Opposition Mounts Against Tariffs on Optical Products

HOT TOPIC

Opposition Mounts Against Tariffs on Optical Products

The Vision Council has submitted comments to the US Department of Commerce to formally oppose potential new tariffs on optical products and equipment. These comments address two ongoing Section 232 national security investigations: one focused on personal protective equipment, medical consumables, and medical equipment (Docket No. BIS-2025-0258) and another on robotics and industrial machinery (Docket No. BIS-2025-0257). The broad scope of these probes may include essential items such as spectacle lenses, frames, diagnostic instruments, and manufacturing machinery used in the optical industry.

In its submission, the Vision Council argued that imposing additional tariffs would undermine public health by raising costs for both patients and health care providers. The organization strongly advocated excluding optical devices and related manufacturing equipment from any new tariff measures, asserting that these products bolster rather than jeopardize US health and economic security.

Highlighting the widespread use of optical medical devices, the comments noted that approximately 61% of Americans rely on prescription eyeglasses, with more than 81 million pairs of lenses dispensed each year. New tariffs, the group warned, would escalate costs across the supply chain, restricting access to vital vision care, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, veterans, and low-income populations. The Vision Council also highlighted the adverse effects of existing trade policies, including Section 301 tariffs and those under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which have already led to increased operating expenses, diminished profit margins, and stalled industry growth for many optical companies.

Furthermore, the organization noted that the optical industry’s global supply chains, involving reliable partners in countries such as Italy, Germany, Japan, and Mexico, pose no national security risks and are instead geared toward enhancing consumer health and advancing vision care technologies. To mitigate potential harm, the Vision Council called for a comprehensive and transparent exclusion process, providing detailed Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes for optical devices, diagnostic tools, and machinery that should be exempted.

My Two Cents

First off, kudos to the Vision Council for bringing this issue to the forefront. As American citizens (although many of our Northern neighbors in Canada read this newsletter), we need to be aware of just how much our government’s foreign policy drama trickles down to us on Main Street. When we think of tariffs, many of us (and our patients) don’t immediately think of glasses and other items that are crucial to our businesses. Although I’m sure that every industry thinks its imported products should be exempt from the tariffs, optical devices, diagnostic tools, and machinery are vital to the health and welfare of the American public. Hopefully, the Vision Council can bring these concerns to the various government entities that oversee these tariffs and make them aware of the importance of affordable eyewear for our patients!

OUTSIDE THE LANE

Men, Women, and Exercise

A new study published in Nature Cardiovascular Research reveals that men may need to exercise twice as much as women to achieve comparable reductions in coronary heart disease risk, prompting calls for sex-specific physical activity guidelines. Researchers from Xiamen University analyzed data from more than 80,000 middle-aged participants in the UK Biobank who wore activity trackers and had no prior heart disease. They found that women who exercised 250 minutes per week—moderate or vigorous—reduced their risk of developing heart disease by 30% over 8 years. Men, however, required 530 minutes (nearly 9 hours) per week to achieve the same 30% risk reduction. Moreover, meeting the National Health Service-recommended minimum of 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise weekly lowered heart disease risk by 22% in women and 17% in men, highlighting women’s greater relative benefit from the same effort.

The disparity was even more pronounced among the more-than 5,000 participants already diagnosed with coronary heart disease: Women who met the weekly exercise target had a mortality risk three-times lower than similarly active men during follow-up. Lead researcher Jiajin Chen, PhD, noted that women derive equivalent cardiovascular benefits with roughly half the exercise time required by men.

The reasons for the amplified benefits in women remain unclear, although differences in sex hormones, muscle fiber composition, and metabolic efficiency in processing sugar for energy are suspected contributors.

In an accompanying commentary, Emily Lau, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital argued that the evidence dismantles the one-size-fits-all approach to exercise recommendations. She urged the integration of sex-specific strategies into public health guidelines and the development of targeted interventions to optimize cardiovascular outcomes. The study challenges uniform National Health Services and global physical activity standards, advocating for personalized advice to close gender gaps in both exercise participation and heart disease prevention.

My Two Cents

Well, this isn’t shocking at all! As someone who just recently turned 39, I’m noticing my metabolism is slowing down considerably, and it’s getting harder and harder to stay lean. Now, I know the article isn’t about the effect of age; however, it’s gotten me doing a lot more reading on effective workout methods and the exercise expectations for a guy my age. Everything I’ve read has hinted that it’s harder for men to get back into shape, and this inspiring study appears to support that hypothesis. Looks like it’s back to the gym I go!

CAN YOU RELATE

Myopia, myopia, myopia. It seems like it’s everywhere in the eye care news recently! We just heard about the FDA approval of the Stellest lens from Essilor. By the way, if anyone from Essilor Luxxitica is reading this, all of us down in the Bayou are still in the dark about this lens. Could y’all send someone to educate us swamp people about this seemingly impressive technology? 

Also in the news, the FDA issued a statement rejecting Sydnexis’ New Drug Application for SYD-101 (0.01% atropine) to slow pediatric myopia progression, despite the phase 3 STAR trial’s success. No safety/quality issues were found, but the agency questioned the drop’s efficacy. The European Union approved it as Ryjunea in June 2025. Sydnexis plans to address the FDA's concerns, and I would expect them to resubmit.

Meanwhile, one of the masters of myopia management, Justin Kwan, OD, is out there preaching the benefits of the Cooper Vision MiSight contact lens for both patients and practitioners. Superstars like him are bringing awareness to the community and helping us truly understand that myopia management is now primary eye care.

It’s certainly something that I’ve come around on. At first, I wasn’t sure if myopia management was something that I should be doing in my clinic. After all, my clinic is overwhelmingly dry eyes, ocular disease, and scleral lenses—not exactly a place you would find patients who are prime candidates for myopia management. However, I see a surprisingly large mix of primary eye care patients who are perfect candidates for myopia management. In the past, that meant referring to other doctors in my clinic who are passionate about myopia management. Now, it has become abundantly clear that I need to embrace this sector of eye care, as it truly is primary care!

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

“As long as autumn lasts, I shall not have hands, canvas, and colors enough to paint the beautiful things I see.”

– Vincent Van Gogh