August 21, 2024 – Consumer Choice Center

The Hidden Costs of Unionizing PA Pharmacists

Local pharmacies in Pennsylvania face an uphill battle for survival. That’s why Gov. Josh Shapiro recently signed the Pharmacy Audit Integrity and Transparency Act, aimed at keeping those businesses open. In just the last six months, 40 Pennsylvania pharmacies across the state have shut down. America is facing a huge boom in retiree numbers, and that means an increased need for healthcare services and medication. An ongoing national effort to unionize pharmacists could make this situation much worse, and Pennsylvanians should take note.

The push to unionize pharmacists is primarily being driven by social media, which has generated an illusion of extensive support. In reality, the proportion of unionized pharmacists across the United States remains low, and it would be best to keep it that way.

Of the roughly 30,000 CVS pharmacists in the country, only nine have joined The Pharmacy Guild union at two Rhode Island locations, with another unionized site in Las Vegas. Nevertheless, union leaders have confidently forecasted that 90% of Walgreens and CVS pharmacists will be unionized by 2030, and they claim unionization is required for safeguarding the status of these positions.

The sudden necessity of unionization for this sector is strange, as the healthcare industry has long maintained competitive benefits and wages without union intervention. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wage for pharmacists was $134,790 in 2023 – well above the median for most occupations.

Additionally, large pharmacy chains such as CVS Health and Walgreens provide extra benefits like opportunities for higher education, tuition assistance programs, employee relief funds, and paid parental leave. Those who have an interest in health and medicine may want to take advantage of the growing job prospects in this sector.

In fact, my own institution, Lebanon Valley College, features a summer camp program geared for those entering biomedical services, and the study of pharmacology happens to be one of the focal points.

Basic economics tells us that demand incentivizes supply, and so as the number of Americans aged 65 and older increases, so too will the prospects for pharmaceutical positions. The U.S. is on track to increase from 58 million seniors in 2022 to 82 million by 2050, and according to data pulled from the U.S. Census, more than 18% of Pennsylvanians were aged 65 or older in 2020, with that percentage steadily ticking upward. This means a higher volume of patients will be seeking out pharmaceutical services, thereby leading to new job opportunities and entrepreneurial ventures in pharmacy services.

Introducing union demands for higher wages and further benefits would only result in increased costs for existing pharmacies. And, with healthcare expenses already posing a significant burden on many, this could make it even harder for Pennsylvanians to afford necessary medications.

Moreover, the sustainability of brick-and-mortar pharmacies could be placed at a higher risk as many are already shutting down due to the challenges of managing current inflationary operational costs. Since January 2024, more than 140 pharmacies have closed in Pennsylvania, with only 21 of PA’s 67 counties having fewer than 10 pharmacies. Walgreens recently announced that they will close a ‘significant number’ of their 100 Pennsylvanian stores, and Rite Aid plans on closing 59 stores in the state as part of their ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

While it is reported that close to 90% of Americans live within five miles of a pharmacy, there are legitimate fears that “pharmacy deserts” will become more prevalent in Pennsylvania, especially in rural areas that already have limited access. In 2022, there were approximately half a million rural Pennsylvanians who lived in a pharmacy desert, being more than five miles from the nearest brick-and-mortar drugstore.

While some may find the idea of unionizing pharmacy workers appealing, it would be best to consider the predictable consequences. As we grapple with the immediate realities of a large aging population, let’s not undo a system that works. Instead, let’s encourage those who are pursuing pharmacological studies to continue that pursuit. Let’s patronize our local pharmacies instead of opting for online services. And let us all remember that market mechanisms and a consumer focus always work better than the kind of top-down demands made by union organizers.

Originally published here

DeSantis’s cultivated meat ban won’t survive lawsuit

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) signed SB 1084 into law in May, which made Florida the first state to effectively ban cultivated meat products from development and consumption. Alabama was quick to follow with its own copycat legislation outlawing “the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food products made from cultured animal cells.”

But other states thinking about similar bans, including Tennessee and Arizona, might want to reconsider.

As of Tuesday, Florida is being sued by UPSIDE Foods in a case filed by the Institute for Justice, a national nonprofit law firm based in Arlington, Virginia, focused on civil liberties and constitutional rights. DeSantis’ culture war against cultured meat is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny.

