Tag: General News

Quick Take

A U.S. Department of Agriculture program that promotes the growth of community gardens in areas with little access to fresh food encourages community groups to register with the USDA. But social media posts misleadingly suggest the USDA wants anyone with a garden to register, “so everyone knows where the people who grow their own food are.”

---

Full Story

Fresh and affordable fruits and vegetables are vital for the health of a community, but there are many communities in the United States that do not have access to fresh foods. These areas are known as food deserts. They are characterized by low-income areas where people have limited public transportation.

There are an estimated 19 million Americans whose communities don’t have conveniently located grocery stores or supermarkets, according to a 2017 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food deserts disproportionately affect Black communities, researchers found in a paper published in Preventive Medicine.

That’s why the USDA created the People’s Garden, an initiative to help make fresh food available to communities that have barriers to access. The initiative was launched in 2009 with gardens planted at USDA facilities and in communities around the country.

In May 2022, the USDA announced a “reopening” of the program with the planting of a garden at the department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., with plans to expand the program to include “flagship gardens” in 17 cities. Four months later, the USDA expanded the program to include “eligible gardens nationwide.”

“School gardens, community gardens, urban farms, and small-scale agriculture projects in rural, suburban and urban areas can be recognized as a ‘People’s Garden’ if they register on the USDA website and meet criteria including benefitting the community, working collaboratively, incorporating conservation practices and educating the public,” the USDA said in a Sept. 9, 2022, press release.

The People’s Garden web page has a map of all registered community gardens in the program.

But an Instagram post on Sept. 21 misleadingly suggests a nefarious intention behind the People’s Garden program. The post shows a garden in the background and a headline dated Oct. 4, 2022, that reads: “USDA now asking people to register their vegetable gardens for national database.” There are two faces in the foreground of the post. One says, “Register your garden.” The other replies: “No, I don’t think I will.”

The caption at the top of the post reads, “USDA: ‘let’s register and put you on a publicly available map so everyone knows where the people who grow their own food are.” The post received nearly 17,000 likes.

Another social media post shares a similar view of the USDA program, saying: “Man claims the USDA is cracking down on people with personal gardens that grow their own vegetables.”

But the People’s Garden program is voluntary and doesn’t require individuals to register their home gardens. The program is aimed at encouraging the creation of community farms and gardens that “produce local food, practice sustainability, and bring people together in their community,” as the USDA website explains.

The headline on the Instagram post appears to come from a 2022 article that said, “In a move that has many folks scratching their heads, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has renewed its push for the People’s Garden Initiative which now includes registering vegetable gardens nationwide.” The article also said, “But those who have been following the USDA closely for years know that they couldn’t care less about your health and nutrition.”

As we said, the posts misrepresent the USDA’s mission for the People’s Garden. Private farms and gardens aren’t eligible for the program and don’t need to register with the USDA. 

Update, Oct. 3: A USDA spokesperson told us in an Oct. 3 email, “Because this is a celebration of both community and gardening, private home gardens are not eligible” to register in the People’s Garden program. There are 1,500 community gardens registered in the People’s Garden database, the spokesperson also said.

---

Sources

Anne E. Casey Foundation. “Food Deserts in the United States.” 13 Feb 2021.

Bower, Kelly M., et al. “The intersection of neighborhood racial segregation, poverty, and urbanicity and its impact on food store availability in the United States.” Preventive Medicine. Jan 2014.

Food Empowerment Project. “Food Deserts.” Accessed 27 Sep 2023.

Garden Center. “Keep America Beautiful and the Department of Agriculture team up to grow nearly 700 People’s Gardens.” 7 Dec 2010.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. “Low-Income and Low-Supermarket-Access Census Tracts, 2010-2015.” Jan 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. “USDA Renews People’s Garden Initiative.” Press release. 3 May 2022.

Source

Quick Take

While campaigning in South Carolina, former President Donald Trump saw a handgun at a gun store with his image and name on it. “I want to buy one,” he said. An online video shows Trump in the store, but the post claims he purchased the gun. The Trump campaign said, “He simply indicated he wanted one.”

---

Full Story

During a campaign swing through South Carolina on Sept. 25, former President Donald Trump stopped by a boat factory, spoke to supporters at a rally, and took a tour of a gun store.

While walking through the gun shop, the Palmetto State Armory in Summerville, Trump admired a Glock 19 handgun that was engraved with his image and the words “Trump 45th.” Trump said, “I want to buy one.”

A Trump spokesperson, Steven Cheung, posted on X on Sept. 25 that the former president bought the gun during his visit to the store.

But it would have been unlawful for the store to sell Trump the gun, because he is facing multiple criminal indictments that could result in prison time of more than one year.

Under federal law, it is “unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition,” according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and it is “unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.”

USA Today reported that Cheung later deleted the post, and the Trump campaign issued a statement saying, “President Trump did not purchase or take possession of the firearm. He simply indicated that he wanted one.”

A news article about Trump’s visit to South Carolina in the Post and Courier also indicated that Trump did not buy the gun. “At no point during the visit was Trump seen filling out the paperwork required to buy a firearm,” the Sept. 25 article said.

