fbpx

Month: December 2024

The EU and the Costs of Overregulation: A Call for Innovation

Commentators have long praised the European Union (EU) for its robust regulatory framework, which aims to protect consumers, ensure environmental sustainability, and maintain market fairness. However, this commitment to regulation is increasingly proving to be a double-edged sword. While well-intentioned, excessive rules often stifle innovation and impose significant opportunity costs on businesses and consumers, leaving the EU behind more innovation-driven economies like the United States and parts of Asia.

Innovation and Regulation: A Growing Divide  

The EU’s regulatory approach has often hindered progress in space exploration, robotics, artificial intelligence, and agriculture. While U.S. companies like SpaceX have revolutionized space travel with reusable rockets, the EU focuses on policies like tethered bottle caps to reduce plastic waste. Ironically, this directive has increased plastic use and caused billions of euros lost in business adaptation costs, diverting resources from areas like waste management innovation or advanced recycling.  

Similarly, in robotics, American firms like Boston Dynamics are pushing the boundaries of what machines can do, as the EU is stuck focusing on standardization, such as mandating universal USB-C chargers. Although such measures offer consumer convenience, they fail to address more significant technological leaps that could transform industries.  

U.S. companies are preparing to reintroduce supersonic travel in aviation, cutting transatlantic flight times in half. By contrast, EU countries such as France have banned certain short-haul flights to reduce carbon emissions. Although this policy is symbolic, affecting only a tiny fraction of transportation emissions, it highlights European preference for restrictions over advancements.  

The Costs of Bureaucracy  

Overregulation imposes costs that go beyond compliance. For example, adapting bottling lines to meet the EU’s tethered caps directive has cost companies between 2.7 and 8.5 billion euros —resources that could have been used to innovate products or improve environmental practices. Meanwhile, other regions invest heavily in technologies that promise transformative change. SpaceX’s $1.9 billion spent on reusable rockets demonstrates how funds can achieve global impact when directed toward innovation.  

In agriculture, the EU’s ambitious Farm2Fork strategy, which sought to reduce pesticide use and promote organic farming, stalled due to bureaucratic conflict between DG Sante and Agri, the two agencies responsible,  and left farmers at risk of not finding any buyers for their fresh produce and reeling from the shortage of effective fertilizers and livestock feed. The resulting delays and pushback from agricultural communities reflect a broader issue: regulations designed without adequate consideration of practical implementation can do more harm than good.  

A Path Forward  

The EU must shift its regulatory philosophy to prioritize innovation without compromising its goals of sustainability and fairness. Policymakers must focus on creating environments that enable technological breakthroughs, whether through streamlining approval processes, fostering public-private collaborations, or investing in R&D.  

Environmental objectives and technological advancements should not be seen as opposing forces. The EU has an opportunity to champion innovations that address environmental challenges, such as improved recycling technologies or AI-powered efficiency tools, rather than focusing on restrictive measures like product bans.  

Innovate or Lag Behind  

The EU is at a crossroads. While its regulatory frameworks have provided safety and stability, an overemphasis on control leaves Europe isolated in an increasingly competitive global landscape. Other regions are investing in the technologies of tomorrow, from artificial intelligence to advanced robotics. At the same time,  Europe implements policies that stifle progress.  

The solution is not to abandon regulation but to rethink its role. Rules should enable, not hinder, progress. The EU must act decisively to reduce red tape, embrace innovation, and position itself as a global leader in shaping the future. The choice is clear: adapt and thrive or risk falling further behind.  

Red Tape Loss

We published a report on the Red Tape Loss, detailing how excessive bureaucracy and overregulation in Europe are not only driving up costs for consumers but also stifling innovation, limiting access to new products, and restricting service availability. You can read the full report here.

Should India embrace Cryptocurrencies?

India’s dynamic digital landscape and youthful demographic are driving a powerful wave of cryptocurrency adoption, positioning the country as a key player in this financial revolution. Despite regulatory hurdles, Indian consumers’ demand for financial autonomy through cryptocurrencies is in line with the country’s democratic values. By embracing cryptocurrencies, India isn’t just innovating its financial sector; it’s empowering millions, especially those underserved by traditional banks, with new opportunities and expanding consumer choice in transformative ways.

Globally, decentralized finance (DeFi) is gaining momentum as nations seek alternatives to traditional banking. Nations like El Salvador have adopted Bitcoin as legal tender marking a strong stride towards financial sovereignty. For India with its aspirations to become a global leader embracing crypto currencies offers an opportunity to lead this movement, fostering innovation and economic inclusion. 