UPSIDE Foods, a cultivated meat company in California that produces poultry, duck, meatballs, and seafood using animal cells, has been out front on challenging DeSantis’s “lab-grown meat” ban. What skeptics tend to get wrong about these products is that they aren’t vegan or vegetarian but instead offer consumers concerned about animal welfare a means to enjoy real meat without harm befalling animals.

Institute for Justice Attorney Suranjan Sen sounded off on the lawsuit, saying, “For the same reason that California cannot ban orange juice made from oranges grown in Florida, Florida cannot ban UPSIDE’s meat.”

Sen is absolutely right in reference to the dormant commerce clause that prohibits the government from impairing interstate commerce and engaging in state industry protectionism.

Cultivated meat products are being made outside of Florida and shipped in. When DeSantis said on the record, “What we’re protecting here is the industry against acts of man, against an ideological agenda that wants to finger agriculture as the problem, that views things like raising cattle as destroying our climate,” he revealed a protectionist intent behind the ban.

Making matters worse for the Florida law, the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 preempts any attempts by states to create unique standards for chicken production and distribution. Cultivated meat is genuine meat, made differently.

Florida would need to present a clear public interest for a ban. Unfortunately for DeSantis, shielding cattle ranchers and the agriculture lobby from future competition will not qualify.

A ban on cultivated meat would have to guard public health and safety or address some kind of urgent environmental concern. The state would also need to prove that a ban was the only way to accomplish this goal, rather than consumer education or market competition.

Lab-grown meat haters don’t earnestly challenge the evidence that these products are safe. UPSIDE’s chicken products have the USDA and FDA seal of approval, so if that means nothing, then why are any products whatsoever on store shelves thanks to the same approval?

Crushing the hopes and dreams of environmental activists who believe reducing cattle farming will lower emissions is not a compelling public interest. “Owning the libs” may be funny for flame warriors on X, but if it takes the form of legislation that undermines consumer choice, it’s most likely illegal and not humorous. These consumer bans in Florida and Alabama are serious. Florida can jail violators of the law for up to 60 days, and in Alabama, it’s 90 days in jail plus a $500 fine.

The states advancing these bans are not wrong to think fringe activists want to rid the world of farm fresh meat and limit your right as a consumer to have a hamburger. Such people exist. However, their commitment to violating individual consumer choice isn’t a tactic that skeptics of lab-grown meat should adopt.

The strangest thing about these bans is that the cultivated meat products being restricted aren’t even widely available on store shelves. While venture capital firms have invested a combined $3 billion into at least 150 startups working on cell-cultivated meat products, you could only find them at a San Francisco and a Washington, D.C., restaurant on a very limited basis (and now they’re no longer available even at those locations).

The products are not even that popular with the public yet. Conventional meat is viewed as more healthy and flavorful, but the red flag for agriculture insiders must be the high degree of willingness consumers have to try alternative products.

As a consumer myself, all of this sounds about right. Conventional meat is better tasting, it’s currently more economical, and I trust it more for its pure nutritional value. That being said, I’ve enjoyed whole plates of cultivated chicken, meatballs, and sliders, and these products are delicious. Innovation in this sector will bring costs down, bring flavor up, and eventually offer more choices on grocery shopping lists and restaurant menus.

Producers of meat may not like it, but the Institute for Justice will almost certainly prove in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida that producing and consuming cultivated meat is fair game.

Originally published here

The government has a new plan to seize patents, and it’s a huge threat to innovation

Over the weekend, I took my daughter and her best friend on a day trip from Northern Virginia to Hico, West Virginia. In a matter of 120 minutes, you pass from one of the statistically wealthiest areas in the United States to some of the most destitute roadside neighborhoods you’ll see in the region. The friend asked why it’s like this in West Virginia, and all I could think to say in response was, “All your friends back in Northern Virginia, what do their parents do for work?” It didn’t take her long. She responded, “Oh like mostly the Pentagon, Boeing, and I know a few kids whose parents go out to Quantico.” That’s not an answer to why West Virginia is more poor, but it does explain the wealth of Northern Virginia. Connection to the federal government is an economy of its own, and the tentacles of federal money cover 61 square miles and ten counties known as the DMV.

Billions of dollars float through Virginia and Maryland in the form of federal grants for research and development related to technology, medicine, education, and much more. What that means is that there is seldom a microchip, vaccine, weapons system, satellite, or AI tool that hasn’t benefited directly or indirectly from taxpayer dollars somewhere in its development.

