Jeff Stier: If FDA doesn’t get it right on vaping, Gottlieb should go

CONTACT:
Jeff Stier
Senior Fellow
Consumer Choice Center
[email protected]

Jeff Stier: If FDA doesn’t get it right on vaping, Gottlieb should go

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In an article published on American Greatness, Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, brings attention to the FDA’s move to restrict vaping and e-cigarette flavors and calls on Trump to bring FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to task if he doesn’t get vaping regulations right.

“If the FDA doesn’t get it right— this month— President Trump should ask, in an exit interview, why Gottlieb couldn’t achieve a central promise of the administration: improving our lives not with more regulation, but with less of it, wisely implemented,” said Stier.

“We should all be able to agree that E-cigarettes are not entirely safe and should not be used by kids.

“At the same time, as Public Health England has been saying for more than three years, e-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than combustible cigarettes and can help smokers quit.

In its new plan, the FDA should implement the legitimate common ground by taking the following three steps:

1: Focus on the bad-actors. The FDA should act swiftly and forcefully, as it has the authority to do, against any retailer caught selling an e-cigarette to a minor.

2: The FDA must work constructively with the industry it regulates.

3: Make good on the promise to change misconceptions about nicotine, which, while addictive, is not the major cause of tobacco-related disease.

What should FDA not do?

1: Remove e-cigarettes from all stores except vape shops.

2: Allow either side to erode common ground. Just as the FDA shouldn’t be lenient with those who sell or give e-cigarettes to kids, it shouldn’t allow false assertions about the risks of e-cigarettes to stand unchallenged.

3: Fall prey to the notion that the FDA has in its power the ability to prevent every last youth from every trying an e-cigarette.

When giving the FDA authority to regulate recreational lower-risk nicotine products, Congress believed the FDA could be sophisticated enough to at once prevent youth use while helping adults quit smoking.

Sadly, to date, the FDA has accomplished little on either front. These failures don’t justify a misplaced “crackdown” on e-cigarettes. They require an intensive focus on stopping the bad actors,” said Stier.

***CCC Senior Fellow Jeff Stier 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.

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.

Common Ground Will Rescue Us From E-cigarette and Vape Wars

CONTACT:

Jeff Stier
Senior Fellow
Consumer Choice Center
[email protected]

Common Ground Will Rescue Us From E-cigarette and Vape Wars

WASHINGTON – As the midterm elections wrap up across the country, the FDA is readying its new action plan concerning e-cigarettes.

Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, offers these simple steps to follow if the FDA wants to adhere to common ground:

“We should all be able to agree that E-cigarettes are not entirely safe and should not be used by kids,” said Stier.

“At the same time, as Public Health England has been saying for more than three years, e-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than combustible cigarettes and can help smokers quit.

To maximize protection to Americans of all ages, the FDA must finally formulate sensible, science-based policies to achieve two key goals:

  • Prevent youth from initiating the use of any nicotine-containing product, including e-cigarettes.
  • Foster switching by adult smokers who have been unable to quit by other means.

The FDA is threatening that because of “news reports,” public opinion and data about youth use that the agency hasn’t released, it may soon remove many e-cigarettes from the market, including most flavors, as well as the pods they come in, until a manufacturer applies for and receives approval for each product.

The agency is also warning that it may ban sales everywhere except in vape shops.

But it’s not too late. In its new plan, the FDA should implement the legitimate common ground by taking the following three steps:

1: Focus on the bad-actors. The FDA should act swiftly and forcefully, as it has the authority to do, against any retailer caught selling an e-cigarette to a minor.

2: The FDA must work constructively with the industry it regulates.

3: Make good on the promise to change misconceptions about nicotine, which, while addictive, is not the major cause of tobacco-related disease.

What should FDA not do?

1: Remove e-cigarettes from all stores except vape shops.

2: Allow either side to erode common ground. Just as the FDA shouldn’t be lenient with those who sell or give e-cigarettes to kids, it shouldn’t allow false assertions about the risks of e-cigarettes to stand unchallenged.

3: Fall prey to the notion that the FDA has in its power the ability to prevent every last youth from every trying an e-cigarette.

When giving the FDA authority to regulate recreational lower-risk nicotine products, Congress believed the FDA could be sophisticated enough to at once prevent youth use while helping adults quit smoking.

Sadly, to date, the FDA has accomplished little on either front. These failures don’t justify a misplaced “crackdown” on e-cigarettes. They require an intensive focus on stopping the bad actors.

If the FDA doesn’t get it right— this month— President Trump should ask, in an exit interview, why FDA leadership couldn’t achieve a central promise of the administration: improving our lives not with more regulation, but with less of it, wisely implemented,” said Stier.

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.

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.

U.S. Midterm Primer: What’s at stake for consumer choice?

The Consumer Choice Center doesn’t take positions on any specific political campaigns or elections, but there are at least some interesting state-level ballot proposals happening around the country that could overwhelmingly benefit consumer choice.

In the U.S. federal system, state residents are eligible to vote on certain popular initiatives and state constitutional amendments that will have a major impact on daily life for citizens and consumers.

CANNABIS

Michigan and North Dakota will both vote to legalize cannabis at the state level in separate ballot initiatives. Legalizing cannabis would be a boon to the economy and consumer choice, removing cannabis sales from the black market and allowing governments to both regulate and tax it safely and securely. That’s a huge win for consumers in those states. The same applies to medical cannabis on the ballot in Utah and Missouri. Allowing legitimate medical patients the ability to use cannabis to cure their ailments legally will help potentially thousands of consumers.

GROCERY TAXES

In Washington State and Oregon, there are separate ballot proposals that would prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing additional taxes on grocery items. That would favor all consumers, and help ensure that hard-working American families won’t be forced to pay higher prices for what they already consume, or be forced to shop across city and county lines in order to find the most affordable food. Because they’re regressive, grocery taxes end up hurting lower income houses the most. By capping local jurisdictions’ abilities to raise taxes on groceries across the board, the proposal would ensure Washington and Oregon consumers won’t be subject to discriminatory tax hikes at the local level.

If Seattle is any indication, which passed a city-wide soda tax last year, consumers would be cautious. The soda tax was intended to lower consumption of sugary beverages, but considering the city now estimates it’ll collect $6 million more in taxes than they anticipated, more people are actually buying sodas than before or the numbers are wrong. Data we have from Cook County, Philadelphia, and Mexico consistently shows that higher soda taxes push people to seek alternatives with even more sugar or to shop across state lines to get their sugary drinks. Soda tax measures are well-intentioned, but end up hurting the poor.

ENERGY AND VAPING

Similarly, California’s Prop 6 would require voter approval for all future vehicle tax and fuel fees, as well as cancel the 2017 fuel taxes enacted by the state legislature. Such a proposal ensures consumers have a voice on the fees tacked on for those who drive cars and rely on transportation.

A ballot proposal in Florida seeks to ban both offshore drilling and vaping indoors in the same proposition. The fact that these questions are coupled together is unfair to Florida’s citizens and consumers. Vaping is proven to be less harmful than smoking and shouldn’t be treated the same as tobacco.

NET NEUTRALITY AND INTERNET REGULATIONS

Not up for a vote but still very important issue are a number of states considering their own net neutrality Internat regulations. As we saw in California, state legislatures and executives are considering passing their own rules for Internet regulation. Allowing each and every state to impose their own Internet rules would burden consumers and harm innovation.

More than that, state-level Internet regulations will threaten the vast entrepreneurial and tech space that is growing across the country, and push companies to set up in jurisdictions that promise true Internet freedom rather than state-imposed regulation of content and delivery of Internet services.

FEDERAL ISSUES IN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

Along with state ballot proposals, the entire U.S. House will be up for election, as well as two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. Important issues on our radar include the future of fees and taxes imposed on the airline passengers, proposals to ban single-use plastics, self-driving car and truck regulations, national cannabis decriminalization, health care freedom, and many more.

Be sure to follow the Consumer Choice Center on social media, subscribe to our newsletter and join CCC as a member, and consider making a donation if you believe our work is important for lifestyle freedom, market access, and consumer choice.

mm

About Yaël Ossowski

Yaël Ossowski is a journalist, activist, and writer. He's currently deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, and senior development officer for Students For Liberty. He was previously a national investigative reporter and chief Spanish translator at Watchdog.org, and worked at newspapers and television stations across the country. He received a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics, Economics (PPE) at the CEVRO Institute in Prague. Born in Québec and raised in the southern United States, he currently lives in Vienna, Austria.

Opinion: a vape tax would cost more than what the government thinks

ELITE BUSINESS MAGAZINE: The UK government is currently considering introducing a sin tax on vape products for the purpose of finding additional resources to fund the NHS. Theresa May’s government is looking to add an additional tax of 5% to vape products, which would directly impact the UK’s 2.9 million vapers and jeopardise successes achieved through the UK’s progressive approach towards tobacco harm reduction.

The UK has a leading role in the world of tobacco harm reduction and nearly a quarter of all smokers were able to either use electronic cigarettes in order to quit smoking or reduce smoking. This is five times as much as the global average. But its leading role is not only shown by the astonishing number of vapers in the country but also by the fact that even the NHS admits that switching from traditional cigarettes to electronic cigarettes reduces the risk of cancer and other smoking-related diseases.

The UK is often called a vape nation and its embrace of harm reduction is novel in a world where most public health institutions including the World Health Organization (WHO) still actively block tobacco harm reduction. One of many examples of the WHO’s opposition to vaping is their suggestion to its members to ban indoor vaping even though there’s no evidence supporting this policy recommendation. The active opposition to safer and healthier methods of consuming nicotine reminds one of dark times when many institutions blocked the distribution of condoms and thus made HIV harm reduction harder.

Introducing a vape tax in order to realize populist promises to increase the NHS’ funding would not only be short-sighted but also counter-productive. Consumers will be harmed by making the transition to less risky products such as electronic cigarettes more expensive. Further taxing vape products ultimately makes them more expensive, which decreases the likelihood that smokers will make the switch.

It is also important to note that vapers actually reduce the fiscal burden for NHS, given that vape products are significantly less risky. The Royal College of Physicians endorses vaping as a healthier substitute to smoking and many experts second its view that vaping is at least 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes.

A recent Gallup survey shows that especially millennials tend to switch to electronic cigarettes as a less-harmful way of consuming nicotine. Older generations are often still unaware of the health benefits of vaping. So instead of treating it as a sin and taxing it, we should actively inform smokers about the advantages of switching. This is good for smokers and public finances.

Less vapers means more smoking-related diseases the NHS will have to deal with. The tax could at the end of the day even cost significantly more than it will yield in revenues. A no-brainer that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should better drop this idea.

At the end of the day this sin tax punishes consumers who are otherwise saving the NHS money. In terms of public health, harm reduction, and consumer choice, creating a vape sin tax is a big mistake. Britain can lead as a shining beacon of tobacco harm reduction in the world. We should not lose this advantage by introducing a costly tax.

http://elitebusinessmagazine.co.uk/legal/item/opinion-a-vape-tax-would-cost-more-than-what-the-government-thinks

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.

Vapor Companies Respond To FDA Warning Letters

BREAZY: One of the most straightforward responses from vapor companies came from Consumer Choice Center, whose senior fellow, Jeff Stier, applauded the FDA’s efforts. He also said that responsible regulation is possible while still offering adult consumers an alternative to cigarettes that significantly reduces the harm from smoking.

“We applaud FDA for cracking down on online and physical retailers running afoul of the law and selling vaping and nicotine-delivery products to kids under 18,” Stier said. “The presence of life-saving products like Juul and other e-cigarettes are a boon to public health. But anti-e-cigarette activists want to throw the baby out with bathwater.”

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.

CCC Comments to FDA on Tobacco Product Standard for Nicotine Level of Combusted Cigarettes

Jeff Stier

Senior Fellow

Consumer Choice Center

New York, NY

July 10, 2018

Submission to the Food & Drug Administration

Submit your own comments:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2017-N-6189-0001

 

The FDA’s consideration of a product standard to set a maximum nicotine level for cigarettes is a dangerous experiment justified only by good intentions and faulty research. Further, even if the FDA’s scant research were validated with the substantial research that is necessary to implement such a risky proposal, especially at a time when smoking rates continue to decline at an an unprecedented rate, implementation would not be appropriate until a robust array of satisfying lower-risk products were available to adult smokers who understood the differences in risk.

Good intentions, Unintended Consequences:

A ban on today’s cigarettes could have significant unintended consequence, leading to compensatory smoking, where smokers inhale more dangerous chemicals in an effort to get the nicotine they crave. The agency’s only science to support this risky policy is based on unvalidated modeling.

The agency also fails to address the obvious risk that this potential change would cause an explosion in the already-significant illicit trade in cigarettes. Because nicotine is so addictive, especially in cigarettes, smokers would find a way to get the cigarettes they prefer, even if it requires going to the black market.

Although the FDA is, as required by law, seeking comments on these issues, the agency’s haste in advancing this plan before the science exists to validate it, is troubling.

The FDA was in such a rush to move forward with the announcement of this ANPR, that my meeting with the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which was confirmed in writing on February 21st, was cancelled just in time for the FDA’s announcement that the ANPR was moving forward.

Contrast this hastiness with the FDA’s ongoing failure to keep its promise to develop product standards for ENDS, to fully and in a timely way grant PMTA and MRTP to snus and to heated tobacco. Without transparent rules which would make it easier to bring lower-risk non-combustible nicotine products such as e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn tobacco to market, adult smokers faced with a dramatic reduction will have only the black market to turn to.

The agency must also do a better job making sure consumers are fully informed about the differing risks of an emerging and diverse range of lower-risk nicotine products. In order for that to happen, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control, local governments and leading public health organizations will have to correct the widespread misperceptions they have created about lower-risk “tobacco” products.

Scant and Faulty Research: 

On June 18th, 2018, Commissioner Gottlieb stated, “As we evaluate the best ways to regulate tobacco products, based on scientific evidence as well as the law, we depend on rigorous science to inform our policies and save lives.”

