‘CN U PIK ME UP FRM SOCCR, MOM?’ – NCL survey examines pre-teens and cell phones – National Consumers League

/in /by

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

In addition to lunch money, friendship bracelets and the occasional frog for teacher’s desk, today’s pre-teens are just as likely to carry a cell phone in their backpacks.  According to a new survey released today by NCL, nearly 6 in 10 (56 percent) of parents of tweens have purchased a cell phone for their tween-aged (8-12) children.

Why the focus on pre-teens?  According to a 2007 survey by C&R Research, 46 percent of children ages 9-11 had cell phones.  Today’s report shows that cell phone penetration rates among this demographic continues to climb.

In response to this development, over the past twelve months, NCL has worked to provide parents of younger children the tools they need to make an informed buying decision.  Parents of pre-teens clearly have different priorities to consider regarding cell phone use than parents of teenagers.  In addition, more than 30 percent of American households now have cell phones as their only phones.  These market developments have left many parents scratching their heads as to how they deal with this brave new world of kids and phones.

That’s why NCL has developed a parent’s guide to pre-teen cell phone use.  We also have tips for parents on how to take advantage of parental control technologies to manage kids’ cell phones.  Indeed, NCL’s survey found that among parents whose cell phones bills were higher than expected, investigating parental controls was the preferred method to control costs (62 percent), higher than setting a monthly budget (38 percent), cancelling the phone (23 percent) or switching to an unlimited service plan (22 percent).

It’s never a good idea to go grocery shopping without a list (or on an empty stomach), because you’re likely to buy things you don’t really need.  The same principles are at work when it comes to buying a cell phone. A rough game plan developed before you start shopping can help you stay within budget and get a phone that fits for your kids. Our pre-teen cell phone guide has some suggested questions to ask yourself before you head in to the cell phone store and your child’s eyes get wide at the site of the latest iPhone or Android superphone.

Armed with a good idea of what kind of phone works for your child and how much you want to spend, parents can (hopefully!) avoid sticker shock from pre-teen cell phone use.

Now if they could just make a consumer guide for getting kids to eat their broccoli and stop picking on their kid brothers …

Weighing in on the overuse of antibiotics in livestock – National Consumers League

/in /by

Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health problem. While there are many causes of resistance, one major reservoir for resistant bacteria is livestock. With more than 80 percent of the antibiotics used in this country administered to livestock, resistance arising from food-producing animals is of no small concern. Antibiotics are used in livestock for three main purposes. First, they are used to treat a sick animal. Secondly, they are used to prevent illnesses, diseases which are largely the result of the crowded agricultural conditions that are so common these days. Finally, antibiotics are used to promote faster growth so that animals may be taken to slaughter at younger ages, a practice which yields higher rates of profit for farmers.

Because antibiotic resistance develops when bacteria are exposed to antimicrobials intended to kill them, all three uses of these drugs can lead to problems. Some bacteria are stronger, often due to a genetic mutation. Antibiotics may kill the weaker bugs but these stronger bacteria will survive and flourish.

The consequences of increasing antimicrobial resistance are very real. Patients who become ill with a resistant infection will have to make choices about alternative drugs, which may be less effective or have more serious side effects.

In response to the problem of increasing drug resistance caused by livestock, the FDA recently issued a draft Guidance for Industry which set outs a new paradigm for reducing antibiotic use in livestock. Unfortunately, this new framework is entirely voluntary, meaning that manufacturers of these drugs get to decide whether or not they abide by FDA’s recommendations.

In formal comments filed with the FDA, NCL made the following recommendations for strengthening the program:

  1. Because disease prevention uses of antibiotics create the same selective pressures as growth promotion, FDA should move forward with withdrawing approvals for the use of antimicrobials for prevention of diseases. This is necessary as drug companies are unlikely to make this move on their own.
  2. The new system that FDA has proposed relies on a voluntary scheme for eliminating the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion. Because some companies may choose not to participate, a voluntary system is not sufficient for reducing the use of antibiotics. We encourage FDA to use its regulatory authority to create a mandatory reduction plan that will ensure compliance and increased public health.
  3. The FDA should choose a measure of success that is meaningful to public health. Because of our concerns that drug sponsors may add indications to their drugs for prevention uses, merely looking at whether sponsors do away with growth promotion uses of antimicrobials is an insufficient measure of whether the program is succeeding. A more appropriate measure of success would be to look at whether or not the amount of antibiotics used has decreased.
  4. Transparency in the implementation of this new process is essential. FDA has proposed a three year implementation period. FDA should publish detailed quarterly reports on proposed and finalized voluntary changes. These reports should facilitate the independent verification of progress made towards implementation as well as an assessment of the public health implications of these changes.

NCL urges FDA to implement mandatory reductions in antibiotic use in livestock. Without these changes, we face the very real possibility of losing our arsenal of drugs we use to treat human disease.

