Some popular Valentine’s Day gifts not so sweet when it comes to labor issues – National Consumers League

/in /by

This February 14th, millions of lucky loved ones will be receiving chocolate and flowers, the ubiquitous staples of Valentine’s Day gift giving. But the beautiful flowers and delicious chocolates we all enjoy this time of year often come at the expense of exploited adult workers or child laborers in the cocoa and flower industries.

Flower farm abuses

Valentine’s Day accounts for 40 percent of annual fresh flower sales in the United States. To meet the holiday’s huge demand for flowers, flower retailers regularly purchases large amounts of flowers from farms in Ecuador and Cuba. According to Change.org, two-thirds of flower farm workers in these countries are women. The women are routinely forced to work 80-hour weeks with no overtime pay, are subjected to harassment and abuse from male supervisors, and often suffer from health problems such as eye infections and miscarriages brought on by prolonged contact with dangerous pesticides. Despite these well-documented abuses, 1-800-Flowers (the largest florist in the world), has so far refused to offer consumers Fair Trade flowers that require farms to adhere to certain worker’s rights standards. Concerned consumers can sign Change.org’s petition urging 1-800-Flowers to sell Fair Trade flowers by clicking here and those who want no part in the exploitation of women can buy their flowers from local farmers or from competitors, such as Whole Foods and Stop & Shop, that sell Fair Trade flowers.

Forced and child labor at cocoa plants

The cocoa industry has its own record of worker abuse and exploitation. Since 2001, cocoa produced from West Africa has fallen under great scrutiny because of allegations that children are involved in harvesting the crop under sometimes harsh conditions. The U.S. Department of Labor’s List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor includes cocoa from five countries, including the Ivory Coast and Ghana. According to the International Labor Rights Forum, the U.S. Department of State estimates that more than 109,000 children in Cote d’Ivoire’s cocoa industry work under “the worst forms of child labor,” and that some 10,000 are victims of human trafficking or enslavement. Just last month, two Ivory Coast workers died while loading cocoa onto a United States-bound ship because they were overworked and never received proper training. The disappointing labor rights record throughout the West African cocoa industry has prompted the Payson Center for International Development at Tulane University to urge chocolate companies to take responsibility for their supply chains by working to ensure labor rights compliance and implementing traceability systems for their cocoa supply chains. Hershey has so far has remained conspicuously absent from labor rights discussions and has made no effort to help ensure the safety of its cocoa suppliers despite posting record earnings in 2010. Click here to sign a petition to urge Hershey to support Fair Trade certified cocoa.

National Consumers League hails IRS policy turnaround on deductibility of breast pumps – National Consumers League

/in /by

February 10, 2011

Contact: NCL Communications, (202) 835-3323, media@nclnet.org

Washington, DC–The National Consumers League today is hailing the reversal of policy by the Internal Revenue Service on breast pumps as a “great day for mothers, babies, and for advances for our nation’s health care.” Referring to this morning’s IRS Announcement 2011-14, advising the public that “expenses for breast pumps and other supplies that assist lactation may be deducted as medical expenses or reimbursed under a flexible spending arrangement or similar plan,” NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg made the following statement:

“Today is a great day for mothers, babies, and for advances for our nation’s health care. We appreciate the care and attention the IRS devoted to the concerns expressed by the NCL, the American Academy of Pediatrics, members of Congress and many other groups who argued forcefully about the need to reimburse for breast pumps. We need to do all that we can to encourage mothers to breastfeed. This new Announcement gets all federal policy on the same page.”

Last fall, Greenberg wrote a letter to the IRS after the tax agency’s determination that breast pumps often used by working mothers wouldn’t be deductible as a medical expense under flexible spending rules. Greenberg’s letter pointed to overwhelming medical evidence that breastfeeding provides critical, long-term health benefits to babies and mothers alike.

According to today’s IRS announcement, the agency has concluded that breast pumps and supplies that assist lactation are classified as medical care under Section 213(d) of the Tax Code because, like obstetric care, they are used for the purpose of affecting a structure or function of the body of the lactating woman.  Therefore, if the remaining requirements of Section 213(a) are met (for example, the taxpayer’s total medical expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income), expenses paid for breast pumps and supplies that assist lactation are now to be considered deductible medical expenses.

Amounts reimbursed for these expenses under flexible spending arrangements, Archer medical savings accounts, health reimbursement arrangements, or health savings accounts are not considered to be income to the taxpayer, according to the IRS. The IRS plans to revise Publication 502, Medical and Dental Expenses, to include this information.

The decision was also hailed by a group of four lawmakers who, along with 41 others, had written to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman last November asking him to reverse the IRS decision. Those members of Congress also issued statements today.

