fbpx

Author: Consumer Choice Center

August 2022

Hello there!
Our team has been working around the clock to defend you and your consumer choice! Let me take you through the last few weeks.

Just another misguided attempt to improve sustainability
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  is moving to essentially ban the commonly used pesticide atrazine. The current administration is weaponising for its political ambitions cutting down on pesticides, even if it is contrary to its own scientific advice. Bill writes that this move would increase food insecurity and prices at a time when American consumers can afford it the least. But do the environmentalists know that this ban would harm the environment?
READ MORE

Yael gives his thoughts on student loan forgiveness
Yael was recently interviewed on Hot Talk 99.5FM by host Joe Catenacci. He expressed his skepticism about Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, especially in the light of current high inflation. He stressed the importance of reforming the federal loan system, without which, we would just be endorsing bad behavior of taking out huge loans 
LISTEN HERE

We know just how to ease the plasma shortage in Canada

Plasma is a valuable resource used to make medicines that treat burns, immune deficiencies, and respiratory diseases, but unfortunately, Canada produces only enough to meet 13.5 of the national demand. 80 per cent of Canada’s plasma therapies are derived using plasma from American donors, who are compensated for their donations. David writes that if we want to decrease reliance on imports and increase domestic supply, we just need to start compensating plasma donors.
READ MORE

Catch up on the latest episodes of our podcasts

The weekend is almost here, and if you were looking into what podcasts to listen to, we have great recommendations for you. In the latest episode of ConsEUmer podcast, Bill talks about the crackdown on private jets in France and discusses a potential EU ban on nicotine product sales for people born after 2010.  As for Consumer Choice Radio, we welcome David back from his dad leave, and he’s ready to share tips and tricks for new dads. David and Yael also take time to rant about ArriveCan and Canada’s COVID restrictions and give some thoughts on alcohol recommendations. 
ConsEUmer Podcast
Consumer Choice Radio

Checking in on the bees

Bill has been on fire recently, writing an op-ed after op-ed. This time he’s checking in to see how the bees are doing. Turns out they’re just fine. As opposed to the widespread claim that bees are dying because of certain pesticides, evidence shows a different picture. The number of bee colonies in the United States has been stable for 30 years, and the regional declines in bee populations are often due to a reduced demand for beeswax or honey, which makes beekeepers shrink their supply of managed bees
READ MORE 🐝

Another great addition to the CCC team  🎉

The Consumer Choice team keeps growing! Say hello to our Junior Graphic Designer Elena Podaneva. Elena has worked with global brands across many sectors, and she is also focusing on applying her skill sets to social causes. We are glad to increase team #consumerchoice and fight the good fight!
READ MORE
That’s a wrap for this month! Stay tuned on all of our social media channels for more info on our current activities. If you want to support our work, please consider making a donation HERE

David Clement
North American Affairs Manager

July 2022

Hello there!
Throughout July, the CCC team has been avidly defending consumer choice across the world. Here’s a recap of some of our accomplishments from this past month!

The U.S. sports betting index is out!
Want to know which states outlaw sports betting, where and how consumers can place bets and who controls betting? We’ve got you covered! Our latest index ranked all 50 states according to how consumer friendly and accessible their sports betting market is. Download the full paper to know why it is so important to have sports betting legal!
READ MORE

The United States should fully embrace harm reduction
Harm reduction is one of the key pillars of President Biden’s National Drug Control Strategy, but those addicted to nicotine are not given a proper chance to switch to less harmful alternatives. Juul labs were recently denied the ability to continue selling vaping devices, much to the joy of public health officials. Yael writes that 40 million smokers in the US deserve the opportunity to switch to a less harmful product to satisfy their addiction. 
READ HERE

The CCC team is growing

We’re excited to welcome Tarmizi bin Anuwar to our team as country associate Malaysia. Tarmizi has extensive experience in Malaysia’s political and civil society movements and will use his expertise to defend consumer choice and freedom in his home country.
READ MORE

Proposed crypto surveillance rules will harm consumers!
Our crypto fellow recently published a blog post, evaluating the EU’s proposed crypto surveillance rules. He says that rules introduce regulations that are far from technologically neutral, are detrimental to innovation, and will harm consumers who depend on cryptocurrency services. And of course, he’s offering more consumer friendly alternatives to these regulations that promote innovation, protect consumers, and create a better ecosystem that will benefit all Europeans.
READ HERE

The municipal broadband network fairytale doesn’t have a happy ending for consumers.

