American Consumer Institute

State-by-state food ingredient laws are creating a costly regulatory patchwork that could raise grocery prices, reduce consumer choice, and complicate interstate commerce. The FRESH Act of 2026 would establish a uniform federal framework for ingredient oversight while preempting conflicting state rules. That’s a meaningful step toward reducing compliance burdens and protecting consumers from higher costs caused by 50 different food-rule regimes. At the same time, the bill should avoid replacing state overreach with unnecessary federal bottlenecks. Oversight should focus on evidence, transparency, and real risk—not politics or paperwork for its own sake. A smarter national standard can protect both food safety and affordability. Read more by @JustinLeventhal here: theamericanconsumer.org/2026/05/the-fr…

Buying in bulk saves money because larger orders lower per-unit costs. That principle drives everything from warehouse retailers to grocery supply chains. But some policymakers are now advancing theories that could treat those volume discounts as discriminatory under the Robinson-Patman Act. The concern isn’t theoretical: limiting scale-based pricing could reduce one of the most practical ways consumers manage rising costs. Competition policy should protect consumers — not make everyday purchases more expensive.

The debate over the Robinson-Patman Act isn’t just about antitrust law — it’s about how markets function. Recent enforcement actions and legislative proposals could challenge common pricing practices like bulk discounts, even when those discounts are available to any buyer meeting the same purchasing threshold. The result could mean fewer discounts, compressed pricing, and higher costs for households already managing tight budgets. Consumers benefit when markets reward efficiency and scale. Read more by @tzduren here: theamericanconsumer.org/2026/05/dc-jou…

There’s a reason consumers shop at warehouse stores: buying more lowers the per-unit cost. That’s not a loophole — it’s basic economics. Economies of scale reduce distribution and transaction costs, and those savings get passed on to consumers. New efforts to reinterpret the Robinson-Patman Act could put standard volume discounts under regulatory scrutiny, treating lower prices for bulk purchases as potentially “unfair.” If policymakers undermine scale-based pricing, consumers may ultimately see the impact where it matters most: at the checkout line.

Today we honor the brave men and women who gave their lives in service to our country and the freedoms Americans cherish. Their sacrifice reminds us that liberty, opportunity, and the freedom to choose are protected through courage and service. We remember and honor them today and always.

ACI Urges FTC to Prioritize Transparency Without Undermining Consumer Choice in Food Delivery Pricing theamericanconsumer.org/2026/05/public…

ACI Urges Congress to Reject Expansion of FDIC Deposit Insurance theamericanconsumer.org/2026/05/coalit…

The ESA Amendments Act of 2025 would strengthen collaboration between federal agencies, states, local governments, and private landowners — recognizing that conservation solutions work best when informed by local expertise. The legislation also aims to reduce excessive litigation, improve scientific transparency, and shift resources toward actual species recovery instead of procedural disputes. A modernized ESA should deliver results for both species conservation and project certainty. Read more here: theamericanconsumer.org/2026/05/the-ec…

The Endangered Species Act was designed to protect wildlife — but after 50 years, only 3% of listed species have recovered. Meanwhile, infrastructure and land management projects face mounting delays, litigation, and rising costs. The ESA Amendments Act of 2025 would refocus the law on measurable species recovery, stronger scientific standards, and greater transparency in agency decision-making. Modernizing ESA implementation can support both conservation and responsible development.

Consumers benefit from safe, affordable food—not from 50 conflicting state regulatory regimes governing the same ingredients. Yet across the country, states are increasingly adopting their own food-additive bans, warning-label mandates, school-food restrictions, and disclosure requirements. The result is a growing compliance maze that could force manufacturers to reformulate products, redesign labels, maintain separate inventories, or leave smaller markets entirely. Those costs ultimately show up in grocery prices and reduced consumer choice. The FDA Review and Evaluation for Safe, Healthy (FRESH) and Affordable Foods Act of 2026 is an attempt to address that problem by replacing the emerging state-by-state patchwork with a uniform federal framework. The bill would strengthen oversight of food ingredients, formalize portions of the GRAS process, establish post-market review mechanisms, and preempt certain state ingredient regulations affecting interstate commerce. Its strongest feature is national uniformity. A single federal standard would reduce uncertainty, simplify compliance, and preserve the efficiencies of a national food market. The bill also moves in the right direction by emphasizing post-market review over blanket premarket restrictions, allowing regulators to respond when credible evidence of harm emerges without unnecessarily blocking market access. Still, the legislation could be improved further. Greater federal oversight should not become centralized overregulation. GRAS notification requirements should remain predictable and evidence-based, third-party review standards should be transparent, and long-established low-risk ingredients should not face unnecessary new barriers absent credible safety concerns. The broader issue is straightforward: fragmented regulation increases costs for consumers. A balanced national framework can help protect food safety while also preserving affordability, competition, and consumer choice.

Consumers need safe, affordable food. A growing patchwork of state bans, warning labels, and ingredient mandates risks higher grocery prices, fewer choices, and costly compliance chaos. A uniform national standard can protect safety, preserve consumer choice, and keep food costs down while relying on evidence-based oversight instead of political patchworks. #ConsumerPolicy #FRESHAct

The growing patchwork of state food-additive laws threatens to increase grocery costs, reduce product availability, and create confusion for consumers and manufacturers alike. The FRESH Act aims to solve that problem by creating a single national standard for food ingredient oversight and limiting conflicting state regulations. National uniformity would help preserve economies of scale, reduce compliance costs, and make it easier for companies to sell the same products nationwide. The bill also includes reforms to the GRAS process, expanded post-market review authority, and pathways for third-party scientific review. While these changes could improve transparency and consistency, lawmakers should ensure the system does not become overly centralized or burdensome for smaller innovators.

"Our freight train system is the envy of the world today." -Marc Scribner

"When you make permitting more streamlined and efficient, that doesn't hurt the environment." -Kristen Walker

"Permitting delays and blocks have caused electricity cost on the east coast to significantly increase." -Kristen Walker

"These delays cause higher capital costs, lost investments, and push industries overseas." -Kristen Walker

"Page lengths of environmental assessments and impacts have significantly increased. There is a lot of time and money spent to put these assessments together to avoid the risk of litigation." -Kristen Walker