India ranks among the top countries globally in crypto adoption. According to latest reports, India was fourth in global cryptocurrency adoption, with uptake notably high among young Indians. This trend makes sense: India has the world’s largest population under 25, who are inclined to favor decentralized finance (DeFi) over traditional banking.  For Indian consumers, crypto currency has become a smart and effective way to safeguard against inflation and currency devaluation. During global inflation of 2022, many Indians opted for bitcoin and stablecoins to preserve their savings, mirroring trends in other countries like Argentina and Turkey, where local currencies were severely depreciated. 

While concerns about money laundering and fraud persist, a well-regulated crypto ecosystem can mitigate risks. Countries like Singapore and the UAE have implemented robust frameworks that encourage innovation while maintaining financial integrity. India could adopt similar models, ensuring consumer protection without stifling growth.

Domestic transactions

India also has approximately 190 million unbanked adults, a group often barred from traditional financial services. Here, cryptocurrency and blockchain technology offer an inclusive alternative. For example, Polygon—a blockchain platform co-founded by an Indian startup—seeks to support decentralized applications for finance, supply chains, and even identity verification. Through such projects, individuals in remote areas can access essential financial services, directly enhancing consumer choice.

Digital solutions have already proven their worth in India, as seen with the significant impact of Unified Payments Interface (UPI) on transactions across the nation. In the same vein, cryptocurrencies provide an effective tool for safe, near-instance transactions with nominal fees, especially for cross border transactions. For a country receiving over $87 billion in annual remittances, crypto offers a chance to significantly cut the fees that families abroad often lose to service charges. Using Bitcoin or stablecoins for remittances could reduce transaction costs and put more money directly in the hands of recipients.

International transactions

India’s reliance on remittances, with over $87 billion flowing in annually, highlights the need for cost-effective solutions. Traditional services often charge up to 7% in fees, significantly reducing the money families receive. In contrast, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or stablecoins offer near-instant transfers at minimal cost, putting more money into recipients’ hands. Countries like the Philippines have already embraced crypto remittances, reducing costs for overseas workers and boosting local economies.

Blockchain technology’s potential extends beyond just finance. Initiatives like Binance’s blockchain-based microloans in Africa or Stellar’s remittance solutions in the Philippines demonstrate how decentralized finance can uplift underserved communities. In India, similar innovations could empower rural populations, offering them access to credit, savings, and investment opportunities.

The stability and resilience of cryptocurrencies during crises further showcase their potential. For instance, during the Russia-Ukraine war, Ukrainians used crypto currencies to protect and transfer assets amid banking restrictions. For Indians—especially those working or studying abroad—cryptocurrencies could act as a reliable store of value during economic disruptions, providing a secure financial option.

Despite its potential, cryptocurrency’s volatility and susceptibility to scams remain concerns. Educating consumers about secure trading practices and promoting the use of trusted platforms are crucial. Initiatives like Coinbase’s learning rewards or Binance Academy are already helping users understand crypto’s intricacies. India could adopt similar educational efforts, ensuring that consumers are empowered to make informed decisions.

India’s current tax structure, including the 1% TDS and 30% tax on gains, has pushed millions of users to foreign exchanges, reducing the competitiveness of domestic platforms. Following the TDS introduction in 2022, reports indicated a surge in offshore accounts, with over 450,000 sign-ups on one foreign platform in just one month. This shift not only hampers local companies but also limits consumer choices within the country, pushing policymakers to consider more balanced regulations.

Potential

India’s crypto demographics underscore the demand for modern financial options: 45% of crypto users are from Gen Z, 35% from ages 26-35, and even 8% from the baby boomer generation. This youthful demographic points to an enduring demand for financial solutions suited to the digital age. A balanced regulatory approach would allow India to leverage this demographic advantage and strengthen its position in the future of finance.

Adopting cryptocurrencies could open new avenues for jobs across fields like blockchain development, cybersecurity and fintech. As a global IT juggernaut, India’s tech sector is in an ideal position to capitalize on this growth. By becoming a crypto-hub, India can attract investment, foster innovation and boost the digital economy. 

India’s young population, coupled with rising push for financial inclusion and diverse investment options, presents Indian consumers with every reason to embrace cryptocurrency. This isn’t simply about new investment avenues, it’s about championing consumer choice, forging financial resilience and taking bold steps towards innovation driven future. By adopting a balanced approach to regulation, Indians can empower themselves to engage with the global economy and position themselves as front runners in the digital financial sphere.

By adopting cryptocurrencies with smart and balanced regulation, India can forge a course towards financial innovation and inclusion. Policymakers must embrace the transformative potential of digital assets and create an environment where consumers can thrive. The moment is now for India to lead the global shift toward decentralized finance, unlocking new opportunities for its citizens and the broader economy.