A historic $65 billion investment has been allocated to bolster broadband throughout the country. Consumers want access to high speed internet at reasonable prices, but Liz and Yael claim that municipal broadband networks won’t get them there. Instead, they offer viable solutions to the common obstacles preventing consumers from accessing high speed internet. Make sure to read our latest paper on the dangers of municipal broadband!
READ MORE

Our second staff retreat in Tbilisi

Our team members gathered in the capital city of Georgia, Tbilisi, for our second retreat of the year. Working remotely from different countries around the world, staff retreats are something every team member looks forward to. We finally got the chance to talk in person, catch up, evaluate our year so far and discuss our plans and strategy for the remainder of it. I guess we could say we’re trying to live in the moment and that’s why we forgot to take a group photo. Sorry!
Thank you for your attention, as you can see it’s been quite a productive month! We have a lot of projects in progress, so make sure to follow our social media to be the first to know about them!

Luka Dzagania
Graphic Designer
americans for tax reform

Why Political Interference in Big Tech Continues To Be a Big Mistake

little common sense and a little historical context make it relatively easy to see that monopoly power concerns for Big Tech are blown out of proportion, since internet incumbents don’t last forever and even the greatest industry leaders can be beaten at their own game. Take for instance AOL’s AIM, which despite having immense market powercouldn’t maintain its dominant position indefinitely – and the same is true for others within the tech sector.

Gen Xers remember when Facebook replaced Friendster and Myspace, just as younger audiences have now replaced Facebook with TikTok and Snapchat. And while TikTok is garnering quite a bit of media attention, Twitch and Discord are poised to be next as preferred platforms. 

Based on these examples, the pitching of proposals in Congress regarding who can or cannot tweet seems counterintuitive, especially since Twitter ranks rather low in usersanyway. 

Yael Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, notes that “If Congress succeeds in changing antitrust laws to curb tech power, it will not be to the benefit of the typical user and consumer online. Rather, it would fulfill the political goals of a coalition that seeks to curtail much more than mergers and acquisitions: certain political speech, movements they view as hostile, and products to which they would rather consumers not have access.” Indeed, having the government determine who can post or what can be posted is a more concerning matter than that of a private organization.

iven that government oversight tends to grow overtime, and that regulations rarely get repealed once in place, competition serves a better means than government interference for curtailing Big Tech’s bad behavior. Even the best of the best in the business realm go by the wayside in due time, which is why calls for antitrust action against Big Tech should be squashed and claims for content moderation should also be put to rest – despite the detestable deleting of accounts and posts based on political grounds.

Read the full text here

CCC joins coalition opposing Credit Card Competition Act

Dear Member of Congress: 

We, the undersigned organizations, oppose the inaccurately named Credit Card Competition Act of 2022 (S. 4674). The bill is a backdoor  price control, and extension and expansion of the Durbin amendment as  enacted in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203).  

As written, the bill directs the Federal Reserve to draft rules requiring credit cards issued in the United States to offer at least two unaffiliated  payment network options for point-of-sale and online transactions.  

According to the bill, the two networks may not both be Visa and  Mastercard, because they “hold the 2 largest market shares with respect  to the number of credit cards issued in the United States.” However,  should market share switch hands to new firms, the routing mandates  will no longer apply. The bill also mandates that the proprietary security of the credit cards function so that all networks are available for retailers  to pick and choose—consumers get no say whatsoever. In fact, the bill  never mentions consumers, nor how they will benefit.  

It is abundantly clear that special interest groups are using the  federal government to alter the credit card market to benefit  themselves and not consumers. This is textbook rent seeking behavior, anathema to free market principles, and should be  staunchly opposed by Republican lawmakers.  

