fbpx

Author: Consumer Choice Center

[EU] Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan – Consultation

Summary

Every year, 3.5 million people in the EU are diagnosed with cancer, and 1.3 million die from it. Over 40% of cancer cases are preventable. Without reversing current trends, it could become the leading cause of death in the EU. Europe’s beating cancer plan aims to reduce the cancer burden for patients, their families and health systems. It will address cancer related inequalities between and within Member States with actions to support, coordinate and complement Member States’ efforts.

The Commission would like to hear your views.

Roadmaps are open for feedback for 4 weeks. Feedback will be taken into account for further development and fine tuning of the initiative. The Commission will summarise the input received in a synopsis report explaining how the input will be taken on board and, if applicable, why certain suggestions can’t be taken up. Feedback received will be published on this site and therefore must adhere to the feedback rules

Feedback period

04 February 2020 – 07 May 2020  (midnight Brussels time)


Response

As a consumer advocacy group representing two million consumers in Europe, we welcome the Commission’s ambition to beat cancer. However, we would like to emphasise the importance of approaching the issue from a multi-sided and, most importantly, scientific perspective. 

It has been suggested multiple times that increasing tobacco taxation and/or prohibiting branding of tobacco products is a sensible way forward. Although the intended consequences of such a policy are not straightforward, their potential harm cannot be dismissed. Helping consumers quit tobacco consumption is a noble goal in itself. However, it is important to keep in mind that compulsion – such as taxation – doesn’t always achieve the expected results. Consumers should be seen as responsible for their own wellbeing when taking an informed choice to smoke. In the spirit of showing respect for consumer choice, encouragement might be a more balanced way forward. Creating and sustaining conditions under which adult smokers are able to switch to healthier options such as e-cigarettes, vaping devices, or snus is not only a forward-looking solution, but also the ones that demonstrate the Commission’s commitment to tackling cancer without undermining consumer choice.

Vaping has been proven to be 95% less harmful than smoking tobacco, and has been endorsed by international health bodies as a safer alternative. Joachim Schüz, head of environment and radiation at the WHO’s cancer research agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said e-cigarettes are in “no way as harmful” as tobacco cigarettes and could help heavy smokers to quit.

Traditional cigarettes, when burned, create more than 7,000 chemicals, 69 of which have been identified as potential carcinogens. 

Vape devices, on the other hand, contain completely different ingredients. The two main ingredients used in vape liquids are propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG), both used to form the vapour and add flavour to it. Added to these two ingredients is a third, usually a common food flavouring found in cakes, oils, and other food items that help give the vape liquid its taste. All of these aforementioned compounds are common food ingredients that are deemed healthy and safe by regulatory bodies including the EFSA. The other variable ingredient in vape liquid is nicotine, the stimulant alkaloid. Though not all liquids contain this addictive chemical, it is widely seen as the main draw for former smokers looking to quit smoking. When compared to other alternatives in getting people to quit, including Nicotine Replace Therapy (NRT) patches and drugs, vaping has been found to be more effective. 

The belief that e-cigarettes are unsafe and cause a number of lung diseases doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There is sufficient evidence proving that the vast majority of reported illnesses associated with vaping in places such as the United States were caused by illicit cannabis vape cartridges sold on the black market, not those purchased legally in licensed retailers. Banning or regulating devices and liquids, whether with flavours or not, would only drive demand to the black market which won’t solve the cancer problem. Allowing vaping products as harm reduction tools for adult smokers should be a key priority of the Commission’s cancer strategy.

We need to encourage the marketing and branding of safe and legal vaping products. Consumer information is necessary in order to crowd out dangerous black market products.

On behalf of the consumers and with a view to helping the Commission find the soundest way to tackle cancer, we, therefore, suggest the following:

  • Endorse e-cigarettes as an effective way of helping smokers move to a safer alternative and eventually quit if they desire to do so
  • Allow advertising of e-cigarettes in print, on television and radio in order to inform consumers better of the harm-reducing potential of vaping nicotine

In our opinion, these steps would be an effective way to reduce cancer rates in Europe.

[Marketing Medium] Reducing Alcohol Minimum Pricing Is A Win For Consumers

Toronto, ON –  The Ontario government has announced that the minimum price for spirits will be reduced for restaurants selling spirits. Specifically, 750ml bottles of rum, gin, vodka, whiskey, and tequila sold by restaurants will have a minimum price of $34.65, which is down from the previous minimum of $51.72.David Clement, Toronto-based North American Affairs Manager for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), said “The reduction of minimum pricing is a big win for consumers in Ontario.

