informasi yang benar, jelas, dan jujur mengenai barang atau jasa yang dijual, hak untuk didengar pendapat dan keluhannya atas barang atau jasa yang digunakan, dan juga hak untuk mendapatkan advokasi dan perlindungan apabila terjadi sengketa. Selain itu, diatur juga hak konsumen untuk mendapatkan kompensasi dan anti rugi apabila barang atau jasa yang diterima tidak sesuai (nasional.kompas.com, 29/4/2022).

Adanya Undang-Undang ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang sangat penting untuk memberi kenyamanan dan keamanan bagi para konsumen di Indonesia. Sayangnya, tidak sedikit para konsumen yang masih belum tahu mengenai hak-hak mereka yang dijamin oleh Undang-Undang.

Padahal, kesadaran mengenai hal ini adalah sesuatu yang sangat penting, untuk mencegah terjadinya penyelewengan dari pelaku usaha yang bisa sangat merugikan konsumen. Pada tahun 2016 lalu misalnya, dari survei yag dilakukan oleh Kementerian Perdagangan Indonesia, baru sekitar 22,2% penduduk Indonesia yang mengetahui dan kenal mengenai institusi perlindungan konsumen, tapi masih belum tahu mengenai fungsi dan peranannya (money.kompas.com, 26/4/2016).

Melalui Indeks Keberdayaan Konsumen (IKK) yang dikeluarkan oleh Kementerian Perdagangan Indonesia misalnya, menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia masih berada di posisi yang cukup rendah. IKK sendiri dipahami sebagai indeks yang digunakan untuk mengukur tingkat keberdayaan konsumen, diantaranya adalah kesadaran dan pemahaman konsumen terhadap haknya, seperti hak untuk mendapatkan ganti rugi apabila menerima produk yang tidak sesuai, dan lain sebagainya.

IKK Indonesia berada di angka 41,7%, dan menunjukkan konsumen di Indonesia cukup mampu untuk menggunakan haknya untuk menentukan pilihan barang terbaik, meskipun hal tersebut baru tercapai di kota besar. Posisi yang baik, disampaikan oleh  Wakil Ketua Komisi I Badan Perlindungan Konsumen Nasional, harusnya IKK Indonesia bisa mencapai skor 80-100 (liputan6.com, 7/10/2020).

Disampaikan oleh Wakil Ketua Badan Perlindungan Konsumen Indonesia misalnya, ada beberapa sebab mengapa perlindungan hak konsumen di Indonesia belum maksimal, diantaranya adalah peraturan yang berbelit dan juga masih rendahnya kesadaran mengenai perlindungan hak konsumen di Indonesia. Dengan demikian, adanya reformasi aturan yang berbelit saja tidak cukup. Dibutuhkan pula sosialisasi dan juga edukasi publik mengenai hak yang dimiliki konsumen di Indonesia (money.kompas.com, 21/4/2019).

Saat ini, sudah ada beberapa inisiatif yang dilakukan oleh beberapa lembaga, termasuk juga lembaga di tingkat daerah. Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, Walikota Kediri memperkenalkan kepada warganya mengenai Unit Pelaksana Teknis (UPT) Perlindungan Konsumen di kota tersebut. Lembaga ini memiliki tugas untuk melaksanakan pengawasan terhadap barang dan jasa yang beredar, dan juga konsumen bisa melakukan pengaduan apabila terdapat keluhan yang dialami (kedirikota.go.id, 17/1/2022).

Adanya upaya edukasi ini tentu merupakan hal yang cukup penting. Adanya upaya untuk mensosialisasikan kepada konsumen mengenai hak mereka yang dijamin oleh undang-undang bukan hanya akan membuat konsumen menjadi lebih berdaya, tetapi juga berpotensi dapat meningkatkan kepercayaan antara konsumen dan juga penjual. Dengan konsumen semakin mengetahui haknya, maka ia akan bisa semakin percaya diri untuk melakukan transaksi, dan juga memiliki kepercayaan kepada penyedia barang/jasa yang ia konsumsi karena para konsumen bisa melakukan berbagai langkah apabila produk yang ia dapatkan tidak sesuai.