Read the full text here

Governor Walz Needs To Answer For Failed Progressive Food Policies

The US presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most “heartland” themed campaigns in recent history. Donald Trump’s VP selection of Ohio Senator JD Vance checked the Rust Belt box for Republicans, and Democrat Kamala Harris countered with her new running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

With camo hat always on hand, Walz’s political brand is tied to his first job working on the family farm in Nebraska. Farmers across Minnesota are abuzz about Walz’s agriculture record both as a congressman and as governor, and it’s mixed. Walz speaks the language of Minnesota farmers but shares the sentiments of California and European progressives when it comes to food and environmental policy.

Environmentalist groups like Greenpeace and Pesticide Action Network have never had potential allies in the White House quite as aligned as Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Walz’s record indicates he would entertain the kind of utopian visions that have guided the European Union on policies such as gas taxes on farm equipment and sweeping pesticide bans. The same policies which sparked massive farmer protests across Europe and Canada.

Read the full text here

Le revirement total de la politique européenne sur l’agriculture

COURRIER DES LECTEURS. La nouvelle Commission européenne, l’organe exécutif de l’Union européenne, aura pour mission de «simplifier» la réglementation agricole au sein de l’Union. «La Commission prend des mesures fortes et rapides pour soutenir nos agriculteurs à un moment où ils sont confrontés à de nombreux défis et préoccupations», explique la présidente en exercice de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, qui cherche actuellement à être confirmée pour un second mandat par le Parlement européen. Ce que la politicienne allemande appelle les «mesures de simplification» sont essentiellement des efforts de déréglementation liés aux paiements directs, ou subventions agricoles. À la suite de manifestations massives d’agriculteurs cette année, l’Union européenne a revu à la baisse la plupart de ses ambitions en matière de réformes agricoles, quatre ans seulement après que cette même Commission les ait présentées en fanfare.

Lors de la précédente élection européenne, en 2019, l’Europe était à la hauteur de ses ambitions environnementales. Quatre ans après la conclusion des Accords de Paris sur le climat de 2015, l’Europe entendait devenir une référence en matière de protection de l’environnement, en réformant radicalement les systèmes agricoles. Cela signifiait une plus grande surveillance des pratiques agricoles, une réduction drastique de l’utilisation des pesticides, une diminution des engrais, une réduction de l’utilisation des terres agricoles pour permettre une plus grande biodiversité, ainsi qu’une augmentation massive de la production d’aliments biologiques.

Au cours de la première année de présentation de ces plans, peu d’opposition s’est manifestée. L’Europe et le monde se trouvaient au milieu d’une pandémie mondiale, les représentants des agriculteurs évaluent soigneusement le sérieux de la Commission à propos de ces plans, et étant donné le succès des partis écologistes aux élections de 2019, il semblait que cette stratégie, baptisée «De la ferme à la fourchette», était la suite logique d’une tendance politique. Pendant des mois, la Commission n’a même pas pris la peine de publier une analyse d’impact. Lorsque l’USDA a publié une évaluation indépendante en novembre 2020, selon laquelle Farm to Fork augmenterait les prix des denrées alimentaires, réduirait les exportations européennes et diminuerait la production agricole globale de 7 à 12%, elle n’a guère retenu l’attention.

Ce sont d’abord les manifestations d’agriculteurs aux Pays-Bas, puis en Allemagne, en France et dans le reste de l’Europe pendant la majeure partie de cette année qui ont attiré l’attention des décideurs politiques sur la question. Il s’est avéré que bon nombre des objectifs déclarés du programme « De la ferme à la fourchette » étaient de nature politiques et peu scientifiques.

Prenons l’exemple de la réduction de 50 % des pesticides d’ici à 2030. L’Europe pratique de loin l’un des régimes réglementaires les plus stricts pour les produits phytopharmaceutiques, grâce à l’utilisation du principe de précaution. Certains produits chimiques, comme le glyphosate, doivent être autorisés par le Conseil européen malgré les évaluations de sécurité fournies par l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA). L’objectif de durabilité visé par l’objectif de 50 % n’est pas clair: les produits chimiques sont-ils nocifs pour la santé humaine? Pas dans la manière dont ils sont actuellement utilisés, affirme le régulateur. Cela a contrarié les agriculteurs, car au lieu de proposer une alternative viable et abordable aux produits chimiques en question, la Commission a fait valoir que les agriculteurs pouvaient choisir des alternatives biologiques.