But an Instagram post shared a video on Sept. 26 of Trump’s visit to the gun store, with the title, “Trump just bought a handgun!” That was a day after the campaign said Trump did not buy a gun at the store.

On the video, Trump can he heard saying, “I want to buy one,” and he poses with a store employee who is holding a Glock handgun.

As we said, however, the Trump campaign said he did not purchase a gun and a newspaper article about Trump’s visit to the gun store supports that account.

Update, Oct. 2: In support of its Sept. 15 motion seeking a limited gag order on Trump in its case against the former president for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, federal prosecutors cited the fact that Trump shared the Instagram video that claimed he purchased a handgun during his visit to the South Carolina gun store.

“The defendant should not be permitted to obtain the benefits of his incendiary public statements and then avoid accountability by having others—whose messages he knows will receive markedly less attention than his own—feign retraction,” federal prosecutors said in a motion filed Sept. 29. In a footnote to that sentence, prosecutors cited the video shared by Trump, saying he “was caught potentially violating his conditions of release, and tried to walk it back” by having his campaign issue a retraction.

“The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release, or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so,” the prosecutors wrote in the footnote. “It would be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s conditions of release, for him to purchase a gun while this felony indictment is pending.”

Sources

Barr, Luke. “People under felony indictment can’t be barred from purchasing guns, judge rules.” ABC News. 20 Sep 2022.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Identify Prohibited Persons.” Accessed 29 Sep 2023.

Colvin, Jill. “Trump admires a Glock handgun — but stops short of buying — as he campaigns in South Carolina.” Associated Press. 25 Sep 2023.

Farley, Robert, et al. “Q&A on Trump’s Federal Indictment.” FactCheck.org. Updated 31 Jul 2023.

Haberman, Maggie and Alan Feuer. “Trump Tells Gun Store He’d Like to Buy a Glock, Raising Legal Questions.” New York Times. 25 Sep 2023.

Jackson, David. “No, Donald Trump did not buy a gun in South Carolina. Here’s what happened when he saw a Glock.” USA Today. 26 Sep 2023.

Thompson, Alexander and Caitlyn Byrd. “Trump hits a gun store, boat factory and local campaign office in Lowcountry tour Monday.” Charleston Post and Courier. 25 Sep 2023.

Source

Q: Does consumption of aspartame harm human health?

A: Some research indicates possible negative effects from aspartame, but there’s no definitive evidence linking it to health problems in the general population. Aspartame is safe when consumed within certain limits, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The daily limit is above the amount people typically ingest.

 

FULL QUESTION

My husband is driving me crazy with his claims that Diet Coke is going to kill me because it contains the sweetener aspartame. I drink one large Diet Coke (fountain drink) about five times per week. Other than that, I limit my beverages to plain old tap water, which I drink all day. I was diagnosed last year with pre-diabetes and am very careful about my diet. I do not use artificial sweeteners in anything else I eat or drink (water).

Could you please weigh in on this so we can stop the bickering?

FULL ANSWER

The artificial sweetener aspartame was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a food additive in 1974 and as a carbonated beverage ingredient in 1983. It is found in a variety of products — including Diet Coke.

Studies over the years have evaluated whether aspartame is linked to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and a variety of other disorders. There isn’t consistent evidence that aspartame, when consumed under recommended limits, causes health problems. (The exception is for people with a genetic disorder called phenylketonuria, who have trouble processing an aspartame component.)

“[S]cientific evidence has continued to support the agency’s conclusion that aspartame is safe for the general population when made under good manufacturing practices and used under the approved conditions of use,” the FDA says on its website.

On the other hand, there isn’t clear scientific support for any health benefits of aspartame. Some health organizations have endorsed artificial sweeteners as one possible way of reducing sugar consumption, which has known harms. But evidence that artificial sweeteners have long-term effects on weight loss is lacking, and there isn’t evidence they prevent the health problems linked to excess sugar, like diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

“There is no evidence that aspartame is going to ‘kill’ a person,” Lyn Steffen, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, told us via email, while pointing out gaps in the evidence for any health benefits.

On July 14, the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, which assesses whether food additives are safe, came out with its own assessment of aspartame. “Overall, JECFA concluded that there was no convincing evidence from experimental animal or human data that aspartame has adverse effects after ingestion,” the WHO website says.

JECFA reaffirmed that the acceptable daily intake of aspartame is up to 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. The FDA’s limit is 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. To exceed the lower of these limits, an average-sized adult woman in the U.S., weighing 170.8 pounds (around 77 kilograms), would need to drink more than 10 cans of diet soda a day, assuming at most 300 milligrams of aspartame per can. These limits are established by determining the highest dose tested in animals that is safe and then adding in a substantial cushion as a safety factor.

No ‘Convincing’ Data Linking Aspartame to Cancer

At the same time that JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake for aspartame, representatives of another WHO organization, called the International Agency for Research on Cancer, came out with yet another assessment of the sweetener, this one specifically focused on cancer.