Sebagai penutup, Indonesia memiliki potensi konsumen yang sangat besar. Mengingat besarnya potensi konsumen di Indonesia, tetapi pada saat yang sama kesadaran mengenai hak konsumen di Indonesia masih rendah. Melalui berbagai upaya dan sosialisasi tersebut, diharapkan kesadaran konsumen mengenai haknya dapat meningkat. Dengan demikian, semoga skor Indeks Keberdayaan Konsumen di Indonesia dapat semakin meningkat.

Originally published here

Un organisme s’oppose à l’interdiction générationnelle du tabac à l’Î.-P.-É.

L’Agence pour le choix du consommateur demande au gouvernement de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard de ne pas aller de l’avant avec son projet d’interdire la vente de tabac à toute personne née après une certaine date.

Cet organisme international de défense des consommateurs, qui a un bureau en Ontario, craint que cette initiative va encourager le marché noir de la cigarette.

Pour Yaël Ossowski, directeur adjoint à l’agence, le plan provincial pourrait faire plus de mal que de bien.

Cela va promouvoir un marché noir illégal où il n’y aura pas de vérification d’âge ni de réglementation des produits ou de moyens de vérifier leur contenu.Une citation de Yaël Ossowski, directeur adjoint de l’Agence pour le choix du consommateur

Read the full text here

Are Audiences Done With Movie Theaters? ‘Furiosa’ and ‘The Garfield Movie’ Box Office Flops Indicate a Worrisome Trend

The summer box office season got off to a rocky start over Memorial Day weekend, slumping to a nearly 30-year low in terms of ticket sales for the big-name films hitting theaters. “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” and “The Garfield Movie”, were flops.

“Garfield” earned $31.1 million over the four-day weekend, while “Furiosa” brought in a weak $32 million. That makes “Furiosa” the unfortunate film to set the new record for the lowest-grossing Memorial Day blockbuster in 30 years, excluding 2020 when theaters were mostly closed due to the pandemic. That COVID summer also saw a steady stream of theaters screening classic movies like “Star Wars”, “Goonies” and “Jurassic Park”.

The previous record holder of Memorial Day shame was the family-friendly flick “Casper”, which opened with $22 million during the holiday weekend in 1995. Great movie by the way…..

This story about box office slumps and the decline of movie theaters is an ongoing saga. The stories have been writing themselves for over a decade now. Analysts should be careful not to pounce and declare the movie theater business dead. They are kept very much alive by an insider system set up by Hollywood where most movies have to hit theaters to be considered for seasonal accolades and awards.

Read the full text here

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau May Be Legal, but It’s Past Its Prime

The Supreme Court recently delivered a decision on the constitutionality of one of the federal government’s most peculiar and least understood agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Unlike the Fifth Circuit Court, which earlier ruled that the agency’s unique funding model violates the Constitution, Justice Clarence Thomas argued in the majority opinion the government’s funding of the CFPB “satisfies the Appropriations Clause”.

The CFPB is a federal agency unlike any other. For one, it has no direct funding. Its funds come from the Federal Reserve, our opaque central bank. 

In perpetuity, the CFPB can claim up to 12 percent of the Fed’s “surplus,” which are profits it makes through various liquidity and asset schemes that come from buying and selling government bonds. They also charge interest on loans to financial institutions with zero congressional oversight. 

While the funding structure has passed legal scrutiny for the time being, questions remain on the agency’s actions and whether the CFPB may be harming, rather than helping, consumers.

The CFPB is the brainchild of now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren and was created with the intention of policing “unfair and deceptive practices” in the financial sector. It is a more consumer-facing version of the Federal Trade Commission but more specialized in consumer financial services. 

Since then, it has become an agency of scorn for financial product providers and their customers, restraining credit availability and making it more difficult for consumers to get access to capital such as business loans. 