Originally published here

Privatize Canada Post so it can’t keep stealing Christmas

A month after postal workers walked off the job, the Government of Canada asked the Canada Industrial Relations Board to order an end to the strike. This may seem like a relief to Canadians, but it is also time to reflect on why the country is forced to suffer such disruptions every few years. How much longer do Canadians have to be held hostage to the whims of a Crown corporation with a monopoly on letter mail?

The strike has caused charities to lose significant sums of money at a time when Canadians are usually feeling particularly generous. For example, the Ottawa Citizen recently reported that the Ottawa Mission, a local homeless shelter, relies on holiday charity mail-outs for donations from a broad base of donors, especially at this time of year. The Salvation Army has also stated that donations are down 50 per cent since the beginning of the strike.

The Canada Post strike could also not have come at a worse time for Canadian small businesses, as this is the season in which their sales are usually highest. Back in November, the Globe and Mail reported that “​​small businesses, which tend to be dependent on Canada Post because it is a cheaper option for parcel delivery, have warned that a prolonged strike could devastate them financially and could lead to higher costs for consumers.”

This has proven to be correct. I spoke with Canadian small business owner Brynn Deamer, who said that, “Canada Post is the only option for Canadians to send letter mail, all of my Canadian customers must use other parcel carriers like UPS, Purolator, FedEx. So when my customer orders, they must now pay at least $15 for shipping to get their orders on time, which, with my items being an average $10-$40, that type of shipping cost is far too high.”

What happens if a customer doesn’t want to pay $15-$20 for shipping from a small business? “I’m still offering the free Canada Post shipping option, but they have to wait to get their package shipped out until the strike is over,” Deamer said. Even though the strike has now ended, her customers will likely be waiting a long time, as experts are saying that most packages will not arrive before Christmas.

Deamer went on to recount what she has seen happening to other small businesses: “Some are taking the route that I did and are offering other shipping options, and some are all together shutting down their shops temporarily and hoping the strike ends soon.”

Vincent Geloso, a Canadian economist who teaches at George Mason University, recently argued that it might be time to break up the Canada Post monopoly. There is a precedent for this. He gives examples found in Europe, where, as a result of a European Commission directive, “all letters regardless of weight have been open to competition since 2013. The directive does not mandate the privatization of state-owned postal companies; it simply ends postal monopolies.”

Without a monopoly over letter mail, Canada Post would have to compete with other providers like any other company would. Workers could still strike when they felt they needed to, but such strikes would no longer hold Canadians hostage due to the Crown corporation’s monopoly.

Some European countries went even further and privatized their postal systems. As a result, Geloso points out that prices for stamps and other postal services fell by 11 per cent in Austria, 15 per cent in the Netherlands and 17 per cent in Germany over 10 year when adjusted for inflation, with all those countries now having lower prices than the European average.

Before the strike happened, Canada Post was planning on increasing stamp prices in January to try and generate about $80 million in revenue. Now that the strike has added to its financial burden, Canadians shouldn’t be surprised if harsher actions are taken to recoup the Crown corporation’s losses.

The last time Canada Post workers went on strike was in 2018, and it was also timed to coincide with the start of the holiday season. Canada Post’s monopoly allows its union to hold the entire country hostage, especially during the holidays. Without that monopoly, workers could still strike, but it would no longer bring charities and small businesses to their knees. It is time for Canadians to seriously rethink this government-granted monopoly before the next strike hits and ruins another holiday season.

Originally published here

Biden admin’s Christmas wish for a Google split should get a lump of coal

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) expresses deep concern over the DOJ’s proposed remedies in the case of United States v. Google LLC that aim to completely dismantle the US tech company, deprive consumers of any future innovation, and set a dangerous precedent for American competitiveness.

Following the Department of Justice’s proposed remedies filed with the court on last month, the California-based search and ad tech giant had its chance to respond with their own filing Friday evening, blasting the government’s demands.

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

Breaking apart a cornerstone of the American Internet economy is truly without precedent and beyond the pale for a country that is supposed to revere innovation,” said Ossowski.

The government wants to forever restrict the company’s abilities to compete in evolving industries like artificial intelligence, where the US is facing massive competitive pressure from more authoritarian countries like China.

“Giving the government a regulatory razor blade to carve up a central node of our tech sector does not bode well for consumers who can already choose from a host of different products fit to their taste,” added Ossowski.

“Rather than picking winners and losers, the government should tamper down its trustbusting and let consumers vote with their clicks, rather than having that decision made for them. The DOJ is continuing to advance an ideological campaign that ignores consumer choice and makes a mockery of antitrust law,” concluded Ossowski.

###


The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva.

CFPB’s fraud lawsuit against peer-to-peer payment apps reeks of regulation by enforcement that will harm consumers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Arizona against the owners of the payment platform Zelle, alleging that app has not done enough to combat payment frauds committed by scammers.

