British taxpayers ‘should not subsidise scaremongering anti-vaping laws’

EXPRESS: Jeff Stier, of the Consumer Choice Centre, a US consumer watchdog, said: “Both the US and UK are financing an organisation which for years has had problems with corruption and transparency, and the biggest part with transparency issues is the FCT.

“Its policies show that the WHO is fighting vaping in an unscientific way.According to Public health England there is virtually no effect for bystanders  bystanders because there is virtually no smoke. You can smell it, but you can also smell a perfume. And there is very little health risk to the user.

“From a scientific prospective, there is no reason why vaping shouldn’t be allowed in public buildings. There’s no smoke or second-hand smoke.

“Adult smokers should have access to a wide variety of products that meet their needs to help them not smoke cigarettes.”

“I’ve been to a recent meeting and they would not allow journalists, or members of the public or analysts to attend”, added Jeff Stier.

“It wasn’t that they wouldn’t  let us speak  – they wouldn’t even let us hear. “They’re deliberating policies that are affecting countries that we taxpayers are paying for, and

“In the US or UK you’d never get away with this transparency. Lack of transparency leads to bad policy. Transparency matters.”

mm

About Jeff Stier

Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the Consumer Choice Center. Mr. Stier has been a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. He is a guest on over 100 radio shows a year, including on NPR and top-rated major market shows in cities including Boston, Philadelphia, and Sacramento, plus syndicated regional broadcasts. Jeff’s op-eds have been published in top outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, Forbes, The Washington Examiner, and National Review Online.

L’OMS veut la mort du tigre, du coq et de l’abeille

Les « défenseurs de la santé publique » se tournent vers un grave danger que personne n’a vu venir : les héros dessinés sur les boîtes de céréales.

Et oui, Tony le Tigre, Cornelius le Coq ou Pops l’Abeille voudraient tous du mal à nos enfants… mais pas de panique ! L’Union européenne, l’Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS) et Jamie Oliver sont là pour nous protéger.

Le chef cuisinier médiatisé, Jamie Oliver, s’en prend en effet aux personnages de bande dessinée sur les boîtes de céréales : au mois de mai, Oliver a prétendu que les figures de super héros ne devraient pas être utilisées pour « colporter de la camelote ».

En témoignant devant le comité de santé et de soins sociaux de la Chambre des communes britannique, qui cherche des solutions sur la lutte contre l’obésité infantile, Oliver disait :

« J’aime Tony [le Tigre] autant que tout le monde, mais j’aimerais voir des figures ambitieuses qui ont une influence sur nos enfants, dans leurs yeux et leur fantaisie« .

Daniel Pryor de l’Adam Smith Institute a partagé un tweet dans lequel il expliquait comment Oliver lui-même utilisait un personnage de dessin animé – Moshi Monster – pour promouvoir un muffin contenant 33,9 g de sucre, soit environ 10 g de plus que la limite quotidienne de sucre recommandée pour les enfants âgés de sept à 10 ans (selon le service national de santé britannique).

Jamie Oliver a enlevé la vidéo depuis, s’étant fait rattraper par sa propre logique contradictoire de « faites ce que je dis, ne faites pas ce que je fais ».

Mais son idée a déjà retenu l’attention des législateurs : au Chili, les personnages de dessins animés ont déjà été interdits. L’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), qui a fait de la lutte contre les maladies non transmissibles (MNT) une priorité (par exemple, les maladies auto-infligées), écrit dans un rapport de 2010 sur sa stratégie mondiale sur l’alimentation, l’activité physique et la santé :

« Etant donné que l’efficacité du marketing est fonction de l’exposition et de la puissance, l’objectif général de la politique devrait être de réduire à la fois l’exposition des enfants aux aliments riches en graisses saturées, en acides gras trans, en sucres libres ou en sel, et au pouvoir de son marketing. »

En conséquence, l’OMS a avancé dans la définition exacte de ce que ces restrictions devraient impliquer.

En 2012, cet organisme des Nations Unies a annoncé vouloir limiter la commercialisation de ces produits aux enfants, avec un document cadre sur la mise en oeuvre des politiques. Ici, l’OMS donne un exemple de la façon dont les prescriptions politiques pourraient être mises en oeuvre :

« Eliminer toutes les formes de commercialisation de tous les produits auxquels un large éventail d’enfants sont exposés, avec une définition large de ce qui constitue un marketing destiné aux enfants. »

Dans un article publié en 2014, l’OMS citait Amanda Long, Directrice générale de Consumers International, une organisation mondiale de défense des droits des consommateurs :

« Les entreprises alimentaires dépensent des milliards de dollars pour développer un marketing qui fonctionne vraiment ».

Notez que « l’organisation des droits des consommateurs » n’implique aucun droit pour les parents-consommateurs de choisir ce qu’ils estiment bon pour leurs propres enfants.

Le message des propositions du Conseil de l’UE récemment adoptées sur les restrictions de commercialisation reprend les vues de l’OMS. Les ministres considèrent qu’il s’agit d’une question de protection des consommateurs, ainsi que de « réduction des inégalités de santé » et de prévention.

Ces organismes font montre d’une méfiance accrue à l’égard de l’éducation prodiguée par les parents. Interdire les personnages de dessins animés ne sera que la prochaine étape de l’Etat-nounou. Le simple fait qu’un pays ait déjà mis en oeuvre la mesure donnera l’occasion aux « défenseurs de la santé publique » (je continuerai à les appeler ainsi jusqu’à ce que je sois convaincu que c’est ce qu’ils défendent) de jouer avec les statistiques et d’aller jusqu’à rédiger un rapport présentant cette interdiction comme étant « un succès massif ».

Il y a quelques années, cette idée d’interdire les personnages de dessins animés sur des boîtes de céréales aurait pu nous sembler étonnante. Pourtant, l’Etat-nounou nous a amenés jusqu’ici et nous ne sommes plus guère surpris par les suggestions douteuses de ceux qui saisiront toutes les occasions pour prétendre qu’ils « pensent aux enfants ». [NDLR : Vous aimeriez aider financièrement un jeune de votre entourage qui se lance dans la vie étudiante ou la vie active ? Donner, c’est bien, mais mieux vaut éviter que le fisc ne réclame sa part. Découvrez ici comment donner sans donner à Bercy.]

En réalité, sensibiliser aux conséquences des excès de sucre et de graisse est la bonne façon d’aborder ce problème : cela donne du pouvoir aux consommateurs et leur fournit des informations, tout en adoptant une approche non-paternaliste.

Cette approche paternaliste consistant à interdire les personnages de bande dessinée est une politique publique paresseuse.

Les marques sont importantes pour les consommateurs : elles nous procurent de la joie, elles fidélisent la clientèle. Le prix à payer pour vivre dans une société libre, est de devoir prendre nos responsabilités et d’assumer nos propres choix. Entre un enfant qui veut un produit et l’achat réel, il y a encore un adulte servant d’intermédiaire.

Si, cependant, nous commençons à infantiliser les deux, alors nous sommes coincés avec deux enfants qui dépendent de l’Etat.

Originally published at http://la-chronique-agora.com/oms-paternalisme/

mm

About Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is policy analyst for the Consumer Choice Center, based in Brussels, Belgium. Originally from Luxembourg, his articles have appeared across the world in English, French, German, and Luxembourgish. He is Editor-in-Chief of Speak Freely, the blog of European Students for Liberty, a contributing editor for the Freedom Today Network and a regular contributor for the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). He blogs regularly on his website in four languages.

The case for defunding the WHO

COMMENT CENTRAL: Bill Wirtz believes there is no need for taxpayers to be continuously patronised by WHO health experts. It’s time to defund the WHO.

READ MORE

mm

About Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is policy analyst for the Consumer Choice Center, based in Brussels, Belgium. Originally from Luxembourg, his articles have appeared across the world in English, French, German, and Luxembourgish. He is Editor-in-Chief of Speak Freely, the blog of European Students for Liberty, a contributing editor for the Freedom Today Network and a regular contributor for the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). He blogs regularly on his website in four languages.

Five reasons to rethink Britain’s public health spending

By Fred Roeder and Chloe Westley

With a combined budget of over 100 million pounds, taxpayers in the United Kingdom are some of the largest contributors to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) budget. Britain also spends nearly 1 billion pounds on various other bilateral public health initiatives around the globe. Unfortunately, many of these projects are not improving people’s health or dealing with global pandemics. Instead, this money is wasted on inflated and decadent bureaucracies and ideological projects.

READ MORE

mm

About Fred Roeder

Fred Roder has been working in the field of grassroots activism for over eight years. He is a Health Economist from Germany and has worked in healthcare reform and market access in North America, Europe, and several former Soviet Republics. One of his passions is to analyze how disruptive industries and technologies allow consumers more choice at a lower cost. Fred is very interested in consumer choice and regulatory trends in the following industries: FMCG, Sharing Economy, Airlines. In 2014 he organized a protest in Berlin advocating for competition in the Taxi market. Fred has traveled to 100 countries and is looking forward to visiting the other half of the world’s countries. Among many op-eds and media appearances, he has been published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Wirtschaftswoche, Die Welt, the BBC, SunTV, ABC Portland News, Montreal Gazette, Handelsblatt, Huffington Post Germany, CityAM. L’Agefi, and The Guardian. Since 2012 he serves as an Associated Researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute.

USA gegen WHO-Zuckersteuern

NOVO ARGUMENTE: Die Trump-Regierung blockiert innerhalb der Weltgesundheitsorganisation die Forderung nach einer Zuckersteuer. Gut so, denn eine solche Steuer ist paternalistisch und gegen die Armen gerichtet.

READ MORE

mm

About Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is policy analyst for the Consumer Choice Center, based in Brussels, Belgium. Originally from Luxembourg, his articles have appeared across the world in English, French, German, and Luxembourgish. He is Editor-in-Chief of Speak Freely, the blog of European Students for Liberty, a contributing editor for the Freedom Today Network and a regular contributor for the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). He blogs regularly on his website in four languages.

Trump administration blocks WHO from calling for sugar taxes

WASHINGTON EXAMINER: In a new report, the World Health Organization fails to endorse higher taxes on sugar in order to fight noncommunicable diseases. For the last two years, the U.N. body has been calling for even higher sugar taxes, which would lead to reduced consumption and therefore better overall public health. However, the WHO advocates are not only horrifyingly patronizing, they’re also flat-out wrong. The Trump administration seems to have caught on to that, and does not support a regressive and patronizing tax, supported by elitists such as Michael Bloomberg.

READ MORE

mm

About Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is policy analyst for the Consumer Choice Center, based in Brussels, Belgium. Originally from Luxembourg, his articles have appeared across the world in English, French, German, and Luxembourgish. He is Editor-in-Chief of Speak Freely, the blog of European Students for Liberty, a contributing editor for the Freedom Today Network and a regular contributor for the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). He blogs regularly on his website in four languages.

Plain packaging: ‘Brand-theft’ or better consumer protection?

EURACTIV: The rising trend of imposing plain packaging on unhealthy products has raised eyebrows in the industry, which fears that its brands are under threat. The World Health Organisation, on the other hand, insists that the measure provides a long-term benefit for public health.

READ MORE

mm

About Fred Roeder

Fred Roder has been working in the field of grassroots activism for over eight years. He is a Health Economist from Germany and has worked in healthcare reform and market access in North America, Europe, and several former Soviet Republics. One of his passions is to analyze how disruptive industries and technologies allow consumers more choice at a lower cost. Fred is very interested in consumer choice and regulatory trends in the following industries: FMCG, Sharing Economy, Airlines. In 2014 he organized a protest in Berlin advocating for competition in the Taxi market. Fred has traveled to 100 countries and is looking forward to visiting the other half of the world’s countries. Among many op-eds and media appearances, he has been published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Wirtschaftswoche, Die Welt, the BBC, SunTV, ABC Portland News, Montreal Gazette, Handelsblatt, Huffington Post Germany, CityAM. L’Agefi, and The Guardian. Since 2012 he serves as an Associated Researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute.

Make e-cigarettes available to fight tobacco cancer: Experts

DECCAN HERALD: Jeff Stier, a senior fellow with the pro-e-cigarettes advocacy group Consumer Choice Center (CCC) said, “The ACS took a step in the right direction by recognising this important harm-reduction method.”

READ MORE

mm

About Jeff Stier

Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the Consumer Choice Center. Mr. Stier has been a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. He is a guest on over 100 radio shows a year, including on NPR and top-rated major market shows in cities including Boston, Philadelphia, and Sacramento, plus syndicated regional broadcasts. Jeff’s op-eds have been published in top outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, Forbes, The Washington Examiner, and National Review Online.

The WHO Should Embrace Vaping and Harm Reduction on World No Tobacco Day

AMBULANCE TODAY: May 31st marks World No Tobacco Day. This year the World Health Organization highlights “tobacco and heart disease” and pledges to highlight policies that help to reduce tobacco consumption.

The Consumer Choice Center’s Managing Director, Fred Roeder, applauds the WHO for its focus on fighting cardiovascular diseases and the health impact of tobacco consumption, but points out the WHO missed an opportunity to promote effective policies reducing the health risks of tobacco consumption.

READ MORE

mm

About Jeff Stier

Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the Consumer Choice Center. Mr. Stier has been a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. He is a guest on over 100 radio shows a year, including on NPR and top-rated major market shows in cities including Boston, Philadelphia, and Sacramento, plus syndicated regional broadcasts. Jeff’s op-eds have been published in top outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, Forbes, The Washington Examiner, and National Review Online.

World No Tobacco Day 2018, here’s why you should switch to e-cigarettes

HINDUSTAN TIMES:  Jeff Stier, a senior fellow with the pro-e-cigarettes advocacy group Consumer Choice Center (CCC) said, “The ACS took a step in the right direction by recognising this important harm-reduction method.”

READ MORE

mm

About Jeff Stier

Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the Consumer Choice Center. Mr. Stier has been a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. He is a guest on over 100 radio shows a year, including on NPR and top-rated major market shows in cities including Boston, Philadelphia, and Sacramento, plus syndicated regional broadcasts. Jeff’s op-eds have been published in top outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, Forbes, The Washington Examiner, and National Review Online.