Both IARC and JECFA concluded that evidence linking aspartame and cancer in humans was not convincing. However, the IARC group was also tasked with assigning aspartame a rating in IARC’s four-tier system for classifying substances’ carcinogenicity.

Based on “limited” evidence for a link between aspartame and liver cancer, IARC declared aspartame “possibly carcinogenic to humans” — leading to widespread media coverage and even a pro-aspartame social media influencer campaign funded by the trade group American Beverage.

The possibly carcinogenic category is reserved for substances with “limited, but not convincing, evidence for cancer in humans or convincing evidence for cancer in experimental animals, but not both,” according to a news release.

Alongside aspartame, this category includes certain pickled vegetables and ginkgo biloba extract, for instance. IARC’s next tier, probable carcinogens, includes red meat and very hot beverages. Examples of carcinogens include processed meat and alcoholic beverages.

For its classifications, IARC does not determine how likely it is that a substance will cause cancer based on a given exposure; it simply determines whether the substance “is capable of causing cancer.”

IARC found “‘limited’ evidence that aspartame causes hepatocellular carcinoma” in humans, the scientists behind the evaluation wrote in the Lancet Oncology. Hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC, is the most common form of liver cancer.

The IARC scientists identified three studies looking at how often people drank artificially sweetened beverages and whether they eventually got liver cancer. These studies found a small increase in liver cancer risk associated with artificially sweetened drinks in some instances, while failing to find any association in others.

For one European study, researchers asked nearly half a million people in the 1990s about their soft drink consumption and tracked their cancer status for an average of about 11 years. They found that each additional artificially sweetened drink per week was associated with a 6% increased risk of HCC over the course of the follow-up period. They did not find any increased risk for other liver cancer types.

It’s possible some component of the artificially sweetened beverages was behind the increased liver cancer risk, the authors of the European study wrote, or led to some other problem that then led to liver cancer. But the study also showed that people with diabetes or obesity — which are liver cancer risk factors — are more likely to choose these artificially sweetened beverages over sugar-sweetened beverages. And it showed that people who drank more soft drinks of any type had more unhealthy diets, consumed more sugar and calories, and drank more alcohol.

The study authors adjusted for self-reported diabetes status and people’s dietary habits, but it’s possible the increased liver cancer risk was caused by some factor other than people’s soda consumption.

Another study analyzed cancer rates in around half a million people, including around 50,000 people with diabetes, who completed dietary surveys as part of two studies in the 1990s. Researchers followed these people through 2011 or 2017. They found an association between drinking artificially sweetened soda and a 13% increased risk of liver cancer in people with diabetes, but only during the first 12 years of follow-up. There was no association between liver cancer and artificially sweetened sodas in people without diabetes.

“Why increased AS [artificially sweetened] soda consumption would be related to liver cancer among persons with diabetes isn’t clear,” the study authors wrote. They said that some research has found an association between artificial sweeteners and increased abdominal fat, which is associated with liver cancer. Other research has indicated that artificial sweeteners are associated with changes to the microbiota, or the microbes living in a person’s gut.

The third study followed around a million Americans, who reported their beverage consumption in 1982 and were followed through 2016. The study did not show any significant association between liver cancer deaths and artificially sweetened beverages, except among men who had never smoked.

The IARC scientists wrote that the three studies were “of high quality” but that the possibility remained that either chance, bias or some confounding factor explained the associations between liver cancer and aspartame. Therefore, they concluded the evidence that the aspartame caused the cancers was limited.

They also identified studies that found associations between aspartame and other cancer types. But they said that the associations were not “consistent across all available studies” and concluded that evidence was inadequate to link aspartame with other cancer types.

IARC also found there to be limited evidence aspartame causes cancer in animals and limited mechanistic evidence for how aspartame would cause cancer, if it did.

Katherine A. McGlynn, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute, said that another recent study, which came out after the JECFA and IARC analyses, did not find an association between consuming artificially sweetened beverages and liver cancer risk. This study followed around 100,000 postmenopausal U.S. women, who answered questions about beverage consumption in the 1990s and early 2000s, for a median of nearly 21 years. “So the evidence of an aspartame-liver cancer link, at the current time, is very limited,” McGlynn told us in an email.

She explained that major risk factors for HCC include “chronic infection with hepatitis B virus, chronic infection with hepatitis C virus, consumption of foods contaminated with aflatoxin B1, excessive consumption of alcohol, tobacco smoking and a group of related metabolic conditions.” These metabolic conditions, which include, obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, “have become increasingly more important as risk factors in the past few decades,” she said.

A statement on the FDA website says that the agency “disagrees with IARC’s conclusion that these studies support classifying aspartame as a possible carcinogen to humans,” explaining that FDA scientists found “significant shortcomings” in the studies cited in the report.

“Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply,” the statement says. “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions.”

Artificial Sweeteners Have Uncertain Benefits

Even if there isn’t convincing evidence Diet Coke is deadly, there is reason to question whether artificial sweeteners are serving their intended purpose.

While JECFA focused on aspartame’s safety and IARC focused on its carcinogenicity, other groups have aimed to figure out whether it should have a role in a healthy diet.