Zelle, jointly owned by seven of the nation’s largest banks, is a popular FinTech peer-to-peer payment platform used by consumers to easy send and receive money without additional fees.

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

“In the waning days of the Biden Administration, the CFPB is overstepping its authority in suing a peer-to-peer payment app used by millions of consumers to send and receive payments and ignoring the thousands of scammers they could easily reach,” said Ossowski.

“In targeting the platform rather than punishing those who perpetuate fraud, the agency is regulating by enforcement, hoping to introduce backdoor liability for FinTech firms and payment services that hasn’t been endorsed or approved by Congress. This could make debanking and offloading of customers even worse.

Payment services already employ strict anti-fraud and scam measures that allow consumers to get their money back. Using lawfare to enact new policies will result in costly and intrusive rules that will degrade the consumer experience, make it more difficult for consumers to use or even qualify for these apps, and likely create more amenable conditions for bad actors to steal,concluded Ossowski.

Earlier this month, the Consumer Choice Center launched a policy primer to evaluate legislative solutions for combatting and alleviating the harm caused by payment scams and frauds.

This primer analyzes the Protecting Consumers From Payment Scams Act, and whether the liability remedies proposed would help combat consumer fraud and scams or would ultimately create unintended consequences for consumers that do not punish wrongdoers.

The primer includes key policy suggestions for legislators to help consumers avoid frauds and scams while demonstrating the errors that would come with expanded institutional liability:

  • Shifting liability to financial institutions and payment apps will ultimately backfire on consumers, leading to more expansive financial surveillance, higher costs due to more compliance and reimbursements, and a generally degraded consumer experience that eradicates the advantage of popular financial tech and banks.
  • Consumer financial education is the most effective way to prevent scams.
  • A national privacy law fostering innovation while protecting consumers
  • Stiffer penalties for individuals committing frauds and scams

READ THE PRIMER HERE


The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva, Lima, Brasilia, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Bloomberg’s harmful interference in Vietnam threatens smoking reduction

Written by Alberto Gomez Hernandez, Policy Manager at the World Vapers Alliance

Vietnam is at a turning point in its fight against smoking. With over 17 million smokers and over a hundred thousand lives lost to smoking-related illnesses annually, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Yet, instead of adopting proven harm reduction strategies to help smokers quit, Vietnam passed a law in late November to introduce harmful bans on vaping and heated tobacco products after facing intense pressure from Bloomberg Philanthropies and its allies.

Bloomberg Philanthropies, led by Michael Bloomberg, has been a leading force behind global anti-vaping campaigns. While it claims to act in the name of public health, its policies often undermine harm reduction efforts and leave smokers with no viable alternatives to quit. Even more troubling is Bloomberg’s outsized influence over the World Health Organization (WHO), which pushes an anti-vaping agenda that ignores scientific evidence and fails to serve the public health interests of countries like Vietnam.

WHO and Bloomberg: An alliance of hypocrisy

The WHO, heavily funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, has consistently advocated for restrictive policies on vaping and other harm reduction tools. This influence has led to a one-fits-all prohibitionist approach that disregards the needs of different individuals and countries. In Vietnam, this alliance has manifested in pressure to establish bans on vaping and heat-not-burn, depriving millions of smokers of access to less harmful alternatives.

The hypocrisy of this relationship was recently highlighted in a Facebook post that revealed how officials from the World Health Organisation’s office in Vietnam thanked Bloomberg’s organizations for its generous support, who allegedly allowed them to provide technical assistance to the government to combat smoking and the uptake of other nicotine products. At the same time, the government has ignored the voices of millions of users of e-cigarettes in the country that managed to quit smoking thanks to these new devices. While they publicly demonize harm reduction tools, they fail to address the core issues of smoking and its devastating health impacts.

The push from Bloomberg Philanthropies and the WHO represents a form of regulatory colonialism, where foreign entities dictate policies without considering the unique challenges of individual countries. Vietnam deserves the autonomy to craft policies that prioritize the health and well-being of its people, not the agendas of external organizations.

The costs of prohibition

Prohibitionist policies, like those pushed by Bloomberg and the WHO, often backfire. In countries where vaping is banned or heavily restricted, consumers turn to unregulated black-market products, which lack safety standards and pose greater risks. These products are potentially dangerous and can bring higher costs to the Vietnamese healthcare system. When users do not turn to these products, they switch back to smoking, increasing the burden of smoking-related illnesses on the state budget. On the other hand, countries like the UK, Sweden, and New Zealand have demonstrated that regulating safer alternatives and promoting them as less harmful can reduce smoking rates, lower costs and ultimately save lives.

