fbpx

Author: Maria Chaplia

To tackle illicit trade, the Malaysian Government needs to smash taxes

The Malaysian Marine Police seized more than RM220.44 mil of smuggled items between January and June this year. It is almost three-fold compared to RM55.75 mil for the same period last year. More than 70% of the seizures were illegal cigarettes and liquor followed by drugs.  

Back in January, the Malaysian Government has implemented a series of Budget 2021 measures that are aimed to tackle the tobacco black market. 

However, criminals continue to improve their concealment methods. The scope of undetected activities expands further, including using smaller and private jetties instead of large ports or renting out private premises to store their illicit products. 

We should all be concerned about this. Not only do black markets bypass all regulatory oversight, meaning there are no controls for safety or quality. 

In addition, they create an incentive and funding model for other criminal behaviour such as arms or human trafficking while also depriving the government of tax revenue and putting legitimate businesses at a disadvantage. 

There is no silver bullet for solving this enormous challenge, and more innovative anti-illicit trade policies should be implemented. 

But the Government should be beware that many of these black markets evolve as a reaction to over-regulation and over-taxation which is something that the government could – with the right political will – address relatively easily. 

Illicit trade

We know that illicit trade is in many ways a consequence of restrictive policies such as sin taxes which drive criminals to provide consumers with a cheaper alternative. 

Policies such as the 2015 increase of 42.8% in the tobacco excise duty has played to the benefit of smugglers while doing very little to help people quit smoking. 

Suppose the Government aims to reduce smoking. In that case, it could endorse reduced-risk nicotine products like e-cigarettes and vaping through reduced taxation and more accurate public information campaigns on the relative health benefits. 

Not only would this achieve the broader goals put forward by public health regulators as research by the European Policy Information Centre but it could also help discourage the illicit trade of tobacco. 

Of course, the black market exists not only because there are groups willing to risk smuggling products across borders but also because there is demand for overregulated products. In a survey commissioned by Malaysia think tank, DARE, and carried out by its market research partner, The Green Zebras, 53% smokers in Malaysia have said that they will switch to cheaper but illicit alternatives because they cannot afford legal products at current prices. 

High tobacco cost and low wages country like Malaysia is vulnerable to criminal activities. Therefore, while enforcement efforts like the Budget 2021 measures should be extended, the Government should also consider taking decisive steps in the form of tax cuts, or at the very least, abstaining from further tax increases. 

The evidence to support this is compelling. A 2010 study published by CIRANO in Montreal found that each additional dollar in taxes raises the propensity to resort to consuming contraband cigarettes by 5.1% while each additional dollar in tax cuts decreased it by 5%. 

It is clear, therefore, that higher taxes increase the attractiveness of the black market –and the deeper the tax cuts – the higher the likelihood of stopping smuggling. 

The overarching goal behind excise tax increases in Malaysia, regulators claim, is to reduce smoking rates, particularly among adolescents. 

However, while it is true that the cigarette prevalence in Malaysia has improved for the past half-year since the Budget 2021 measures were implemented, this doesn’t mean that if the Government were to cut taxes, the rates would shoot back up. 

The Malaysian Government need only look to Canada. In 1994, the Canadian Government slashed taxes on cigarettes to tackle the booming illicit trade despite alarmist expectations at the time. The prevalence of smoking dropped and continues to fall. Illicit trade has since also significantly decreased. 

In order to piece together a more coherent strategy, the Malaysian Government should continue to target the supply side of the illicit market through enhanced enforcements, but it would be a mistake not to consider significant tax cuts and smarter regulation in the upcoming Budget 2022. 

A multi-pronged approach will be the only way to reduce illicit trade and avoid the problems associated with it. – Oct 29, 2021

Originally published here

Independent Women's Forum

Policy Focus: EU’s Green Agenda: Lessons For The U.S.

What You Should Know

The Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, published by the European Commission in May 2020, is a centralized attempt to adapt European agriculture to the pressing challenges of the day. Extensively criticized by the U.S., the F2F turns a blind eye to the best interests of European farmers and consumers, and risks doing more harm than good not only at home but also abroad. The F2F serves as a lesson in how not to approach agriculture in the 21st century.