Some organizations endorse artificial sweeteners as one possible tool for reducing sugar intake. According to American Diabetes Association guidelines, people with diabetes and those at risk for diabetes should “replace sugar-sweetened beverages (including fruit juices) with water or low calorie, no calorie beverages as much as possible.” The guidelines say replacing sugary drinks can help manage levels of glucose in the blood, which is important for people with diabetes, and also reduce risk for heart and metabolic disease.

Use of these sugar substitutes in place of sugar “may reduce overall calorie and carbohydrate intake as long as there is not a compensatory increase in energy intake from other sources,” the guidelines say.

In a 2018 science advisory, American Heart Association researchers wrote that low-calorie sweetened beverages may be a helpful alternative for adults “who are habituated to a sweet-tasting beverage and for whom water, at least initially, is an undesirable option.” However, the advisory indicated it was preferable to switch to plain or carbonated water without any sweetener.

A WHO public health guideline, released in May, for the general nondiabetic population more strongly advised against artificial sweeteners. “WHO suggests that non-sugar sweeteners not be used as a means of achieving weight control or reducing the risk of noncommunicable diseases,” the guideline reads. This recommendation was based on “evidence of low certainty overall,” the guideline authors wrote.

There is evidence from randomized controlled trials that using nonsugar sweeteners leads to lower body weight in the short term, WHO scientists wrote. But they said that most randomized trials were very short, taking place over three months or less, and called results from the few longer-lasting trials “inconsistent.”

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services, also conclude that low- and no-calorie sweeteners, when used as a sugar replacement, “may reduce calorie intake in the short-term and aid in weight management, yet questions remain about their effectiveness as a long-term weight management strategy.”

Randomized controlled trials do not show an impact of artificial sweeteners on diabetes- or cardiovascular disease-related markers, such as A1C, fasting insulin or glucose levels, blood pressure or blood lipid levels, according to the WHO guideline recommending against nonsugar sweeteners.

Some nonrandomized studies, in fact, found an association between nonsugar sweetener consumption and increased risk of type 2 diabetes, stroke and high blood pressure. The WHO authors said that aspartame might theoretically affect cardiovascular and metabolic health by changing a person’s perception or reaction to sweetness, changing their eating behaviors, causing release of metabolic hormones or other substances in the body, or altering their gut microbes.

However, the WHO authors said that their recommendation against nonsugar sweeteners “could result in potential undesirable effects” if it led people to consume more sugar, rather than simply reducing their consumption of sweetened substances and drinking more water.

For someone used to getting caffeine from sweetened beverages, water might not be an acceptable alternative. The American Institute for Cancer Research recommends unsweetened tea or coffee. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also endorses unsweetened tea or coffee as an alternative to energy drinks, which can have sugar and other potentially harmful ingredients alongside caffeine.

---

Sources

“Timeline of Selected FDA Activities and Significant Events Addressing Aspartame.” FDA website. Updated 30 May 2023.

“Food and Beverage Products That Mention Aspartame on Their Labels.” Reuters. 14 Jul 2023.

“What Is Aspartame?” The Coca-Cola Company website. Accessed 28 Sep 2023.

“Phenylketonuria.” MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine. Updated 25 Apr 2023.

ElSayed, Nuha A. et al. “5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-Being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023.” Diabetes Care. 12 Dec 2022.

Johnson, Rachel K. et al. “Low-Calorie Sweetened Beverages and Cardiometabolic Health: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.” Circulation. 30 Jul 2018.

“How Too Much Added Sugar Affects Your Health Infographic.” American Heart Association website. Accessed 28 Sep 2023.

Steffen, Lyn. Emails with FactCheck.org. 21, 22 and 23 Sep 2023.

“Aspartame Hazard and Risk Assessment Results Released.” WHO website. 14 Jul 2023.

“Evaluations of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA): Aspartame.” WHO website. Accessed 28 Sep 2023.

“Aspartame and Other Sweeteners in Food.” FDA website. Updated 14 Jul 2023.

“National Center for Health Statistics: Body Measurements.” CDC website. Updated 10 Sep 2021.

Viswanathan, Giri and Gumbrecht, Jamie. “Health Effects of Aspartame Draw New Scrutiny from WHO Experts.” CNN. 29 Jun 2023.

Jewett, Christina. “Aspartame Is a Possible Cause of Cancer in Humans, a W.H.O. Agency Says.” New York Times. 13 Jul 2023.

Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon. “Why the Aspartame in Diet Coke and Coke Zero Probably Isn’t Worth Worrying About.” STAT. 8 Jul 2023.

O’Connor, Anahad et al. “The Food Industry Pays ‘Influencer’ Dietitians to Shape Your Eating Habits.” Washington Post. 13 Sep 2023.

“Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1–134.” WHO website. Updated 27 Jul 2023.

“IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans: Preamble.” International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. Amended Jan 2019.

Riboli, Elio et al. “Carcinogenicity of Aspartame, Methyleugenol, and Isoeugenol.” The Lancet Oncology. 13 Jul 2023.

“Liver and Bile Duct Cancer.” NCI website. Accessed 28 Sep 2023.