The Case for Harm Reduction in Vietnam

Harm reduction works. In Sweden, the adoption of snus—a safer nicotine alternative—has led the country to the brink of becoming the first smoke-free nation in the world. The United Kingdom and New Zealand have seen significant reductions in smoking rates by embracing vaping as a tool for quitting. These success stories show that evidence-based policies save lives.

Vietnam could follow this path. By regulating vaping and heated tobacco products, the government can provide smokers with safer options, reduce tobacco-related deaths, and alleviate the strain on its healthcare system. Regulation ensures product safety, restricts access for minors, and encourages adult smokers to make healthier choices.

It’s time for Vietnam to reject harmful foreign interference and embrace policies that put its citizens first. By adopting harm reduction strategies, Vietnam can lead the way in Southeast Asia and show the world that progress is possible when science and public health take precedence over ideology and hypocrisy.

NASEM Findings On Alcohol Safety Are A Win For Science & Consumer Choice

After Congress allocated $1.3 million to the Department of Agriculture and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to study alcohol’s impact on consumer health, the findings have been released in time to inform the 2025-2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines. NASEM’s findings were published today in the Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health and reported on by POLITICO.

Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center praised the National Academies’ process to research on alcohol, saying,

“There has been intense downward pressure by anti-alcohol activists within the World Health Organization to steer government recommendations against any and all consumption of alcohol, even at responsible levels. Consumers rely on unbiased government research to inform their dietary choices and NASEM delivered on their Congressionally backed mandate to review alcohol’s impact on individual health.”

The Biden Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) also launched its own health study on alcohol, not sanctioned by Congress, through the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking. Consumer advocates and 100 Congressmen expressed concern that the HHS report lacked basic transparency and independence from activists seeking to discourage Americans from drinking alcohol. 

** READ MORE FROM STEPHEN KENT: End HHS’ Misadventure on Alcohol Research (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) **

Kent continued, “The appearance of outside influence by the international temperance group, Movendi, is not an insignificant concern with how HHS has approached their research. Imagine a set of federal dietary guidelines featuring input from PETA regarding meat consumption. NASEM had a sufficiently transparent process that involved Congress and should be the only report considered by the USDA as they finalize the next set of US Dietary Guidelines.”

Takeaways from the National Academies report include: 

  • Moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to no alcohol consumption.
  • Moderate drinking is also associated with a lower risk of “all-cause mortality”, though heavy drinking increases such risks.
  • The existing recommendations of limiting drinking to 2 drinks a day for men and 1 for women are reasonable and safe guidelines for consumer enjoyment of alcohol. 

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

SCOTUS Skeptical of an FDA Acting Arbitrarily Against Vape Products

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, a pivotal case concerning the Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of applications to market flavored nicotine vaping devices.

This is a landmark case for regulatory accountability related to public health and consumer choice.

At issue is whether the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when denying numerous premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA), as alleged by the manufacturers and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which accused the FDA of a “regulatory switcheroo”.

Elizabeth Hicks, US Affairs Analyst of the Consumer Choice Center, observed today’s arguments and weighed in on the consequences of the case for consumers,

“This case underscores the need for fairness and transparency in regulatory processes. The FDA’s blanket denials have placed enormous hurdles on firms providing harm-reduction alternatives, potentially decimating an industry that millions of adult consumers rely on to transition away from smoking traditional cigarettes.”

Read the full text here

Croire en la science et à la mondialisation, les ‘’mantras’’ de Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz est l’analyste politique principal du Consumer Choice Center. Il se concentre spécifiquement sur l’élaboration de politiques fondées sur des données probantes, sur les politiques agricoles et commerciales, ainsi que sur les choix de mode de vie. Originaire du Luxembourg, il publie en allemand, français et anglais. Il est apparu dans Fox News, Sky News, Le Monde, Times of London, Le Figaro, Die Welt, The Hill et d’autres grands médias du monde. Lors de son passage au Canada il y a quelques jours, il rencontrait l’éditeur de La Vie agricole, Yannick Patelli.

Pour Bill Wirtz, il est important de continuer de miser sur le libre-échange et la science, c’est probablement en ces termes que nous pouvons résumer sa pensée.

Lors de son passage à Ottawa il avait tenu, quelques jours avant que nous déjeunions à Montréal, une conférence devant des producteurs de grains du Canada. Sa présence à Ottawa lui a aussi permis, nous a-t-il dit, d’échanger avec certains fonctionnaires d’Agriculture Canada, auprès desquels il a soutenu l’importance à ses yeux de permettre la production via la technologie CRISPR.

CRISPR c’est quoi ?