Cependant, le bio ne représentant qu’une petite fraction, moins de 10 %, des décisions d’achat des consommateurs européens, les agriculteurs étaient confrontés au risque précaire de ne pas trouver d’acheteurs pour leurs produits, en plus du fait que les coûts de mise en conformité pour les produits biologiques étaient encore plus élevés que ceux auxquels ils étaient déjà confrontés.

Tous ces facteurs, combinés à la pénurie d’engrais et d’aliments pour le bétail, ainsi qu’à la pression exercée par les détaillants sur les prix d’achat de tous les produits agricoles à la demande des gouvernements européens, ont rendu la situation intenable pour les producteurs.

Les frustrations sont grandes pour les agriculteurs européens, car depuis des décennies, chaque nouvelle charge réglementaire est résolue par l’argent. Êtes-vous concerné par l’interdiction d’un produit phytosanitaire et donc par la baisse des rendements? Et si nous vous accordions davantage de subventions?

S’il est compréhensible que l’on puisse gouverner ainsi pendant un certain temps, cela témoigne d’une incompréhension fondamentale de l’activité agricole. Les agriculteurs ne sont pas intéressés par un modèle d’entreprise qui les maintient à flot grâce à des fonds publics, et les consommateurs recherchent davantage de transparence. Quel est le prix réel des denrées alimentaires, alors qu’elles augmentent dans les supermarchés ET qu’elles sont fortement subventionnées, puisque 30 à 40% du budget total de l’Union européenne sont consacrés aux subventions agricoles?

L’UE a parcouru un long chemin depuis les ambitions de 2019. Les dernières mesures de simplification signifient que les agriculteurs sont soumis à moins de contrôles sur leurs déclarations environnementales pour accéder aux subventions, le règlement sur la réduction des pesticides a été complètement supprimé et la Commission travaille activement à l’autorisation des cultures génétiquement modifiées sur le marché européen, une mesure qu’il aurait été impossible de faire passer il y a seulement quelques années. Le ton a changé à Bruxelles. Il n’est plus question de réduire les terres agricoles, mais d’augmenter les rendements grâce à l’innovation.

Pendant des années, mes amis nord-américains ont considéré l’Europe comme l’exemple même de la bonne gouvernance en matière d’environnement et d’agriculture. J’aimerais bien qu’ils me disent de quelle Europe il s’agit exactement, car les dirigeants des dernières élections ont certainement changé d’avis.

Originally published here

Why is Mark Holland making it harder for smokers to quit?

Federal Health Minister Mark Holland has sought new powers within the federal budget, which allow for him, or any future health minister to override Health Canada’s approval of natural health products, smoking cessation tools and even medical devices.

This new power was deemed necessary by the health minister to further regulate access to nicotine pouches, which are tobacco-free, oral nicotine products used to help smokers quit smoking.

They are placed under the lip, where the nicotine is absorbed through the mouth’s lining. In Canada, legal nicotine pouches are regulated by Health Canada as a tool to help smokers quit, and the rules for pouches are identical to other smoking cessation tools that have been on the market for years, if not decades. Those other tools for smokers to quit include sprays, patches, gum and lozenges.

Nicotine pouches are exponentially less risky than smoking. So much so that the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) published a comprehensive review on nicotine pouches, and the results are pretty eye opening. On a harm scale, with 100 representing the risk from smoking, and 0 representing not consuming any product with nicotine, the BfR gave nicotine pouches a score of 1, which is exactly the same as the risk from nicotine patches, gums and sprays.

Simply put, these pouches help smokers quit, which is why more than 1,200 smokers and former smokers have called on Ottawa not to over-regulate these products by removing them from convenience stores, or banning flavours.

And the proof that these products work in terms of helping smokers quit is the country of Sweden. Sweden, a country where these low risk alternatives are widespread, is an example of how harm reduction actually works in practice. The German BfR researchers clearly point out that Sweden is the only country in Europe where lung cancer isn’t at the top of the list for cancer mortality. Lung cancer in Sweden, because of the embrace of tobacco harm reduction, is the lowest in all of Europe’s 40 countries. In Canada, lung cancer is the leading cancer killer, with well over 20,000 Canadians dying annually.

We all know someone who smoked and paid the ultimate price for it. Products that help smokers quit smoking for good should continue to be available, and harm reduction should be embraced across the board. Ottawa, and the federal health minister, should Leave Pouches Alone.