Women’s Health Initiative: Ten years later – National Consumers League

/in /by

Many older women’s lives are overcomplicated by difficult menopause symptoms, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, as well as other health issues that come with aging. For years, even healthy women who experienced no symptoms were encouraged to take hormone therapy (HT), and it quickly became the most common method of menopause symptom prevention. Ten years ago today, the National Women’s Health Network (NWHN) announced the results of a research study called the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI): hormone therapy increases the risks of breast and ovarian cancers. The announcement came after a decade of thorough research of some of the most common hormone therapy drugs available.

Because of that monumental research, breast cancer rates decreased for the first time in history, according to the NWHN, “there are 160,000 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over the last 10 years because they avoided unnecessary exposure to drugs that would have caused it.” By questioning the mainstream medical treatment, which happened to financially benefit big pharmaceutical companies, WHI literally saved the lives of thousands of women. There is much to celebrate, but there is still much more work to be done.

In the years after the WHI results, many other hormone therapy treatments were introduced onto the marketplace. Many of these have not been tested as thoroughly as the treatments used in the WHI study. It is too simplistic to dismiss all hormone therapy treatments as bad for women, but caution should be taken. As the NWHN writes, “Research on HT is an ongoing process. While the search for definitive answers about the long-term health effects of other forms of HT continues, the Network recommends that women consider menopause HT as a last resort for short-term symptom relief rather than a tool for long-term health maintenance.”

The Mayo Clinic recommends hormone therapy for some women in small doses for hot flashes and vaginal dryness. It notes that “Long-term systemic hormone therapy for the prevention of postmenopausal conditions is no longer routinely recommended.” For consumers, navigating sometimes conflicting or changing information about health care and treatment options can often be overwhelming, which is why it’s so important to use reliable resources for information and maintain open dialogue with health care professionals. Important research such as the WHI study will continue to shed light on modern health care, but – when it comes down to it – the most useful tool for making good decisions is the relationship and communication between patients and their health care professionals.

Liberia: Are foreign corporations helping or hurting? – National Consumers League

/in /by

By Brianne Pitts, NCL public policy intern

Recently, members of the nonprofit community gathered in Washington, DC to attend a forum that examined the current social, economical, and political conditions in the West African nation of Liberia. After two decades of instability and two civil wars that killed 250,000 people, Liberia has begun the process of picking up the pieces of its shattered nation, which is no easy task: Six in seven Liberians live in dire poverty. Fortunately, the country, founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century, has abundant natural resources. With the restructuring of Liberian government to a unitary constitutional republic led by President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa’s first female elected head of state and a Harvard-trained economist, it seems as if these resources could bring some needed revenues into the country.

With the return of political and economical stability, however, there is a rising concern over worker’s rights for Liberians. There has been a steady and growing increase in land ownership and the extraction of Liberia’s natural resources by U.S. companies like Chevron, Firestone, and other conglomerates.

As Western outsiders acquire more land, Liberians already living on the land are being pushed from their homes. Village lines have had to be redrawn due to land grabbing. Different communities have been squeezed together and forced to share increasingly limited resources left behind by the corporations.

Large-scale extraction of the land has caused rivers and streams to become polluted, simultaneously wiping out the food and water sources as well as possible trade opportunities for local families.

A major problem with the presence of big business in Liberia is the corporation’s failure to invest in the Liberian people. Alfred Brownell, a Liberian lawyer, told event participants that “the (American) Firestone Corporation has been present in Liberia for over 80 years, and still to this day there is not a single person of Liberian descent in a position of power within that company.”

Liberian workers are relegated to labor-intensive, menial, low-paying jobs. If companies like Firestone or Chevron proceed to invest only in the land without investing in the people, and provide wealth for themselves but not the Liberians, then the American-Liberian relationship will continue to be exploitative. Consumers should hold big corporations accountable for how they produce their products and the devastation they leave behind. American corporations must be held to a high standard when it comes to extracting resources from the world’s poorest nations.

NCL comments to FDA on the overuse of antibiotics in livestock – National Consumers League

/in /by

July 12, 2012

Comments of the National Consumers League to the Food and Drug Administration
Comment on Draft Guidance for Industry #213: Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0889-0001

Introduction 

The National Consumers League (NCL), the nation’s oldest consumer advocacy organization, is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on draft Guidance for Industry (GFI) #213 (Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0889-0001). NCL is concerned that the voluntary framework established by GFI # 213 does not adequately address the growing concern of antimicrobial resistance, particularly resistance caused by the over-application in livestock. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has an important leadership role to play in halting the continued development of antibiotic resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance is not a new problem. For decades, scientists have warned that the overuse of antibiotics will lead bacteria to develop resistance to these life saving drugs.[1] Inappropriate use of antimicrobials selects for the strongest strains of bacteria. The reality is that the continued development of resistance could leave us with an arsenal of once powerful drugs which are no longer effective. Resistant bacteria are a challenge to medical professionals, who are sometimes forced to substitute drugs which can be less effective or have more serious side effects.

Approximately 80% of the antibiotics used in the United States are administered to food producing animals. Antibiotics are administered to livestock for three main purposes.[2] In the first instance, antimicrobials are given to a sick animal to treat a specific, present disease. Secondly, antibiotics are administered in food and water to whole herds and flocks of animals to prevent the occurrence of diseases, diseases that are increasingly likely to occur due to the crowded conditions common to much of modern agricultural production. Finally, antibiotics have been used since the 1940s to promote faster growth in livestock.[3]

While the first use of antimicrobial drugs is widely accepted and supported by both the agricultural community and public health professionals, the second two uses are more controversial. When antibiotics are used for disease prevention and growth promotion, they are often administered for longer periods of time and at lower doses, two conditions which are known to help promote resistance.[4]

Background on GFI #209 and #213

GFI #209, “The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals,” states that “it is imperative that strategies for controlling antimicrobial resistance include a consideration of how microbial drugs are being used and measures to address those uses that are injudicious in nature.” GFI #209 proposes two guiding principles: that the use of antibiotics in animals should be limited to medically necessary circumstances and that use of medically important antibiotics should take place under the guidance of a veterinary professional.

The first principle articulated in GFI #209 is that “the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals should be limited to those uses that are considered necessary for assuring animal health.”[5] Under this principle, FDA addresses the question of whether prevention uses of antibiotics are necessary, saying “FDA believes that some indications for prevention use are necessary and judicious as long as such uses include professional veterinary involvement.”

The second principle enumerated in GFI #209 is that “the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals should be limited to those uses that include veterinary oversight or consultation.”[6] This guidance introduces a new paradigm that includes closer consultation with veterinary professionals.

GFI #213 provides the steps to achieve the implementation of GFI #209. GFI #213 reiterates that disease prevention uses of drugs are considered judicious if a veterinarian “determines that the use of antimicrobials is necessary to prevent the onset of diseases that are likely to occur.”[7] The guidance emphasizes that FDA intends to work with the sponsors of impacted antibiotics, as well as the “end users of these products,” the veterinarians and animal producers, to voluntarily change the indications on animal drugs.[8] This voluntary system, combined with increased oversight on the part of veterinarians, would result in the end of growth promotion uses of antimicrobials.

GFI #213 also lays out a timeline for implementation that it hopes will “minimize the impacts and provide for an orderly transition.”[9] According to the draft guidance, a three year phase is proposed, during which time sponsors would adjust the labels on their products to eliminate growth promotion and provide for increased veterinary oversight.

Concerns with the Proposed Paradigm

NCL has several concerns with the draft GFI as it is written. First, NCL is troubled by the voluntary system which GFI #213 lays out for the reduction of production uses of antibiotics. We do not believe that voluntary systems provide regulatory incentives necessary to spur change in the industry. It is appropriate and necessary for FDA to step in and issue mandatory measures that would ensure antibiotics are no longer used for growth promotion.

Secondly, NCL is concerned that that this voluntary system of reduction, proposed by FDA, still allows for the use of antibiotics for disease prevention. The use of antimicrobials throughout a herd or flock to prevent disease is an important contributor to the development of antibiotic resistant pathogens. We are concerned that FDA, in its draft guidance, considers the use of antimicrobials for disease prevention as judicious use. Many preventive uses have no limit on duration and are given to all the animals on the farm. This is inconsistent with FDA’s guidance in both GFI #213 and the previously released GFI # 152.

Third, NCL is concerned that GFI #213 creates a method for determining the safety of antimicrobials that is weaker than the previous set of criteria established in GFI #152. We are concerned that these new guidelines will be used in lieu of the original guidance and will result in decreased levels of oversight. Furthermore, we are worried that the method proposed by GFI #213 does not include recommendations against using medically important antibiotics on all animals in a flock or herd. Additionally, there is no clear limitation on the duration of use, another important factor in the development of resistance.

Fourth, NCL is concerned that a voluntary approach which allows for the continued use of antibiotics for disease prevention will allow drug companies to circumvent the spirit of the guidance, which is intended to reduce the use of antibiotics. Specifically, we are concerned that while the proposed paradigm will lead drug companies to remove label indications for growth promotion, it may also incentivize drug companies to simply expand the parameters of disease prevention use.

Finally, NCL questions the very foundation of the draft guidance; that is, we question whether a system that is voluntary can be effective at reducing the use of antibiotics for growth promotion. NCL is troubled by the ability of drug sponsors to choose whether to participate and feel that a voluntary system may not provide the incentives necessary to ensure compliance.

