Lifestyle Choices

The EU’s 2025 Work Plan: What It Means for Consumer Choice

The European Commission’s 2025 Work Programme, titled “Moving Forward Together: A Bolder, Simpler, Faster Union,” outlines key priorities that will shape policies impacting consumers across the continent. As consumer advocates, we at the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) are closely analyzing these plans to ensure they prioritize innovation, consumer choice, and regulatory simplicity rather than burdening citizens and businesses with excessive red tape.

We’ve categorized the most significant aspects under three pillars: Fit for Growth, Tech Innovation, and Lifestyle Choices.

Red Tape Loss

At the end of last year, we published a report on the Red Tape Loss, detailing how excessive bureaucracy and overregulation in Europe are not only driving up costs for consumers but also stifling innovation, limiting access to new products, and restricting service availability. You can read the full report here.


1. Fit for Growth: A Competitive and Consumer-Friendly Market

The EU recognizes that bureaucracy and overregulation have stifled economic growth and entrepreneurship. The 2025 Work Programme sets out several measures aimed at reducing burdens on businesses and consumers, but will they be enough?

Regulatory Simplification and Investment Boosts

  • The Commission plans to reduce reporting obligations by at least 25% and by 35% for SMEs, aiming to make compliance easier for businesses. A streamlined regulatory environment should, in theory, allow businesses to focus on innovation rather than paperwork.
  • The Industrial Decarbonization Accelerator Act and European Biotech Act aim to cut through bureaucratic delays in biotech and energy-intensive industries. While decarbonization is important, it must be done in a way that does not restrict consumer choice or drive up costs.
  • The Savings and Investment Union aims to boost capital market access for European businesses, which could help lower prices and increase product variety for consumers.

✅ Consumer Win: Less red tape means faster innovation and more choices.
⚠️ Risk: Will the EU truly simplify regulations, or just create different ones?


2. Tech Innovation: A Digital Future That Works for Consumers

The Commission is betting big on AI, quantum computing, and cross-border digital services, but risks remain if regulations become overly restrictive.

Digital Networks and AI Development

  • The Digital Networks Act will promote cross-border network operations, potentially reducing telecom costs for consumers.
  • The Apply AI Strategy and AI Factories Initiative aim to boost Europe’s AI sector, but it remains to be seen whether the upcoming AI regulations will encourage innovation or stifle it with excessive compliance costs.
  • European Business Wallets will simplify business-to-business and consumer transactions, potentially enhancing trust and reducing friction in digital purchases.

✅ Consumer Win: More connectivity and AI-powered services could enhance consumer experiences.
⚠️ Risk: If AI regulations are too restrictive, Europe may lag behind global competitors, limiting tech-driven consumer benefits.


3. Lifestyle Choices: A Balance Between Sustainability and Freedom

The EU is advancing sustainability policies, but consumer freedom must remain protected.

Food Security and Agriculture

  • The Vision for Agriculture and Food aims to ensure stable food prices and supply, but could lead to more intervention in food markets.
  • A proposed EU-wide biotechnology framework could allow for faster approval of new food innovations, benefiting consumers with healthier and more sustainable options.

Energy and Consumer Costs

  • The Clean Industrial Deal focuses on reducing emissions while maintaining competitiveness, but consumers must be protected from rising energy costs.
  • Plans to phase out Russian energy imports entirely could impact energy prices and availability, making affordability a key issue.

✅ Consumer Win: Sustainable food and energy policies can improve long-term affordability.
⚠️ Risk: Overregulation may lead to price increases and reduced choices in food and energy markets.


Conclusion: Will 2025 Be the Year of Consumer Choice?

While the EU’s work plan includes positive steps for economic simplification and technological innovation, the success of these initiatives will depend on how they are implemented.

Consumers benefit most when markets are free, competitive, and innovative—not when excessive regulations limit choices. The CCC will continue to monitor and advocate for policies that empower consumers, reduce bureaucratic burdens, and promote a vibrant, innovation-driven economy.

👉 Want to stay informed on consumer choice in the EU? Follow the Consumer Choice Center for updates and advocacy!

Letter to HHS: Concerns Regarding ICCPUD Alcohol Intake & Health Report 

Today the Consumer Choice Center submitted a formal comment to the Department of Health and Human Services to express our sincere concern about bias in the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) Alcohol Intake and Health (AIH) report, which could impact the 2025-20230 US Dietary Guidelines. Consumers need the best available information and clearly communicated, in-context summation of risks associated with alcohol, and the ICCPUD failed to do this, as CCC has previously made known.

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

FDA’s Ban on Red Dye No.3 Defies Scientific Evidence

Today the FDA issued a highly anticipated ban on Red Dye No. 3 as a color additive for food and ingested drugs. In their public statement, the FDA says in the same span of 295 words that Red No. 3 is being banned for representing a threat to public health, while also saying “there is no evidence showing FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in humans.

Stephen Kent, an analyst for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), an international consumer advocacy group, said of the FDA action:

“These color additives are in food and medicines for a reason, and it’s because consumers by-in-large enjoy the products more when they’re aesthetically pleasing. The campaign against Red No. 3 has been a scientific empty vessel from the start. Proponents of this ban will say that it’s not a big deal to have cereal, frozen treats and cupcakes be less colorful when public health is at stake, but they’ve failed to show evidence of harm and have instead relied on misinformation campaigns by social media influencers to frighten the public,” said Stephe Kent.

The FDA is relying on enforcing the Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, which prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals.

The ban takes effect in January 2027, offering further evidence of the lack of emergency or public health impact of these common additives on consumers. 

Kent continued, “You could argue the FDA is simply enforcing the law as it is written. When rats were exposed to the dye at extraordinarily high levels, cancer was a result – but it simply isn’t the case in human beings, and they know it. So the law needs to be changed and the public needs better information about the known risks. Red Dye No. 3 isn’t harmful, so we’re just going to have less visually appealing goods because of a law from 1960.” 

Read more about the Red No. 3 debate from the CCC

Washington Examiner

Newsmax Online

Bill Wirtz of the Consumer Choice Center told Newsmax prior to the FDA ban, “Here’s the crucial point to consider: The word “linked” does a lot of heavy lifting here because this particular dye only affected rats that were given unusually high doses in scientific studies. One could write at length about the reliability of animal studies and what they really mean for humans, but the mere fact that the doses were much higher than what even a human would consume shows us that environmental activists do not understand the concept of dosage. Too much of anything will be bad for you — in fact, “too much” describes quite literally the exact quantity that is excessive. For instance, this is equally true for glyphosate residues in beer or aspartame sweetener in Diet Coke. You would need to drink 264 gallons of beer for the glyphosate to adversely affect you or gulp down 36 cans of sugar-free Coke for the aspartame to be bad for you.”

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

ICCPUD Report on Alcohol Deserves Skepticism

After months of controversy around its development, Health and Human Services (HHS) has published its highly anticipated report on alcohol and health through the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD). The research was slammed in an October letter from 100 US Congressmen who expressed concern over its lack of transparency and known conflicts of interest by researchers involved in the ICCPUD report. 

The Consumer Choice Center’s (CCC) David Clement offered skepticism about the ICCPUD findings, saying “This research was way off target from the ICCPUD’s purpose, which is preventing underage drinking, and has instead focused on promoting abstaining from alcohol across all age groups. You don’t have to dig deep to find the ICCPUD report is co-authored by Tim Naimi, an anti-alcohol activist researcher with declared financial ties to the International Order of Good Templars, also known as Movendi, a temperance group.”

<< Read the CCC in the Washington Examiner on ICCPUD report >>

The ICCPUD report directly conflicts with another government-funded study on alcohol that was published in December by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which had a Congressional mandate for their research on alcohol. It found that moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to no alcohol consumption, and a lower risk of “all-cause mortality”. Heavy drinking increases those risks.

Clement continued, “This wave of conflicting information is a problem for consumers because the federal government’s consistent messaging on responsible drinking has made a real positive difference in curbing abuse. A prohibition mindset always backfires by misconstruing risk calculations to the public”

<< Read David Clement in the Financial Post on alcohol studies >>

There has been a steady stream of breaking news on alcohol and consumer health in recent weeks, peaking with the US Surgeon General’s advisory on a “causal link” between alcohol consumption and the risk of contracting cancer. The Consumer Choice Center has also expressed concern over that report and its stretched definition of what constitutes a meaningful “risk” to the consumer. 

“It is no small thing that 100 members of Congress asked for this ICCPUD research to be suspended before the new year. It hasn’t been transparent and did not allow for the proper vetting of researchers. And now we know why,” said David Clement. Experts from the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) have called the work of authors behind the ICCPUD “pseudo-scientific”. “

“With the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines coming together, Americans rely on unbiased government guidance for food and beverages like alcohol, and this ICCPUD report is highly counterproductive,” concluded Clement. 

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

NASEM Findings On Alcohol Safety Are A Win For Science & Consumer Choice

After Congress allocated $1.3 million to the Department of Agriculture and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to study alcohol’s impact on consumer health, the findings have been released in time to inform the 2025-2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines. NASEM’s findings were published today in the Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health and reported on by POLITICO.

Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center praised the National Academies’ process to research on alcohol, saying,

“There has been intense downward pressure by anti-alcohol activists within the World Health Organization to steer government recommendations against any and all consumption of alcohol, even at responsible levels. Consumers rely on unbiased government research to inform their dietary choices and NASEM delivered on their Congressionally backed mandate to review alcohol’s impact on individual health.”

The Biden Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) also launched its own health study on alcohol, not sanctioned by Congress, through the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking. Consumer advocates and 100 Congressmen expressed concern that the HHS report lacked basic transparency and independence from activists seeking to discourage Americans from drinking alcohol. 

** READ MORE FROM STEPHEN KENT: End HHS’ Misadventure on Alcohol Research (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) **

Kent continued, “The appearance of outside influence by the international temperance group, Movendi, is not an insignificant concern with how HHS has approached their research. Imagine a set of federal dietary guidelines featuring input from PETA regarding meat consumption. NASEM had a sufficiently transparent process that involved Congress and should be the only report considered by the USDA as they finalize the next set of US Dietary Guidelines.”

Takeaways from the National Academies report include: 

  • Moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to no alcohol consumption.
  • Moderate drinking is also associated with a lower risk of “all-cause mortality”, though heavy drinking increases such risks.
  • The existing recommendations of limiting drinking to 2 drinks a day for men and 1 for women are reasonable and safe guidelines for consumer enjoyment of alcohol. 

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

Elon Musk is right about the fun police

Right after the 2024 election, Tucker Carlson ramped up the promotion of his new nicotine pouch product, prompting Elon Musk to weigh in on the conservative host’s challenge to Zyn by calling out the “fun police” who stand against both Tucker’s odd humor and his zeal for pouches. The fun police are real, and they’ve shapeshifted and moved between political parties from era to era. 

Politics has gotten weird, especially if you grew up at the turn of the century during the George W. Bush administration when the definition of counter-culture was to blast Green Day’s American Idiot while blogging about Monsanto and bumming cigarettes at Warped Tour. Today, that same left-wing movement is the vanguard of what Noah Rothman and Andrew Doyle both dubbed “The New Puritans” in their 2022 books about the left’s prudish energy regarding speech and expression. 

That censoriousness didn’t end with moral panics over comedy and open debate on college campuses, instead, it has stretched into the realm of lifestyle choice to such an extent that smoking alternatives like nicotine pouches have been labeled as right-wing subculture. No one has ever researched this, but you could probably find a strong correlation between avid fans of Rage Against the Machine and support for banning gas-powered lawn tools, flavored vapes, plastic straws, and menthol cigarettes. We live in times where Green Day’s Billie Joe Armstrong put his reputation on the line for Kamala Harris, of all people. 

The American left’s realignment as a neo-prohibitionist block took hold in 2012 when New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled his plan to ban sugary drinks in NYC. In the years prior, Bloomberg had become the symbol of government activism around personal health with his action against trans fats, pushing restaurants to cut salt from their menu by 20 percent and sky-high taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking. 

It was a very different world. Michael Barbaro, now known for his New York Times podcast The Dailywrote in the NYT about Bloomberg’s noxious hypocrisy on nanny-state regulations. Barbar cataloged the Mayor’s well-known habits ranging from salting his pizza to salting his popcorn so heavily that it “burns the lips”. HuffPost reporter on right-wing politics, Christopher Mathias, ripped into Bloomberg’s cigarette taxes as the cause of NYC’s thriving black market for “loosie” cigarettes

“People have the right to get fat and drink too much, and I should have the right to smoke without being taxed out of next month’s rent,” said Mathias, just a few years before Eric Garner would be infamously killed at the hands of a New York City cop after being caught selling loosie cigarettes outside a bodega. The probationary policies of Bloomberg had predictably led to a black market for consumer products, and even more predictably led to tragedy when the crackdown on lifestyle freedom was enforced. 

If the Democrats had to own the handwringing over warning labels on profane music thanks to Tipper Gore, Democrats had to absorb the brand damage thanks to their most high-profile mayor going to war against soda. 

If the politics of the “fun police” are confusing, you’re not alone. It’s just as strange that Democrats are leading the crackdowns on nicotine pouches, which help lower smoking rates, as it is that Republicans are more likely to appear on irreverent podcasts with MMA fighters and roast comedians. 

If Footloose was being made today, you’d have to put money on the anti-dancing Reverend Shaw Moore being a Democrat. Dancing and revelry between teenagers could lead to unsanctioned physicality that makes someone somewhere uncomfortable. The puritanism of the modern left started with nanny state lifestyle regulations, fused with #MeToo in 2017, and racialized after the riots of 2020.

The end result is a once counter-cultural political party whose standard bearer is afraid to sit down for a chat with abortion advocate and psychedelics know-it-all, Joe Rogan. 

Elon Musk isn’t wrong. The fun police are out there and they really don’t like whatever Tucker Carlson is up to in his whimsical new chapter as a Maine-based podcaster with his own line of nicotine pouches. You can always be certain, however, that the fun police change sides when you least expect it. Keep a mirror handy, because you might see them there too, one day. 

Stephen Kent is the Media Director of the Consumer Choice Center

To President-Elect Trump: A Return To Consumer Choice 

Donald Trump has been elected to return to the White House in an overwhelming election against Vice President Kamala Harris. Many factors drove the US electorate toward supporting Trump-Vance, among them concerns about the economy, inflation, and the cost of living in America, as well as illegal immigration and the scope of government in people’s lives. Despite some indicators that Team Trump envisions a more activist federal government, Trump’s voters have resoundingly expressed a preference for less government in their lives. At the Consumer Choice Center, our chief concern has been ensuring that consumers of goods, products, and services have the maximum autonomy to make decisions about their own lives, health, and preferences. 

The freedom to vote with your wallet in everyday life is a core principle of our work and an indicator of how free a society truly is. Over the past four years, the Biden Administration has opened up a multifront war on consumer choice with inquisitions against tech innovation, free speech and privacy online, corporate mergers and acquisitions that lower prices and improve services, and even using federal agencies to discourage choice around responsible alcohol consumption and buying gas-powered cooking implements for home use. 

Over the next four years, President-Elect Donald Trump and JD Vance have an opportunity to get America back on track with a new approach on these issues:

1. Rein in the FTC’s Overreach and Focus on Genuine Consumer Harm

To strengthen consumer freedom and choice, the administration should work to rein in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and refocus its mission on addressing actual consumer harm. Under Chair Lina Khan, the FTC has aggressively pursued popular, successful companies, not necessarily because of consumer complaints or harm, but rather due to a general suspicion of large market players. This has been a spending boondoggle and dampened public trust in the FTC’s role as a consumer watchdog. Instead of targeting companies solely for their marketplace successes, the FTC should prioritize cases where consumer welfare is demonstrably threatened—like fraud, deceptive practices, or anti-competitive behavior that limits choices. Reorienting the FTC’s efforts back toward genuine consumer protection would ensure its resources are used effectively and that enforcement actions genuinely benefit consumers, rather than punishing companies simply for being innovative and experiencing growth.

2. Protect Digital and Data Privacy Rights

As more commerce and consumer services move online, data privacy becomes essential for consumer freedom and choice. Ensuring consumers can control their personal data and trust online services is key. Legislation or executive action that reinforces data protection while promoting transparency could strengthen consumers’ choices and security.

A reasonable national data privacy law that strengthens user privacy while providing streamlined certainty to firms that offer services to consumers can achieve this. As the Internet becomes more integral to our personal and economic relationships, reasonable measures to protect our information from both bad actors and government overreach should be addressed.
Added to this, the jawboning of various tech services and forced deplatforming and censorship of free speech online throughout the Biden Administration demonstrated the necessity and sanctity of Section 230. We hope the Trump Administration continues to uphold this vital piece of American law, granting online publishers and platforms the flexibility they need to offer consumers great services and products online.

3. Unleash Broadband Connectivity by Expanding LEO Satellite Networks

President-Elect Trump has a prime opportunity to bridge the digital divide by enabling more Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites to expand broadband access nationwide. The Biden administration poured nearly $65 billion into broadband initiatives as part of its Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, intending to connect millions of Americans to high-speed internet. However, many rural and underserved areas remain disconnected, bogged down by a regulatory approach that has struggled to deliver promised connectivity. By reducing bureaucratic hurdles and allowing more LEO satellites to launch, the Trump administration could rapidly expand high-speed internet access to hard-to-reach communities. LEO satellites, unlike traditional broadband infrastructure, offer near-global coverage without costly ground installations, making them ideal for remote and rural areas. With streamlined approval processes and incentives for satellite providers, Trump could fast-track a new era of connectivity—one that sidesteps the red tape that has stalled progress and finally connects Americans wherever they live.

4. Encourage Free Trade Agreements with Liberal Democratic Allies 

An important step to enhancing consumer freedom in the 21st century is to foster free trade agreements among American allies among liberal democracies. Tariffs and the shadow of trade war has been a staple of the Trump campaign since he first entered politics in 2016. President Biden even went so far as to borrow tariff policy from Donald Trump as a means to shore up American domestic business interests. The problem remains, what is best for consumers on tight budgets who prioritize affordability? 

By creating a robust trade network with countries committed to fair practices and liberal democratic norms, the U.S. can not only provide consumers with more diverse, affordable options but also curb the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the global economy. The CCP has repeatedly acted as a bad-faith player in international commerce—using subsidies, intellectual property theft, and market manipulations that undermine free-market principles. Rather than responding with blunt protectionism, which often limits consumer choices and drives up costs, the U.S. can lead a coalition of like-minded nations that champion open markets, transparency, and fair competition. Such a united front could better compete with CCP-backed entities and preserve a fairer, freer global marketplace for consumers worldwide. In practice, that means being committed to free trade with allies and thinking bigger about fairness in trade.

5. A Light Touch Approach to Crypto and 21st Century DeFi Tools 

President-Elect Trump has a unique opportunity to unleash the potential of cryptocurrency and strengthen financial freedom for Americans by adopting an innovation-friendly approach. 2024 was the first election in history where both Republican and Democrat campaigns made an appeal to consumers in the crypto market. This is monumental progress toward consumer financial freedom. Trump and Vance could promote a clear, light-touch regulatory framework, giving consumers and entrepreneurs confidence in their investments without stifling growth. Worthwhile legislation to ban the introduction of a Central Bank Digital Currency, reform the Bank Secrecy Act, promote a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, and provide a regulatory path for stablecoins to boost the American dollar would be key to this success.

Reducing barriers for crypto exchanges and clarifying tax rules would also make it easier for Americans to access and invest in digital assets. President Trump could also encourage decentralized finance (DeFi) tools (especially considering he’s the head of one), empowering individuals to manage finances outside traditional banks and credit card companies. Finally, by working with international allies on shared standards, Donald Trump could ensure the U.S. remains a leader in this global industry—especially crucial as China tightens control over its own digital currency. With this approach, Trump could position the U.S. as a hub for crypto innovation, reaping economic benefits while safeguarding consumer choice and financial freedom. Republicans in Congress will need to be rapidly educated on the mechanics of cryptocurrency and decentralized finance tools, lest enemies of this sector such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, set the tone in Washington on this issue. 

6. More Transparency In Healthcare Will Go A Long Way For Consumers

The incoming Trump administration has an opportunity to drastically improve the healthcare space in a way that will greatly benefit consumers and patients. One easy first step would be to require that health insurance firms increase transparency and publicly release meaningful data on which services require pre-authorization, how often pre-authorization requests are denied, how often coverage is denied, and other crucial metrics to help consumers make more educated decisions when entering into insurance plans. 

Additionally, while President-Elect Donald Trump has previously endorsed an “America First” mentality, it is our hope that this does not negatively bleed into healthcare policy. He’s previously championed the “Most Favored Nation” rule, which allows foreign governments to decide the value of certain medicines. In reality, this price-setting mechanism would cause disruptions to patient access to certain medications while disincentivizing important medical innovation. A better path forward will be to allow meaningful competition amongst manufacturers while maintaining strong intellectual property protections that safeguard and promote more research and development.

7. End the World Health Organization’s Meddling in US Policymaking

President-Elect Donald Trump and JD Vance need to act quickly to diminish the influence of the World Health Organization (WHO) in U.S. policymaking on consumer products. One of the most pressing live issues where the WHO’s presence can be felt is the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) study of the health impacts of adult alcohol consumption, which is designed to rework the US Dietary Guidelines and discourage any and all safe consumption of alcohol products. Consumer choice matters, and the WHO’s research has been shown to be tainted by activist bias and published in disregard of the most reputable scientific research on the health impacts of responsible enjoyment of alcohol. The same goes for the international campaign against nicotine products that are reducing the harm of smoking combustible tobacco in the US, UK and Canada. The FDA has stonewalled the growth of smokeless nicotine products, despite evidence from within the EU that shows the enormous public health potential of offering smokers an alternative. Donald Trump and JD Vance can get this balancing act right and get the federal government on the side of harm reduction and sound science by increasing skepticism within federal agencies of the World Health Organization.

en_USEN

Follow us

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org