For one, the CFPB does not have a traditional rulemaking process that invites and accepts comments from citizens. It disseminates rules without democratic input, as any other agency is required by law to follow. This would not be a dealbreaker for agencies overseeing highly specialized industries with limited scope, but it’s different if we’re talking about rules that impact every bank and financial customer in the country.

Second, many of the CFPB’s rulings have been targeted at credit programs offered by specific financial firms, revealing selective enforcement based more on political factors than actual deceptive practices. Former employees have gone on the record detailing how they were directed to concentrate on individual companies rather than specific behavior. 

Whether this be payday loans, credit card rewards, or even auto financing, Americans have turned to these programs for credit and to improve their standard of living. The vast majority appear satisfied with their offerings. 

And all of this, despite the agency’s own lax security that has already put consumers at risk.

Last year, it was revealed that a CFPB staffer forwarded the confidential financial information of nearly a quarter million Americans to their personal email, an unprecedented breach from within a federal agency.

One of the more controversial rules from the agency was the fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Biden to cap credit card fees at just $8 per month. In the wake of the Fifth Circuit ruling calling into question the agency’s funding, that rule has been halted by a federal judge in Texas. 

Capping fees may satisfy political concerns, but for Americans who rely on credit to pay their bills or make ends meet in tough times, making credit less available only hurts those most in need of tools to get by. That includes minority and poorer households and businesses, who feel the direct impact when credit is artificially constrained.

The power and reach of the CFPB will face another hurdle when the Supreme Court revisits not just the agency’s rulemaking, but federal agencies as a whole with the case of Relentless, Inc. v. the U.S. Department of Commerce.

In the much heralded Fisheries case, the Court will rule on the fate of the Chevron Doctrine, the ability for agencies to promulgate rules beyond the remit of Congress. This would have a sweeping impact on the ability of the CFPB to issue its rules and regulations without authority from the legislative branch of the federal government.

Consumers deserve both protection and the freedom of choice when it comes to goods and services, especially when dealing with the financial sector.

The unique financial products offered in the United States give us an advantage in boosting our standard of living. Access to credit is seen as a chief measure of financial inclusion and success.

But when rules are burdensome, and reduce the availability of credit, this is worth another look. And competing branches of government should work overtime to keep the CFPB in check.

At best, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an agency without watchers. At its worst, it’s an unaccountable bureaucracy halting innovation and entrepreneurship. Reforms will have to come at some point for consumers to both prosper and be protected. 

Originally published here

ADIEU AU GREEN DEAL EUROPÉEN ?

Un nombre croissant de législateurs à Bruxelles hésitent à adopter des règles environnementales ambitieuses en raison de l’opposition des agriculteurs et des citoyens.

L’Union européenne est réputée pour son approche peu pressée de l’élaboration des politiques. La roue de Bruxelles tourne lentement, les institutions marchandant chaque virgule dans un processus fastidieux appelé « trilogue ».

Il est donc d’autant plus surprenant que le Parlement européen ait voté, la semaine dernière, en faveur d’une réforme de déréglementation de la politique agricole commune (PAC), le régime de subventions agricoles de l’UE, qui avait été élaborée par la Commission européenne en seulement huit semaines.

Le Parlement européen doit être réélu dans un mois et demi et, traditionnellement, les parlementaires des 27 Etats membres adoptent rarement des textes législatifs importants si près de la fin de leur mandat. Les députés sont généralement très occupés à faire campagne pour conserver leur siège, mais cette fois-ci, le vote fait partie intégrante de leurs messages de campagne.

La PAC est renouvelée tous les quatre ans et, en plus d’un système de soutien financier aux agriculteurs et à leurs entreprises, elle intègre une politique de pilotage, ou « conditionnalité ». Cette conditionnalité dicte les règles environnementales que les agriculteurs doivent respecter pour avoir droit aux paiements directs. Elle exige notamment que les agriculteurs réduisent le travail du sol pour prévenir l’érosion, qu’ils réservent au moins 4% de leurs terres agricoles à la biodiversité ou qu’ils cultivent des couverts végétaux.