Stepien, Magdalena et al. “Consumption of Soft Drinks and Juices and Risk of Liver and Biliary Tract Cancers in a European Cohort.” European Journal of Nutrition. 21 Dec 2014.

Jones, Gieira S. et al. “Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Risk of Liver Cancer by Diabetes Status: A Pooled Analysis.” Cancer Epidemiology. 18 Jun 2022.

McCullough, Marjorie L. et al. “Sugar- and Artificially-Sweetened Beverages and Cancer Mortality in a Large U.S. Prospective Cohort.” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 1 Oct 2022.

McGlynn, Katherine. Email to FactCheck.org. 26 Oct 2023.

Zhao, Longgang et al. “Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Liver Cancer and Chronic Liver Disease Mortality.” JAMA. 8 Aug 2023.

“Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners: WHO Guideline.” World Health Organization. 15 May 2023.

“Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th Edition.” U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dec 2020.

“Aspartame and Cancer Risk – What You Need to Know.” American Institute for Cancer Research. 14 Jul 2023.

“Healthy Weight, Nutrition, and Physical Activity: Rethink Your Drink.” CDC website. Updated 7 Jun 2023.

Source

In a speech at a Michigan auto parts plant, former President Donald Trump distorted the facts about electric vehicles and the U.S. auto industry.

• Trump said President Joe Biden “has dictated that nearly 70% of all cars” made in the U.S. must be “fully electric” in 10 years. The administration cannot mandate how many cars must be all-electric. It proposed new emission standards, and how the industry meets the new rules is up to them.

• We found no support for Trump’s claim that the proposed rules would kill 40% of the auto industry’s jobs. Instead, Ford’s CEO said EVs take 40% less labor to make, but the company would offset job losses by making its own EV parts.

• Trump claimed all-electric vehicles can only “drive for 15 minutes before you have to get a charge.” Most EVs have a range of 110 to 300 miles, with some expensive models reaching 400 to 500 miles.

• He claimed EVs are “bad … for the environment.” But studies show that electric cars produce less pollution over their entire lifespan than gas-powered vehicles.

• He said Ford expects to lose $4.5 billion on EVs. The company projected that loss for this year but expects to make a profit on EVs by the end of 2026.

• Trump falsely claimed he “saved American auto manufacturing” after “eight long years of [Barack] Obama and [Joe] Biden.” The Obama administration helped rescue the industry, which increased the number of motor vehicle and parts manufacturing jobs in Michigan by 79,600, or 83%, in those eight years.

Trump’s speech, which he delivered on Sept. 27 in lieu of attending a GOP primary debate, came during a strike by the United Auto Workers union against Ford Motor Co., Stellantis NV and General Motors Co. Trump delivered his remarks at a nonunion plant, Drake Enterprises, which manufactures driveline and transmission parts.

Michigan was a key swing state in Trump’s last two presidential elections — he won the state in 2016, but lost it in 2020 — and it is expected to be a critical state again next year.

EPA Proposal Not a Mandate

Trump mischaracterized regulations proposed by the Biden administration to reduce pollution from motor vehicles.

“Biden’s job-killing EV mandate has dictated that nearly 70% of all cars sold in the United States must be fully electric less than 10 years from now,” Trump said.

Not exactly. As the New York Times wrote in April, “The E.P.A. cannot mandate that carmakers sell a certain number of electric vehicles.”

Instead, that month, the Environmental Protection Agency introduced new proposed rules that would significantly restrict the amount of emissions from light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, which includes passenger cars, trucks and large pickups and vans. If approved, the proposed standards, with some exceptions, would phase in starting in 2027.

In a statement at the time, the EPA said the new standards are “projected to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles,” which “could account for 67% of new light-duty vehicle sales and 46% of new medium-duty vehicle sales” in 2032. But that depends on “the compliance pathways manufacturers select to meet the standards,” the agency said.

In theory, automakers could find other ways to meet the emissions targets without having to produce as many EVs, as Joseph Goffman, principal deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, wrote in prepared testimony for Congress in June.

“The proposed standards are performance-based emissions standards and are technology neutral, meaning that manufacturers can choose the mix of technologies (including internal combustion technologies) that they believe would be best suited for their fleet to meet the standards and to meet the needs of American drivers,” his opening statement said.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing the big automakers, said it would be difficult to meet the standards in the time proposed by the rules.

Auto Jobs and the Transition to EVs

Trump made several claims about an increase in U.S. electric vehicle manufacturing and the loss of auto industry jobs. He claimed, “By most estimates, under Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, 40% of all U.S. auto jobs will disappear … in one or two years.” That figure may be from Ford’s CEO saying it takes 40% less labor to make an EV than a gas-powered vehicle, but the CEO went on to say the company wants to manufacture its own EV parts to offset those job losses.

We don’t know where Trump got his 40% figure; the campaign didn’t respond to our request for support.

However, last November Ford President and CEO Jim Farley told reporters: “It takes 40 per cent less labour to make an electric car, so . . . we have to insource, so that everyone has a role in this growth,” according to the Financial Times. “We have a whole new supply chain to roll out, in batteries and motors and electronics, and diversity has to play an even greater role in that,” he said at a conference sponsored by the civil rights group Rainbow PUSH Coalition.

Other media also reported on Farley’s 40% figure. “Ford Motor is attempting to build as many of its own parts as possible for its electric vehicles to offset an expected 40% reduction in workers needed to build such cars and trucks, CEO Jim Farley said Tuesday,” CNBC reported on Nov. 15.

CNBC, Nov. 15, 2022: In addition to making sense for the business, he said retaining the jobs and workforce is another reason Ford wants to build more parts in-house rather than purchasing them from suppliers.

He said Ford plans to build such businesses rather than acquire them. For its increasingly popular Mustang Mach-E crossover, the company purchased motors and batteries. Going forward, Farley said that will no longer be the case.

In 2021, Ford announced an $11.4 billion investment in facilities in Kentucky and Tennessee to build EV batteries and vehicles. The company said the plants would create 11,000 jobs. Earlier this year, Ford announced an EV battery plant in Michigan, but it paused construction last week while the company and the UAW negotiate a contract. Union representation among these new battery plant workers has been a point of contention between the UAW and the automakers.

In remarks on Sept. 29 on the contract talks, Farley said: “None of our workers today are going to lose their jobs due to our battery plants during this contract period and even beyond the contract. In fact, for the foreseeable future we will have to hire more workers as some workers retire, in order to keep up with demand.”

We were unable to find another potential source for Trump’s 40% figure. At other points in his speech, he claimed the transition to EVs, pushed by the Biden administration’s proposed rule, would kill “hundreds of thousands of American jobs” or even that the rule “will spell the death of the U.S. auto industry.” Estimates vary on the potential impact of more EV production in the U.S., and the estimates depend on the researchers’ assumptions.

The America First Policy Institute, whose leadership includes former Trump administration officials, said “at least 117,000” net auto manufacturing jobs would be lost if EVs made up 67% of U.S. vehicle sales by 2032. It doesn’t consider offsets from battery manufacturing jobs. The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute has estimated a loss of 75,000 jobs with EVs making up half of U.S. vehicle sales by 2030 — without efforts to offset such losses. “These losses would stem from policy failures that stunted investment in domestic capacity of U.S. producers to build the batteries and drivetrains of BEVs [battery electric vehicles], and from a failure to regain market share in overall vehicle sales,” said EPI, which is partly funded by labor unions.

The group said that by implementing other policies to substantially increase EV component manufacturing, the auto industry could gain 150,000 jobs.

The Range and Cost of EVs

Trump also complained that EVs “don’t go far enough” and are “far too expensive” for most people. He said going “all electric” would mean “you can drive for 15 minutes before you have to get a charge.”

Actually, most all-electric vehicles can travel between 110 and over 300 miles on a fully-charged battery, depending on the model, according to the Department of Energy.

In EPA testing, some more expensive models can go 400 or 500 miles on a single charge.

Even many plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, can go between 15 and 60 miles on battery power alone before they need to be recharged. For PHEVs, “their overall range is determined by the fuel tank capacity because the engine kicks in when the battery is depleted,” the Energy Department says.

For instance, the Jeep Wrangler 4xe, the best-selling plug-in hybrid in the U.S. in 2022, can go 21 miles in electric-only mode, according to its manufacturer. The Toyota RAV4 Prime, another popular PHEV, has an all-electric driving range of 42 miles, according to estimates.

In terms of miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent, a fuel-efficiency measurement for electric and hybrid cars, the Wrangler 4xe has an estimated 49 MPGe and the RAV4 Prime gets an estimated 94 MPGe.

Driving conditions, driving habits and battery size are some of the factors that also affect the travel range of EVs.

As for the cost, the retail price suggested by manufacturers for all-electric cars starts at roughly $28,000, the DOE says. But, in August, the average price paid for an electric vehicle was $53,376, according to Kelley Blue Book, a company that does automotive research. That compared with an average transaction price of $48,451 for all new vehicles that month.

On the other hand, in most states, owners of electric cars, depending on the model, tend to pay less to operate and maintain their vehicles than people with gas-powered cars.

In addition, to encourage residents to purchase EVs, the federal government is providing tax credits of up to $7,500 for buying qualifying new models. For purchases of certain used models, the credits can be as much as $4,000. Some states also offer rebates and incentives for buying electric cars.

Environmental Impact

According to experts, electric cars produce less pollution over their entire lifespan than vehicles with an internal combustion engine. But Trump argued that the public is not aware of the environmental downsides of EVs.

“People have no idea how bad this is going to be also for the environment,” he said. “Those batteries, when they get rid of them and lots of bad things happen. When they’re digging it out of the ground to make those batteries, it’s going to be very bad for the environment.”

Trump has a point: Some analyses do show that the energy required to manufacture electric car batteries — which are often made of mined lithium, nickel and cobalt — can lead to greater carbon emissions than the production of gas-powered vehicles. Also, in many areas of the country, battery charging stations use electricity generated by fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, which further increases the carbon footprint of EVs.

But other studies demonstrate that EVs that run on electricity only, which have no tailpipe emissions, have far fewer life-cycle emissions than conventional cars that rely on gasoline or diesel. Such studies consider all stages in the life of a vehicle, from “extracting and processing raw materials through refining and manufacture to operation and eventual recycling or disposal,” as explained in a white paper published by the International Council on Clean Transportation.

For example, in a post about “electric vehicle myths,” the Environmental Protection Agency noted that a 2021 Argonne National Laboratory analysis of both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile range found that, even when factoring in battery manufacturing, total greenhouse gas emissions for an EV were typically lower than those for the gasoline car.

Furthermore, while not easy, recycling the batteries, rather than simply disposing of them in landfills where they can leak toxins, “can reduce the emissions associated with making an EV by reducing the need for new materials,” the EPA says.

EV Investments

Trump said that “Ford alone is projecting to lose an astonishing $4.5 billion on electric vehicles.” Ford did estimate a $4.5 billion loss this year on its EVs — though overall, it expected to earn $11 billion to $12 billion companywide, according to its second quarter financial report.

Ford said the loss on EVs was due to “the pricing environment, disciplined investments in new products and capacity, and other costs.” But the company expects EVs to make money in the coming years. In July, Ford said it expected an 8% profit margin on EVs at the end of 2026, the company told us.

General Motors has said it expects its EV line to be profitable by 2025.

Trump Didn’t ‘Save’ U.S. Auto Manufacturing

In boasting about his record, Trump falsely claimed that he “saved American auto manufacturing” and wrongly suggested that he was responsible for an increase in auto manufacturing jobs in Michigan.

Trump, Sept. 27: I saved American auto manufacturing, you know that, in my first term, and I’ll save it again. We did great. We did everything to keep those jobs going.

In fact, as we’ve written before, Michigan lost motor vehicle manufacturing jobs and motor vehicle parts manufacturing jobs under Trump, and that was the case even before the COVID-19 pandemic caused economic shutdowns and job losses. (We will get to his claim about saving the industry later.)

As of February 2020, before the pandemic shutdowns began, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing jobs in Michigan had fallen by 3,700 from January 2017, when Trump took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Motor vehicle manufacturing jobs declined from 43,300 in January 2017 to 40,500 in February 2020, while motor vehicle parts manufacturing jobs fell from 175,000 to 171,300.

Of course, the pandemic-induced shutdowns caused massive temporary job losses, beginning in March 2020 but most significantly in April 2020. By the time Trump left office, most of those job losses had been recovered. Still, when Trump left office in January 2021, the number of motor vehicle and parts manufacturing jobs in Michigan had gone down by 8,700 over his entire term.

Nationwide, the number of motor vehicles and parts manufacturing jobs under Trump increased prior to the pandemic by 34,400, or 3.6%. Over his full four years, the U.S. lost 9,200 motor vehicles and parts manufacturing jobs.

As for his claim about saving the auto industry, the former president spoke more about that later in his speech. But, in doing so, he misrepresented the state of the industry when he took office from President Barack Obama.

Trump, Sept. 27: When I came into office, the auto industry was on its knees, gasping its last breaths after eight long years of Obama and Biden. But you finally got a president who stood up to the … You got to understand, I stood up to people that hate you. They hate you or they maybe hate our country. But I stood up for you. I stood up for the auto workers and stood up for the great state of Michigan like nobody’s ever stood up before.

In fact, the auto industry was on its knees when Obama and Biden took office in January 2009, and it was the Bush and Obama administrations that can claim credit for saving the industry and its jobs.

Here’s what happened: With General Motors and Chrysler facing bankruptcy, outgoing President George W. Bush announced on Dec. 19, 2008, that his administration would provide both automakers with $13.4 billion in short-term financing from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. But, as the New York Times reported at the time, the companies each had “to produce a plan for long-term profitability, including concessions from unions, creditors, suppliers and dealers” by March 31, 2009.

Obama rejected the automakers’ viability plans on March 30, 2009. A short time later, Obama announced bankruptcy plans for Chrysler and GM that would allow the companies to restructure operations and receive additional federal assistance. In all, the U.S. automakers received about $80 billion in loans and equity investments under TARP’s Auto Industry Financing Program, or AIFP. Of that amount, the U.S. recouped $70.5 billion through loan repayments, equity sales, dividends, interest and other income, according to a November 2015 Government Accountability Office report.

The GAO report said the AIFP was created when “both GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse” that “threatened the overall economy as it could have led to a loss of as many as one million American jobs.” Instead of losing jobs, the industry saw tremendous job growth in Obama’s eight years.

From January 2009 to January 2017, the number of motor vehicle and parts manufacturing jobs in Michigan had increased by 79,600, or 83%, according to BLS jobs data.

Nationwide, motor vehicles and parts manufacturing jobs under Obama increased by 270,300, or 39.5%.

Source

Former President Donald Trump cited an article in the New York Law Journal as evidence that a civil business fraud case against him is a “hoax.” The author of the article argued that dissolution of Trump businesses is not a remedy included in the law, but he also wrote that “the judge was 100% right in holding that the Trump actions were fraudulent” and that Trump ought to face penalties.

“The respected New York Law Journal writes that the ‘Dissolution Ordered in “‘People of the State of New York v. Trump‘” Appears Unwarranted.’ Wow, that’s BIG. The whole trial is a Democrat inspired HOAX,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Oct. 4, the third day of the civil trial.

It’s true that David W. Lowden, a consultant for a New York law firm and an expert on compliance and governance policies and procedures, argued in an opinion piece for the New York Law Journal on Oct. 2 that the possible dissolution of Trump’s limited liability companies is not warranted by state law.

However, Lowden also made clear that he thinks the judge “rightly held” that “the activities of various Trump Organization entities … have persistently violated provisions of the Executive Law by committing ‘repeated fraudulent or illegal acts’ in grossly inflating the value of various Trump properties in financials provided to various lenders.”

In September 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a $250 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, alleging he repeatedly inflated the value of his assets to bilk banks and insurance companies.

“With the help of his children and senior executives at the Trump Organization, Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to unjustly enrich himself and cheat the system,” James said at the time.

On Sept. 26, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron awarded a partial summary judgment to prosecutors, finding that Trump and some executives of the Trump Organization had “persistently” violated New York laws related to fraud or illegality in conducting business. The judge also canceled the company’s business certificates in New York and extended the oversight of an independent monitor. The judge left some charges up to a trial (which began this week), as well as any determination of the amount the Trump Organization might be forced to pay in penalties.

The judge also ordered that “within 10 days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to recommend the names of no more than three potential independent receivers to manage the dissolution of the canceled LLCs.”

CNBC wrote that it “is not clear whether Engoron’s decision means the Trump Organization and related entities will have to completely cease doing business in New York, or whether the companies can be legally reconstituted later.”

In his opinion piece for the New York Law Journal, Lowden wrote, “I see no language in the statute giving any authorization to order the cancellation or dissolution of the business entities.”

Nonetheless, Lowden added that he “thinks that the judge was 100% right in holding that the Trump actions were fraudulent and that summary judgement on that issue was totally appropriate.”

Lowden noted that the state complaint did not ask for dissolution of the LLCs. Instead, it asked for the cancellation of any New York certificates, an independent monitor to “oversee compliance, financial reporting, valuations, and disclosures to lenders, insurers, and governmental authorities, at the Trump Organization, for a period of no less than five years,” and “any additional relief the Court deems appropriate.”

“A better approach by the judge might have been to issue his opinion upholding summary judgment that fraud had been committed, reserving for the trial whether dissolution is an appropriate remedy,” Lowden wrote.

$18 Million for Mar-a-Lago?

Trump also argued in his social media post that the “case should never have been brought” because the judge mistakenly valued Mar-a-Lago at just $18 million.

Trump wrote, “The corrupt A.G., Letitia James, convinced the Judge that Mar-a-Lago is only worth $18,000,000 when, in fact, it may be worth 50 to 100 times that amount. Based on their fake lowball number, the Judge ruled that I committed Fraud.”

In his order, Judge Engoron noted, “From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the market value of Mar-a-Lago at between $18 million and $27.6 million.”

A real estate broker who specializes in high-value properties in Palm Beach told the court he believed the property was worth $1.5 billion, though Engoron said that opinion was offered “without relying on any objective evidence” and was, ultimately, “unpersuasive.”

Numerous real estate experts have questioned the judge’s reliance on the property tax assessments, noting that assessed values and market values are often very different. Some put the value at closer to $300 million.

In court on Oct. 2, Trump lawyer Alina Habba claimed that “we have experts, renowned experts, who have said that properties like Mar-a-Lago are worth over a billion dollars, $1.5 billion, and I assure you that there is a person out there that would buy that property, that spectacular property, for way over a billion dollars.”

In his Sept. 26 order, Engoron said Trump overvalued the property at between $427 million and $612 million. Engoron said those values didn’t account for land use restrictions on the property.

In court on Oct. 2, Engoron said that in his earlier order he noted, “I’m not valuing or evaluating properties.”

“Please, press, stop saying that I valued it at $18 million,” Engornon said. “That was a tax assessment. Or, something in that range. There would have been issues of fact as to what the value was.”

Moreover, the judge did not base his summary judgment solely on the alleged overvaluation of Mar-a-Lago, but rather the overvaluation of numerous properties, including several golf courses.

For example, Engoron said Trump submitted Statements of Financial Condition listing the Trump Tower property where he lived at 30,000 square feet, even though it was only 10,996 square feet, resulting in an overvaluation of the property between $114 million and $207 million. And executives at the Trump Organization had “clear knowledge” that was false because Forbes had provided written notification that Trump had been overestimating the square footage by a factor of three, Engoron said, but the executives decided to continue to use that false square footage figure to transact business.

In another example, the order notes that the Trump Organization repeatedly reported the value of the Seven Springs Estate, more than 200 acres of land in Westchester County, New York, at either $261 million or $291 million, although an appraisal at the time done by the Trump Organization put the market value of the land at about $56.6 million.

Source