CRISPR dont La Vie agricole vous a déjà parlé est une invention en 2012 de la technique de « ciseaux génétiques CRISPR-Cas9 » que l’on doit à deux chercheuses dont la Française Emmanuelle Charpentier.  Il s’agit d’une avancée fondamentale dans le domaine de l’ingénierie génétiqueIl faut imaginer des ciseaux moléculaires permettant de couper et de modifier l’ADN à des endroits précis du génome ce qui est une révolution dans plusieurs domaines comme la médecine, mais aussi l’agriculture.

Le Canada plus pragmatique

Si cette science est appliquée à la production agricole au Brésil et au Japon, ce n’est pas encore le cas au Canada et en Europe.  Bill Wirtz perçoit le Canada comme plus ouvert et plus pragmatique que la France à la révolution génomique. Il a suggéré toutefois aux fonctionnaires rencontrés «d’être plus agressifs dans la mise en place de nouvelles politiques liées à la science», nous a-t-il confié.

Bill Wirtz s’étonne du retard dans l’intérêt pour la science dans plusieurs organisations. Il donne pour exemple un cas vécu à la Commission européenne qui a récemment produit un rapport sur IA (l’intelligence artificielle) dans lequel on retrouvait une page expliquant les opportunités et douze pages sur les risques liés à l’IA.

En ce sens, il considère l’Europe craintive face à la nouveauté, quelle qu’elle soit.

Des produits issus de CRISPR d’ici 2033

Mais Bill Wirtz reste confiant pour l’avenir, il faudra peut-être attendre la présidence du Danemark à la Commission européenne pour faire évoluer le dossier CRISPR dans quelques mois, mais, selon lui, « Le monde a besoin de cette étape. C’est la plus grande découverte du siècle. J’ai bon espoir que les consommateurs auront accès à des produits alimentaires provenant de la méthode CRISPR d’ici 2033», dit-il.

Il nous a expliqué que c’est pour lui la solution pour nourrir la planète à moindre coût : « Il n’est pas vrai, dit-il, que l’agriculture durable doit se faire à l’ancienne et que le consommateur doit toujours payer plus cher.»

« Il est étonnant que lorsqu’il s’agit de changements climatiques ou de vaccins on se réfère à la science et pas lorsqu’on aborde le sujet du glyphosate, des OGM ou de CRISPR. Les politiques suivent la science, mais de manière sélective», pense-t-il.

« Sait-on que depuis qu’on utilise des fongicides, il y a moins de cancers du pancréas, car cela tue les mycotoxines ?  Et de toute manière, si on cultivait de la même manière qu’en 1960 cela nous prendrait l’équivalent de la totalité des terres de la Russie en plus sur terre pour produire ce qu’on produit», dit-il.

Sur les traités internationaux

Bill Wirtz croit encore à la mondialisation et aux bienfaits des traités internationaux. Quant au Mercosur il est d’avis qu’il est nécessaire qu’il se signe, ce que veulent d’ailleurs la présidente actuelle de la Commission européenne et l’Allemagne, leader en Europe.

Si la France recule actuellement c’est selon lui que politiquement affaibli le gouvernement français n’ose pas aller de l’avant d’autant que tous les partis politiques dans l’hexagone s’alignent actuellement sur la tendance populiste peu friande de la liberté économique.

Originally published here

Do sin taxes really help society?

Large sodas, alcohol, and tobacco are just a few things governments around the world want to keep us away from. It seems governments worldwide have embraced what economists call “sin taxes” — taxes on goods considered harmful to society, like sugary drinks, tobacco, and alcohol — as both a quick fix to budget imbalance and to preserve public health. Now, as India’s Group of Ministers (GoM) considers hiking the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on these so-called sin goods to 35 per cent, there’s much to dissect about the real impact of such measures. The idea behind a sin tax is pretty straightforward: make harmful products more expensive, so people buy less of them. 

It’s about nudging us away from bad habits while boosting government funds. Take a moment to think about where that tax-generated revenue goes and whether taxes actually work. If people quit consuming these goods, the revenue dries up raising questions about whether these taxes are really about public health or just a convenient cash grab. In an ideal world, these funds would be redirected to improve public health systems, offsetting the costs associated with the consumption of these very goods. However, the reality can be far messier.

The research (Taxing Sin by Michael Thorn, 2021) suggests that these taxes fail to reduce consumption. Instead, they hurt consumers from lower income brackets, who spend a larger chunk of their income on these goods. These taxes often contribute to the growth of black markets. The artificial price hike by the government simply pushes consumers to find alternatives, often in illicit ways, instead of quitting. And while sales on the books may drop, actual consumption might not fall as much as intended. Another layer to this issue is its social impact. Sin taxes are regressive.