Le commissaire européen à l’agriculture, Janusz Wojciechowski, a déclaré aux médias polonais que Bruxelles supprimait les liens entre le Green Deal, le plan de l’UE pour devenir neutre en carbone d’ici 2050, et la PAC. La semaine dernière, les parlementaires européens réunis à Strasbourg ont approuvé à une écrasante majorité les modifications apportées à la PAC, ce qui constitue sans doute un pas important vers la déréglementation – ou la « simplification », comme la Commission européenne l’a diplomatiquement qualifiée.

Cette situation est révélatrice d’une tendance préélectorale en Europe. Alors qu’en 2019, un selfie avec Greta Thunberg aurait été un matériel de campagne très apprécié, un nombre croissant de législateurs à Bruxelles hésitent à adopter des règles environnementales ambitieuses en raison de l’opposition des agriculteurs et des citoyens.

Cette tendance s’est également répandue au sein de la Commission.

La présidente Ursula von der Leyen, qui a défendu en 2020 les vertus du « Green Deal » européen et sa promesse de réformer le système agricole et de donner un coup de pouce à la biodiversité, a rencontré hier de grands industriels pour dessiner l’avenir de la politique industrielle européenne. Le mot « durabilité » a été relégué au second plan, au profit de « compétitivité » et d’« autonomie industrielle ».

Le ministre finlandais de l’Agriculture, Sari Essayah, déplore un « tsunami de nouvelles réglementations » sur le secteur agricole et forestier au cours des quatre dernières années, s’alignant sur le Premier ministre belge Alexander De Croo, qui estime que la loi européenne sur la restauration de la nature est « mal rédigée ». Le ministre autrichien de l’Agriculture, Norbert Totschnig, appelle même à une suspension immédiate, déclarant que les objectifs de lutte contre la déforestation au niveau mondial ajouteraient des « règles bureaucratiques inutiles » aux producteurs européens.

Les ministres et le Parlement européen avaient déjà rejeté une législation qui aurait réduit l’utilisation des pesticides synthétiques dans l’agriculture, après qu’il est apparu que les objectifs n’étaient pas fondés sur des preuves, mais motivés par des considérations politiques.

Quatre ans après le début de la grande expérience du Green Deal européen – nommé d’après les ambitions d’un Green New Deal aux Etats-Unis – l’UE n’applique pas les règles qui ont été conçues pour atteindre ses objectifs climatiques ambitieux. Certaines sont même carrément abrogées.

Bruxelles brise les tabous, même dans le domaine de la biotechnologie. Après des années d’application du principe de précaution à une technologie déjà utilisée aux Etats-Unis, la Commission européenne et le Parlement européen accélèrent les projets visant à légaliser les plantes génétiquement modifiées dans l’Union. De plus en plus, l’accent n’est pas mis sur les perspectives durables de la biotechnologie, mais plutôt sur la façon dont elle améliorera les rendements et les revenus des agriculteurs.

Dans les couloirs de Bruxelles, les ambitions politiques du mouvement écologiste de 2019 se sont révélées être une force inarrêtable lorsqu’elles sont confrontées à l’objet inamovible qu’est le pouvoir d’achat des consommateurs et le mécontentement des producteurs.

Originally published here

Trade Rep Putting Ideology Ahead of US Business, Critics Say

The federal agency tasked with opening foreign markets to American businesses is focusing more on antitrust enforcement instead, critics say. It’s a move that has angered some free market advocates, who now worry the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is neglecting her core duties.

“The job of the USTR is to go out and win access to foreign markets for American businesses, American workers,” Gary Winslett, a senior adviser for the Chamber of Progress, told InsideSources.

