fbpx

Consumer Goods/Lifestyle

Tobacco plain packaging policies have been chasing their own tail

Since 2012, many countries have outlawed branding on tobacco products, and yet more are considering taking this step. One of the most recent examples comes from Ukraine, where a group of parliamentarians have pledged to follow the Australian example of banning all brands by plain packaging as a means of reducing smoking rates. But do such policies actually achieve their desired outcomes?

Regardless of noble motives in place, the failures of plain packaging are numerous and evident. In 2012, Australia passed a nation-wide plain packaging decree. The goal was to reduce smoking rates. During the first years of the ban, more young people started to smoke. The smoking rates among Australians in the age range of 12-24-year-olds increased from 12 per cent in 2012 to 16 per cent in 2013. Little or no improvement was made among people aged 30 or older between 2013 and 2016. People aged 40–49 continued to be the age group most likely to smoke daily (16.9%) and the smoking rates among this age group went up from 16.2% in 2013. At the same time, Australia has seen an enormous increase in roll-your-own cigarettes: 26% in 2007, to 33% in 2013 and to 36% in 2016. 

Plain packaging, like taxation, is intended to push consumers away from particular products considered by governments to be harmful, unhealthy and detrimental to the wellbeing of society. What policymakers tend to overlook, though, is that demand for cigarettes is inelastic and thus neither taxes nor branding bans can substantially affect consumer behaviour. From this perspective, plain packaging coupled with extensive bans on cigarette advertising as a policy solution is useless. Do we really care about the branding of sugar or salt? We buy them anyway.

Smoking has no substitutes per se, but thanks to innovation there are healthier ways to consume nicotine. Vaping has been proven to be 95% less harmful than smoking and has been endorsed by international health bodies as a safer alternative. Public Health England, New Zealand Ministry of Health and Health Canada have all endorsed vaping for encouraging smokers to switch. 

Governments that try to outlaw smoking and consumer groups such as the Consumer Choice Center have a shared goal: to uphold public health. We are lucky to live at a time when innovative solutions have made it possible for us to find healthier smoking alternatives. Instead of making futile attempts to fight smoking with taxes and plain packaging, we should create conditions under which smokers can opt for vaping and are encouraged to do so through advertising.

Tobacco plain packaging policies have been chasing their own tail. They simply don’t work and end up becoming another ambitious yet flawed policy that sounds great on paper but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

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

War on Single Use Plastic

The War On Single Use Plastic Is Sillier Than Ever

Coronavirus (Covid-19) has dominated the news cycle for weeks now. Infection rates are rising, and entire countries like Israel and Italy have enacted severe measures to stop the spread of the virus. That same intensity hasn’t crossed the Atlantic Ocean to Canada, but the private sector has enacted measures to help stop the spread. Coffee giants like Tim Hortons and Starbucks have suspended their “bring your own cup” programs in response to Covid-19. Tim Hortons has taken things one step further and cancelled their iconic Roll Up The Rim program. Even chains like Bulk Barn have halted their container program to help prevent additional exposure.

Despite the rapid spread of Covid-19, environmental groups like Environmental Defence are still waging their war on single use plastic. Environmental Defence, in January, released their wall of shame for companies they feel have not done enough to reduce plastic pollution in Canada. Their list includes major brands like Loblaws, Tim Hortons, and Starbucks. 

The first major flaw in Environmental Defence’s war on plastic is that Canadians are not significant polluters when it comes to plastic marine litter. Up to 95 per cent of all plastic found in the world’s oceans comes from just 10 source rivers, which are all in the developing world.

Canada on average, contributes less than 0.01 MT (millions of metric tonnes) of mismanaged plastic waste. In contrast, countries like Indonesia and the Philippines contribute 10.1 per cent and 5.9 per cent of the world’s mismanaged plastic, which is upwards of 300 times Canada’s contribution. China, the world’s largest plastics polluter, accounts for 27.7 percent of the world’s mismanaged plastic. Canada, when compared to European countries like England, Spain, Italy, Portugal and France, actually contributes four times less in mismanaged plastic. The only European countries on par with Canada are the significantly smaller Sweden, Norway and Finland. Plastics bans might sound productive in terms of plastics pollution, but the evidence doesn’t suggest that Canada is actually a significant contributor for mismanaged plastic, which means that a Canadian ban will do little to actually reduce plastic pollution.