Yet to date, the preliminary science behind a nicotine rule is anything but rigorous. It relies on assumptions plugged into simulation models that are not based on real-world evidence of how smokers would respond to dramatic reductions in cigarettes- because no such evidence exists at this point in time.

It appears that the FDA is pushing a policy agenda and looking for the science to support it. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Premature:

On July 28, 2017, the FDA extended timelines for premarket tobacco applications for non-combustible products, such as e-cigarettes, until August 8, 2022. The agency did so “In order to allow the FDA to encourage innovation that has the potential to make a notable public health difference—and to inform future policies and efforts that will protect kids and help smokers quit cigarettes.”

The FDA stated at the time, nearly one year ago, that it plans to issue “foundational rules to make the product review process more efficient, predictable, and transparent for manufacturers, while (emphasis added) upholding the agency’s public health mission.”

The use of the word “while” suggests that issuing those rules could somehow undermine the agency’s public health mission. Yet in fact, it is the lack of such rules that are inconsistent with the agency’s public health mission. A robust market of lower risk-recreational nicotine products that have completed the PMTA process must be in place before the FDA implements a nicotine rule for combustible cigarettes.

Furthermore, the agency must take proactive steps to increase awareness of the promise of tobacco harm reduction. Studies have found an increase in the proportion of U.S. adults who incorrectly believe e-cigarettes to be as harmful as combustible cigarettes.

The agency promise that,  “Among other things, the FDA intends to issue regulations outlining what information the agency expects to be included in Premarket Tobacco Applications (PMTAs), Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) applications and reports to demonstrate Substantial Equivalence (SE). The FDA also plans to finalize guidance on how it intends to review PMTAs for ENDS.”

But to date, it has not issued anything along these lines, while at the same time it has rushed forward the nicotine rule.

On March 15, 2018, Commissioner Gottlieb stated that “We said from the outset that ours was a comprehensive approach that requires us to pursue all of its parts in tandem.” Yet the agency’s actions belie this commitment.

The FDA is correct that in order for a nicotine rule to potentially be effective, if backed up by rigorous science, there must be a range of lower-risk nicotine products available under PMTA and MRTP. However, the reverse is not true. In order for a tobacco harm reduction strategy to advance public health, it is not necessary to reduce nicotine in combustible cigarettes. I concede, that if unintended consequences of such a rule can be eliminated, it is clear how both prongs can work together to accelerate smoking cessation, with a two-pronged approach. But if the science, when it is complete, not support the dramatic reduction of nicotine in cigarettes, tobacco harm reduction is still absolutely in the interest of public health. While an incentive (non-satisfying cigarettes) would be eliminated, the most powerful incentive for most people is the will to live and to minimize harm to their own health. In order to reduce smoking rates, it is critical that the FDA fosters innovation through the PMTA and MRTP as required by Congress.

Congress did not authorize the FDA to properly implement PMTA and MRTP only if it is able to dramatically reduce nicotine in cigarettes. In fact, Congress required FDA to implement PMTA and MRTP. It only authorized FDA to reduce nicotine in cigarettes. The idea that “you can’t have one without the other” is a gross misrepresentation of the Tobacco Control Act.

Recommendations:

The agency should prioritize the development of a product review process for lower-risk products to be more efficient, predictable, and transparent for manufacturers, in order to truly advance the agency’s public health mission.

This part of the comprehensive plan needs to be in place first, giving time for investors to invest, allowing innovators to innovate, manufacturers to comply with the regulatory process, and the agency and public health groups to undo misperceptions about nicotine, before nicotine levels in cigarettes might be lowered.  Doing so is essential in order to minimize a black market for full nicotine cigarettes. The agency should look to Public Health England for guidance on how this can be done effectively, given the UK’s recent unprecedented successes in reducing smoking rates by embracing tobacco harm reduction.

At the same time, the agency should begin to develop rigorous, comprehensive and unbiased science that either supports, or doesn’t support, the policy put forth in the ANPR. Because the agency’s apparent intent to advance the rule even before a scientific basis exists, the agency will have to take extraordinary steps to insulate the entire research effort is free of confirmation bias.

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.

San Francisco voters chose to keep ordinance banning flavorings in tobacco products

WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL: Jeff Stier, senior fellow with Consumer Choice Center, said he does not dispute that the ordinance is designed to help protect youths from tobacco products.

“Yet, the ordinance would change the legal status of the sale of flavored e-cigarettes to adults exclusively,” Stier said,

Stier challenged the FDA to “speak out about how a local ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes to adults could undermine the FDA’s comprehensive regulatory plan to fight smoking, given the role flavors in e-cigarettes play in helping adult smokers quit.”

“The FDA should alert the public to how the ordinance would undermine federal anti-smoking efforts.”

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.

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.