Furthermore, we oppose S. 4674 for the following reasons: 

• The bill does not promote competition, instead it dramatically expands the role of the federal government to  overregulate the market for credit cards. Today, requiring multiple dual-message networks to function over one card is  technologically infeasible. The cost of overhauling our current  credit system to comply with the mandates in the bill could cost  up to $5 billion.  

• The mandates in the bill are so costly that more than $60  billion in rewards that consumers receive every year would  largely disappear. According to the International Center for Law & Economics, “86% of credit cardholders have active  rewards cards, including 77% of cardholders with a household income of less than $50,000.”

• The bill authorizes the federal government to intervene in  contracts between private parties. The federal government  should not be interfering in private contractual agreements. This  encroachment will force small banks and credit unions to  severely limit or cease providing co-branded cards that millions  of consumers use every day. This is similar to how Biden’s  Securities and Exchange Commission is attempting to dictate provisions of contracts between private fund advisers and  investors.  

• There is no evidence that this bill will pass savings down to  consumers. A report from the Government Accountability  Office stated that if the regulations in the Durbin amendment  “had not been implemented, 65 percent of noninterest checking  accounts offered by covered banks would have been free.” Since  the enactment of the Durbin amendment, about 22% of retailers have raised prices on consumers while only 1% lowered prices.  Additional regulation on credit interchange will affect fees and  interest in the credit market, thus increasing costs for consumers. 

• Because the bill forces credit cards to allow access to all  networks, proprietary technology will be exposed to  competing networks, destroying incentives to create new and  innovative fraud protection and cybersecurity. As one paper points out, the routing mandates “largely undermine the  economics of networks and issuers.” 

• The bill is a perfect example of Congress ceding its Article I  authority to the Federal Reserve. All the provisions of this bill  require the Federal Reserve to draft rules to carry out its  mandates.  

Based on the points made above, we believe this bill is diametrically  opposed to free market principles. We encourage all lawmakers to  oppose this bill. 

Sincerely,  

Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center

WHAT ARE THE POLICY OPTIONS FOR REGULATING ENDS?

Republished from Clivebates.com with the consent of the author

WHO leads with outright prohibition as its preferred policy, though it has never bothered to justify this with reference to intended and unintended consequences or the rights of smokers to access lower risk products. Almost everything else it proposes functions as a de facto protection of the cigarette trade.

WHO starts with an anchoring bias: that the normal policy response should be the prohibition of ENDS. There is no scientific or ethical basis for this policy. Why would it make sense to ban the much safer nicotine product, deliberately deny law-abiding smokers better options, protect the cigarette trade from competition, stimulate unregulated black markets in vaping products, and draw young people into the illicit supply chain, and therefore into criminal networks? 

WHO has never assessed the costs and risks of ENDS prohibition, but relentlessly promotes it all the same. I have written about WHO’s strong support of vaping prohibition here: Prohibitionists at work: how the WHO damages public health through hostility to tobacco harm reduction. 

The arguments against prohibition are well put in this document by the consumers’ organisation INNCO: 10 reasons why blanket bans of e-cigarettes and HTPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are not fit for purpose.

International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO), 
10 reasons why blanket bans of e-cigarettes and HTPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are not fit for purpose, March 20

WHO fails to grasp trade-offs and unintended consequences in policymaking. There is nothing in this regulatory package that shows that WHO has grasped the basics of policymaking in this area. The critical policy insight is that excessive regulation of vaping products functions as a barrier to entry and protection of the more dangerous cigarette products. The Royal College of Physicians (London) expressed this well in its 2016 report, Nicotine with smoke: tobacco harm reduction:

Tobacco Working Group. Royal College of Physicians (London) 
Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction 28 April 2016

There are other trade-offs: the protection of young people from relatively minor risks (e.g. experimental vaping) could have the effect of imposing major risks on adults (continued smoking or relapse from vaping to smoking). A further complication is that for some adolescents, vaping will function as a diversion from smoking. For these young people, the teenagers most at risk, vaping creates a significant health benefit.

Written by Clive Bates

The Counterfactual: Are secondhand ENDS emissions dangerous?