Originally published here

Labour sends mixed messages to global innovators

Mike Salem, the UK Country Associate for the leading international consumer group, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), expressed his views on the government’s plan to shelve £1.3 billion of investment in the tech and AI sectors.

While fiscal cuts may be necessary, consumers would have been better off with an accompanying announcement encouraging innovation and competition, which would lead to better outcomes for everyday use.

For example, by being more permissive than the EU, the UK can attract more innovators to develop their leading products in our country.

In a statement, Salem warned that the government’s plan directly contradict Labour’s mission to create wealth.

He stated: “In its effort to reduce public spending, the government’s image of being more fiscally responsible remains to be seen, but we hope there will not be an abandonment wholesale of the promise of AI innovation in the private sector.”

Read the full text here

Google illegally maintains monopoly over internet search, judge rules

WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge on Monday ruled that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation, a seismic decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies.

The highly anticipated decision issued by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta comes nearly a year after the start of a trial pitting the U.S. Justice Department against Google in the country’s biggest antitrust showdown in a quarter century.

After reviewing reams of evidence that included testimony from top executives at Google, Microsoft and Apple during last year’s 10-week trial, Mehta issued his potentially market-shifting decision three months after the two sides presented their closing arguments in early May.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his 277-page ruling. He said Google’s dominance in the search market is evidence of its monopoly.

Read the full text here

Give Lawsuit Plaintiffs the Final Say, Not Lawyers Hungry for More Cash

In a protracted eight-year-long legal battle, lawsuits against pharmaceutical and beauty giant Johnson & Johnson seem to be finally coming to a resolution. These cases have been some of the largest and most expensive in recent history and are providing memorable lessons for companies, consumers, and legal firms as to how massive claims can be best adjudicated to render justice.

LTL Management, J&J’s Texas-based subsidiary, is being pursued for J&J’s baby powder product and whether certain bottles contained trace elements of talc tainted with asbestos over the years. Most commonly associated with glass wool used for attic insulation, asbestos is also found near talc mine deposits, and the company has been fighting close to 61,000 claims that those trace elements caused various illnesses in consumers.

The subsidiary based in Texas was created as a holding vehicle for the various claims against the company, a practice favored in state bankruptcy law.

The merits of the scientific findings in the case itself have been hotly debated for some time and will continue to be. What’s at stake in our justice system, however, is the ultimate role of those consumers who felt wronged and how their voices will be heard as these cases meet their end.

The tens of thousands of disparate cases have ranged in the level of harm consumers say they endured as a result of using the product, and have been split up into several class action lawsuits and multi-district litigation cases heard by different judges, juries, and courts.

This is standard fare for large tort law cases but is exacerbated as additional injury law firms seek class participants for these big suits through direct recruiting or spending millions on advertising.

It is no secret that an entire industry of plaintiff attorneys active in tort law depend on high-profile cases such as these to seek massive rewards as a cut. Whether or not claims are legitimate, publicly traded companies with reputations and stock prices to maintain would often rather cut a deal than risk a lengthy trial process that will balloon their legal budget and drag their brands through the mud of media coverage.

When final awards or settlements are made, attorney fees usually come out as high as a third of the entire payout, or more. The lawyers that halted Elon Musk’s controversial payment plan, for example, are seeking nearly $7 billion in fees from Tesla as a result of their case, which would be one of the largest legal payouts in American history. Musk recently announced the company would move its headquarters to Texas after how Tesla has been treated in other jurisdictions.

In the case of Johnson & Johnson, the company has offered multiple options to claimants looking to settle out of court rather than continue costly legal battles that could result in fewer rewards for those harmed. The latest settlement would be a combined $6.5 billion paid out over 25 years to those who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

For consumers who believe they’ve faced real harm and are involved in these cases, whether or not they can prove it, they deserve a chance to end the expensive ordeal and reach a settlement, as they should in any case.

But considering that some of the country’s largest tort law firms have an ongoing interest in drawing out these legal fights, either because of the ongoing legal fees or the promise of a healthier payout, it is not clear whether those settlements announced will be favorably presented to their clients.

Consumers who were affected deserve to be heard and to have their cases justly administered. If they are offered a deal, they should not have their rights limited simply because a larger payday could hypothetically be on the horizon.

