fbpx

Blog

Democrats Can’t Have Both PFAS Ban and EV Transition: Choose One

As part of the climate agenda, Democrats have advocated the phasing out of motor vehicles. The goal is to ensure that electric vehicles make up half of all new vehicles sold by 2030. To accomplish this task, tax credits of up to $12,500 could be offered.

Democrats have put electric vehicles at the heart of their climate ambitions. While that all sounds great on paper, the reality is more complex. The extensively demonised PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances)–known as forever chemicals–which Democrats want to ban are key to the production of EVs. Either Democrats call off the prospect of a full PFAS ban, or their EV agenda will never be realised.

PFAS are the latest target of regulators in the United States. They are a group of over 4000 chemicals that carry individual risks; benefits and availability of substitutes vary as well. Turning a blind eye to the complexity of these substances, Democrats introduced the PFAS Action Act in April 2021. The Act is now with the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works.

PFAS are used to produce life-saving medical equipment and are vital for contamination-resistant gowns, implantable medical devices, heart patches, etc. These chemicals are also widely used in green technology production. In particular, solar panels, wind turbines, and lithium-ion batteries.

Fluoropolymers (one specific class of PFAS) are an essential part of green technology. Fluoropolymers are used to produce lithium batteries, the power source behind electric vehicles. They are durable, heat and chemical resistant, and have superior dielectric properties, all of these qualities make it hard for other chemicals to compete. If PFAS are banned as a class, the green ambitions of switching to electric vehicles would be extremely difficult to turn into policy. The PFAS Action Act would cause further disruptions in the EV supply chain, increasing costs for consumers and ultimately making them less attractive as an alternative to gasoline vehicles.

Fluoropolymers are also used in coating and sealing solar panels and wind turbines that protect against harsh weather conditions. Fluoropolymers provide safety by preventing leaks and environmental releases in a range of renewable energy applications. The unique characteristics of PFAS such as water, acid, and oil resistance make these substances hard to replace. 

Unless damaged, solar panels continue to produce energy beyond their lifeline. Fluoropolymers are what make solar panels durable. Going solar requires significant investments and without fluoropolymers, the risk of producing and installing them will increase. It is already expensive to build solar panels in the U.S., and the blanket PFAS will exacerbate it. In fact, this is exactly what is happening in Europe with microchips, which rely on PFAS in the production process, where the closing of a plant in Belgium is on the verge of causing serious production delays.

That is not to say that PFAS are risk-free. A 2021 study by ​​Australian National University confirms that the PFAS exposure comes entirely from water. If Democrats really want to make a difference, their legislation should focus on processes that are harmful instead of single handedly banning all PFAS. 

The proposed ban is also problematic because fundamentally it won’t drive down demand for PFAS. Banning will shift production to countries like China, where environmental considerations are nearly non-existent. As a result, American regulators will be giving China the upper hand for both EV battery production, solar panels, and semiconductors. Not to mention, that banning a substance that is key to so many production processes will magnify the damage caused by inflation. For American EV and solar panels producers, the PFAS ban will be a huge hurdle that is extremely difficult to overcome.

If Democrats are really as determined to pursue a transition to EVs as they suggest, the PFAS blanket ban should be called off. Instead, PFAS should be assessed individually and where poor production processes result in water contamination, the government should intervene.

Patente sind unabdingbar im Kampf gegen die nächste Pandemie

Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) befindet sich im Anfangsstadium der Diskussion über ein so genanntes Pandemiepräventions-, -vorbereitungs- und -reaktionsinstrument (PPR). Dieses Instrument soll die Frage klären, wie die internationale Gemeinschaft mit künftigen Pandemien, wie wir sie derzeit erleben, umgehen wird. 

Die COVID-19-Pandemie veranschaulicht auf faszinierende Weise, was viele von uns schon seit Jahrzehnten wissen: Der Staat ist oft langsam und ineffizient, während sich die Privatindustrie den Herausforderungen unserer Zeit erfolgreich stellt. Als die Pandemie von der WHO ausgerufen wurde, war Chaos vorprogrammiert. Von Drohnen, die Jogger beim Sport verfolgten, bis hin zu Parkbänken, die entfernt oder abgeklebt wurden – die Reaktionen der Staaten waren bürgerrechtlich fraglich und schlecht durchdacht. Es war jedoch von Anfang an allen klar, dass ein Impfstoff die einzige Möglichkeit war, einen realistischen und schnellen Weg zu einer dauerhaften Ausweg aus den Lockdowns zu finden. Der Haken an der Sache: Die Entwicklungzeit eines Impfstoffs wurde zu Anfang auf viele Jahre geschätzt.

Warum also haben wir es heute mit einer kontrollierten COVID-19-Krise zu tun und mit Infektionen, die für die Erkrankten wesentlich weniger schwerwiegende Folgen haben?

Der private Wettbewerb zwischen den Impfstoffherstellern hat in einem noch nie dagewesenen Ausmaß und mit einer ungesehenden Schnelligkeit stattgefunden. Obwohl alle Impfstoffe medizinische Bezeichnungen haben, kennt der normale Patient sie eher unter dem Namen eines Pharmaunternehmens.

Es ist wahr, dass bei der pharmazeutischen Forschung und der Entwicklung von Impfstoffen die Leidenschaft von Wissenschaftlern und die bürgerliche Pflicht von Unternehmen eine Rolle spielen. Tatsächlich sollten wir diesen Effekt nicht schmälern, denn die meisten Pharmaunternehmen haben jahrzehntelang lebenswichtige Medikamente zum Selbstkostenpreis in Entwicklungsländern verkauft. Allerdings müssen wir auch verstehen, dass Investoren und Unternehmensvorstände die Chance auf eine Rendite sehen müssen, um die immensen Kosten der medizinischen Forschung zu decken. Die Rechte an geistigem Eigentum erfüllen diese Erwartung, indem sie einen rechtlichen Rahmen schaffen, der es Unternehmen ermöglicht, medizinische Innovationen zu schaffen, in der Gewissheit, dass diese nicht gestohlen werden können.

Während der Entwicklung der Impfstoffe gegen COVID-19 haben Pharmaunternehmen wichtige patentierte Informationen mit Wettbewerbern ausgetauscht, um schnellere Ergebnisse zu erzielen – ein Informationsaustausch, der durch einen umfassenden Rechtsschutz ermöglicht und organisiert wird. Ohne diesen Schutz würden die Unternehmen zögern, mit konkurrierenden Unternehmen zusammen zu arbeiten. Die Rechte des geistigen Eigentums ermöglichten auch die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Regulierungsbehörden, einschließlich Vereinbarungen über den Vorabkauf, die sich als entscheidend für die Pandemievorsorge erwiesen haben.

Leider wird diese Tatsache von den Kritikern des geistigen Eigentums nicht anerkannt. Eine beträchtliche Anzahl von Gesetzgebern ist der Meinung, dass der PRP-Mechanismus nicht auf der Prämisse der Rechte des geistigen Eigentums beruhen sollte. 

Sie begehen einen schweren Fehler, wenn sie das geistige Eigentum für die langsame Verbreitung verantwortlich machen, da der Gegenteil der Fall ist. Allerdings können diese Kritiker die Staaten für etwas anderes verantwortlich machen: Langsame Lieferketten und regulatorische Hürden sind in der Tat ein unnötiger und tödlicher Aspekt der Impfstoffverteilung. Wir brauchen ein harmonisiertes Regulierungssystem für die Zulassung und den Vertrieb von Impfstoffen sowie einen deutlichen Abbau der Handelsschranken. Wenn sich die Unternehmen neben der komplexen Entwicklung von Impfstoffen auch noch durch den Regulierungsdschungel von 51 Notfallzulassungswegen in 24 Ländern kämpfen müssen (zu normalen Zeiten wären es 190 verschiedene Regulierungsverfahren gewesen), dann könnten viele Entwickler zu dem Schluss kommen, dass es sich einfach nicht lohnt, die Kosten für die Einhaltung der Vorschriften zu tragen, um eine medizinische Lösung zu finden. Darüber hinaus müssen wir die Handelsströme zwischen den Ländern digitalisieren und nach einem System gegenseitig anerkannter medizinischer Standards arbeiten. Welchen Sinn hat es, dass das Vereinigte Königreich und die Europäische Union bei der Zulassung von Impfstoffen nicht nach dem Prinzip des gegenseitigen Vertrauens arbeiten?

Versuche, einen Impfstoff außerhalb des Systems des geistigen Eigentums zu entwickeln, sind gescheitert. Bekannte Versuche von Krankenhäusern und Universitäten, nichtkommerzielle Grundlagen für einen COVID-19-Impfstoff zu schaffen, haben keine Details über präklinische Versuche geliefert. Die Impfstofflösungen einzelner abgelegener Autokratien, wie z. B. Kuba, geben Anlass zu großer Skepsis: Trotz der selbst behaupteten Erfolge haben die kubanischen Wissenschaftler keine Daten über die Wirksamkeit des Impfstoffs veröffentlicht.

Im Interesse der medizinischen Innovation sollten die internationalen Gesundheitsorganisationen keine Maßnahmen in Erwägung ziehen, die die Rechte am geistigen Eigentum untergraben würden. Gerade die COVID-19-Pandemie hat gezeigt, dass Forscher und Hersteller einen Anreiz haben, ihr Wissen zu teilen und so ihr Innovationspotenzial freizusetzen, wenn ihre Erfolge patentiert und kommerziell vermarktet werden können.

New Zealand’s generational tobacco ban is madness

Featured image credits: New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at a December news conference in Auckland, New Zealand. Photo: Phil Walter/Getty Images

Since the 1970s, New Zealand has implemented many tobacco control measures, such as an indoor ban, advertising restrictions, and excise taxes, among many to tackle smoking. The price of cigarettes in New Zealand is among the highest globally. Despite smoking rates falling at an unprecedented rate, New Zealand believes there is no need to stop here, and a generational tobacco ban is now on the table. 

The generation tobacco ban would essentially ban people born after a particular year from buying cigarettes. The law is expected to be enacted in New Zealand in June this year, and everyone born after 2008 will not be allowed to buy cigarettes in their lifetime. 

The first question that the proposal begs is: why 2008, and not 2009 or 2007? By setting a subjectively determined cut-off date, the government of New Zealand will divide the society into two groups of adults (or once-to-be adults) who can buy cigarettes and those who can’t. The discriminatory nature of the ban is rather striking. From a public health perspective, those born before 2008 and smoking can be seen as a burden on the system–so why punish the other group, who, given the falling smoking rates, likely wouldn’t choose to smoke anyway?

The evidence on the effectiveness of generational smoking bans is weak. Instead of driving down the smoking rates, the tobacco sales ban not only doesn’t help the smoke-free cause, but it can also increase the smoking incidence among the youth. Bhutan, where the imports of tobacco products were banned during covid, demonstrates that such bans are riddled with unintended consequences and rarely achieve their original goals. After all, the Great Prohibition in the US stunningly demonstrated that, regardless of what the governments imagined when implementing bans, people always find creative ways to satisfy their wants. 

That is where the booming black market, encouraged by bans, fills the gap. In Bhutan, the only impact of the ban on the import and sales of tobacco products was to make them significantly more expensive, making illegal under-the-counter sales and the smuggling of these products even more attractive. That was also the case in South Africa, where banning the sales of tobacco and alcohol during covid boosted the illicit trade in these products.

Given the scope of the tobacco control measures in the past 50 years, I wonder if there is an endgame. New Zealand has tried it all. Indoor bans, plain packaging, excise taxes, and now the generational ban. What happens if the ambitious goal of becoming smoke-free doesn’t work out for New Zealand (which is bound to happen)? Where do we go from there? Do we outlaw thinking about smoking or using the word “tobacco”? This madness must stop. 

Liberal Housing Plan Misses The Mark

Ottawa, ON: Today the Federal government released their budget, which includes a significant portion addressing the housing crisis. Major policy announcements include a ban on blind bidding, a new tax-free First Home Savings Account, a foreign buyer ban, and $4 billion for municipalities who grow quicker than the historical average.

The Consumer Choice Center’s Toronto based North American Affairs Manager David Clement responded stating “Unfortunately, the government’s housing plan is not bold enough to properly tackle the housing crisis and effectively deal with the issue of chronic undersupply.”

“They’ve proposed a ban on blind bidding, which has already been shown to have no impact on prices and does nothing to increase supply. Their foreign buyer ban is yet another policy that is attempting to tinker with demand, without addressing supply. And while some of Ottawa’s response will allow for consumers to save more, like the Tax Free First Home Savings Account, these tax policy changes also do nothing to increase the supply of housing,” said Clement

“The only supply side policy the federal government has announced is their earmark for communities that grow at a quicker pace than the historical average. The government’s own estimate states that this could result in the building of 100,000 new homes by 2025, but the problem is that a province like Ontario needs another 650,000 new homes just to get to the national average, which wouldn’t be much to celebrate considering that Canada ranks dead last in the G7 for housing units per 1000 people,” said Clement.

“Rather than tinkering with demand and an underwhelming earmark program, the federal government should have focused on zoning reform. The federal government could quite easily tie federal funding for affordable housing and public infrastructure to density goals, with zoning reform as the core mechanism to achieve it. This would be broadly similar to the recent child care agreements which involve the transfer of federal dollars in exchange for a set of provincial deliverables,” said Clement.

Canada is repealing the excise tax on non-alcoholic beer

Non-alcoholic beer has been subject to federal excise taxes despite not containing virtually any alcohol at all. 

Our North American Affairs Manager, David Clement pointed out several problems with this tax and was invited to meet with the Ministry of Finance to explain the arguments against the tax. For example, non-alcoholic wine and spirits are exempt from the tax, which created a huge disparity for non-alcoholic beer. Removing tax would reduce costs for health-conscious consumers, who are looking for a healthier alternative to their favorite drink. This would also be consistent with the principles of harm reduction, a policy approach the current government has taken upon other issues. 

Fortunately, Budget 2022 removes alcohol excise taxes on beer containing no more than 0.5% alcohol by volume. This is another great victory for Canadian consumers!

This is a step in the right direction and hopefully the start of a national discussion on modernizing the alcohol excise duty structure.

For more information, listen to this Consumer Choice Radio episode

Ontario Government Legalizes iGaming

In the first week of April the government of Ontario launched a legal private online gambling market, which allows for consumers to wager on casino games, sporting events and other gambling activities on websites and apps that are approved by the province’s regulator.

The CCC’s North American Affairs Manager David Clement was invited to participate in the province’s consultation process with both the Attorney General’s Office and the Minister of Finance’s office. In those meetings we highlighted the need for a legal market in Ontario to ensure consumer safety in the online gambling market, and shift consumers away from the black market. 


The CCC is excited to see a safe and legal iGaming market thrive in Ontario, and hope that other provinces follow Ontario’s lead.

Hawaii: Eliminating vape flavors would cause more problems than it would solve

By Yaël Ossowski

When the state acts to protect our children, we trust it will do so with knowledge and responsibility. Considering the rise in availability of vaping products this last decade, it is understandable that the State Legislature has been called on to act.

But if Hawaii curbs the sale of flavored vaping products — intended for adult former smokers — this will not eradicate the problem of youth access. Rather, it may make it even worse.

Health committee chair Rep. Ryan Yamane admitted as much last week, stating “I don’t want our youth who are electronic savvy to get access to unknown supplies or, who knows, black-market cartridges laced with dangerous substances through the internet where we don’t know where it’s coming from.”

What Yamane alludes to is the 2019 EVALI epidemic, when illicit cannabis vaping devices made their way into the hands of thousands of people across the country, causing death and serious lung injuries that spread panic around vaping products. There were 4 cases in Hawaii.

The CDC has concluded that virtually every case was linked to a supply of bootleg THC vape cartridges laced with Vitamin E Acetate. While these products are far removed from the vaping devices found in convenience stores and vape shops, even though activists have attempted to connect them, the EVALI crisis demonstrates the ills associated with unregulated black market products.

Massachusetts enacted a ban on flavored vaping products in 2019 and the results should raise caution. Since the ban, a massive influx of smuggled tobacco and vape products has resulted in a thriving black market, siphoning tax revenue for the state, criminalizing adult consumers trying to make the healthier choice, and exposing kids to black market dealers who don’t ask for ID.

Making a product illegal will not necessarily make the demand for it go away, as the era of Prohibition taught us.

If Hawaii moves forward with a vaping flavor ban, they’ll not only endanger our kids, but they will also push adult consumers to switch back to smoking combustible tobacco, a disaster for public health. Over 1,400 Hawaiians lose their lives to smoking-related illnesses each year. As found in multiple studies and even Public Health England, vapers benefit from 95% less harm than cigarettes.

Fortunately, more than 7% of Hawaii’s adult population uses vaping products, accounting for over 100,000 Hawaiians who have switched to a better alternative, including our elderly. According to data from the Hawaii Journal of Medicine and Public Health, the largest demographic of Hawaiian vapers are actually over 65.

If those retirees have their smoking cession options taken away, it will not only nudge them back to smoking and put their health at risk, but it would cost Hawaii dearly. Smoking-related healthcare costs already cost Hawaiian taxpayers $141.7 million annually, not to mention the pain of long-term illnesses and deaths experienced by many families.

Our goal should be to expand people’s choices to quitting tobacco, not to limit them severely.

What’s more, similar bans to what is proposed here in Hawaii have actually been demonstrated to increase smoking rates among youth in jurisdictions like San Francisco. Data from the Journal of the American Medicine Association shows that the flavored vaping product ban caused increased smoking rates for youth aged 18 and younger.

If we are concerned about youth gaining access to vaping products, we need to ask why it is happening. Are retailers breaking the law and selling it to them? Are they asking older friends or family to acquire for them? Will adult users of these products still have less harmful alternatives to cigarettes if we outlaw them? These are important considerations.

Teenagers seek out risky behavior, whether it is drugs, alcohol, or vaping devices. Education and parental responsibility, however, would be much more effective than a sweeping ban that would boost a new black market and deprive responsible adults of products they have sought to improve their lives. This is the choice Hawaii will have to make.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center.

The case for permissionless innovation in tobacco harm reduction

By Yaël Ossowski

As a consumer advocate enamored with technology, there is nothing more satisfying than seeing a new product or service providing a solution to an old problem.

The entire world of Bitcoin — lightning nodes, censorship resistance, and frictionless cross-border payments — is doing wonders for financial freedom and security.

Ride-sharing and home-sharing apps are putting dormant property to use, providing income for drivers and homeowners and rides and places to stay for tourists and students.

And when it comes to tobacco harm reduction, innovation is picking up at breakneck speed, offering new and more effective ways to wean smokers off the harms of cigarettes. At another time, this is something public health organizations would have praised.

Pod vaping devices, open tanks, synthetic nicotine disposables, snus, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches are offering precisely what former smokers need without the same level of risk, all varied to some degree.

It is the permissionless innovation of this entire field — entrepreneurs large and small — that provides such hope to us technological optimists and harm reduction advocates. It excites us to the opportunities that progress can provide.

But for opponents of this particular shade of innovation — whether health groups, academics, or competing lobbies —  the very nature of how these products come to be is what so concerns them.

The vast majority of vaping products and alternative tobacco products are not spawned from public grants, university studies, or government programs, but rather from the process of entrepreneurial discovery, offering solutions to problems that exist in society.

This could be a former-smoker turned vaping entrepreneur with a thriving flavored liquids business run out of his garage, a multinational tobacco firm with thousands of employees, or a group of engineering students who just want to create a cool and safer alternative to the daily pack of cigarettes.

These entrepreneurial forces are reacting to a demand in the market, namely, millions of smokers who want to stub their last cigarette. For many of us, this is a positive example of permissionless innovation. For others, it is nothing more than greed and exploitation.

One can understand that the institutions and lobby groups that oppose efforts at tobacco harm reduction are threatened by private industries providing solutions more effective than the status quo. Or perhaps they even question their intentions.

But the fact remains that millions of former smokers, driven by their own conscious wants and needs, have found an alternative that works for them, provided by firms and entrepreneurs who did not ask for the permission of authorities. That is how our market economies should work.

To that end, new lines of nicotine pouches, vape mods, and disposable vapes are debuted on the market each day, some better than others.

Many of these innovators will fail: perhaps they will create a product that fails to gain customers or blur ethical lines on their advertising that eventually send them to court. Or, as in most cases, will vastly underestimate the cottage industry of governmental lobbying that can only be navigated by the most skilled and politically-connected industries, as the US Food & Drug Administration’s byzantine PMTA process has demonstrated.

That said, we should continue to cheer the innovators that provide us with solutions. And we should support them when their interests, and by extension, ours, are threatened by burdensome regulations and bureaucratic decrees.

When legislators are fed false narratives about lung illnesses and their connection to legal vaping products, as the 2019 EVALI crisis demonstrated, or perhaps are confronted with bombastic claims about a youth vaping epidemic, we must stand up for the people for precisely the people who will be hurt by spontaneous legislation: the adult users of the drug who just want a better option.

There are real externalities that must be dealt with: youth access, dangerous products laced with other compounds, and faulty devices that endanger users.

But we cannot kneecap the permissionless innovation in tobacco harm reduction that is saving lives and giving us solutions we couldn’t even imagine. If that remains a priority for consumer advocates like myself, it will have made all the difference.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

Biden’s Digital Assets Executive Order Gets It ‘Mostly Right’ on Protecting Consumers and Innovation in Crypto

Washington, D.C. – Today, President Biden signed an executive order on digital assets, the first major federal executive action relating to cryptocurrencies in the United States.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, praised the order for getting smart cryptocurrency regulation “mostly right”.

“President Biden’s statements demonstrate the federal government’s acknowledgment that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies will play a positive role in our nation’s future, and offers some key guidance on ensuring the entire crypto economy remains competitive, transparent, and innovative for consumers,” said Ossowski.

“Protecting consumers from scams, giving legal certainty, and allowing for innovation to create new standards for cryptocurrency rules is a responsible and legitimate role for government when it comes to digital assets. We must recognize that the nascent crypto finance space is ever-changing and rapidly evolving and that overzealous regulation could cripple future potential.

“Biden echoed concerns about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining, but we believe the environmental benefits from accepting mining will far outweigh any negative repercussions. Crypto mining is an innovative field that strengthens networks and creates incentives for clean energy,” said Ossowski.

“Last year, my colleagues and I at the Consumer Choice Center released our Principles for Smart Crypto Regulation, underscoring the need for preventing fraud, pursuing technological neutrality, reasonably low taxation, and legal certainty and transparency.

“However, considering the toll of inflation on ordinary Americans and the civil liberties concerns related to consumers’ financial privacy, the plans to research a Central Bank Digital Currency are concerning and will need much more scrutiny in the months to come.

“Overall, we praise the administration’s efforts on keeping cryptocurrency legitimate and accessible and hope any legislation to come will follow these bedrock principles. We’re all going to make it,” concluded Ossowski.

Congress wants to sneak in an effective ban on synthetic nicotine vaping that would harm consumers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, it was revealed that several congressmen and US senators have added a provision in the upcoming emergency government funding bill that would relegate tobacco-free synthetic nicotine to the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration and its premarket tobacco application process.

This would give vaping firms less than two months to file a lengthy and convoluted Premarket Tobacco Application (PMTA), which will ultimately lead to most small vaping firms and shops going out of business.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, said this will actively harm adults who want to quit smoking.

“The byzantine process of asking permission to sell harm reducing vaping products in the 21st century is asinine in itself. But using sleight of hand during an emergency government funding bill to castigate millions of vapers and the entrepreneurs who make and sell the products they rely on is the definition of active harm,” said Ossowski.

“Only the largest and most powerful vaping and tobacco companies can afford the lawyers and the time necessary to complete the paperwork necessary to pass the FDA’s process, meaning thousands of hard-working American business owners will now be forced to close, depriving millions of adult consumers of harm reducing options. Many will be forced back to cigarettes.

“Synthetic nicotine is an innovative method of providing nicotine independent of tobacco, and millions of American adults now use these products as a less harmful method of consuming nicotine. A back door bureaucratic power move like this represents a sledgehammer to the men and women of our country who have sought out vaping devices to kick their cigarette habit,” added Ossowski.

“The method of fattening up continuing resolution bills with laws that benefit special interests, without broader democratic debate or analysis of the costs and benefits, is shameful in our modern American Republic.

“We hope our elected representatives reject this particular provision on synthetic nicotine and go back to the drawing board to offer a more permanent, sane, and smart policy on the next generation of vaping products,” said Ossowski.

Consumer Choice Radio

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact info

700 12th St N.W Suite 700 PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20005

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2022, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top