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5eb2d83cb100b60004e98136/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

[Marketing Medium] Reducing Alcohol Minimum Pricing Is A Win For Consumers

Toronto, ON –  The Ontario government has announced that the minimum price for spirits will be reduced for restaurants selling spirits. Specifically, 750ml bottles of rum, gin, vodka, whiskey, and tequila sold by restaurants will have a minimum price of $34.65, which is down from the previous minimum of $51.72.David Clement, Toronto-based North American Affairs Manager for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), said “The reduction of minimum pricing is a big win for consumers in Ontario.

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/2YGbzSU

Ban on cigarettes during MCO strengthened black market: Survey

The ban on cigarette sales during the MCO has increased the sale of contraband products which could have been averted, says industry player.

KUALA LUMPUR, May 6, 2020 — A blanket cigarettes sale ban during the Movement control order (MCO) gave the black market for tobacco a boost.

This is what a public opinion poll shows. It says a majority of Malaysians believe the cigarettes sale ban was negative.

The latest Asia Pacific survey saw over 1000 adults responding in Malaysia. It was commissioned by the advocacy group, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC).

The leading independent polling company, Populus was responsible for the fieldwork. It found that:

  • Eight out of ten Malaysian adults (80%) agrees that people would defy a ban on tobacco sale during a lockdown. They would go to great length to get the products.
  • Almost three-quarters of all respondents (72%, and 78% of smokers) agrees that people would continue to purchase tobacco products, but that sales would shift to black/illegal markets.
  • Unsurprisingly, most Malaysians (58%) thought a restriction would encourage people to quit.
  • 71% agrees that prohibition could increase the spread of coronavirus. They say the illegal sale of products that do not meet safety standards in distribution is risky.
  • the spread of Coronavirus through the sale of illegal products that do not meet safety standards in distribution.

Fred Roeder, Managing Director of the Consumer Choice Center says,“Our research clearly shows that people will still smoke and will likely go to great lengths to find alternative supply whenever theirs runs dry.

“Under restrictive MCO measures, encouraging unnecessary movement put lives at risk by increasing the chances of contracting and transmitting Covid-19.”

Roeder says the MCO caused a disruption in the distribution of legal cigarettes.

This resulted in an explosion of illicit cigarette trade, as highlighted by the relevant authorities in recent news reports.”

The vast majority of respondents (72%) say the ban on the sale of tobacco diverts vital resources from combatting Covid-19. They cite the increase in enforcement cost and time.

“Malaysian enforcement authorities have recently expended plenty of resources to counter illicit trade. There were roadblocks and thorough checks on food couriers and e-hailing service providers.

Nevertheless, this was the cause of unnecessary delays in an already difficult situation,” explains Roeder.

“While the initiative to encourage people to stop smoking during MCO is well-intentioned, it was a failure. Instead, this move has enriched transnational criminal syndicates and corrupt facilitators while reinforcing the endemic presence of illegal cigarettes in Malaysia,” he says.

“As Malaysia enters the phase of conditional MCO, the resumption of normal sales by legitimate players may not be enough to break the stranglehold on the market that illicit traders have gained over the last one-and-a-half months.”

He says there is a need for more effort, be it through bold policies and stricter enforcement to control this scourge effectively.

CCC conducted the survey in five countries in the Asia Pacific region including Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines and South Korea.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

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

[Marketing Medium] Austrian ski huts shouldn’t face coronavirus lawsuits

Yaël Ossowski, Vienna-based deputy director of the global consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, said “The effects of the pandemic have been recognized by many legal experts as Force Majeure, and thus lawsuits that attempt to place blame on individual establishments or towns for the spread of the coronavirus are just flat out wrong.

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5eb0290be04b81000406f43c/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

[Marketing Medium] Skihütten in Ischgl: Die Schuldigen nicht in den Alpen sondern in Peking suchen

Yaël Ossowski, Wiener und stellvertretender Direktor der weltweiten Verbraucherorganisation Consumer Choice Center sagt dazu: “Viele Rechtsexperten sehen die Folgen dieser Pandemie als höhere Gewalt. Klagen gegen Betriebe oder Gemeinden, in denen es schon früh COVID-19 Fälle gab, sollten daher als ungültig angesehen werden.”   