Republished from Clivebates.com with the consent of the author

WHO avoids a comparison between secondhand smoke and secondhand aerosol. Again, WHO uses the words “potentially” and “potential” to avoid saying anything about how toxic or how risky. In my own Q&A on vaping and harm reduction, I highlight three key differences between secondhand smoke and secondhand vape exposure: 

  1. The quantity emitted. Most of the inhaled vapour is absorbed by the user and only a small fraction is exhaled (15% or less, depending on the constituent).  In contrast, about four times as much environmental tobacco smoke comes directly from the burning tip of the cigarette than is exhaled by the smoker. There is no equivalent of this “sidestream smoke” for vaping.
  2. The toxicity of the emissions. Tobacco smoke contains hundreds of toxic products of combustion that are either not present or present at very low levels in vapour aerosol. Vapour emissions do not have toxicants present at levels that pose a material risk to health. Exposure to nicotine, itself relatively benign, is unlikely to reach a level of pharmacological or clinical relevance.
  3. The time that the emissions remain in the atmosphere. Environmental tobacco smoke persists for far longer in the environment (about 20-40 minutes per exhalation). The vapour aerosol droplets evaporate in less than a minute and the gas phase disperses in less than 2 minutes.

The main issue with vaping in public is etiquette and consideration for others. At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that indoor vaping presents a material risk to bystanders. But that does not mean there should be a license to vape at will anywhere. It means the owner of a property should determine the policy for their premises. A government override of these property rights can only be justified if there are material risks to bystanders or workers.

Written by Clive Bates

Generasi Penamat dan cabaran penyeludupan rokok

PETALING JAYA: Pelbagai kempen bagi membantu mengatasi tabiat merokok telah dilaksanakan Kementerian Kesihatan sejak dahulu, namun dilihat tidak efektif dan gagal mencapai sasaran.

Buktinya dapat dilihat berdasarkan Tinjauan Kesihatan dan Morbiditi Kebangsaan (NHMS) 2019 yang menunjukkan bilangan perokok di Malaysia terus meningkat kepada 4.8 juta orang pada 2021 berbanding 4.7 juta pada 2011.

Malah, kekerapan merokok di negara ini berada pada tahap yang tinggi iaitu sebanyak 21.3 peratus.

Justeru, bagi menangani tabiat itu, Kabinet baru-baru ini meluluskan Rang Undang-Undang (RUU) kawalan tembakau dan merokok yang melarang aktiviti merokok dan pemilikan sebarang produk berkaitan rokok termasuk jenis elektronik bagi generasi muda yang lahir selepas 2007.

Polisi dikenali sebagai Generational End Game (Generasi Penamat) itu telah dibentang di Parlimen.

Namun, langkah drastik yang diambil itu mencetuskan seribu satu persoalan sehingga mendapat reaksi pelbagai pihak mengenai keberkesanannya dan kebolehlaksanaan terutama dalam beberapa situasi terkini negara ini.

Read the full text here

Milano Centrale è la seconda migliore stazione d’Europa

Il Consumer Choice Center, un gruppo di difesa dei consumatori, ha redatto la classificadelle migliori stazioni d’Europa, esaminando le 50 stazioni europee più grandi e classificandole in base all’esperienza dei passeggeri e a una serie di fattori, come l’affollamento, l’accessibilità e il numero di destinazioni.

Come spiega il CCC, l’indice complessivo dell’esperienza del passeggero comprende la disponibilità di servizi di ride-hailing, la concorrenza delle compagnie ferroviarie, i ristoranti e i punti di asporto in loco, negozi, il numero di destinazioni nazionali e internazionali, l’accessibilità per i disabili, l’esistenza di lounge di prima classe, il Wi-Fi e la comodità per accedere ai binari.

Zürich HB a Zurigo, in Svizzera, è al primo posto nella classifica delle migliori stazioni ferroviarie d’Europa. Anche se la stazione non ha il maggior numero di destinazioni internazionali e nazionali, ha un elevato numero di negozi/chioschi, ristoranti e punti di ristoro per allietare il viaggio.

Read the full text here

Generational End Game: An attack on personal liberty

RECENTLY, a polemic arose when Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin wanted to table a Bill to ban tobacco and vaping for future generation of Malaysians in Parliament, which is in session until Aug 4.

Consumer Choice Centre (CCC) firmly disagrees with the proposed ban for many reasons. Primarily, we believe that such a ban will infringe on the rights of Malaysians to choose and make decisions regarding their own lifestyle.

The Government and Members of Parliament (MPs) should examine this matter holistically, especially matters involving consumer preferences.

All of us, smokers or non-smokers alike, have a fundamental interest in defending our personal and civic freedom so that we can live our lives as we think best rather than as what the Government tells or wants us to do.

In a free society, adults must be allowed to make choices concerning their lifestyle without excessive intervention.

Freedom to seek alternatives

CCC does not condone smoking. We understand the health risks and the impact of second hand smoke.

Long-term tobacco consumption or smoking can cause health disorders to the nervous system, lungs and heart, digestive system and even the human reproductive system.

Almost 99% of tobacco-related deaths are caused by smoking rather than from the use of nicotine in other forms. The Yorkshire Cancer Research says nicotine is not the cause of smoking-related deaths. In fact, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease are not caused by nicotine.

As a consequence, the idea of nicotine replacement or tobacco harm reduction has proven to help reduce the above risks. Stopping tobacco use with harm reduction products and technologies such as vape can also reduce the risk of getting or dying from cancer.

This is agreed by international organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) Euro Office which states that the complete replacement of burning tobacco with electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems is capable of reducing the exposure of consumers to a wide toxic range.

In addition, Public Health England also stated that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking.

Consumer safety

In the Illegal Cigarette Survey (ICS) released by Nielsen in 2021, Malaysia ranked highest in the world for the existence of illegal cigarette syndicates and smuggling.

Meanwhile, according to a study by the Datametrics Research and Information Research Centre (DARE) entitled Clearing the Smoke: Reducing Tobacco Harm, the incidence of illicit tobacco trade is expected to surge by 61.7% from 58.4% in March 2022 if the Government pursues a “Generational End Game (GEG)” policy.

It is more worrying when this illegal trade is more harmful to consumers because the products sold in the market do not meet the local health regulations. In fact, some of them are also mixed with ingredients that are not suitable for human consumption.

Every user has the right to receive accurate information in making a decision to ensure what is best for him, including information on the importance of switching to vaping or alternatives to smoking.

Consumer rights in tobacco harm reduction

Banning tobacco and vaping will restrict the freedom of individuals to obtain alternatives, increase illegal trade as well as spark the re-use of cigarettes. Smoking addiction is a complex issue that needs to be addressed with more effective and creative public policies or strategies.

The Government should see the method of reducing the harmful effects of tobacco as one of the important approaches in reducing the number of smokers in Malaysia. This is especially when we see the trend of switching to vaping as a less harmful product has received a positive response among smokers in Malaysia.

Recognising the rights of consumers towards reducing the harms of tobacco will be able to both educate and provide Malaysian consumers with accurate information. Indirectly, it can provide consumers with knowledge about health risk reduction.

Originally published here

The “Fab Four” Sports Betting States

The Consumer Choice Center’s US Sports Betting Index recently conducted an audit of every state in terms of its sports betting affability. 

Below we reveal which states scored the highest, according to the latest report.

What Makes a Good Bookmaking State?

Before the groundbreaking litigation that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the PASPA (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) of 1992, Nevada was the place you had to go if you wanted to make a legal sports bet in America.

But that all changed in 2018 and now you can wager legally in 30-plus states as well as the District of Columbia. Not all sports betting is created equal though, as some states allow you to register for an online account in the comfort of your living room while others mandate you must sign up at one of the state’s casinos.

Getting people off of their couches to travel to a destination they might not otherwise make just to register for an online sports betting account proved to be a step too far in Illinois and they wisely dispensed with the requirement shortly before March Madness this year.

The registrations swelled immediately in the Prairie State which should be a loud and clear signal to all other jurisdictions to do away with it if they want to maximize their revenue potential…and they all do.

Read the full text here

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN