trump

Trump Lays Foundation for Deregulation — Now He Should Cement It

How do you modernize the United States, make it open to innovation, free its entrepreneurs, and show that it is open for business?

For decades, conservatives have made the case for deregulation as a way to relieve burdensome D.C. regulations. During his rallies, President Trump vaunts the advantages of cutting red tape, showing how regulation increases compliance costs for businesses, and ultimately ends up costing consumers. Slowly but surely, he has put that rhetoric into action as well. But will it be enough?

In 2017, through Executive Order 13771, President Trump pushed an excellent rule through that demands agencies repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation. It also ensures that, as they do so, the total cost of the regulations does not increase. This order made cutting through the regulatory jungle of the swamp an institutional task.

New executive orders signed by President Trump on October 9 will also help fight the longstanding problem of regulatory overreach. At the signing ceremony for these new declarations, Trump lambasted the thousands of pages of guidance documents that have been issued by bureaucrats as a “back door for regulators to effectively change the law” without going through the full comment period and approval process. His new orders require agencies to treat the guidance as non-binding, make all guidance readily available to the public, and take public input in notice and comment periods.

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt said that “these orders strike deep blows against an increasingly lawless, power-drunk administrative state.”

He’s right: it will certainly help the White House to clamp down on cases of abuse that receive enough public attention. However, what about the ones that don’t?

Unfortunately, this has all too often become the case. Power-hungry bureaucrats have become rather comfortable with quietly ignoring the Executive Orders currently on the books and getting away with it by operating in the shadows, outside of the public realm. For example, a number of conservative groups have drawn attention to a recent flagrant example of how bureaucrats have been caught disregarding Trump’s regulatory alleviation efforts.

In a coalition letter, thirteen conservative and free-market organizations, including Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, Americans for Limited Government, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, singled out Notice No. 176, a new rule proposed by The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) as emblematic for the above mentioned phenomenon.

As pointed out by the conservative groups, the new notice will more than double the amount of regulation set in the distilled spirits market. It seemingly comes in violation with not only Trump’s Executive Order 13771, but also Executive Order 12866 from the Clinton years, which requires a cost-benefit analysis for any new regulation that is economically significant.

TTB also frequently runs into the problem of overzealous guidance documents that Trump is aiming to fix. Nevertheless, this raises the question: what good will Trump’s new executive order be for bureaus and agencies that already have a history of ignoring his past ones?

Situations show that many bureaucrats, blinded by their lust for power, won’t respect executive orders just for the sake of it. A myriad of regulators will find the most convoluted ways of wiggling their way out of applying the actual law. And so, if the White House wants its admirable effort of deregulation to continue onwards, it needs to consider making personnel changes in cases when holdover bureaucrats disregard the laws that govern them.

In the case of TTB, it is quite simple. The current administrators are serving on an interim basis after an unexpected vacancy, and it would not require Senate approval to replace them. With other agencies that do require such approval, it will be more time-consuming and difficult but still nevertheless worth it. After all, it’s the only way to ensure that the anti-consumer red tape is ultimately lifted.

Bringing in people who believe in free enterprise as chief administrators will be the true key to reducing the federal government to a more adequate size. Previous administrations have shown the success a president can have when he makes sweeping changes to the people in bureaucracies.

The current administration is building a foundation of helpful deregulation, now it just needs to cement it in.

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.

Trump’s Medicare executive order

CONSERVATIVE GROUPS SEND LETTER ON VAPING — A coalition of 25 conservative groups is urging Trump to keep flavored e-cigarettes on the market, arguing the products are “essential to the success of vaping as an alternative to cigarette use long-term.”

Groups such as Americans for Tax Reform, Consumer Choice Center and FreedomWorks argued the administration’s envisioned flavored vape ban would go against the White House’s deregulatory agenda and “destroy thousands of small businesses.” This comes as the White House abruptly organized, and then canceled, a meeting with conservative groups over vaping, which it said at the time would be rescheduled.

Read the article from POLITICO here.


For more facts on vaping, read our research on the Myths and Facts on Vaping: What Policymakers Should Know


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

Transatlantic dialogue and not tariff war is the future of EU-US relationship

The World Trade Organization today has published a ruling giving the US the green light to impose punitive tariffs on the EU over the tariff on the EU subsidies for Airbus.

Luca Bertoletti, Senior European Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center says: “We hope policy makers will consider rejecting the use of tariffs to escalate the dispute between Airbus and Boeing. These tariffs will not only hurt the aerospace industry but also many other sectors and especially consumers. As there is a new European Parliament and very soon a new European Commission this is the right time for both EU and USA to bury the axe of war and restart the transatlantic dialogue” continued Bertoletti.

“The EU-US relationship is the strongest of the world and it should be based on common market challenges such as how to deal with growing authoritarianism in China, not on a commercial war among free nations which will just hurt consumers” concluded Bertoletti.

Originally posted 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.

Green Activists Hate Trump More Than They Love Animals

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just made history by announcing a plan to end wasteful taxpayer-funded animal testing by 2035. This is a huge win, but regulation-happy green groups criticizing the move have made clear that they hate the Trump administration more than they love animals and the environment.

Upon its release, the EPA’s landmark proposal was welcomed by animal-loving taxpayer advocates like us, as well as industry leaders, animal advocates, and scientists because it will eliminate wasteful and misleading animal tests that reduce consumer access to safe products, cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually, handcuff industry, and needlessly harm animals. The news even united lawmakers at far opposite ends of the political spectrum like Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz and Democratic Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen who worked together with White Coat Waste Project to expose the EPA’s animal tests last year.

Bloomberg’s Adam Allington tweeted, “In a rare moment of accord, the Trump EPA has done something many progressives can get behind — Setting a fairly ambitious plan to phase out chemical testing on animals.”

But not all progressives are cheering. In response to the EPA’s announcement, the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) voiced partisan outrage, alleging: “Trump Administration Guts Collection of Data on Toxic Chemicals.” NRDC alleges that without animal studies, it would be “much harder to identify toxic chemicals — and protect human health.” How so?

Animal testing represents the dark-ages of regulatory policy. It was more relevant when our tools to measure risk were primitive, but today’s technology allows much more precise ways to evaluate real-world risks. Researchers have repeatedly shown that 21st century technologies based on human biology — not crude and contrived tests in which rabbits, dogs and other animals are forced to swallow and breathe massive doses of chemicals — are best at predicting health effects in humans. Because of the inherent uncertainty of extrapolating from results on animals to humans, it is necessary to build in huge safety factors for human exposure.

But now, with more accurate scientific methods, we no longer need to rely on animal studies and the precautionary regulatory limits we had to accept a generation ago. Better precision will allow us to safely benefit from advanced chemistry such as the use of silicones which are essential to environmentally-friendly technologies such as modern energy-efficient lighting.

So why would environmental activists, who we’d think have an affinity towards animals, be up in arms over the move? We have a theory.

It’s that these activists are so hell-bent on banning synthetic chemicals that they are willing to support outmoded risk analysis tools to achieve their political agenda, even if it requires torturing animals.

An NRDC staffer told reporters about the modern non-animal tests, “If the tests themselves are not indicating a toxic effect, then EPA is presuming there is no toxic effect.” So, even though these new technologies are more accurate at predicting human risks, the greens apparently prefer the animal tests precisely because of the uncertainty they introduce, which can delay or prevent safe products from coming to market.

Last year, based on misleading animal testing, a California judge ordered Starbucks and other coffee sellers in the state to put cancer warnings on coffee. But it turned out the results were irrelevant to humans, for whom normal amounts of coffee consumption is safe, and the warning was called off.

Warning about a product when risks are not well-understood is prudent. But it would be absurd to continue to warn after the best science tells us there’s nothing to worry about, like in the case of 1,000 studies showing coffee is safe for humans and actually has health benefits. That’s exactly what environmentalists want.

Why? They have an extreme agenda that seeks to eliminate as many synthetic chemicals as possible based on an unscientific view that synthetic chemicals are killing the earth. So to gain broader public support, they’ve long feasted on uncertainty about human health allegations to build support for their anti-chemical ideology. But with better regulatory science now available, the ploy is no longer viable.

The move should please just about everyone except for extremists. A 2018 national poll found that 79 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of Democrats want to cut EPA’s animal testing.

Scientific innovation, appropriate regulation and bold leadership can resolve some of the world’s most intractable problems — and advance a more civil society at the same time.

Opposition to the EPA’s embrace of better regulatory science exposes the true colors of the radical green groups: they are willing to needlessly sacrifice not only animals, but scientific advances themselves, in order to achieve their narrow agenda.

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

Politicians are scapegoating e-cigs for harm they haven’t done

When there’s an outbreak of deaths or illnesses from injected street drugs, do public health authorities demand diabetics and doctors stop using syringes? Of course not. Yet a host of public officials — from President Trump to Gov. Andrew Cuomo to members of the Squad — are taking just that sort of approach in responding to the spate of vaping-related illnesses and deaths around the country.

Cuomo, for example, went on a tear Sunday about vaping, calling it “a burgeoning health crisis” and threatening to declare an emergency to ban flavored nicotine e-cigarettes. That followed Trump’s announcement last Wednesday of federal plans to prohibit such devices.

The dramatic sudden outbursts of concern come after six deaths and 380 severe acute pulmonary illnesses, including at least 41 in New York. The cases were linked not to nicotine e-cigarettes but to vaping THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

E-cigarettes like Juul are intended to be used to inhale nicotine, but other types of vaping devices can also deliver cannabis-derived substances such as butane hash oils, known as “dabs.”

Scientists at New York’s Department of Health have led the way in pointing the finger at black-market THC-containing liquids, finding “very high levels of vitamin E acetate in nearly all cannabis-containing samples analyzed” in their investigation.

State laboratory test results found that “at least one vitamin E acetate-containing vape product has been linked to each patient who submitted a product for testing.” Vitamin E acetate is an oily substance used to thicken cannabis-derived vaping liquids.

Vaping devices, including e-cigarette hardware, are simply devices for delivering an aerosolized solution. Nicotine e-cigarettes, which serve as a substitute for deadly cigarettes that burn tobacco, typically contain a solution of nicotine, flavorings and vegetable glycerin or propylene glycol.

Globally, tens of millions of people have used billions of e-cigarettes without any acute ill effects. In fact, the US Food and Drug Administration has told state health officials that lab testing of unused legal nicotine vape products of the type obtained from sick patients (who likely also used an illegal THC oil) found no contaminants or ingredients suspected of causing illness.

It’s a very different story when a vaporizer is used to deliver black-market street drugs like the cannabis-derived oils that are being dangerously adulterated with vitamin E acetate.

In announcing the planned federal ban on flavored e-cigarettes in the midst of the outbreak of lung disease, Trump is being misled. Vaping nicotine is an approach to harm-reduction, and appealing non-tobacco flavors are critical to reduce the likelihood that adults will revert to smoking cigarettes.

Exposure to nicotine is not healthy, to be sure, and kids should not vape (unless they already smoke cigarettes and want to transition to a less harmful alternative). But prohibition seldom works, and data from the FDA indicate that while vaping in teens is up, cigarette smoking has fallen to historic lows.

Still, elected officials continue their attack on e-cigarettes, recommending that nearly everyone stop vaping immediately.

That might seem like an abundance of caution, but it’s really an abundance of chicanery. Linking acute lung disease to e-cigarettes is no more logical than warning people about the dangers of vaccination because vaccines are delivered through a needle, and people can get hepatitis from dirty needles.

Expansive warnings to stop vaping altogether, instead of to avoid illicit contaminated THC products, are like advising ex-smokers who have switched to vaping to return to smoking cigarettes. That puts vapers’ lives at risk.

What we need is aggressive state, local and federal enforcement against teen vaping and Drug Enforcement Administration action against illegal THC vapes that cause lung disease.

Meanwhile, why are politicians and public health officials behaving so badly? We have a hypothesis: Until now, the most prominent allegations of serious health effects (even for adults) from e-cigarettes were hypotheticals — such as that vaping would be a “gateway” to cigarette smoking — that have failed to materialize.

In fact, teen cigarette-smoking has been declining. Now, with reports of verifiable acute illnesses and even deaths, politicians are brazenly attempting to indict nicotine vaping, even though their case against the practice is without merit.

In a reckless attempt to redeem their credibility in their war on e-cigarettes, they’ve doubled down on misinformation, disingenuously implying that cannabis-derived oils, home-brewed THC vapes and unadulterated nicotine-containing e-cigarettes all pose the same risks.

They think they can get away with it because … well, virtually nobody has challenged them. It’s time more people did.

Henry Miller is a Pacific Research Institute senior fellow and the founding director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Biotechnology. Jeff Stier is a Consumer Choice Center senior fellow.

Federal e-cigarette removal proposal brings cautious celebration, warnings of overreach

Some free-market advocates say they believe Trump is overreacting to the vaping and lung illness connection.

“Trump needs to know the fact that adult smokers are switching en masse to these new reduced-risk products and they’ve been proven to be 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes,” said Yaël Ossowski, the deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

“These individuals switch in part due to vaping flavors, and that should be kept in mind.

“We should not use isolated cases caused by illegal products to inform public policy on the life-saving capabilities of vaping devices for adults,” Ossowski said. “That is bad science and bad public policy.”

READ MORE HERE: https://www.journalnow.com/business/federal-e-cigarette-removal-proposal-brings-cautious-celebration-warnings-of/article_856313e5-0ab1-55e3-8667-1e7b483535cf.html

Trump Administration Takes Aim at E-Cigarettes

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, said the Trump administration needs to follow the facts.

“The fact is that the technological revolution that is happening today with vaping is giving people a less harmful alternative to consume nicotine, the stimulant alkaloid that smokers are actually addicted to. That’s something to celebrate,” Ossowski said.

“Trump needs to know that, as well as the fact that adult smokers are switching en masse to these new reduced-risk products and they’ve been proven to be 95 percent less harmful than traditional cigarettes. These individuals switch in part due to vaping flavors, and that should be kept in mind. That said, no one wants teens to be vaping, and we should make sure of that,” he said, adding “there is more we can do to stop youth vaping, but we must preserve this technology as a tool for adults to consume their nicotine in a less harmful fashion.”

READ MORE HERE: https://csnews.com/trump-administration-takes-aim-e-cigarettes

Before President Trump acts on vaping, someone please give him the facts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CONTACT:
Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center
[email protected]

Before Trump acts on vaping, someone please give him the facts

Washington, D.C. –
 According to U.S. health secretary Alex Azar, President Trump convened a policy meeting today to discuss the future of regulations on vaping and e-cigarettes.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center, responded by stating that someone must show Trump the facts.

“The fact is that the technological revolution that is happening today with vaping is giving people a less harmful alternative to consume nicotine, the stimulant alkaloid that smokers are actually addicted to. That’s something to celebrate,” said Ossowski.

“Trump needs to know that, as well as the fact that adult smokers are switching en masse to these new reduced-risk products and they’ve been proven to be 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes. These individuals switch in part due to vaping flavors, and that should be kept in mind.

“That said, no one wants teens to be vaping, and we should make sure of that. The latest CDC figures show that 20.8% of high schoolers have vaped at least once in the last 30 days. But nearly half of those were vaping cannabis rather than nicotine, cartridges often purchased illegally on the black market instead of via established outlets,” said Ossowski.

“We should not use isolated cases caused by illegal products to inform public policy on the life-saving capabilities of vaping devices for adults. That is bad science and bad public policy.

“There is more we can do to stop youth vaping, but we must preserve this technology as a tool for adults to consume their nicotine in a less harmful fashion,” said Ossowski.

A Consumer Choice Center survey from March 2019 found that two-thirds of Americans agree that they should have the freedom of choice to buy e-cigarettes if they believe they are a lower health risk to them than tobacco.

More information on harm reduction is available on our website.

***CCC Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski is available to speak with accredited media on consumer regulations and consumer choice issues. Please send media inquiries HERE.***

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.

Scroll to top