Studies (The Quarterly Journal of Economics) suggest that poorer consumers spend a bigger chunk of their income on taxed goods like cigarettes and sugary drinks. This means they bear a disproportionate share of the burden, potentially deepening the societal divide these taxes are meant to bridge. Tax hikes as public health measures often backfire psychologically. Research indicates that people feel more resentment towards price hikes due to taxes than other market forces. This resentment leads to noncompliance, fuelling black markets and causing government distrust among the public. Globally, implications of sin taxes show mixed results. Studies (American Journal of Health Promotion) reveal the severe gaps in policies fuelling illicit trade and broadening economic inequality among consumers. These studies underline that while sin taxes can reduce consumption and support public health goals, they must be carefully balanced against their broader socio-economic impacts. Consumers deserve better. 

It’s time to challenge the policies that undermine choice under the pretence of public health. A progressive society isn’t built on punitive taxes but on allowing people to make their own choices. Policymakers must acknowledge freedom and not undermine it. Policymakers must craft strategies that are not just economically sound but also ethically justifiable and psychologically understood. After all, the aim is to improve public health without infringing unduly on personal freedom or aggravating socio-economic imbalance. As citizens, we must demand accountability and transparency. 

The argument isn’t about just sin goods; it’s about our right to make choices without government intervention. Engaging in this dialogue is vital to ensuring that tax policies align with our values of freedom, fairness, and consumer choice, promoting a healthier and more equitable community for all.

Originally published here

La Commission européenne réduit enfin le budget lobbying des ONG environnementales

Ce tournant marque une volonté de rétablir un équilibre dans le débat public et de recentrer ces financements sur la recherche et l’éducation.

La Commission européenne a récemment envoyé une lettre aux ONG environnementales pour les informer que le budget du programme environnemental de l’UE, connu sous le nom de LIFE, ne peut être utilisé à des fins de lobbying.

Entre 2021 et 2027, 5,4 milliards d’euros seront envoyés à des organisations environnementales à but non lucratif telles que le WWF, les Amis de la Terre ou ClientEarth – des organisations bien connues pour leurs appels à des politiques gouvernementales restrictives sur le plan des libertés individuelles. Les lettres envoyées précisent que les subventions ne peuvent être utilisées pour influencer les décisions politiques des membres de la Commission européenne.

Sur le site web du programme LIFE, on peut lire : « L’élaboration et la mise en oeuvre de la politique environnementale ou climatique de l’UE nécessitent un dialogue ouvert et étendu avec toutes les parties prenantes. Il est important que les organisations puissent prendre part à ce dialogue, car elles représentent la société civile organisée et comprennent bien les préoccupations du public en matière d’environnement et de changement climatique. Leur présence est importante pour apporter une contribution démocratique solide, ainsi que pour contrebalancer les intérêts d’autres acteurs dans l’arène de l’UE. »

Les ONG en question ont riposté, affirmant que le fait de les priver de leur budget de lobbying compromettait l’objectif d’améliorer le discours public. Elles ont tort, car celles-ci se méprennent sur leur mission réelle, s’il y en a une, et elles n’ont pas le droit de bénéficier librement de l’argent des contribuables.

Dans la théorie du soutien gouvernemental aux organisations à but non lucratif, il est important que les subventions fournissent le financement nécessaire pour mener des recherches, des sondages et autres activités susceptibles d’informer les décideurs politiques s’ils décident d’y faire appel. Imaginons, par exemple, une association environnementale qui étudie les différentes façons d’organiser la circulation des voitures dans une ville. Si les décideurs politiques décident de demander l’avis de cette organisation, celle-ci disposera alors des fonds nécessaires pour fournir cette ressource d’information au gouvernement.

Toutefois, le mode de fonctionnement de ces organisations dans le passé allait au-delà de la recherche et du soutien à l’éducation : la Commission européenne s’est en effet livrée à un véritable lobbying avec les ressources du contribuable.

Des organisations telles que les Amis de la Terre sont des idéologues de l’environnement qui répandent de fausses vérités sur l’innovation agricole et plaident en faveur de politiques particulièrement restrictives. Il n’y a rien de mal à être politique en soi, mais la façon dont les citoyens expriment leur soutien aux politiques est de voter ou de faire des dons volontaires à des organisations à but non lucratif.

En allouant des ressources à ces groupes, pour qu’ils fassent pression sur les décideurs en faveur de causes politiques sensibles, la Commission a ébranlé l’équilibre politique. Il n’y avait pas de subventions pour les organisations qui disaient qu’il ne fallait pas agir pour le climat, ce qui signifiait que l’équilibre des voix penchait toujours en faveur des groupes les plus radicaux.