The COVID-19 crisis has shown that the resilience of food systems is pivotal. Future pandemics combined with environmental challenges call for a science-based approach to food production both in the EU and worldwide. Although noble in intent, the Farm to Fork strategy’s bold push for organic farming doesn’t provide viable solutions to pressing climate problems and will only lead to higher consumer prices, more illicit trade, and more food insecurity.

The Farm to Fork strategy assumes that organic farming is more sustainable than conventional farming and should be given every preference. To achieve that, the European Commission proposed to cut the use of pesticides in the EU by 50 percent while increasing organic farming in agricultural production from 7.5 percent to 25 percent. However, such a commitment is neither climate-friendly nor feasible.

Rather than imitate the F2F strategy, the U.S. should strive to preserve its competitive edge in food production and only see the F2F as a reminder of why politics has no place in agriculture.

Read the full report here

Not all PFAS are the same, and why this matters for future regulation

On 17 October, a stakeholder consultation led by the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway on the use of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) closed. By 2022, the European Chemicals Agency is expected to submit its restriction proposal for the use of PFAS in firefighting foams and other products. Combined with pressure from green groups calling for complete avoidance of these chemicals, the European Union is on the brink of a very costly and unfeasible policy move: a complete PFAS ban.

PFAS are man-made chemicals that can be found in a variety of consumer products. Some popular uses include medical equipment, food packaging, and firefighting foam. In the case of medical equipment, for example, these chemical compounds are vital for contamination-resistant gowns and drapes, implantable medical devices, stent grafts, heart patches, sterile container filters, needle retrieval systems, tracheostomies, catheter guide wire for laparoscopy, and inhaler canister coatings.

However, that is not to say that all of these chemicals are safe. When improperly dumped into the water supply, or when the exposure exceeds specific threshold levels, they do pose a danger. These concerns are justified and shouldn’t be understated or misrepresented. At the same time, they shouldn’t direct our attention away from the benefits of PFAS in certain production processes.

Because of their chemical resistance and surface tension lowering properties, PFAS are hard and expensive to replace. A complete ban would put the production of these vital consumer items in jeopardy and patient safety at risk. Declaring all PFAS hazardous without first considering risks associated with each use, and considering the feasibility and safety of alternatives, is a dangerous policy path.

In the United States, calls for a complete ban are also dominating the discourse. The PFAS Action Act, which is currently under review in the Senate, fails to consider that all these chemicals carry different risks depending on their use and exposure levels. The European Union’s approach aims to achieve similar outcomes. The idea is to divide PFAS into two groups: essential and non-essential. However, eventually, all are sought to be phased out.

Both strategies turn a blind eye to the uncomfortable evidence-based truth about these chemicals. PFAS have already been largely phased out from being used where they are not necessary. A  2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry  says that “Industrial releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several perfluoroalkyls in the early 2000s.”

A complete ban on PFAS being used also doesn’t necessarily mean that these man-made chemicals will cease to be produced or sold. The unintended consequence of extremely restrictive policies is a spike in production elsewhere. Bans in the EU and US will likely result in China ramping up their production. And given how necessary PFAS can be for both medical equipment, and consumer goods, an EU or US ban would be simply shifting production to countries who largely fail to meet general standards for environmental stewardship.

It is crucial that while assessing PFAS, policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic do not fall prey to calls for complete avoidance. PFAS are diverse and while some of them might need to be restricted or banned, others are crucial and necessary, as in the case of medical equipment. One size doesn’t fit all, and the necessary uses of PFAS, especially when they don’t pose a risk to human health, shouldn’t be left out of the discourse.

Originally published here

The EU and the U.S. Need a Common Digital Market Strategy to Counter China

The past few weeks have been hardly an easy time for Facebook.Frances Haugen’s leak, combined with a six-hour blackout last week, has reinforced some politicians’ desire to further regulateFacebook, or even completely break it up, as proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. However, while the EU and U.S. are thinking long and hard about their next move against big tech, China has been taking over our digital space in the West slowly but consistently.

Following a report by an anonymous researcher, Hikvision, a Chinese surveillance company, is now facing scrutiny over a privacy breach in Europe. The high-tech cameras produced by Hikvision have been found to be vulnerable and carry risk of malicious code insertion or cyberattacks.

In the U.S., Hikvision was put on the sanctions list under President Trump in 2019. China’s appetite for data is hardly news, and as Europe is finally starting to open its eyes to its scope, it’s time for a shared action. To counteract growing Chinese influences, the EU and U.S. need a comprehensive transatlantic agreement on digital policies.

In January 2021, the European Commission presented the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). At first glance, both acts aim to curb innovation in the EU by keeping American tech giants at bay. Combined with antitrust investigations against Facebook and Amazon, the European Union’s behavior can be easily classified as hostile toward the U.S. However, both DSA and DMA are inept attempts to understand how online platforms work and seemingly fail to strike a balance between the need to safeguard the competition while allowing smaller enterprises to innovate.

To level the playing field for all platforms regardless of their size, the Digital Markets Act put in place a series of ex-ante restrictions to determine the acceptable market behavior for big players. DSA and DMA are not anti-American per se; it just happens that the U.S. tech sector is fertile ground for disruptive platform businesses, which makes them a prime target for EU authorities.

Even U.S. lawmakers have been determined to clip the wings of big tech to encourage future digital innovation. Throughout the years, Facebook has had to fight several antitrust complaints to disprove the claims of its alleged monopoly in the social networking market. Last year, Amazon faced its first antitrust lawsuit, and Google has been flooded with these as well. Most of these proceedings are a knee-jerk reaction to the continuously growing market power of businesses that are fundamentally different from conventional supply chains and corporations that sell physical goods. The Internet has changed everything.

U.S. state and federal regulators and their European counterparts are equally puzzled about how best to address the sudden and continuous exponential growth of tech giants, services that have provided vast benefits to consumers. But in a quest to come up with a perfect piece of legislation to tame tech companies, both the EU and the U.S. have lost sight of the far-reaching hand of the Chinese Communist Party and its influence in the digital market and beyond.

TikTok is a well-known case of how one popular app with ties to China can threaten what we in the liberal democracies value most: freedom. A 2019 report released by The Guardian showed that TikTok was as much a social media platform for sharing videos as a strategically organized censorship and propaganda machine.

The app was found to not only have banned specific anti-Chinese government videos, but also promoted various Chinese organizations, ministries, schools, and universities founded outside China that pushed the Communist Party’s narrative. Huawei’s backdoor to mobile networks globally is another example of how technology is used by the Chinese government to undermine national security and privacy in liberal democracies.

The EU and the U.S. should stand up to China and its growing influence in all areas, but especially on the digital front. The potential extent of its surveillance powers in our countries is terrifying. According to a 2019 research by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra, Global Tone Communications Technology Co. Ltd, supervised by China’s Central Propaganda Department, mines data in more than 65 languages from 200+ countries. Since the company is state-owned, the bulk data can be used by others who have access to it.

If left unconstrained, China’s playbook on controlling its citizens could spread to liberal democracies. The EU and the U.S. must work together to develop a common digital strategy to tackle the ever-expanding influence of the CCP.

It is more important that we protect our consumers from a spy country that has detained three million Uyghurs. As such, an EU-U.S. agreement on a digital strategy centered around a shared goal to stop China is paramount to preserving our freedoms.

Originally published here

La Prohibición de la Carne Es lo que Ocurre cuando el Alarmismo Climático se Impone

En febrero del 2020, 243 personas de la London School of Economics aprobaron una moción del sindicato de estudiantes para introducir la prohibición de la carne de vaca para todos sus 11.000 estudiantes, convirtiéndose en la tercera universidad del país en hacerlo. Y fue el ejemplo perfecto de cómo el alarmismo descarado sobre el cambio climático causa enormes problemas a todo el mundo. Sentir que se está poniendo un granito de arena para ayudar al mundo a resolver sus problemas más acuciantes se ha convertido, al parecer, en algo más importante que respetar la libertad fundamental de elegir.

Sin embargo, la única manera de hacer frente al cambio climático es aceptar esto último. Los estudiantes son los consumidores del mañana, y se merecen la misma elección de consumo.

Hay algo pretencioso en que una minoría intente imponer sus puntos de vista a todos los demás mediante prohibiciones, especialmente cuando se trata de cuestiones de mercado. En estos casos, siempre deberíamos preguntarnos cómo es que un grupo de personas que probablemente nunca hemos conocido puede saber lo que es correcto para mí.

Esta lógica penetra en un amplio espectro de regulaciones de estilo de vida, desde fumar tabaco y cannabis hasta el azúcar. En el contexto del cambio climático, socava la responsabilidad individual a un nivel muy básico al implicar que nosotros, como individuos, no nos preocupamos lo suficiente por el medio ambiente como para ayudar a reducir las emisiones de CO2.

En realidad, para bien o para mal, es difícil no hacerlo. Gracias a Greta Thunberg, a las extensas campañas mediáticas y a los acuerdos ecológicos que llegan de todas partes, el cambio climático se ha convertido en un tema de gran preocupación en todo el mundo, especialmente en Europa y Estados Unidos que, a diferencia de China, no son los mayores contaminantes mundiales. Todos estamos de acuerdo en que debemos intentar reducir las emisiones de carbono. Sólo diferimos en la forma de hacerlo.

La naturaleza humana tiene tendencia a ser impaciente. Se ha hecho popular pensar que si aprobamos una prohibición, el problema desaparecerá de la noche a la mañana. Es decir, se supone que si prohibimos la carne de vaca en el campus, todos los estudiantes dejarán pronto de comer carne y tomarán conciencia del clima. Este planteamiento puede tener cierto éxito a corto plazo a costa de la elección del consumidor, pero a largo plazo no es sostenible ni ayuda a salvar el planeta.

En cambio, adoptar soluciones innovadoras es un camino mucho más gratificante. El desarrollo de sustitutos de la carne es un ejemplo de ello.

En las últimas décadas hemos asistido a increíbles avances en el ámbito de la agricultura, que han contribuido a hacer más sostenibles la agricultura y el consumo. El potencial de la ingeniería genética se descarta a menudo debido a las afirmaciones de seguridad alimentaria no probadas y a los riesgos asociados a la alteración de la agricultura.

Sin embargo, hay muchas pruebas científicas que desmienten la creencia de que los alimentos editados genéticamente son menos seguros que los cultivados de forma convencional. Eliminar todos los productos cárnicos ahora significa rendirse ante los desafíos que tenemos por delante.

También es crucial educar a los estudiantes sobre los sustitutos de la carne y su propensión a ayudar a mitigar el cambio climático. La retórica popular no científica junto con las restricciones de mercado existentes (actualmente, los productos que contienen OGM están etiquetados como tales) pretenden alejarnos de los productos más innovadores.

El marketing y la promoción son fundamentales para dispersar la información sobre los productos, y tanto los productos con OGM como los que no lo son deben ser tratados por igual. Concienciar a los estudiantes sobre los beneficios de la modificación genética garantizaría que, como consumidores, hicieran elecciones alimentarias basadas en la ciencia.

Prohibir la carne de vaca en el campus de una institución educativa respetable es un paso atrás. El Reino Unido puede hacerlo mucho mejor. Debemos acoger la innovación y ofrecer a los consumidores la posibilidad de alejarse de los alimentos convencionales, no prohibiéndolos, sino fomentando el desarrollo de sustitutos de la carne.

Hacer de niñera a los estudiantes es fácil; animarles a convertirse en consumidores responsables y conscientes de la importancia de su libertad de elección es más difícil, pero es la clave.

Originally published here

Independent Women's Forum

FDA’s Authorization Of Vuse Solo Is A Bittersweet Victory For Vapers

On October 12th, the Food and Drug Administration authorized the marketing of the Vuse Solo device — a type of e-cigarette — and its tobacco-flavored e-liquid pods, both produced by R.J. Reynolds. The authorization marks the first-ever decision in favor of vaping by the FDA. Preceded by over a million rejections of authorization requests from smaller companies, the FDA’s Vuse Solo decision is both a reason for celebration and reflection. 

The good news is that the FDA finally recognized that harm reduction is a central feature of e-cigarettes. The rationale for approving Vuse Solo products was that “tobacco-flavored products could benefit addicted adult smokers who switch to these products.” So e-cigarettes were found to be consistent with the protection of public health. Yay! It only took the FDA two years of onerous reviews and bureaucratic chaos to get there, proving once again that FDA authorization is much more about a company’s ability to navigate red tape over science. 

Building and submitting a market authorization application takes an average of 1,713 hours to compile and could cost several million dollars per product. That presents a challenge for all vaping companies, but the bureaucratic burden has been insuperable for the smaller ones. None of them has managed to pass the FDA’s test, and the grounds for that are scientifically unjustified.

The FDA has used e-cigarettes’ supposed “appeal to young people” as a justification for PMTA rejections. However, smoking rates among minors have been dropping in the US, despite the FDA’s, CDC’s, and Michael Bloomberg’s determination to twist the latest National Youth Tobacco Survey results to their advantage. Between 2019 and 2021, the use of electronic cigarettes among teens more than halved: 27.5% to 11.3%. 

Contrary to the FDA’s misleading reports, only 3.1 percent of high school students and less than 1 percent of middle school students use vapor products daily. Recent studies found that vape flavor restrictions make teens take up smoking. 

Not to mention that reducing accessibility to vaping products negatively impacts adult smokers who are stripped of the opportunity to switch. Using flavors has been associated with a 2.3 times higher likelihood of quitting than the use of tobacco-flavored cigarettes. To protect public health, the FDA should ensure that a vast majority of products are available on the market.

The FDA made the historic e-cigarettes marketing approval process all about resources, while it should have been about smokers and harm reduction. E-cigarettes are safe, and now that the FDA recognized it in the case of one company, the trend should get replicated across the board, regardless of size and standing.

Originally published here

Complete PFAS ban not feasible: the EU needs a different approach

Brussels, Belgium – Yesterday, a stakeholder consultation led by the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway on the use of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) closed. 

The prospect of an EU PFAS ban is as real as ever, with a number of green groups skewing the discourse towards complete avoidance. In the US, the situation is hardly different, where the PFAS Action Act will soon face a final vote in the Senate.

In response, the Consumer Choice Center’s Maria Chaplia and David Clement published articles in The Parliament Magazine and Real Clear Markets arguing that “while manmade chemicals have their risks, that risk level ultimately depends on each use case and exposure.”

Key points raised in the articles:

“PFAS can be found – but not limited to – in household items and other consumer products, medical equipment, food packaging, and firefighting foam. Their popularity can be explained by their unique qualities, such as chemical resistance and surface tension lowering properties. PFAS’ effectiveness has made them hard and costly to replace”, argue Maria Chaplia and David Clement.

“Some PFAS ban/restrictions might very well be needed and justified but banning an entire category of evolving products won’t serve the consumer. A more appropriate response would be to evaluate these chemicals and substances based on the risk they present and how they are used, rather than lumping them all together and risk enacting bad policy that will have a myriad of consequences”, said Chaplia and Clement

“For example, some of these chemical compounds are vital for contamination-resistant gowns and drapes, implantable medical devices, stent grafts, heart patches, sterile container filters, needle retrieval systems, tracheostomies, catheter guide wire for laparoscopy and inhaler canister coatings. To ban all these chemical compounds, without evaluating the risk associated with each use, puts lifesaving medical technologies in jeopardy and patient safety at risk” 

“Heavyhanded PFAS regulations will also jeopardize the EU smartphone market, used by the vast majority of  Europeans everyday. As cell phones and 5G technology continue to grow and require faster speeds at smaller sizes, these compounds are involved in everything from producing semiconductors to helping cool data centers for cloud computing. Forcibly removing these chemicals from the production process, especially because they present very little risk to humans, will drastically disrupt supply chains and inflate costs that will hurt low-income people the hardest.” argue Chaplia and Clement

Why the EU and US shouldn’t follow the green groups advice on PFAS

The European Commission has committed to phasing out man-made chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS. Initially, the European Chemicals Agency was expected to submit its restriction proposal for firefighting foams this month, but the deadline has now been extended until January 2022. For other uses, the deadline is also2022.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the US Congress is attempting to achieve similar goals through the PFAS Action Act, which is now waiting for a final vote in the Senate. Unsurprisingly, the ban was pushed for by green groups, who tend to confuse hazard with risk, and favour the “ban them all” approach.

PFAS can be found – but not limited to – in household items and other consumer products, medical equipment, food packaging, and firefighting foam. Their popularity can be explained by their unique qualities, such as chemical resistance and surface tension lowering properties. PFAS’ effectiveness has made them hard and costly to replace.

“Forcibly removing these chemicals from the production process, especially because they present very little risk to humans, will drastically disrupt supply chains and inflate costs”

At the same time, the use of PFAS has been linked with various adverse effects, such as infertility, thyroid and liver diseases, when improperly dumped into the water supply. These concerns are justified and shouldn’t be understated or misrepresented. However, as with pretty much everything, it is the amount of exposure that counts towards a risk-based assessment, as opposed to complete hazard avoidance. Because there are more than 4700 chemicals that fall into the PFAS group, and they all carry different levels of risk and hazard, we have to be careful not to put them all in the same basket.

The European Union aims to divide these chemicals into two groups: essential and non-essential, but eventually all are sought to be banned. That said, PFAS have already been largely phased out from being used where they are not necessary. A 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry says that “Industrial releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several perfluoroalkyls in the early 2000s.”

There is no guarantee that phasing out PFAS will make us safer. Both EU and US banned bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in plastics, in baby bottles on the premise that it carries health risks for kids. However, BPS and BPF that are typically used as substitutes have been found to be anything but harmless. In fact, even low exposure to BPS had a significant impact on the embryos’ development.

A complete ban on PFAS being used also doesn’t necessarily mean that these man-made chemicals will cease to be produced, it just means that other countries like China will likely ramp up their production. And given how necessary PFAS can be for both medical equipment, and consumer goods, an EU or US ban would be quite problematic.

For example, some of these chemical compounds are vital for contamination-resistant gowns and drapes, implantable medical devices, stent grafts, heart patches, sterile container filters, needle retrieval systems, tracheostomies, catheter guide wire for laparoscopy and inhaler canister coatings. To declare all these chemical compounds hazardous, without evaluating the risk associated with each use, puts lifesaving medical technologies in jeopardy and patient safety at risk.

“Policymakers on both sides of the pond should take a risk-based approach towards the regulation of PFAS rather than falling prey to green activists’ calls for complete avoidance”

On the consumer product side, as cell phones and 5G technology continue to grow and require faster speeds at smaller sizes, these compounds are involved in everything from producing semiconductors to helping cool data centres for cloud computing. Forcibly removing these chemicals from the production process, especially because they present very little risk to humans, will drastically disrupt supply chains and inflate costs for the 472 million Europeans who currently use a smartphone.

Policymakers on both sides of the pond should take a risk-based approach towards the regulation of PFAS rather than falling prey to green activists’ calls for complete avoidance. Although some of these chemicals might need to be banned, or restricted, banning them all might end up leaving us with even worse alternatives that might take a greater toll on our health and wellbeing. These chemicals need a very rigid and detailed regulatory approach, but one that avoids the “one size fits all” lens.

Originally published here

A Europe without the sharing economy: scary tale or real future?

The latest legal challenges to Uber are yet another example of policymakers giving sharing economy platforms an unnecessarily hard time despite the flexibility and independence they offer both workers and consumers.

Uber’s fight for existence in Brussels is a win-or-lose moment for the sharing economy in the European Union. The clash comes at a time when steadfast legislative and court actions across the bloc aim to reclassify platform workers as employees and upend opportunities for contractors. Unless the worrying trend is reversed, European consumers will find themselves cut off from innovation and choice.

The current Brussels Uber ban is based on an archaic 1995 law that prohibits drivers from using smartphones. While it should be a great shame for all of Belgium that such a law has remained untouched till today, it is also hardly surprising. Brussels’ taxi lobby has long been unhappy with the emergence of ridesharing, and these restrictions play to their benefit.

Uber began operating in Brussels in 2014 and had to continuously resist the system and fight back through costly court appeals and restrictions to survive. In 2015, the Belgian commercial court banned UberPOP — a traditional peer-to-peer service — by ruling in favour of Taxis Verts, a cab firm, just to name one example. Since then, Uber drivers have had to get a special licence to operate, which made the service more expensive and less accessible.

However, consumers in Brussels still enjoy the services of Uber. Over 1200 residents of the EU capital signed a petition against the smartphone ban, arguing that “there is no valid and digital alternative to the platform in Brussels at the moment”. On the supply side, there are currently about 2000 drivers using the Uber app. The fact that the Brussels government is selectively enforcing an old law only now, after multiple attempts to get rid of Uber, shows that the company crossed the Rubicon of success, and it has become too inconvenient and competitive to the taxi lobby.

Recently, in Brussels, there have also been calls to reclassify self-employed drivers as employees. This witch hunt after the gig economy mirrors the recent Dutch court ruling about employment benefits for ridesharing drivers and Spanish “riders” law, which concerns the status of delivery workers. Under the pretence of providing security and stability, these interventions threaten the very nature of the sharing economy and are oblivious to the drivers’ needs and flexibility.

Sharing economy platforms give their contractors flexibility and independence, and that is exactly what those choosing to ride share or deliver food are seeking. By surveying 1,001 active Uber drivers in London, a 2018 study by the University of Oxford and Lund University found that they joined the platform because of autonomy, scheduling flexibility, or improved work-life balance that the sharing economy provides. Moreover, the flexibility was so valuable to them that they would only accept fixed schedules on the condition of significant earnings increases.

Being an independent contractor is linked with “greater enjoyment of daily activities, a decrease in psychological strain, and a greater ability to face problems”, according to a study at the Paris School of Economics. In pursuit of “better” labour standards, it is easy to forget that value is subjective, and that one size doesn’t fit all. Drivers who make a living through platforms make a conscious choice in favour of flexibility and autonomy, and their freedom to do so must be preserved.

By providing value to thousands of consumers and giving platform contractors a chance to plan their time better through alternative work arrangements, the sharing economy makes our lives easier, better, and more exciting. But some European policymakers are giving the sharing economy in the EU — and especially ridesharing — a hard time, which it doesn’t deserve. It’s time for that to stop.

Originally published here

Independent Women's Forum

The EU Shouldn’t Give In To Pressure Groups Calling For Bans Of Chemicals In Cosmetics

A quick look at the European Union’s policies shows a clear tendency to over-regulate, for the sake of precaution. That is especially evident — although not limited to — in the case of consumer goods and modern agricultural practices. However, restricting GMOs and pesticides hasn’t been enough for green activists. Chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products might be next.

Similar to how pesticides are used to protect crops, chemicals in cosmetics preserve beauty products, keep them bacteria and fungi-free, and ensure that they last longer. Chemicals play an important role in making cosmetics cost-effective. Furthermore, most chemicals are used at safe levels and don’t pose any risks to our health and wellbeing. The maximum allowed paraben concentration, according to the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, is 0.8. Most beauty products use are well below that threshold. Lipsticks, for example, contain only up to 0.35 percent of paraben and 0.5 percent of the chemical can be found in bath oils, tablets, and salts.

Read the full article 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