Under the leadership of Katherine Tai, the USTR has emerged as an ally of controversial Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan, a relentless antitrust activist whose attempts to regulate businesses have frequently been overturned by the courts. Khan has an untraditional view of antitrust, setting aside the traditional question of whether a company’s size is hurting consumers and instead arguing that some companies are simply too big, regardless of the market impact.

Similarly, Tai is taking an unconventional approach to the USTR’s job, as she explained at a recent SXSW event.

Asked about the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulations, Tai said the “trade policy formation” she is working on is “to not rely on our old instincts” of asking “what’s the nationality of your company, and ‘whose side should I be fighting on.’”

Instead, she suggested a more global view of the job as America’s top trade representative. “Right now the question that we’re looking at is, what’s the pro-democracy, pro-competition, pro-worker angle,” Tai said.

Read the full text here

Governor Scott’s veto of a “neonics” ban was the right call & backed by science

Yesterday, Governor Phil Scott vetoed Bill H.706, which would have banned the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds in the state.

Reacting to the veto, Consumer Choice Center Senior Policy Analyst Bill Wirtz, who testified before the Vermont Senate Committee on Agriculture in April said:

“Governor Scott made the right call vetoing this legislation. We have warned extensively against banning essential seed treatments that prevent insect attacks on farmer’s crops, not merely to protect the financial viability of farming businesses, but also to protect consumer purchasing power.”

Read the full text here

Good intentions, bad results: Don’t take away choices from SNAP recipients  

No matter how far you fall in our country, there are trusted programs at various levels of government to help pick people back up.  

That’s why the upcoming expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill, set for Sept. 30th, is drawing so much attention on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers work overtime to renew it and advance partisan changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  

Two particular proposals, the Healthy SNAP Act by Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), which is a companion to Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) similarly named legislation, and the SNAP Pilot Program, threaten to erode consumer choice, burden small businesses and unnecessarily expand government intervention in the daily lives of SNAP recipients. They do little to reform the social safety net in a meaningful way, and instead focus on the micromanagement of individual diets.  

Fair minds can debate, and many do, the merits of these programs that make up what we call the “safety net” — who it should serve, and how long people should be able to make use of it. Most in Washington tend to agree that these programs are necessary and that reforms of some kind are periodically required. As Congress gears up for the next Farm Bill reauthorization, proposed changes deserve scrutiny. 

The USDA’s SNAP Pilot Program would move to categorize over 600,000 products based on being “nutrient-dense.” It sounds simple, but it’s not. Foods rich in vitamins and minerals that contain little added sugars, saturated fat and sodium would meet the mark of being “nutrient-dense”; that means fruits, veggies, seafood, beans, lentils, eggs, lentils, chicken and lean meats. However, whole-fat yogurt, white rice, granola and most peanut butter would fall short.  

These are the same foods that tend to be promoted for the Women, Infants, and Children dietary program known as WIC. SNAP is used by families, and families’ food needs are wide-ranging and ever-changing. In March, when asked about this subjective standard by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack couldn’t directly answer if the nutrient requirements would eliminate whole milk from eligibility.  

“I don’t think we have many of the answers to the questions that you raised, which is why you have a pilot — to find out whether or not a system like this does work, or doesn’t,” said Vilsack, who then pointed to Congress as the source of clarity on nutrient density. Politics has no place in consumers’ experience shopping for food.  

This broad classification system would leave room for arbitrary decision-making, placing an undue burden on grocery store clerks and consumers alike.  

Both the Senate and House versions of the Healthy SNAP Act go after the presence of “junk food” in the shopping carts of benefit recipients. It is well-intentioned, but a harmful policy proposal.  

SNAP is unique in that it functions like a subsidy for groceries, rather than a program like WIC, which grants direct access to a set amount of milk, cheese, yogurt, juice, peanut butter and other essentials for newborns. Former deputy administrator for policy support at the USDA, Richard Lucas, told The Nation’s Health in 2015 that SNAP “is intended for increasing purchasing power for food you can buy at retail outlets. It’s very, very broad.”  

Studies cited by Lucas regarding choice versus rigid guidelines showed that SNAP recipients were better off with maximum flexibility. SNAP shoppers often use their full allotment of funds within 24 hours of it being made available. They are hungry and load up on food immediately.  

Here’s the problem. Most protein and “nutrient-rich” foods are the ones that spoil fastest. SNAP shoppers more often need food that will hold for a full month.  

Their lifestyles are different from higher-income shoppers who have grocery stores on every other corner where produce sections are freshly stocked. Low-income neighborhoods are, unfortunately, quite different — a fact that well-intentioned politicians and activists often fail to recognize.  

Another factor about the spending of SNAP benefits remains the stigma attached to using them. Shoppers in need of that assistance want to get in and out without discussion of their benefits. Even the fear of haggling with a reluctant cashier over their selections has shown to deter those people from getting food when it’s needed.  

Proponents argue that these measures will lead to cost savings. The reality is quite different. Monthly SNAP benefits would remain unchanged even if new restrictions were implemented, rendering any potential savings illusory. 

The Healthy SNAP Act and the SNAP Pilot Program are misguided attempts to regulate consumer behavior and expand government control over dietary choices. Congress should continue to have healthy debates about these programs, but they shouldn’t be based on policing people’s choices at the supermarket.  

Originally published here

Here and there: Comparing American agriculture to Europe’s model

Despite being an ocean apart, many parts of the American and European farming experience are similar.

Farmers on both continents are hopeful for a good crop every spring and need the weather to cooperate. Farming is a way of life for families in both areas, and they work within the regulatory systems set up by their governments.

Bill Wirtz is a senior policy analyst with the Consumer Choice Center. He is from Luxembourg, a small European country bordered by France, Germany and Belgium. He says in general, European farms are smaller.

“American farms are much larger and better organized for advocating for legislative issues,” he says.

Julian Binfield says European agriculture spans a wide range of equipment and technology. He is the director of international programs for the University of Missouri’s Food and Agricultural Research Policy Institute. He has worked with ag groups in Ireland, the United Kingdom, South Africa and Bulgaria.

“There are parts of Europe where you can go and see agriculture where it looks like it does in the U.S.,” he says. “… If you go farther away (from major cities), you might see farming practices that look more dated.”

Read the full text here

Larangan paparan produk vape hadkan akses pengguna

Baru-baru ini terdapat satu cadangan daripada The Partnership for Healthy Cities untuk melaksanakan larangan paparan produk tembakau dan vape di peringkat pihak berkuasa tempatan (PBT), khususnya melibatkan Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL). 

Mungkin bunyinya murni iaitu untuk melindungi orang ramai daripada bahaya merokok, namun cadangan tersebut memerlukan analisis secara objektif untuk memahami potensi akibatnya.

Melaksanakan larangan paparan produk vape memberi kesan ketara kepada kesedaran dan pilihan pengguna. 

Menyembunyikan produk itu menyekat keupayaan pengguna untuk membandingkan pelbagai jenama, perisa dan tahap nikotin yang merupakan faktor penting untuk membuat keputusan termaklum. 

Bagi perokok yang ingin beralih kepada alternatif yang kurang mudarat, larangan berkenaan boleh memudaratkan.

Selain itu, larangan paparan juga menghalang keupayaan mereka untuk mengakses maklumat dengan mudah tentang pilihan perisa berbeza yang tersedia, sekali gus merumitkan pengguna mencari produk yang sesuai dengan keperluan mereka. 

Akhirnya, ia menghalang objektif kesihatan awam yang bertujuan untuk mengurangkan kadar merokok melalui promosi vape sebagai alternatif yang lebih selamat.

Lebih membimbangkan lagi, larangan itu juga mungkin bercanggah dengan undang-undang. Perkara 75 Perlembagaan Persekutuan menetapkan bahawa undang-undang persekutuan mengatasi undang-undang negeri dalam kes-kes yang tidak konsisten.

Dengan tiadanya klausa dalam Rang Undang-Undang Kawalan Produk Merokok Untuk Kesihatan Awam 2023 yang melarang paparan produk tembakau, pelaksanaan larangan berkenaan di peringkat PBT adalah tidak sah dan dianggap bertentangan dengan perlembagaan.

Read the full text here

Biden Imposes Sweeping New Tariffs on China

After two years of delay, President Joe Biden imposed tariffs on select Chinese products, a move hailed by many including President Donald Trump, who wondered, “What took you so long?”

The greatest focus of the newly imposed tariffs will hit electric vehicles and their components, with significant protective tariffs for the U.S. steel industry. Biden’s tariffs will double the cost of Chinese electric vehicles. Biden announced Wednesday that tariffs on Chinese-manufactured:

  • Electric vehicles will increase from 25% to 100%.
  • Lithium-ion EV batteries and battery parts will increase from 7.5% to 25%. Lithium-ion non-EV batteries will follow suit in 2026.
  • Solar panels will double from 25% to 50%.
  • Certain steel and aluminum imports will rise from current tariffs of between 0% and 7.5% to 25%.
  • Ship-to-shore cranes will increase from 0% to 25%.
  • Syringes and needles will increase from 0% to 50%.
  • Certain Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will increase from its existing rate of between 0% and 7.5% to 25%.

Also, tariffs on rubber medical and surgical gloves will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2026.

“We applaud President Biden and [U.S. Trade Representative Katherine] Tai for taking this important action to increase Section 301 China tariffs in these critical industries,” said Zach Mottl, chairman of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “There is overwhelming evidence, including from the [Biden administration], that proves what CPA has been saying for more than a decade: tariffs are a critical reshoring tool to stimulate domestic production, avoid future inflation, and to reduce dependence on foreign supply chains.”

Opponents argued that higher prices in the short-term will raise costs on Americans during a time of rampant inflation. “It’s definitely bad for the average consumer,” Yaël Ossowski of the Consumer Choice Center, which opposes tariffs, told reporter Chris Woodward of the American Family Radio Network. “It’s very reminiscent of the same trade war we had from President Trump back when he was in power.”

Read the full text here

A Visionary Leader Shaping Consumer Policies

Consumer advocacy is vital in ensuring fair treatment for consumers, promoting product safety, and maintaining transparency in the marketplace. Leaders in this field are essential in deciding which issues to focus on, leading awareness campaigns, and advocating for change through media and lobbying. They also collaborate with stakeholders to increase their influence, educate consumers about their rights, and monitor industry and regulatory changes.

Frederik Cyrus Roeder, Managing Director of the Consumer Choice Center, an independent and non-partisan consumer advocacy group. The organization advocates for freedom of choice and innovation in everyday life. With a background as a Health Economist, Frederik is interested in using innovation to enhance patient healthcare delivery.

From Protest to Advocacy

In the summer of 2014, Frederik Cyrus Roeder lived in Berlin, Germany, where he observed Europe’s taxi drivers protesting against competition from ride-hailing apps. As a consumer who values ride-hailing apps, he was surprised that traditional consumer rights groups did not support choice and competition. With the help of two friends, Frederik organized a small protest highlighting the importance of consumer choice. The absence of representation for consumers who prioritize innovation and choice in these discussions prompted Frederik to recognize the need for a platform for their advocacy. This recognition marked the beginning of the Consumer Choice Center.

Setting the Standard

Under the leadership of Frederik Cyrus Roeder, the Consumer Choice Center is a global advocacy group. It stands out among the numerous nonprofit advocacy groups in the US and European Union focused on policy change. While many groups focus on specific issues or regions, Frederik’s organization prioritizes representing consumers worldwide as a distinct interest group. The Consumer Choice Center adopts a global perspective in advocacy efforts across more than 100 countries. It maintains a presence in capitals such as Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, Geneva, and Kuala Lumpur to advocate for consumer rights and interests.

Read the full text here

en_USEN

Follow us

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

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

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