“Today’s decision is a huge victory for nursing mothers everywhere,” said Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), Carolyn B. Maloney, (D-NY), and Sen. Jeff Merkley, (D-Ore.), and Tom Harkin, (D-Iowa). “Modern medicine has documented numerous health benefits linked to breastfeeding, including a reduced risk of illness in infants and a reduced risk of cancer in mothers. And because breastfeeding is so effective in preventing disease, it also happens to save billions in health care costs. We thank the IRS for their careful consideration and quick response.”

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

NCL to FDA: Don’t hide High Fructose Corn Syrup behind misleading ‘Corn Sugar’ name – National Consumers League

/in /by

February 10, 2011

Contact: NCL Communications, (202) 835-3323, media@nclnet.org

Washington, DC — The nation’s oldest consumer group told the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today that allowing a name change of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) to “Corn Sugar” would be misleading to consumers and possibly expose the agency to future dilemma, depending on how scientific research and public perception may continue to evolve.

“Regardless of where you stand on the debate over High Fructose Corn Syrup and its effects on our waistlines and our health, changing the name after decades of use is unfair to consumers,” said Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the National Consumers League. “Consumers are familiar with HFCS, they know how to find it on Nutrition Facts labels, and they deserve consistency so they can continue to make purchasing decisions.”

The National Consumers League (NCL), a Washington, DC-based nonprofit watchdog group, filed formal comments with the FDA urging the agency to reject a petition by the Corn Refiners Association requesting that the name of High Fructose Corn Syrup, a sweetener commonly found in soft drinks and processed foods, be changed to “Corn Sugar.”

The request by the corn refining industry, which makes HFCS, comes before a backdrop of controversial and evolving debate over the ingredient’s nutritional value and possible health implications.

The FDA officially approved the name “High Fructose Corn Syrup” in 1983, and the sweetener has been referred to by that name ever since. HFCS consumption has come under fire in recent years as a possible factor in a variety of health problems ranging from obesity to diabetes, and as a result, some consumers have decided to avoid HFCS. Several manufacturers of brand name foods and beverages have stopped using the ingredient including Hunt’s ketchup, Snapple, Gatorade, and Starbucks’ baked goods.

“The FDA should not play spin doctor for the corn refining industry or shield food companies who use the ingredient from the impact of emerging scientific evidence or from consumer preferences. Just as it would be premature to conclude that HFCS is harmful to health, an official name change could frustrate further scientific study and confuse or irritate consumers,” said Greenberg. “Should it turn out that HFCS does contribute to obesity or other adverse health outcomes, a regulatory decision allowing manufacturers to hide this ingredient from consumers could come back to haunt FDA.”

To read NCL’s letter to the FDA, click here.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Continuing the drive to enact bill shock protections – National Consumers League

/in /by

By John Breyault, Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud

Yesterday, NCL joined with eight other consumer and public interest groups to file reply comments in the FCC’s bill shock proceeding.  As we have previously mentioned, the FCC is considering new rules that would require wireless carriers to provide alert notifications to consumers when they are close to running out of voice minutes, text messages or data allotments.  Such alerts would, we argue, help consumer avoid expensive overage charges and roaming fees.

Joining with NCL in our comments were the Center for Media Justice, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Free Press, Media Access Project, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, New America Foundation Open Technology Initiative, and Public Knowledge.

In our reply comments, we argue that the wireless industry’s current usage control mechanism is not adequately protecting consumers from these charges.  We further argue that all consumers would benefit from a common baseline of consumer protection and that such rules would enhance competition and innovation in the wireless market.  Finally, we argue that customers of smaller rural and regional carriers and prepaid companies should also benefit from the proposed rules.

The issue now goes to the FCC, which will review our comments as well as the comments of other stakeholders, including the wireless industry, state public utilities commissions and attorneys general, other consumer groups and individual consumers. NCL will continue to play an active role in this issue as we work with the FCC to implement common-sense protections that benefit consumers and address the bill shock issue.

Scams, shams, and predators: online dating in a digital age – National Consumers League

/in /by

Valentine’s Day is just a short week away. Rather than spend what has often been called “the loneliest day of the year” without that special someone, some of the single among us are weighing their options and plotting on how to secure that last-minute date. Over the past few years, an increasing number of singles have been turning to the digital world of online dating, social networking sites, and singles forums to find romantic partners. If popular Internet dating site, Match.com’s, claims are to be believed, 1 in 5 relationships now begin online. Internet dating can be a great, low pressure way to meet new people and expand your social circle. However, online mingling comes with its own unique set of risks that consumers should keep in mind this February 14th.