The second issue with Environmental Defence’s war on plastic is that some of their policy suggestions would actually do more harm to the environment. For Loblaws, the group has “shamed” them for not banning all single use plastic bags in their stores. Conventional thinking suggests that banning single-use plastic bags will result in people using reusable bags, and that this reduction in plastic use will have a positive impact on the environment. Research from Denmark’s Ministry of the Environment actually challenged that conventional wisdom when it sought to compare the total impact of plastic bags to their reusable counterparts. 

The Danes found that alternatives to plastic bags came with significant negative externalities. For example, common paper bag replacements needed to be reused 43 times to have the same total impact as a plastic bag. When it came to cotton alternatives, the numbers were even higher. A conventional cotton bag alternative needed to be used over 7,100 times to equal a plastic bag, while an organic cotton bag had to be reused over 20,000 times. We know from consumer usage patterns that the likelihood of paper or cotton alternatives being used in such a way is incredibly unlikely. These results were also largely confirmed with the U.K. government’s own life-cycle assessment, which concluded that these alternatives have a significantly higher total impact on the environment.

The last reason why Environmental Defence’s approach is misguided is that it flat out ignores viable alternatives for dealing with plastic waste. There are simple solutions available to us that don’t involve heavy-handed bans. For those single-use products that are not recyclable and otherwise end up in landfills, we could follow Sweden’s lead, and incinerate that waste. Doing so creates a power source for local communities, while capturing airborne toxins, limiting toxic runoff, and significantly reducing the volume of waste.

Good public policy should address a real problem and should make a meaningful impact on the said problem. Unfortunately, the suggestions made by Environmental Defence would promote higher impact alternatives, and put consumer safety at risk. 

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

A Push for Smart Regulation of CBD

Encourage competition, safety, medical facts and eradication of the black market

ARLINGTON, Va. — Flashy display cases, provocative brand names and lists of health benefits have elevated cannabidiol (CBD), a nonintoxicating compound found in cannabis, to be one of the hottest product trends today.

Whether it be for health, pets or beauty care, the use cases of CBD are becoming mainstream. It’s not uncommon to hear stories of consumers using CBD to alleviate pain in their joints, reduce anxiety and improve sleep.

Retail Revolution

The revolution is already here, and it arrived in a fury. The only guardrails came with the legalization of industrial hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill. That law created a legal distinction between a relative of cannabis without THC (tetrahydrocannabinol)—commonly known as hemp—and THC cannabis, which remains classified as marijuana and is still illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.

That law was a huge boost for farmers, entrepreneurs and consumers in the CBD space. And while it answered many questions, it sparked many more that will take time and deliberation to resolve: Who tests the actual CBD content of these products? Where are these products sourced? Which benefits and health claims are legitimate?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been running to catch up. It has so far focused on bogus health claims made by producers. Meanwhile, the FDA still maintains that food products containing CBD are illegal, despite their widespread availability in stores in practically every state and no real method of enforcement.

In May 2019, the FDA invited scientists, entrepreneurs and consumers to participate in a public hearing. Following statements and presentations from dozens of attendees, including myself, the FDA remains uncertain of what consumers and c-store owners looking to try or sell CBD products need to do to comply with the law.

The FDA is awaiting further instructions from lawmakers in Congress, who are currently floating myriad proposals to deal with cannabis. The latest would classify CBD as a health supplement, exempting it from more stringent regulation and allowing broader distribution in food and drinks.

Core Issues

Apart from that, there are still many gaps to fill. Considering many store owners are currently selling these products, it’s important that both sellers and consumers are aware of the core issues that should be addressed by the FDA and regulators.

In that May hearing, my group, the Consumer Choice Center, presented the following suggestions to the FDA if it wishes to implement smart regulation of CBD. Smart regulation would encourage competition, safety, medical facts and eradication of the black market.

The suggestions are:

  • Develop clear labeling standards, including the percentage of CBD and THC.
  • Allow free advertising and branding.
  • Allow stated health claims and benefits.
  • Embrace harm reduction by allowing CBD products in food, drinks, oils and topical products that do not require combustion.