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5eb02876e04b81000406f43b/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

[Marketing Medium] Austrian ski huts shouldn’t face coronavirus lawsuits

Yaël Ossowski, Vienna-based deputy director of the global consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, said “The effects of the pandemic have been recognized by many legal experts as Force Majeure, and thus lawsuits that attempt to place blame on individual establishments or towns for the spread of the coronavirus are just flat out wrong.

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/35wDZQA

[Marketing Medium] Skihütten in Ischgl: Die Schuldigen nicht in den Alpen sondern in Peking suchen

Yaël Ossowski, Wiener und stellvertretender Direktor der weltweiten Verbraucherorganisation Consumer Choice Center sagt dazu: “Viele Rechtsexperten sehen die Folgen dieser Pandemie als höhere Gewalt. Klagen gegen Betriebe oder Gemeinden, in denen es schon früh COVID-19 Fälle gab, sollten daher als ungültig angesehen werden.”   

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/3foG4TB

The Covid-19 Response isn’t a Vindication for Socialism

The pandemic is not a crisis of capitalism, if anything it proves we will need free markets more than ever before, argues Joey Simnett

National emergencies are a breeding ground for those who claim it confirms their worldview, who use them to push their own agenda long after the crisis passes. And now, during Covid-19, they once again slither out of the woodwork.

There has been no shortage of state apologists who feel vindicated by this unprecedented event, and wish to keep it this way. Once again our decadent individualist culture and corrupt capitalist system have apparently failed us, and now big government has stepped in to save the day.

BBC Newsnight described Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s rescue package as “embracing Keynesianism”. Professor Mariana Mazzucato posited that we should use this crisis to “think about capitalism differently”, and recent resignee Jeremy Corbyn had a “told you so” moment where he stated he was “right” about public spending.

But this commentary on the government’s countermeasures fundamentally misses the point and the nature of the program.

What has happened with Covid-19 is a truly exogenous (i.e. non-economic) supply side shock. In fact, it behoves the government to actively and explicitly “freeze” the labour force until the crisis passes. And, until it does, it is imperative to maintain the intricate web of market relations that form the economy, as this crisis is not a result of them being inherently rotten.

There is no “crisis of capitalism” or traditional economic recession here; there have been no bad investments, malignant animal spirits, or popped bubbles. There is no need to “right the wrongs of the market” like Keynesians and socialists desire to do, nor has the Chancellor done so.

This is simply a case of governments spending money, as governments of all stripes do. But the key distinction lies in when, how, and why they do so.

The highlight of the Chancellor’s plan is to pay a portion of people’s wages for a period of time. Direct cash transfers are some of the most economically neutral interventions a government can perform. It does not remotely resemble the kind of top-down Soviet economic planning or the grotesque market distortions we’ve witnessed both preceding and proceeding economic crashes.

But, the critics say, we do see mass mobilisation in the production and acquisition of medical equipment under Matt Hancock—surely this demonstrates the effectiveness of government-led planning?

It does in one respect, in the same way conscription was necessary in World War II. But this does not mean it’s a good idea in day-to-day life. Governance involves learning, choices, and trade-offs, which means we shouldn’t forever sit in our bunkers with a rifle aimed at the door in anticipation of all manner of hypothetical events.

Who wants to see our dear comrades at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs decide who produces our food, how much food to produce, and who to give it to on an on-going basis—one brief glimpse at Maoist China suggests that governments are simply incapable of managing such complex and ever-changing economic processes.

But while there’s nothing inherently revolutionary about how our government is functioning, there’s certainly a risk that it could be as soon as Covid-19 is out of the picture.

The horrors of World War II didn’t stop after the flattening of Nagasaki. Rather, an ideological battle emerged between those who wished to return to normalcy, and those who saw merit in a state-led society. It was the darlings of 20th century progressivism, the Attlee government, who pushed to make food rationing and identity cards a permanent feature in day-to-day life.

In fact, it would take nine whole years to finally lay them to rest under Churchill’s second shot as Prime Minister.

Sunak stated that “this is not a time for ideology or orthodoxy”, but given the dramatic shift to the left in both the Conservative and Labour parties in recent years, it may well be once we are all fit and healthy again.

Author: Joey Simnett is a UK policy fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, and has previously written for American physicians on the US healthcare system, and on fiat alternatives in the payments world

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

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

Scroll to top
en_USEN