Sweetheart swindles: In this scam, a fraudster begins a drawn-out process by setting up a profile on a dating or singles site and wooing potential victims by showering them with affection, quickly professing love, and even going so far as to send small gifts like flowers and chocolate. The romance period can last for several months. Eventually, the scammer will invent some imagined hardship—car crash, medical bills, travel expenses—and solicit their new love for money. Once the kind-hearted victim sends some cash, their new “sweetheart” will often begin a cycle of continuous requests for additional funds due to recurring “catastrophes.” Due to the very personal nature of the scam, many victims are too embarrassed to report the crime even when they have suffered substantial losses—the average victim loses around $7,000 dollars in a typical swindle.

Child predators: According to Online Dating Magazine, a consumer watchdog publication for online daters, sexual predators can use online dating services to target single parents. These criminals woo single parents and gain their trust and affection to secure what they are really after: access to the children. Online Dating Magazine issued a warning about the issue after Parents for Megan’s Law, a child advocacy group, set up a fake profile of a mother with two boys. A registered sex offender named Michael Bradley, who was convicted of abusing a 15-year-old-boy, showed interest in the woman, violating a court order not to seek relationships online.

Fake dating sites: While most consumers know to be wary of those they meet online, sometimes it’s the site itself that can put consumers at risk. Scammers can be quite technologically sophisticated when it comes to online fraud. There are cases where fraudsters have been known to set up sham dating sites full of fake profiles in order to charge unsuspecting users monthly membership fees.  Just this month, two men launched Lovely-Faces.com, a sham dating site complete with 250,000 fake member profiles the men created by importing data from public Facebook profiles. The site’s creators maintain that Lovely-Faces is a prank designed to expose the dangers of online fraud and identity theft. “Facebook, an endlessly cool place for so many people, becomes at the same time a goldmine for identity theft and dating — unfortunately, without the user’s control,” the two explained.

Here are a few tips to keep in mind:

  • Stick to well-known dating sites that have a reputation
  • Do some research online to ensure you are dealing with a legitimate business before becoming a paying member of a site
  • Some red flags that you might be dealing with a sweetheart swindler include proclaiming immediate feelings of love, refusal to speak by phone, consistent misspelling of common words, and requests to wire money or ship merchandise to a third-party
  • If you are at all concerned about introducing your new partner to your children, use a site like https://www.familywatchdog.us that lets you search by name and zip code for registered sex offenders

Online dating is often a great way to find and connect with new, interesting people. Most users of these sites aren’t scammers out to steal your life savings or poach your personal information. However, that doesn’t change the fact that caution, good judgment, and common sense go along way—whether your romancing takes place online or face-to-face.

Government grant scams: promise free money but deliver debt – National Consumers League

/in /by

With high unemployment and a still sluggish economy, many Americans are on the lookout for new opportunities to get some cash—a fact that scammers are well aware of and eager to exploit. Government grant scams have been a frequently reported scam to NCL’s Fraud Center in recent months.NCL’s Fraud Center was recently contacted by a woman we’ll call “Maureen.” Maureen received a phone call from a woman who said she was a “customer service representative” from the United States government who was happy to inform Maureen that she was “eligible” to receive a government grant in the amount of $5,600. The friendly woman on the phone informed Maureen that, in order to receive her money, all she had to do was pay a onetime “processing fee” to the tune of $1,100. Maureen quickly wired the money to the address she was given, only to learn that she had to pay an additional $419 in order for her grant to be “released.” Maureen was now growing concerned and began to ask why she had to pay so many fees. The caller calmly explained that Maureen’s grant was “guaranteed” as soon as she made the final payment, which Maureen reluctantly made. Unfortunately for Maureen, the guarantee was bogus and the only thing she got was a $1,500 hole in her bank account.

With high unemployment and a still sluggish economy, many Americans are on the lookout for new opportunities to get some cash — a fact that scammers are well aware of and eager to exploit. Government grant scams have been a frequently reported scam at NCL’s Fraud Center in recent months. A typical scam can go one of two ways: the scammer requests a “processing fee” or “security deposit” (as in Maureen’s case), or the victim is instructed to provide personal information, such as bank account and Social Security numbers, under the guise that the caller will “deposit” the funds directly into the victim’s accounts. Once the caller has the victim’s banking information, the scammer drains the account.

The experts at NCL’s Fraud Center are tracking scams like Maureen’s and reminding consumers of the most obvious red flags for spotting fraudulent government grants, such as:

  • The government doesn’t telephone people or send unsolicited letters or emails to offer grants. If someone contacts you unexpectedly and offers you a grant, it’s a scam. Don’t provide your financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, or other personal information in response to such an offer. Crooks “phish” for that information to steal victims’ money and impersonate them for other illegal purposes.
  • Government grants never require fees of any kind. You might have to provide financial information to prove that you qualify for a government grant, but you won’t have to pay to get one.
  • Government grants require an application process. They aren’t simply given over the phone and are never guaranteed. Applications for government grants are reviewed to determine if they meet certain criteria and are generally awarded based on merit. If you didn’t apply for a government grant and someone says you’re receiving one, it’s a scam.
  • Government grants are made for specific purposes, not just because someone is a good taxpayer. Most government grants are awarded to states, cities, schools, and nonprofit organizations to help provide services or fund research projects. Grants to individuals are typically for things like college expenses or disaster relief.
  • Don’t be fooled by official or impressive-sounding names. Swindlers claiming to provide or help get government grants often invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the organizations they claim to represent. They operate under many different names and phone numbers, take your money, then often leave town to start all over again.

If you’ve been a victim of a government grant scam, know someone who has, or have been approached by a scam artist, contact your local law enforcement, your state attorney general and file a complaint with the National Consumers League’s Fraud Center at www.fraud.org.

Senate health care vote a troubling relief – National Consumers League

/in /by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Thankfully the Senate vote this week on the health care reform bill went down on a 51-47 vote. But what’s troubling – very troubling – is that every single Republican in the Senate voted to repeal health care reform. Even senators who voted for the bill when it passed last year have now switched sides – these include both Senators from Maine Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts.

This landmark care bill will expand coverage to 32 million Americans who currently don’t have health insurance, most frequently because they cannot afford it. That doesn’t mean they don’t need the insurance – or won’t use health care services. It just means that when they get sick or get into an accident, they either forego care or end up paying out-of-pocket what are often exorbitant rates. Prior to passage of health reform, the United States was the only industrialized country that didn’t provide health care for its population. As the richest nation, that should be source of shame, not pride.

Republicans who voted to repeal say they feel the health reform law violates the Constitution by mandating that most individuals be required to buy insurance. The problem with that argument is that unless everyone buys into the insurance system, we won’t be able to spread the risk among both the healthy and sick. If only sick people opt into the insurance, soaring costs of taking care of those needing the most care will overwhelm the system.

The House of Representatives has already voted to repeal the bill. We salute those Senators who stood their ground on the vote this week and are standing up for the principle that all Americans deserve access to high quality and affordable health care.

Fans beware: Super Bowl ticket scams – National Consumers League

/in /by

A consumer we’ll call “Trina,” who recently contacted the NCL’s Fraud Center, is a die-hard Green Bay Packers fan. Eager to attend the upcoming Packers v. Steelers Super Bowl in Texas, and willing to drop serious money to do so, Trina was thrilled to see two tickets for sale on craigslist. She contacted the seller who said she was a Dallas-based flight attendant who unexpectedly had to fly to the UK and would be unable to use her tickets to the big game. The flight attendant suggested using a legitimate parcel service that would allow Trina to pick the tickets up at the airport. Trina happily wired over $950 dollars, and the ticket seller immediately sent her an email, appearing to be confirmation from the parcel service that she would receive her tickets in a few days. Days later, with no tickets and no response from the “flight attendant,” Trina started to worry. She finally called the parcel company, only to learn that they had no record of the transaction and that the email she received was a fake. Trina had been scammed. She lost $950 dollars and will be watching the game from her couch.

With Super Bowl Sunday just around the corner and pre-game excitement riding high,  NCL’s Fraud Center is warning consumers against ticket scams. A ticket scam can work in a variety of ways, but in every scenario the tickets are either never delivered or are misrepresented. As was the case with Trina, scammers often go to great lengths to seem legitimate. Fake Web sites, names, and email addresses are all par for the course.  In a typical scam, a fraudster will post tickets for a much sought-after event on popular e-commerce sites like e-bay and craigslist and then wait for a victim to take the bait. When a victim bites, the scammer will often make up elaborate stories about how they came across their tickets—a stewardess with a hectic schedule, sudden illness, family commitments, etc.—and accept credit card and wire transfer payment options. After a few days, the tickets never arrive, are counterfeit, or are old tickets to similar past events.

These types of scams are nothing new; scammers have been leveraging the excitement brought on by major sporting and concert events to rob unsuspecting consumers of their hard-earned cash for decades. The Better Business Bureau issued a warning to consumers about ticket scams just last month. With the Super Bowl on Sunday and tickets for the 2012 Olympic Games going on sale in March, now is a great time to go over some online ticket buying tips:

  • Search for and buy tickets from sites you already know and trust
  • Ask for a picture of the ticket and verify it against the venue’s seating chart
  • Get the seller’s real name and contact information
  • Always get a receipt for the purchase
  • Avoid wire transfers at all costs. PayPal and credit cards transactions are easier to cancel or reverse, and make it more likely you will get your money back if scammed

Don’t let your enthusiasm for your favorite team or band get the best of you! Use your best judgment and always go with your gut. Remember the golden rule: if a deal seems too good to be true, it probably is.