That is the question.
Most people realize that some local, state and federal regulations have continued past their used by dates and should be eliminated. However, just because a regulation increases costs for producers of goods and services is an insufficient cause to repeal a rule.
Good governance practice is to find the balance, not based on special interests but on risk-benefit analysis that affects the most citizens not, just a few.
1. Slightly tainted meat and meat products will sicken very few people, is undetectable by the consumer. Elimination of the controlling inspection regulations would increase the profits for the producers and increase the costs for healthcare.
2. Removing regulations relating to food and drug quality would save big drug companies billions for the already highly profitable industry.
3. Eliminating mandatory seat belt and air bag installation on cars would reduce costs for manufacturers and increase the earnings of funeral parlors.
4. Repealing the The Dodd-Frank Act would allow the investment banks and consumer services institutions to revert to the pre-2008 practices that came close to creating a depression with an unemployment rate of 10%.
5. Doing away with a regulation aimed at preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby streams won't do much for folks living down stream but it will certainly help the mine investor upstream. [too late, already revered]