When the people filing the lawsuit are kept from making a settlement by their lawyers, as reports frequently indicate, we should ask hard questions about the incentives of the lawyers and legal firms that bring these types of cases.

We cannot know the machinations of what injury law firms are telling their clients about current settlements or future prospects, but we would hope these are ethical, truthful, and represent their clients’ interests.

What’s at stake in the broader context is the future of our judicial system and the faith of everyday people that they can get a fair shake in court, without losing out on what they’ve been promised.

Consumers harmed by-products should have the ability to not only be heard in court but to participate in a fair, transparent process where they can seek redress.

Allowing the multi-year litigation process to continue without giving clients and consumers affected the option to settle now not only risks leaving thousands without proper justice, it also undermines the rule of law which is meant to protect Americans when we need it most.

We hope this remains true, and that no bad precedents are set for future claimants.

Originally published here

CCC Supports Government’s Move to Encourage SMEs and MSMEs Technological Adoption

KUALA LUMPUR, 21st August 2024 — The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) expresses strong support for Digital Minister Gobind Singh Deo’s recent announcement regarding the proposal in Budget 2025. Gobind wants to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to adopt advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI). This initiative is crucial for enhancing productivity and ensuring Malaysia’s businesses remain competitive in the global market.

Tarmizi Anuwar, Malaysia Country Associate at the Consumer Choice Center, stated, “Minister Gobind Singh Deo’s initiative is a significant step forward in promoting innovation and efficiency among SMEs and MSMEs. By adopting advanced technologies, businesses will not only improve their operations but also provide consumers with higher quality products and services.”

World Bank highlights that Malaysia’s SMEs have been underperforming when compared to peer countries, both in terms of output and productivity levels. Additionally, SMEs in Malaysia are less likely to adopt complex innovations and technologies in their businesses due to a lack of technical capabilities.

The CCC also stresses that upskilling and reskilling should be integral to the process of adopting AI. “For these efforts to be truly effective, businesses must invest in training their workforce to handle new technologies,” Tarmizi added. “By integrating upskilling and reskilling programs, we can ensure that the transition to AI-driven operations is smooth and benefits both businesses and workers.”

To further support AI adoption, the CCC recommends the implementation of regulatory sandboxes—controlled environments where businesses can test AI innovations with limited regulations. While regulatory sandboxes have traditionally been used by larger tech firms and fintech companies, they can be adapted for SMEs and MSMEs as well. “Countries like India and Singapore have successfully used regulatory sandboxes to SMEs and MSMEs to foster innovation while ensuring consumer protection,” Tarmizi noted.

“For SMEs and MSMEs, specialized sandboxes could be developed with lower-cost entry points, simplified compliance requirements such as the application and evaluation processes should be streamlined or made easy to follow, and tailored support for less complex innovations.”

By making these sandboxes accessible to smaller businesses, the government can empower SMEs and MSMEs to experiment with new technologies, such as AI, without being burdened by full regulatory requirements. This approach not only encourages innovation but also mitigates risks for businesses that may lack the resources of larger corporations.

For the long term, regulatory sandboxes should not be seen merely as temporary relief for specific groups but rather as a foundational model of learning and adaptation that can drive broader regulatory reform. By embracing sandboxes as a tool for iterative testing and development across all sectors, we can streamline regulations, enhance productivity, and foster a dynamic environment conducive to innovation. This approach allows for continuous improvement and ensures that regulations evolve in tandem with technological advancements, ultimately benefiting the entire economy.

In addition to supporting these measures, the CCC urges the government to maintain transparency and accountability in their implementation. “It’s crucial that these initiatives are accessible to a broad range of businesses and do not lead to dependencies or favor certain industries disproportionately and that the process is transparent, ensuring a fair and competitive market,” Tarmizi concluded.

Day: August 21, 2024

The Hidden Costs of Unionizing PA Pharmacists

DeSantis’s cultivated meat ban won’t survive lawsuit

The government has a new plan to seize patents, and it’s a huge threat to innovation

Governor Walz Needs To Answer For Failed Progressive Food Policies

Le revirement total de la politique européenne sur l’agriculture

Why is Mark Holland making it harder for smokers to quit?

Labour sends mixed messages to global innovators

Google illegally maintains monopoly over internet search, judge rules

Give Lawsuit Plaintiffs the Final Say, Not Lawyers Hungry for More Cash

CCC Supports Government’s Move to Encourage SMEs and MSMEs Technological Adoption

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA