fbpx

Author: Fred Roeder

So you think you know about black market trade? Here are some myths, debunked

KUALA LUMPUR, July 14 — The global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods is a thriving one, rising from US$461 billion (RM1.9 trillion) in 2013 to US$509 billion in 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and European Union Intellectual Property Office.

A study commissioned by the Confederation of Malaysian Tobacco Manufacturers (CMTM) member companies showed that in  Malaysia alone, the tobacco black market has grown over the last few years from 36.9 per cent in 2015 to 62.3 per cent in 2019.

At the same time, there is also a rise in counterfeit alcohol, medicine, luxury goods, consumer electronics and even face masks.

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC), a global consumer advocacy group, today urged Malaysian consumers to reject all black market goods.

“The black market is not just about tax losses to the government or infringement of intellectual property rights. It literally puts consumer health and safety in jeopardy,” said Fred Roeder, managing director of CCC.

“In order to stop the black market, consumers, policymakers and legitimate businesses must first understand what the black market is and is not about,” he added.

Myth No.1 – Consumers know that they are buying black market products. 

Roeder said it is not easy to confirm if purchases are genuine, even when bought through trusted sources.

“The majority of online shoppers do not understand the levels of fraud on the internet, nor do they have the software to detect or avoid it. Most think they are just getting a good deal,” he said.

“In the case of illegal cigarettes, it is sometimes hard to tell as the packaging may look the same as the original, inclusive of fake tax stamps.”

Myth No.2 – Black market goods are mainly bought through ‘underground’ channels 

“More and more consumers today are turning to online shopping. A ‘black market’ website looks the same as any other e-commerce platform. In fact, some popular e-commerce brands are also selling counterfeit or black market products,” Roeder said.

“Social distancing and the growth of digital currency are expected to drive the growth of counterfeit and illegal products as we move forward in the new normal.”

Myth No.3 – Only those in the low-income brackets buy black market products

“Black market trade happens at all levels of society. As the black market expands to cover more products, while becoming increasingly available ‘online’, a wider population regardless of age, income and location will be exposed to these products,” he said.

Myth No.4 – Consumers buy black market goods because they are cheaper.

“Price is a key factor, but not the only factor.

“Let’s take illegal cigarette trade as an example. The trade has mushroomed in Malaysia after a significant increase in excise duty in 2015.

“Back then, the market share of illegal cigarettes was around 30 per cent, but now it is 62 per cent. 

“Clearly, consumers are gravitating towards illegal cigarettes that cost only RM4.50 as compared to RM10 of legitimate products.”

He added that convenience and easy access are also contributing factors. Malaysian law prohibits legitimate cigarettes from being sold online which helps to encourage consumers to turn to illegal cigarettes.

“As it can be easily purchased and paid for online… special couriers can deliver these products to their doorsteps,” he said.

To slow down or stop the spread of the black market in Malaysia, CCC advocates a multi-pronged approach involving all relevant stakeholders, from consumers to policymakers, government agencies to corporations.

“What is required immediately is enhanced policies and regulations that take into account current consumer purchasing behaviour and contemporary methods of distribution for perpetrators of black market products,” Roeder said.

CCC will be opening an office in Malaysia soon as part of its efforts to help the Malaysian government counter this growing problem.

“We hope to engage Malaysian consumers and policymakers through education, knowledge and intelligence sharing and positive advocacy to facilitate economic prosperity,” Roeder added. 

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

Our Laws Save Lives

UK-style laws could convert more than 200 million smokers to vaping worldwide, according to research by the Consumer Choice Center. It says its findings reveal the potential for 76 million people to switch away from tobacco products in China alone.

The Consumer Choice Center looked at 61 countries and highlighted that the United Kingdom’s approach to vape advertising, displays, and tax rate is an example the rest of the world should be following.

Managing Director Fred Roeder said: “We used the UK’s progressive tobacco harm reduction policies as a reference point and estimated how many current smokers could be helped to switch by having a more permissive vaping framework. In China, 76 million people could switch. The US (6 million) and Germany (4 million) would also see huge public health benefits by emulating the UK’s approach.”

The Consumer Choice Center has drawn criticism from Bloomberg-funded organisations due to its links to American libertarian organisations and individuals. Typically, Bath University’s Tobacco Tactics focusses on the messenger and not the message.

Laughably, it accuses the centre of hosting “three strongly biased roundtables” in 2018, to discuss the World Health Organisation’s shortcomings “and how the WHO actively blocks healthier technologies in the area of harm reduction”. This from a group of people tied to a disgraceful campaign of misinformation and lies, smears, and half truths about vaping and tobacco harm reduction.

Deeply upsetting to those pocketing Michael Bloomberg’s millions, “none of the invited speakers had public health qualifications.”

And what did they object to? Was it Christopher Snowdon speaking about the “Public Funding of Public Health Activists”, Daniel Pryor talking about “How the UK can become a leader in tobacco harm reduction”, or Professor David Zaruk highlighting, “How evidence based policies are sabotaged by those who ought enforce them”?

Sharing of political ideals isn’t required in order to examine the evidence surrounding vaping or discussing the actions of public health bodies. Is it a prerequisite when applying for funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies?

The Consumer Choice Center’s affiliations are irrelevant in this context. Maybe Bath should address the findings instead of dismissing them because of the author?

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

Consumidores de punta contra las aerolíneas: exigen reembolsos

Carta abierta: “Comprométanse con el estado de derecho y no nos obliguen a llevarlos a los tribunales”

En una carta abierta a los CEO de aerolíneas, la asociación de la sociedad civil Consumer Choice Center -que representa a consumidores en más de 100 países- reclamó a las compañías aéreas que facilite los reembolsos. “Nosotros, los consumidores, queremos ayudarlos, pero ustedes deben cumplir con la ley y facilitar los reembolsos“, se lee en la carta firmada por Fred Roeder, director ejecutivo de Consumer Choice Center.

“Queremos estar en el aire con ustedes lo antes posible, pero hagan su parte y comprométanse con el estado de derecho y no nos obliguen a llevarlos a los tribunales“. Para Consumer Choice Center, las aerolíneas deben liberar los reembolsos por pasajes no volados y, así, mejorar el vínculo con sus clientes.

La carta

Estimados CEOs del sector de aerolíneas,

Nosotros, como grupo de consumidores internacionales, y consumidores que amamos la conectividad global, conocemos muy bien el devastador impacto que Covid-19 ha tenido en la industria de las aerolíneas. El año 2020 ha sido difícil para todos nosotros y nuestros pensamientos están con los empleados de las aerolíneas que han sido despedidos, suspendidos o que aún pueden perder su trabajo como consecuencia de la pandemia.

Para nosotros, los consumidores, es extremadamente importante tener una industria aérea saludable que nos permita volver a conectarnos con el mundo para que podamos visitar a amigos y familiares en todo el mundo.

Los años previos a COVID-19 vieron muchas nuevas regulaciones e impuestos que dificultaron la operación de las aerolíneas. Incluso en tiempos previos a la pandemia, cerraron números récord de aerolíneas.

Si bien la consolidación de la industria es algo natural y, a veces, incluso buena para los consumidores, las tendencias como los impuestos más altos y los sentimientos antiaéreos, como la vergüenza de volar, se pueden atribuir a la posición financiera más débil de la industria. Y luego vino COVID

Hemos estado luchando contra impuestos más altos en los boletos de avión durante años y elogiamos a la industria de las aerolíneas como un gran facilitador para la elección del consumidor y la globalización.

Pero mientras que 2020 nos presenta a todos desafíos desde la salud mental hasta la seguridad laboral, también tuvimos que aprender de la manera difícil que muchos jugadores en su industria no se preocupan por los contratos, la ley y las promesas hechas a sus clientes.

Todos hemos pasado demasiadas horas con sus call center estos últimos meses tratando de recuperar el dinero que gastamos en vuelos cancelados. La mayoría de las veces, las aerolíneas han tratado de obligar a los consumidores a aceptar cupones para futuros viajes.

Fred Roeder, director ejecutivo de Consumer Choice Center

Darle a un consumidor una opción para un cupón está bien. Incentivarnos a tomarlo en lugar del reembolso en efectivo agregando un valor adicional de 10% a 20% al cupón es aún mejor.

Queremos mantenerlos a flote y tales ofertas son una forma de obtener nuestra aceptación. PERO negarnos los reembolsos, como muchos de ustedes todavía lo hacen, no solo es ilegal, sino que también enoja a los consumidores.

¿Cómo sabemos si podremos despegar el próximo año para emprender ese largo viaje que planeamos para este año? ¿Cómo sabemos que su aerolínea seguirá operando?

Queremos estar en el aire con ustedes lo antes posible, pero hagan su parte y comprométanse con el estado de derecho; no nos obliguen a llevarlos a los tribunales. Cientos de millones de contribuyentes en todo el mundo ya los están ayudando a través de rescates gubernamentales.

Hacemos nuestra parte para abogar por menos impuestos y tasas pagadas en las tarifas aéreas y en contra de las prohibiciones tontas de vuelos nacionales, como la prohibición que se está discutiendo en Francia en este momento. Esto hará que el sector sea más competitivo y nos permitirá a nosotros, los consumidores, volar más con usted.

Queremos colaborar a que se mantengan en el negocio, pero también deben cumplir con las normas existentes y reembolsar a los clientes. Crear confianza no es una calle de sentido único y necesitamos ver acciones firmes de todos ustedes. Dejemos atrás las frustraciones que teníamos con sus equipos de servicio al cliente, devuélvannos nuestro dinero (o al menos la opción de obtener un reembolso) y conquistemos el cielo juntos una vez más.

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

Open Letter to Airline CEOs

To the CEOs of Airlines

CC: ICAO, IATA

Open Letter to Airline CEOs: We consumers want to help you, but you need to adhere to the law and allow easy refunds.

Dear Airlines CEOs of the World,

We, as an international consumer group, and consumers who love global connectivity, know full well the devastating impact Covid-19 has had on the airline industry. 2020 has been a tough year for all of us, and our thoughts go out to the airline employees who have been furloughed, fired, or who may still lose their job as a result of the pandemic.

For us consumers, it is extremely important to have a healthy airline industry that allows us to reconnect to the world and bring us back to the skies so we can visit friends and family across the globe.

The years leading up to COVID-19 saw many new regulations and taxes that made it harder for airlines to operate. Even pre-pandemic times saw record numbers of airlines fail. While industry consolidation is something natural and sometimes even good for consumers, trends such as higher taxes and anti-flying sentiments, such as flight shaming, can be attributed to the weaker financial standing of the industry. And then came COVID…

We have been fighting against higher taxes on flight tickets for years and praised the airline industry as a great enabler of consumer choice and globalization. But while 2020 presents us all with challenges from mental health to job security, we also had to learn the hard way that many players in your industry do not care about contracts, the law, and promises made to their customers.

We all have spent too many hours with your call centers this Spring trying to recoup the money we spent on canceled flights. More often than not Airlines have tried to force consumers into accepting vouchers for future trips.

Giving a consumer an option for a voucher is fine. Incentivizing us to take it instead of the cash refund by adding 10-20% extra value to the voucher is even better. We want to keep you afloat and such deals are a way to get our buy-in. BUT denying us refunds, as many of you still do, is not just against the law but also makes consumers angry. How do we know if we are even able to take off next year to go on that long trip we planned for this year? How do we know that your airline will still be in business? Can I get that voucher insured the same way as I had my original ticket insured against your bankruptcy?

We want to be in the air with you as soon as possible, but please do your part and commit to the rule of law and don’t force us to bring you to court. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers across the world are already helping you through government bailouts. We do our part to advocate for fewer levies and taxes paid on airfares and against silly bans of domestic flights, like the ban being discussed in France right now. This will make the sector more competitive and will allow us, consumers, to fly more with you.

We want to help you to stay in business, but you also need to honor existing rules and refund customers. Building trust is not a one-way street and we need to see strong actions from all of you. Let’s put the frustrations we had with your customer service teams behind us, give us our money back (or at least the choice to get refunded), and conquer the skies together once more.


Sincerely,

Fred Roeder
Managing Director
Consumer Choice Center


Originally published here.

Carta abierta a los CEOs de las aerolíneas

Carta abierta a los CEO de aerolíneas: Nosotros, los consumidores, queremos ayudarlo, pero usted debe cumplir con la ley y permitir reembolsos fáciles.

-Carta abierta a los CEO de las aerolíneas-

Estimados CEOs del mundo de Airlines,

Nosotros, como grupo de consumidores internacionales, y consumidores que amamos la conectividad global, conocemos muy bien el devastador impacto que Covid-19 ha tenido en la industria de las aerolíneas. 2020 ha sido un año difícil para todos nosotros, y nuestros pensamientos están con los empleados de la aerolínea que han sido despedidos, despedidos o que aún pueden perder su trabajo como resultado de la pandemia.

Para nosotros, los consumidores, es extremadamente importante tener una industria aérea saludable que nos permita volver a conectarnos con el mundo y llevarnos de vuelta al cielo para que podamos visitar a amigos y familiares en todo el mundo.

Los años previos a COVID-19 vieron muchas nuevas regulaciones e impuestos que dificultaron la operación de las aerolíneas. Incluso en tiempos previos a la pandemia, fracasaron números récord de aerolíneas. Si bien la consolidación de la industria es algo natural y, a veces, incluso buena para los consumidores, las tendencias como los impuestos más altos y los sentimientos antiaéreos, como la vergüenza de vuelo, se pueden atribuir a la posición financiera más débil de la industria. Y luego vino COVID …

Hemos estado luchando contra impuestos más altos en los boletos de avión durante años y elogiamos a la industria de las aerolíneas como un gran facilitador para la elección del consumidor y la globalización. Pero mientras que 2020 nos presenta a todos desafíos desde la salud mental hasta la seguridad laboral, también tuvimos que aprender de la manera difícil que muchos jugadores en su industria no se preocupan por los contratos, la ley y las promesas hechas a sus clientes.

Todos hemos pasado demasiadas horas con sus centros de llamadas esta primavera tratando de recuperar el dinero que gastamos en vuelos cancelados. La mayoría de las veces, las aerolíneas han tratado de obligar a los consumidores a aceptar cupones para futuros viajes.

Darle a un consumidor una opción para un cupón está bien. Incentivarnos a tomarlo en lugar del reembolso en efectivo agregando un valor adicional del 10-20% al cupón es aún mejor. Queremos mantenerlo a flote y tales ofertas son una forma de obtener nuestra aceptación. PERO negarnos los reembolsos, como muchos de ustedes todavía lo hacen, no solo es ilegal, sino que también enoja a los consumidores. ¿Cómo sabemos si incluso podemos despegar el próximo año para emprender ese largo viaje que planeamos para este año? ¿Cómo sabemos que su aerolínea seguirá operando? ¿Puedo asegurar ese comprobante de la misma manera que tenía mi boleto original asegurado contra su quiebra?

Queremos estar en el aire con usted lo antes posible, pero haga su parte y comprométase con el estado de derecho y no nos obligue a llevarlo a los tribunales. Cientos de millones de contribuyentes en todo el mundo ya lo están ayudando a través de rescates gubernamentales. Hacemos nuestra parte para abogar por menos impuestos e impuestos pagados en las tarifas aéreas y en contra de las prohibiciones tontas de vuelos nacionales, como la prohibición que se está discutiendo en Francia en este momento. Esto hará que el sector sea más competitivo y nos permitirá a nosotros, los consumidores, volar más con usted.

Queremos ayudarlo a mantenerse en el negocio, pero también debe cumplir con las normas existentes y reembolsar a los clientes. Crear confianza no es una calle de sentido único y necesitamos ver acciones firmes de todos ustedes. Dejemos atrás las frustraciones que teníamos con sus equipos de servicio al cliente, devuélvanos nuestro dinero (o al menos la opción de obtener un reembolso) y conquiste los cielos una vez más.

Sinceramente,

Fred Roeder
Director general
Centro de elección del consumidor


Published here.

Cigarette and alcohol bans are unprecedented and misguided

Policies that were intended to make a public health crisis more manageable could end up adding fuel to the fire and be the last straw for the health system to collapse.


While South Africa’s alcohol ban has been partially relaxed, smokers and vapers are still being deprived of purchasing both cigarettes and e-liquids.

What was first a temporary health measure in March, during the early days of the lockdown, has now moved well beyond temporary and is actively infringing on South African’s freedom to choose.

Luckily, South Africa has not been one of the worst countries hit by Covid-19. That said, the country’s public policy response to fully ban the sale of alcohol and nicotine is one of the most heavy-handed in the world.

As a nicotine consumer in the United Kingdom, one of the most impacted countries globally, I was always able to go to my local corner store and purchase new vape cartridges or a pack of cigarettes. In normal times, these products are a nice distraction from a stressful day.

During an unprecedented lockdown, it played an important role in keeping me sane, allowing me to deal with the reality of having my movement limited, something that billions of people experienced for the first time.

In reflecting on my ability to purchase these products during the pandemic, it becomes quite clear that SA President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bans were a massive overreach. The ban was justified by the president under the banner of public health, but wasbased on flawed science.

While Ramaphosa justified the ban to protect the respiratory systems of South Africans, nicotine consumption might actually be beneficial to patients as it might prevent and reduce the likelihood of strong Covid-19 symptoms. Against scientific evidence, he and his health minister stated that smokers would benefit from the ban and announced an extension of the ban.

It looks like this policy had more to do with forcing smokers to quit cold turkey, than having anything to do with Covid-19.

And, while consumers and retailers in South Africa suffer from this government overreach, organised crime and the black market flourish.

Global networks, such as BBC and CNN, featured stories about booming alcohol and cigarette black market businesses in times of lockdowns, which acted as a real stimulus programme for illegal dealers.

When walking in my local grocery store in London, I see significant efforts from staff to keep the place clean, have as little interaction with clients, and keep physical contact to a minimum. All of this helps to reduce the spread of the virus.

Illegal dealers don’t comply with public health recommendations to help stop the spread of the virus because they are already engaging in illegal acts. Banning the sale of these products doesn’t mean that South Africans won’t be buying them, it just means that they won’t be getting them in safe, legal settings. An increase in black market activity puts more citizens at risk for spreading the virus, which is a losing scenario for everyone involved.

The danger from increased demand for illegal cigarettes or bootleg alcohol doesn’t end with the spread of the virus. Poor, and often dangerous, product quality could further strain South Africa’s public health system. We know from decades of observation that black market products are far riskier for consumers.

While committing these illegal acts, dealers and producers almost always cut corners, which just exacerbates the existing public health concerns that exist for alcohol and nicotine.

Simply put, in trying to stop South Africans from consuming alcohol or nicotine, Ramaphosa has pushed his citizens into the hands of criminal actors, and the dangerous products that they sell.

Policies that were intended to make a public health crisis more manageable could end up adding fuel to the fire and be the last straw for the health system to collapse.

South Africa should end the ban on product sales as soon as possible and follow countries like the UK, Brazil, Canada or Germany and legalise the sale of nicotine products.

– Fred Roeder is managing director of the Consumer Choice Center, a consumer advocacy group that has received funding from the tobacco, cannabis, energy, consumer goods and vaping industries.

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

Enfermedades respiratorias detonará el decreto de prohibir vaporizadores

Los vaporizadores constituyen la alternativa para dejar el consumo de cigarros, pues son 95% menos dañinos que fumar

Activistas afirman que los vaporizadores constituyen la alternativa para dejar el consumo de cigarros, pues son 95% menos dañinos que fumar.

Se realizó la 7ª edición del Global Forum on Nicotine, que en esta ocasión se llevó a cabo online y en donde participaron más de 30 especialistas de 15 países.

Contrario a su objetivo, el decreto presidencial para prohibir la importación y exportación de vaporizadores detonará en México la presencia de enfermedades pulmonares, alertaron especialistas en el marco del Séptimo Foro Global de Nicotina (GFN), en donde participaron más de 30 especialistas de 15 países.

En el marco del evento, que tuvo lugar lo días 11 y 12 de junio y que por esta ocasión se desarrolló por internet por la emergencia sanitaria, el Centro para la Elección de los Consumidores (CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER), afirmó que el decreto que emitió el gobierno de México el pasado 19 de febrero para prohibir la importación y exportación de cigarros electrónicos y/o productos de tabaco calentado tendrá graves consecuencias negativas para la salud, al presionar a los usuarios de vapeadores mexicanos a comprar productos en el mercado negro.

“México -explicó la organización-, tiene un mercado bien desarrollado para sustancias ilícitas, liderado por los carteles y, sirve como un centro de tránsito masivo para el tráfico mundial de drogas. No le costará mucho al crimen organizado contrabandear productos de vapeo de países vecinos a México y venderlos en el mercado negro o (aún más preocupante) vender líquidos de vapeo falsificados a vapeadores mexicanos”.

“La crisis de vapeo en Estados Unidos que refiere el propio decreto presidencial mexicano -agregó la institución-, fue causada por líquidos ilícitos de vapeo con THC y acetato de vitamina E del mercado negro. Empujar a los vapeadores mexicanos al mercado negro causará exactamente lo que el Decreto intenta evitar: Más enfermedades pulmonares”.

En el marco del evento que reunió a especialistas de países como el Reino Unido, Canadá, Estados Unidos, México, India, Italia, Grecia, Nueva Zelanda y Suiza, el Centro para la Elección de los Consumidores dijo que irónicamente la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), reconoció la prohibición de vapear de México como un logro de salud pública, aunque la postura antivapeo de México mantendrá a los fumadores y consumidores de nicotina limitados al consumo único de cigarrillos tradicionales.

Al respecto, John Oyston, Jefe de Anestesiología del Hospital Scarborough de Canadá, y quien también participó en el foro, destacó los beneficios que han demostrado los vaporizadores en el proceso para abandonar el consumo de cigarros convencionales, tal como lo sostiene el principal organismo de salud del Reino Unido, el Public Health England, el cual afirma que el vapeo es 95 por ciento menos dañino que fumar.

Por ello, al igual que el resto de los participantes, reprochó la intención en algunos países, como Estados Unidos, de prohibir el uso de vaporizadores.

Cabe destacar que la principal diferencia entre los vaporizadores y los cigarros convencionales es la combustión, pues mientras que en los primeros se genera vapor (vaporización de sustancias), en el segundo es humo, derivado de la quema de tabaco y químicos, lo que daña directamente la salud de quien lo consume y de terceros que inhalan el humo.

En el evento también participó el mexicano Roberto Sussman, director de Provapeo México, quien alertó que existe una avalancha de desinformación sobre el uso y ventajas del vapeo respecto al consumo de cigarros convencionales. 

Por lo general, el GFN se financia únicamente con tarifas de registro. Este año, se ofreció de forma gratuita con los organizadores a cargo del costo. El evento tiene una política de puertas abiertas. Los consumidores, los encargados de formular políticas, los académicos, los científicos y los expertos en salud pública participan junto con representantes de fabricantes y distribuidores de productos de nicotina más seguros.

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

Narcos 3.0: Mexico declares War on Vaping and repeats old prohibitionists mistakes

When Mexico’s far-left President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (or short AMLO) ran for office in 2018, he and his platform promised an end to the decade-long war on drugs in Mexico. He acknowledged that prohibitionist policies cause more harm than they do good. Ironically that same President issued a surprise presidential decree on February 19 banning the import of e-cigarettes, vapes, and heated tobacco products. The order even forbids the import of nicotine-free vaping liquids.

The Presidential decree relies heavily on scare tactics, invoking the U.S. “vaping crisis” to justify Mexico’s ban. But even the U.S. CDC and AMLO’s decree concede the “vaping crisis” was actually caused by illicit black market vaping liquids. Pushing Mexican vapers to the black market will exactly cause what the order claims it is trying to prevent: more lung diseases.

Even before this decree, Mexico had opaque vaping regulations, that had to be clarified by a supreme court ruling and allowed at least certain manufacturers to sell e-cigarettes to the country’s roughly 1.2 million vapers.

These vapers are now being left alone with no access to nicotine products that are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, and that in times of lockdowns and people spending most of their week at home thanks to COVID. Two scenarios are most likely to happen if the decree does not get annulled:

  • Narcos 3.0: Mexico has a well developed black market for illicit substances, and, as regular Netflix viewers know, it serves as a massive transit hub for the global drug trade. It wouldn’t take much for organized crime to either smuggle legal vaping products from neighboring countries into Mexico and sell them on the black market or (even more concerning) sell counterfeited vaping liquids to Mexican vapers. The vaping crisis in the United States, which the Presidential decree instrumentalizes for its ban, was caused by illicit black market vaping liquids. Pushing Mexican vapers to the black market will exactly cause what the order tried to prevent: More lung diseases. 
  • Back to the ciggie: Even is the more dramatic scenario of a booming vaping black market might not come true (mainly due to the low margins on nicotine products compared to Cannabis or Cocaine), we would still see over a million vapers left behind. It is more likely that most of them will switch back to smoking regular cigarettes instead of switching to nicotine patches or entirely quit. That, in turn, would also lead to worse public health outputs.

We can see that AMLO’s decree will have serious, negative unintended consequences contrary to its own objectives.

Perhaps the most concerning is that the World Health Organization lauded Mexico’s vaping ban as a public health achievement, it fails to recognize that Mexico’s anti-vape stance will keep smokers and nicotine consumers locked in with combustible cigarettes. This policy deprives them of the choice to switch to the 95% less harmful vapes. The Consumer Choice Center’s interactive vaping map shows that up to 3.3 million additional Mexican smokers could switch to vaping if the government would emulate the UK’s progressive and science-based vaping laws.

 

Better vaping policies could help millions of Mexicans

So instead of cracking further down on vaping, Mexico should embrace tobacco harm reduction. Due to COVID and the parliamentary schedule, the Mexican Congress is currently out of session. Still, there is a window for legislative action when Congress returns to operation in the fall.

Consumer groups, vaping advocates, and the scientific community need to use this window of opportunity to explain more Mexican politicians and regulators the benefits of vaping and help busting myths around the United States’ vaping crisis. Initial protests against this misguided decree started already in March. This multi-lingual paper on the Myths and Facts on Vaping, written by my colleagues Yael Ossowski and Bill Wirtz explains the reasons behind the perceived vaping crisis in the US and is also available in Spanish. Probably an essential message in this paper for politicians is this one:

MYTH #3: VAPING IS THE CAUSE OF RECENTLY REPORTED RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES

Much cause for concern of late has been a flurry of reports of illness and hospitalizations blamed on traditional vaping devices and liquids. The CDC has reported nearly 380 cases of lung illnesses related to vaping. Sensational headlines and opinion articles have convinced leaders in several states and even President Donald Trump to consider banning vaping flavors outright.

But careful analysis of the reported cases reveals that a vast majority of the patients with symptoms were found to have used illicit vape cartridges mixed with the cannabis compound THC. 

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined cases in Illinois and Wisconsin found that 84% of hospitalized patients report using illicit THC vaping cartridges prior to their illness. No illnesses have yet been tied to store-bought vaping pods or liquids containing nicotine.

To that end, two Wisconsin brothers were recently arrested in connection with a multi-million dollar operation that mixed various chemicals (including Vitamin E) with THC in cartridges meant for vaping devices, which they then sold illegally. Authorities have identified this large scheme spread across much of the Midwest as a culprit in the recent lung illnesses there.

What this reveals is that illicit vaping products sold on black markets, rather than licensed retailers, have actually caused the most severe of the lung illnesses reported in the media. 

As such, a ban on regulated devices and liquids, whether with flavors or not, would not address the problem as it currently exists.

By pushing vaping into the black market and Mexican vapers going back to the cigarette, AMLO will (despite the thunderous applause from the World Health Organization) further weaken Mexico’s public health outputs. If he is passionate about fighting lung diseases he should make access to legal and safe ways of consuming nicotine easier and not harder. Everything else is just a stimulus program for organized crime and lung specialists.

EU countries to propose excise tax for e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products

EU member states will ask the European Commission this week to place novel tobacco products, electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products under the EU Tobacco Excise Directive, meaning they would be taxed just like traditional tobacco products, according to draft Council conclusions seen by EURACTIV.com.

“The current provisions of Directive 2011/64/EU have become less effective, as they are either no longer sufficient or too narrow to address current and future challenges, concerning some products, such as liquids for e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and other types of next-generation products, which are entering the market,” the draft conclusions read.

“It is therefore urgent and necessary to upgrade the EU regulatory framework, in order to tackle current and future challenges in respect of the functioning of the internal market by harmonising definitions and tax treatment of novel products (such as liquids for e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products), including products, whether or not containing nicotine, that substitute tobacco, in order to avoid legal uncertainty and regulatory disparities in the EU,” the conclusions add.

The Council Conclusions are expected to be endorsed tomorrow (27 May) at a COREPER II meeting.

EU member states also ask the EU executive to present a legislative proposal to the Council, with the objective of “resolving, as appropriate, the concerns set out in these conclusions”.

Although novel tobacco products are regulated under the Tobacco Product Directive focusing on the health aspect, there is currently no EU-wide excise framework as there is for traditional tobacco products.

The situation in the EU single market is quite fragmented, as some member states tax e-liquids and heated tobacco products at different rates while others do not tax them at all.

In January 2018, the lack of sufficient data prompted the European Commission not to propose a harmonised approach for excise taxation of e-cigarettes and other novel tobacco products until further information about these products was available.

However, in February 2020, the executive published a report suggesting that for recent and new products, the lack of harmonisation is a source of concern from the internal market perspective.

“On the market side, developments have accelerated within new e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and a new generation of modern products are coming into the market (containing nicotine or cannabis),” the report read.

“The current lack of harmonisation of the tax regulatory framework for these products is also restricting the possibility to monitor their market development and control their movements,” it added.

The tobacco industry says novel tobacco products and electronic cigarettes have significantly reduced health risks compared to traditional smoking and should therefore be treated accordingly.

On the other hand, EU policymakers insist that they are still harmful, albeit, perhaps, a little less than cigarettes, and all these years have adopted a cautious approach.

The next challenge will now be the pressure that the tobacco industry is expected to put on national governments in order to get the lowest excise tax possible.

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

Larangan jualan rokok semasa PKP kukuhkan pasaran gelap

KUALA LUMPUR – Mengehadkan akses kepada tembakau semasa Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (PKP) telah mendorong kebanyakan pengguna beralih kepada pasaran gelap, menurut kaji selidik.

Ia merupakan dapatan daripada kaji selidik yang dijalankan oleh Populus sebuah firma perunding peneraju di dalam kaji selidik dan strateg dan merupakan penasihat kepada beberapa syarikat terkemuka, badan awam dan jenama di United Kingdom.

Menurut kajian itu, lapan daripada setiap 10 orang dewasa Malaysia (80%) bersetuju bahawa jika penjualan tembakau dilarang semasa tempoh PKP, orang ramai akan melanggar larangan tersebut demi untuk mendapatkan produk itu.

Hampir tiga per empat responden (72%, dan 78% perokok) pula bersetuju orang ramai akan terus membeli produk tembakau, tetapi jualan akan beralih kepada pasaran gelap/haram.

Menurutnya, tidak memeranjatkan apabila kebanyakan rakyat Malaysia (58%) beranggapan larangan tersebut akan menggalakkan orang berhenti merokok.

Namun, lebih ramai lagi (71%) bersetuju bahawa larangan itu meningkatkan penularan koronavirus menerusi penjualan produk haram yang tidak mempunyai piawaian keselamatan di dalam pengedaran.

Fred Roeder, Pengarah Urusan Consumer Choice Center berkata, berdasarkan kajian yang dibuat jelas menunjukkan orang ramai akan terus merokok dan berkemungkinan berusaha lebih lagi untuk mencari bekalan alternatif apabila rokok mereka sudah habis.

Di bawah langkah-langkah PKP, melakukan pergerakan tidak penting meletakkan nyawa di dalam bahaya kerana menambah risiko kontak dan penyebaran Covid-19.

Di Malaysia, semasa PKP, rokok tidak tersenarai sebagai barangan penting dan tidak dibenar untuk diedarkan, sekali gus mengakibatkan lonjakan dalam perdagangan rokok haram, sebagaimana dinyatakan oleh pihak berkuasa berkaitan di dalam laporan-laporan berita terkini.

Consumer Choice Center (CCC) adalah firma yang terlibat dalam melaksanakan kaji selidik awam.

Majoriti besar responden kaji selidik (72%) juga bimbang iaitu memasukkan larangan penjualan tembakau sebagai sebahagian daripada langkah kawalan pergerakan, akan mengalih sumber penting dalam usaha memerangi Covid-19 disebabkan pertambahan kos dan masa penguatkuasaan:

”Inisiatif menggalakkan orang ramai supaya berhenti merokok semasa PKP adalah suatu niat yang murni, ia sebenarnya gagal. Sebaliknya, langkah itu memperkasa sindiket jenayah antara-negara dan fasilitator yang rasuah, sekali gus menguatkan lagi kehadiran rokok haram yang bersifat endemik di Malaysia,’’ tambah Roeder.

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