Vous êtes-vous déjà demandé pourquoi les débats télévisés et les interviews donnaient la parole à des analystes affirmant que la dernière réunion de la COP n’était pas allée assez loin et que nous avions besoin de plus d’engagements de la part du gouvernement ? Certes, des organisations telles que Greenpeace disposent d’une base de donateurs stable et peuvent compter sur le soutien de citoyens privés, mais d’autres sont si peu connues que ce n’est qu’avec l’aide de fonds publics qu’elles ont pu être omniprésentes dans les médias, rencontrer constamment des décideurs politiques et créer une fausse impression de soutien public à grande échelle pour des politiques telles que le Green Deal européen.

Cette situation est enfin en train de changer. Oui, les organisations environnementales ont leur place dans le discours public. Mais il y a quelque chose de fondamentalement erroné dans le fait que les manifestants qui se trouvent devant la Commission européenne, et qui déplorent qu’il faille, par exemple, interdire rapidement les voitures à essence, soient financés par cette même Commission européenne auprès de laquelle ils font du lobbying.

Nous avons besoin d’une conversation sobre sur les politiques publiques, et de garder l’argent des contribuables qui travaillent dur hors des poches des radicaux.

Originally published here

Carrboro’s flimsy climate lawsuit against Duke Energy

Driving past Lake Norman over Thanksgiving weekend, I was once again struck by the fact that this body of water helps power millions of homes across the region and in the state of North Carolina.

Using water from the lake to feed the towering condensers, the two nuclear reactors at McGuire Nuclear Station generate over 18 gigawatts of clean and abundant energy, adding to the impressive nuclear capacity of Duke Energy that powers nearly half of its customers’ homes in North and South Carolina.

Nationally, Duke is seen as a champion for nuclear energy and carbon-free alternatives. 

In the small Triangle town of Carrboro, however, Duke has been painted as the ultimate bogeyman, responsible for the ills and harms of climate change. A lawsuit based on this premise was filed last week in the Orange County Superior Court, accuses Duke Energy of knowingly running a decades-long “deception campaign concerning the causes and dangers posed by the climate crisis.” Carrboro seeks monetary damages in a jury trial to mitigate current and future “climate-related harms.”

The attorney filing the case on behalf of the city of Carrboro is Matthew Quinn of the tort law firm Lewis & Roberts, who also happens to be the lawyer for the pro-solar nonprofit NC Warn, the group bankrolling the case.

NC Warn, a perennial critic and antagonist of Duke Energy, has been running recent primetime television advertisements accusing the energy utility of “crushing our solar industry” and expanding its exploitation of natural gas to the detriment of North Carolina energy consumers.

The group has charged Duke with using the “tobacco industry playbook,” knowing the true harms of the products they were selling but not acknowledging such to their customers.

This case in Carrboro, funded by an outside group with a specific agenda, however remarkable, is only part of a nationwide pattern. In mostly left-leaning local courts in Honolulu, San Francisco, and Minneapolis, state attorneys general have used fraud, public nuisance and consumer protection laws to accuse select companies of covering up their role in climate change.

While other cases have targeted oil giants, refineries, and plastics manufacturers, the Carrboro case will be the first major climate-change litigation aimed at an electrical utility that is investing massively in carbon-free nuclear energy generation.

In helping the state fulfill its clean-energy plan, as established by Gov. Roy Cooper, Duke has also just recently won approval to reduce energy prices by nearly $212 million for its customers.

Added to that, it has sought regulatory approval from the NC Utilities Commission to convert its coal-powered power plants into sites for small modular reactors — nuclear reactors with a much smaller footprint and less required infrastructure to produce electricity. 

Environmental groups have, surprisingly, been opposed to this shift to nuclear energy, citing higher infrastructure costs while downplaying its reduced carbon emissions.

“There’s nothing special overall as far as we can tell with the technology,” said NC Warn executive director Jim Warren, who also called SMRs “experimental reactors.”

Despite the opposition to energy exploration from local environmental groups, it should be stated that Duke Energy has played a key role in getting North Carolina to decarbonize.

In 2023, nuclear power plants in North Carolina generated over 43 gigawatt hours of electricity, all of that at the Duke Energy nuclear stations at McGuire, near Charlotte; Harris, close to Raleigh; and Brunswick, on the southeast coast.

Nearly a third of the state’s electricity generation comes from nuclear power, and North Carolina boasts one of the lowest uses per capita of natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration, a number that continues to decrease year by year.

Whatever the case against Duke Energy may have been in years past, it remains a company that must listen to its customers, follow the market, and deliver solutions that help bring our energy costs down responsibly. Its investments in nuclear energy should make us more hopeful for a carbon-free revolution.

Globally, the role of peaceful nuclear energy for fighting back against climate change and providing a better future for all of us is, thankfully, getting a second look. In our own state, we should look to do the same.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
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

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

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