We hope the FDA takes these points seriously and that these principles are followed by the industry as well.

What should the CBD-curious c-store professional do if they want to dive into CBD products?

  • Maintain a high standard for the products they source.
  • Choose only products with clear labeling and reasonable health claims.
  • Read the included fact sheets and materials that come with orders from reputable CBD firms.
  • Use independent testing services to check the levels of CBD and other compounds.

Entrepreneurs and consumers can work together today to ensure a competitive market with safe, beneficial and exciting innovations that will provide value to everyone.

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

Comment Central

“Think of the children!” – How Lancet researchers parodise themselves

The Lancet’s new “A Future for the World’s Children?” report is once again some heavy nanny-stating. But this time, it goes right into real-life parody, argues Bill Wirtz.

The once well respected, but increasingly loony Lancet has in recent years endorse some of the harshest Nanny State policies around. From advertising restrictions to taxation of sugary drinks, the Lancet has yet to find a paternalistic policy it doesn’t like. In its newest release, the medical journal is going after advertising to children, which it views as a major threat to children and young adolescents.

Lancet Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton recently told policy-makers in a press release that marketing for cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food is increasingly worrying, and worsening public health concerns. This new report even calls for an optional protocol to be added to the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child that would mandate governments to regulate or ban marketing to children for things like sugary drinks and alcohol. “We are living in a fossil fuel-based, consumptive, production driven economy, which creates the conditions for harming the health of children”, Horton adds, saying that “I don’t think any of us can be happy that this is the world that we’re creating.”

The Lancet’s claim that companies are deliberately marketing unhealthy food and other vices to children is hard to grasp. Reading this, all readers are certainly questioning if tobacco companies are putting their cigarettes in strollers. Nothing of the sort has, obviously, happened so far.

Equally, the Lancet continues to condemn that children are subject to alcohol advertising during sports events. They’re referring to the fact that during interruptions of sports broadcasts, there are ads for beer or spirits, which are not only targeted towards adults, but are also accompanied with warning messages about the hazardous nature of these products. In essence, the researchers claim that any ad that could be seen by a child should not contain any risky products, which would, with the fringe exceptions of places such as 18+ cinema screenings, hit every single ad. Adding to that: from my own experience, I can say that sports events like football or motorsport would be something that as a child I would watch with my dad… who would drink a beer during the event. We should not over-inflate our perception of what advertising is really able to do.

In a piece for Comment Central in September, I had laid out why the ASA’s restrictions on certain advertising was equally patronising.

It is also thoroughly contradictory that the Lancet would argue against advertising for harm-reducing products such as e-cigarettes, notably since its own research in other areas of the world (such as New Zealand) shows that vaping has displaced youth cigarette smoking.

Overall, consumers shouldn’t be patronised by blanked advertising bans. There is a case to be made that children should be protected, and many services (such as the video-streaming platform YouTube) already offer browser-based parental controls. However, it is parents that need to play the biggest role in the education of children. Confronting and discussing advertising and the availability of potentially harmful products is a role of parents that they cannot fully or even confidently outsource to the State.

Following the advice of the Lancet would lead us down the path of overprotecting children, all while reducing the consumer choice and information of adult consumers.

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

The beef ban is what happens when climate alarmism takes hold

Earlier this week, 243 people at the London School of Economics passed a students’ union motion to introduce a ban on beef for all 11,000 of its students, making it the third university in the country to do so. And it was the perfect example of how brazen climate change alarmism causes huge problems for everyone. Feeling that you are doing your bit to help the world solve its most pressing problems has, it seems, become more important than respecting the fundamental freedom to choose.

As it happens though, the only way to tackle climate change is by embracing the latter. Students are the consumers of tomorrow, and they deserve the same consumer choice.

There is something pretentious about a minority trying to impose its views on everyone else through bans, especially when it comes to market issues. In such cases, we should always ask ourselves how it is that a group of people who we have probably never met can know what is right for me?

Such logic penetrates a wide spectrum of lifestyle regulations from smoking tobacco and cannabis to sugar. In the context of climate change, it undermines individual responsibility on a very basic level by implying that we, as individuals, do not care enough about the environment to help reduce CO2 emissions.

In reality, for better or worse, it is hard not to. Thanks to Greta Thunberg, extensive media campaigns and green deals coming from every direction, climate change has become a topic of high concern all across the world, especially in Europe and the US which, unlike China, are not the biggest global polluters. We all agree that we should be aiming to cut carbon emissions. We differ only on how we should do that.

Human nature has a tendency to be impatient. It has become popular to think that if we pass a ban, the issue will disappear overnight. That’s to say, it is assumed that if we ban beef on the campus, every student will soon stop eating meat and become climate-conscious. Such an approach might achieve some success in the short term at the expense of consumer choice, but in the long run it’s neither sustainable nor does it help save the planet.

Embracing innovative solutions, on the other hand, is a far more rewarding way forward. Developing meat substitutes is an example of one of them.

We have seen incredible advancements in the area of agriculture in the past decades, helping to make farming and consumption more sustainable. The potential of genetic engineering is very often dismissed because of unproven food safety claims and risks associated with altering the face of agriculture.

However, there is plenty of scientific evidence debunking the belief that gene-edited foods are less safe than those grown conventionally. Cutting off all beef products now means capitulating to the challenges in front of us.

Educating students about meat substitutes and their propensity to help mitigate climate change is crucial too. Popular unscientific rhetoric along with existing market restrictions (currently, products containing GMO are labelled as such) are intended to direct us away from the most innovative products.

Marketing and promotion are key in dispersing information about products, and both GMO and GMO-free products should be treated equally. Making students aware of the benefits of genetic modification would ensure that as consumers they make science-based food choices.

Banning beef on the campus of a respectable educational institution is a step backwards. The UK can do much better than this. We need to welcome innovation and provide consumers with a choice to move away from conventional food not by banning it, but by encouraging the development of meat substitutes.

Nannying students is easy; encouraging them to become responsible consumers mindful of the importance of their freedom to choose is harder, but key.

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

Agefi

La taxe digitale est mauvaise pour les consommateurs

Le Royaume-Uni a annoncé pendant le Forum économique mondial à Davos qu’elle va introduire une taxe digitale. Depuis trois ans, l’Union européenne (UE) discute d’une proposition similaire pour le reste du continent. Les États Unis soulèvent la question de l’équité au niveau des échanges commerciaux, et le Grand-Duché propose de trouver une solution à l’échelle de l’OCDE. Avant tout par contre, la taxe digitale (ou taxe GAFA) est mauvaise pour les consommateurs.

Le concept de la taxe digitale date de moins de cinq ans. Le concept est celui que dans un aspect de justice sociale, il ne serait pas acceptable que les grandes entreprises du net ne paient pas leurs impôts. Une taxe digitale fera en sorte de remédier à cette injustice — et pourra aussi remplir les trésoreries des États avec de nouvelles recettes.

Le ministre des finances français, Bruno Le Maire, avait commencé à l’automne de l’année 2017 à s’orienter vers ce qui était alors connu sous le nom de «taxe numérique». Le Maire avait mené une campagne primaire de centre droit pour le parti républicain français, en tant que conservateur fiscal. Tout de même, il semble avoir trouvé le social-démocrate en lui depuis qu’il a rejoint le gouvernement d’Emmanuel Macron. Qualifiant cette situation de «question de justice», Le Maire a appelé à l’unité européenne sur la matière de cette taxe digitale. Pendant la présidence estonienne de l’Union européenne, il a réuni les ministres des Finances pour obtenir un soutien.

Cependant, les ministres du Danemark, de la Suède, de Malte et de l’Irlande ont rapidement manifesté leur opposition. Certains critiques ont fait valoir que cette mesure pourrait être considérée comme une punition des entreprises américaines, car la plupart des entreprises concernées seraient américaines.

Ces pays n’avaient pas tort : Donald Trump a clairement indiqué qu’une taxe digitale sera considérée comme mesure protectionniste par Washington, et aura des conséquences en matière de politique commerciale. Le débat sur les droits de douane sur le vin français, qui date de l’été de l’année dernière, était une conséquence de l’introduction de la taxe digitale (dite taxe GAFA) en France.

Le Luxembourg a abandonné le camp de ceux qui s’opposent à la poursuite cette taxe, et propose plutôt de négocier au niveau de l’OCDE. Est-ce que le gouvernement oppose toujours la taxe, et la proposition OCDE est en connaissance du fait que les États-Unis ne donneront jamais leur accord, ou estce que le Luxembourg va ultimement soutenir la proposition de la Commission européenne ? Le temps nous le dira.

Il est difficile de donner un sens à ce débat – et aux propositions concrètes. Pour commencer, la Commission européenne ne précise pas ce qui fait qu’une entreprise est numérique, et encore moins où tracer une ligne entre les modèles économiques plus numériques, moins numériques ou non numériques. De plus, elle reste ouverte sur ce qui relève exactement d’une taxe sur les revenus numériques. En effet, le groupe de l’OCDE sur l’économie numérique, qui s’est penché sur cette même question pendant plus de 2 ans, a conclu qu’il était en fait impossible de mettre une clôture autour de l’»économie numérique». L’opposition de l’Allemagne – qui a bloqué l’avance de cette taxe pendant les trois dernières années – n’est ainsi pas seulement une réaction de peur face à Donald Trump, mais aussi une réaction informée.

Les données financières passées et récentes révèlent que les niveaux de rentabilité sont très divers pour les entreprises numériques, moins numériques et non numériques. Les données du monde réel montrent également que les secteurs traditionnels comptent un grand nombre d’entreprises traditionnelles très rentables. Dans le même temps, ce sont les entreprises numériques qui affichent les taux d’imposition effectifs les plus élevés – et non les entreprises traditionnelles. En outre, les données concernant les taux effectifs d’imposition des sociétés suggèrent qu’il n’y a pas de différence systématique entre les impôts sur le revenu payés par les sociétés numériques et ceux payés par leurs homologues traditionnelles.

Comme d’autres taxes, l’impact d’une «taxe numérique» sur les revenus des entreprises numériques se répercuterait sur les activités commerciales moins numériques dans l’UE et ailleurs, affectant ainsi l’emploi et les recettes fiscales des entreprises numériques comme les PME ainsi que les taxes sur les revenus personnels générés dans les industries numériques et moins numériques de l’UE. Avant tout, une taxe numérique est aussi une taxe sur la consommation de leurs produits.

Très souvent, l’augmentation des impôts indirects implique inévitablement une augmentation des prix pour les consommateurs sur le continent européen. La TVA a longtemps été reconnue comme la taxe qui affecte le plus durement les plus pauvres. Il semble cruel de restreindre leur pouvoir d’achat à un moment où les personnes à faible revenu en particulier peuvent avoir un accès plus simple à de nombreux produits grâce à l’Internet.

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

Agefi

Déchets technologiques: il faut repenser les idées reçues

Àtravers le «European Green Deal», la Commission européenne veut rencontrer les défis écologiques des années à venir. Parmi ses ambitions : réduire considérablement les déchets technologiques (surtout dans l’électroménager) en responsabilisant les entreprises. Une cible de la Commission est «l’obsolescence planifiée», existant comme idée reçue dans la tête de beaucoup de consommateurs. Discutonscette notion.

L’obsolescence planifiée part du principe que les producteurs vendent des articles de toutes sortes à des fins de consommation continue. L’idée est que la durabilité d’un article serait prédéterminée, afin que le consommateurs rachètent le nouveau modèle. Le nombre croissant d’iPhones nous vient en tête, ou la mode vestimentaire. On entend souvent qu’autrefois «les produits duraient beaucoup longtemps». Serait-il possible que les producteurs planifient les durées de façon malintentionnée ? Il y a de fausses hypothèses ici. Premièrement, le modèle suppose que les fabricants sont beaucoup plus intelligents que les consommateurs, qui sont traités comme des victimes passives de puissants intérêts capitalistes. En fait, dans le monde réel, ce sont les fabricants qui réclament à cor et à cri de suivre les consommateurs toujours changeants, discriminatoires, bon marché et difficiles, qui se débarrassent des produits et en choisissent d’autres pour des raisons rationnelles et parfois mystérieuses.

Deuxièmement, le modèle fait une étrange hypothèse normative selon laquelle les produits devraient durer le plus longtemps possible. En fait, il n’y a pas de préférence préé-tablie sur le marché quant à la durée de vie des produits. Il s’agit là d’une caractéristique de la fabrication entièremen déterminée par la demande des consommateurs.

De nos jours, nous avons de la chance si un mixeur à main dure quelques années. Il en va de même pour les laveuses et les sécheuses, les tondeuses et les coupebordures, les vêtements, l’équipement électronique et même les maisons. Rien ne dure plus longtemps qu’avant. Mais est-ce un argument contre le marché ou simplement le reflet de la préférence des consommateurs pour des valeurs (prix plus bas technologie la plus récente et commodités différentes) autres que la longévité ?

Comme le prix des matériaux a baissé, il est plus logique de remplacer le bien que de le créer pour qu’il dure éternellement. Voulez-vous un mélangeur de 200 euros qui dure 30 ans ou un mélangeur de 10 euros qui dure 5 ans ? De la même façon, il est tou à fait concevable que votre vieux Nokia 3310 fonctionne toujours. Ce téléphone est indestructible, mais il ne vous donne pas l’option de regarder des vidéos, consulter vos mails, ou de mettre à jour votre calendrier. La mise à jour des smartphones nous propose constamment des produits innovants. Ce que les consommateurs préfèrent à long terme, c’est ce qui domine le marché.

Comment peut-on en être sûr ? La concurrence. Disons que tous les fabricants fabriquent des mélangeurs qui se cassent en 5 ans seulement, et ce fait est largement détesté. Un fabricant pourrait battre la concurrence en offrant un produit qui met l’accent sur la longévité plutôt que sur d’autres caractéristiques.

Si les consommateurs accordent vraiment de l’importance à la longévité, ils seront prêts à payer la différence. La même logique s’applique aux voitures, aux ordinateurs, aux maisons et à tout le reste. Nous pouvons savoir quelle préférence domine (dans un marché libre) en regardant simplement quelle pratique est la plus courante sur le marché.

L’obsolescence planifiée est un mythe – pas au sens que le phénomène en lui-même est inexistant – mais dans le fait qu’elle répond aux demandes des consommateurs, au lieu d’une méchanceté organisée par des grandes entreprises.

Au niveau politique, on va me dire : «Méchanceté ou non, il faut interdire l’obsolescence.» Possible ? Oui. Mais à quel prix ?

Imaginez que votre vendeur d’ordinateurs vous propose un ordinateur à vie éternelle. Si vous le traitez bien, et si vous êtes prêt à payer le prix plus élevé, ce sera le dernier achat d’ordinateur de votre vie. Vous êtes sûrement sceptiques. Vu l’innovation rapide et constante sur le marché des ordinateurs, vous aurez très vite du retard sur d’autres collègues ou amis, qui utilisent des fonctions inconnues au moment de votre achat. Obliger le consommateur à dépenser plus pour un ordinateur qui sera de moindre qualité après quelques années est contraire au libre choix de ce consommateur. Pire encore, dans beaucoup de cas, une telle interdiction nuit à l’environnement.

Il y eut un moment dans le passé quand la consommation de carburant d’une voiture pouvait être de 12 litres aux 100 km, sans qu’elle posât problème. De nos jours, la consommation moyenne est la moitié de ces 12 litres. Oui, une voiture ne dure plus aussi long-temps qu’avant, mais de quel intérêt est la longue vie d’une voiture, quand nous pouvons réduire les frais
courants, et en même temps réduire les émissions de dioxyde de carbone ?

Dans la pratique, une interdiction de l’obsolescence planifiée est ironiquement elle-même une mesure de planification centralisée. En dictant la durée optimal d’un produit de façon législative, l’État se mêlerait encore une fois de plus de l’économie de marché. Cette mesure ne serait ni avantageuse pour les consommateurs ni bonne pour la planète.

Espérons que dans la vie politique, la rationalité n’a pas d’obsolescence planifiée.

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

Financial Times

Low-battery warning fight

Microsoft’s carbon dating, Google in $1tn club, Logitech’s split keyboard

Don’t tell anyone, but my iPhone charger is hidden under some newspapers on my desk so that it’s less likely to go walkies when I’m not there.

I’ve always taken precautions, with people very eager to “borrow” this vital energy supply, and in future, I may have to bolt my chargers to the desk. The European Union just doubled the chances of me losing them this week when it revived the idea of universal chargers that would fit Apple, Samsung and any other smartphones.

Apart from the extra jeopardy I will face personally, the tech industry’s own selfish interests are in focus here. “The EU-enforced common charger is the enemy of progress” was the headline of a release from the corporate-backed Consumer Choice Center, which said any such move would undermine innovation and restrict competition. It echoed the argument when this last came up from Apple, which is the king of proprietary technologies and whose Lightning connectors are still cursed by anyone wanting to plug in a headphone jack.

I don’t buy their concerns. Where would we be without common USB and HDMI standards, and WiFi and Bluetooth, all with dongle-less backwards compatibility? I would happily trade a little innovation and commercial advantage for those invaluable conformities. 

Of course, legislators are always behind the tech curve and the common charger debate would become moot if we all bought wireless charging mats that removed the need for hard connections completely. Then again, some companies are not being as innovative in taking us to that bright new future as they think they are. Apple announced its AirPower wireless charging mats in 2017, but had to cancel the product less than two years later after struggling to make one that worked properly.

The Internet of (Five) Things

1. Microsoft’s carbon dating The software shop has gone further than other tech giants in committing to become “carbon negative” by 2030 and offset all carbon emissions made since it was founded. The $1.2tn company also announced a $1bn innovation fund to tackle the climate crisis.

2. There’s another trillion-dollar tech titan Alphabet on Thursday became the fourth Big Tech company to reach a market capitalisation of $1tn. Apple was the first public company to achieve the milestone, in August 2018, and is now more than a third of the way to a second trillion. It was followed by Amazon, which has since fallen back below the 13-digit threshold, and then Microsoft. Meanwhile, Tesla’s soaring share price is giving short sellers the heebie jeebies.

3. Peacock proud of its free streaming strategy The last major streaming debut is also the cheapest. Comcast unveiled its NBCUniversal Peacock streaming service on Thursday and said it would be free for its existing cable customers when it launches fully in July. There will be live sports and news, a large catalogue of older sitcoms, and the service will primarily rely on advertising rather than the subscriptions favoured by rivals. “We like the idea of zigging when others zag,” said NBCUniversal chairman Steve Burke.

4. WhatsApp won’t rely on ads Facebook is dropping plans to show ads on its WhatsApp messaging service, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. WhatsApp disbanded the team working on integrating ads on to the platform recently and even the code they had created was deleted from the app.

5. Ad industry faces wrath of regulator The UK’s data protection regulator is braced to do battle with the country’s £13bn online advertising industry, saying it will start investigating individual companies that are in breach of European data protection law and enforcing it against them. The Information Commissioner’s Office said the ad industry had responded insufficiently to a six-month grace period to get its house in order.

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

Florida should crack down on frivolous lawsuits, costly verdicts

Lawsuits: A St. Louis jury awarded a record $4.7 billion verdict in a lawsuit in which plaintiffs said Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused cancer.

In a time of bitter division in our country, it’s refreshing to see partisan flags fall and elected leaders rally to improve our institutions and make our communities better off and more secure.

In Florida and dozens of other states, that mantra of late has been “criminal-justice reform.”

Florida’s 2019 reforms sought to rehabilitate rather than punish, giving new opportunities to nonviolent offenders who’ve done their time and are ready to transition back into society. That includes training programs and job opportunities, but also more-compassionate treatment of the accused while still providing swift justice to victims.

State lawmakers and activists should be applauded for these steps. But it doesn’t end there.

If we truly want to have a more just and balanced legal system, we’ll also need to address the broken tort system that elevates bad science, rewards unscrupulous lawyers and raises prices for all consumers.

Florida is famous for its billboard advertisements from injury lawyers: “Have you been injured?” Who can forget the injury firm Morgan & Morgan’s ads bearing the face of former governor and current U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist on major interstates?

For years, Florida has ranked highly as having one of the worst legal climates in the country. It even topped the list of “judicial hellholes” in 2017.

Key to these rankings has been Florida’s embrace of awarding exorbitant damages, anti-scientific jury verdicts and sometimes outright bogus lawsuits.

In November, a $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed in Miami by a vegan man upset with Burger King’s “Impossible Whopper,” claiming the company did not disclose that the meat-free patties were “contaminated” by being cooked in close proximity to beef patties.

Cases like these are more common than you may believe. And dozens of websites and newsletters give people opportunities to pick and choose the best class-action lawsuits to “get cash now” — regardless of whether or not they were a victim.

The latest headline-grabber is the billion-dollar nationwide attempt to pin various cancer diagnoses on the makers of baby powder Johnson & Johnson. Plaintiffs and their attorneys claim the company has knowingly sold asbestos-tainted talc in its baby powder for years, even though scientific studies have yet to prove a definite link between modern-day talc and any cancers. The same has been echoed by the American Cancer Society.

That didn’t stop a St. Louis jury from awarding a record $4.7 billion verdict last year, one of the largest in American history. That has only fueled the epidemic of trial lawyers extorting companies and doctors’ offices to get the results they want.

Naturally, the tort courts are an important part of our justice system. And they should be used for those victims who have suffered real harm. But many of these claims do not stand up to the science and end up keeping legitimate victims from ever getting their day in court.

Frivolous lawsuits clog up the system, mislead consumers, and ultimately raise the costs for basically everyone. Now society is plagued with threats of lawsuits and major class actions. That’s not a good status quo, and it must change.

Here are some simple fixes. Let’s define who can actually be a member of a class-action lawsuit. Online sign-ups and promises of quick cash in newsletters aren’t standing for plaintiffs. Capping the amount on exorbitant lawsuits would help avoid costly litigation that amounts to higher prices for consumers. Stricter courtroom rules on what is considered scientific expertise would also help.

Overall, we must use the positive spirit channeled by the criminal-justice reform movement to ask the same of our tort law system. Only then will we get real justice.

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

Los Angeles Daily News

After another big lawsuit bites the dust, can we admit it’s time for legal reform?

It seems California isn’t so lawsuit crazy after all. Last Monday, Los Angeles jurors announced their ruling in just one of the dozens of lawsuits currently making their way through the courts on baby powder made by Johnson & Johnson. The jury found the company was not at fault for a woman’s mesothelioma diagnosis.

The trial brought forth experts from all stripes who presented their evidence and conclusions on whether the talc used in the baby powder produced by the Philadelphia-based company contained asbestos.

This is one instance in which a jury has sided with the scientific evidence, but that’s not often the case.

We shouldn’t forget that it was a California jury that initially awarded $2 billion to plaintiffs in a case considering whether the glyphosate found in Round-Up made by Monsanto, now a subsidiary of Bayer, caused cancer.

The judge, though, eventually reduced the verdict to $78 million to avoid the “arbitrary award” first conjured up by the tort lawyers. And that’s considering no major national body has deemed glyphosate to be carcinogenic.

In 2016, after the first $72 million verdict against J&J for its baby powder, scientists interviewed post-trial cast doubts on the claim made by the case, specifically because there has yet to be a definite link between modern-day talc and any cancers. The same has been echoed by the American Cancer Society.

But that won’t stop the trial lawyers who now recognize their golden goose. A record $4.7 billion verdict was delivered in Missouri in July 2018 against the pharmaceutical and consumer goods giant, and that’s proved fodder for the legal firms now lining up to cash in. And that’s because a jury has determined these products to be unsafe, rather than regulators and scientific experts. In the eyes of our legal system, juries provide more proof than actual evidence.

And considering the legal fees billed by national law firms, it’s not hard to see why these cases are so lucrative for them.

If you’ve been glued into television at all the last few years, you’ll know that between political ads, dozens of law firms around the country are aggressively soliciting plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits. “Call today, you could be compensated!” “You deserve justice now!”

Websites such as TopClassActions.com purport to “connect consumers to settlements, lawsuits, and attorneys”, and maintain an active log of thousands of open class-action lawsuits that any consumer can click and join. Their daily newsletter highlights potential awards and deadlines and gives top billing to the biggest cases with a low threshold to become a plaintiff.

While such services may be necessary for legitimate harms and victims, we must admit it’s all gotten a bit out of hand.

The tort system was devised as a way to offer justice to those who have been harmed.

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

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