Recent Court Decisions

Two recent decisions have been handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz, of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. The first was a summary judgment issued on March 22, 2012. In 1977, in response to growing concern about the development of antimicrobial resistance, FDA announced its intent to withdraw the approval for subtherapeutic uses of penicillin and two types of tetracycline. After making this announcement, FDA failed to move forward with the appropriate hearings and did not remove approval for the drugs. In his ruling, Judge Katz stated that the FDA “must re-issue a notice of the proposed withdrawals (which may be updated) and provide an opportunity for a hearing. . .If, at a hearing, the drug sponsors fail to show that use of the drugs is safe, the Commissioner must issue a withdrawal order.”[10]

In another decision, issued on June 1, 2012, Judge Katz declared that an FDA decision to deny two citizens petitions to end subtherapeutic use of antibiotics was “arbitrary and capricious.” He goes on to note that had FDA “addressed the Petitions in a timely fashion,” looking at them when they were initially filed, “withdrawal proceedings could have been commenced and completed by now.” Judge Katz concluded that “the adoption of voluntary measures does not excuse the Agency from its duty to review the Citizen Petitions on their merits.”[11]

NCL is encouraged by these decisions, which reinforce the fact that FDA has long considered antimicrobial resistance a serious issue and must take action to put a halt to subtherapeutic uses. NCL urges the agency not to appeal these cases and to move forward with repealing the approval for penicillin and tetracyclines as ordered by Judge Katz. It is the agency’s duty to comply with the law’s mandate to protect public health from risky uses of antibiotics, such as growth promotion and prevention uses.

Recommendations 

Given our concerns with the proposed system, which would focus on voluntary reductions in the use of antibiotics for growth promotion purposes, NCL has several recommendations.

  1. Because disease prevention uses of antibiotics create the same selective pressures as growth promotion, FDA should move forward with withdrawing approvals for the use of antimicrobials for prevention of diseases. This is necessary as drug companies are unlikely to make this move on their own.
  1. The new system that FDA has proposed relies on a voluntary scheme for eliminating the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion. Because some companies may choose not to participate, a voluntary system is not sufficient for reducing the use of antibiotics. We encourage FDA to use its regulatory authority to create a mandatory reduction plan that will ensure compliance and increased public health.
  1. The FDA should choose a measure of success that is meaningful to public health. Because of our concerns that drug sponsors may add indications to their drugs for prevention uses, merely looking at whether sponsors do away with growth promotion uses of antimicrobials is an insufficient measure of whether the program is succeeding. A more appropriate measure of success would be to look at whether or not the amount of antibiotics used has decreased.
  1. Transparency in the implementation of this new process is essential. FDA has proposed a three year implementation period. FDA should publish detailed quarterly reports on proposed and finalized voluntary changes. These reports should facilitate the independent verification of progress made towards implementation as well as an assessment of the public health implications of these changes.

Conclusion

While NCL applauds FDA for recognizing that there is an urgent need to reduce the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals, we have concerns about the new framework of reduction which the agency has proposed. NCL is pleased that the agency has decided to recommend the increased involvement of veterinarians in the application of antimicrobials. However, we are concerned that a voluntary approach to reduction of antimicrobial use will not provide strong enough incentives to ensure industry compliance.

FDA has recently been instructed in two court cases to continue forward with action to reduce the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals. NCL urges the agency not to appeal these court decisions and to use them as the basis for future reduction of antibiotics in livestock.

NCL appreciates having this opportunity to comment on FDA’s draft Guidance for Industry #213 and encourages the agency to reconsider its framework for ensuring that drugs critically important to human medicine are preserved.

[1] https://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/antibiotic_res.shtml

[2] Nugent, Rachel, Emma Back, and Alexandra Beith. The Race Against Drug Resistance. Center for Global Development, 2010. https://www.cgdev.org/files/1424207_file_CGD_DRWG_FINAL.pdf.

[3] Frank Aarestrup. “Get Pigs Off Antibiotics.” Nature 486 (2012): 564-466.

[4] Gould, I.M., and F.M. MacKenzie. “Antibiotic Exposure as a Risk Factor for Emergences of Resistance: The Influence of Concentration.” Journal of Applied Microbiology 92.S1 (2002): 78S-84S. Web. 6 July 2012. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2672.92.5s1.10.x/pdf>.

[5] United States of America. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for Industry # 209, The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals, 21.

[6] Guidance for Industry #209, 22.

[7] [7] United States of America. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine. Draft Guidance for Industry #213, New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209, 3. 

[8] Draft Guidance for Industry #213, 4.

[9] Draft Guidance for Industry #213, 7.

[10] Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Et Al. (NRDC) v United States Food and Drug Administration, Et Al. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. 22 Mar. 2012.

[11] https://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/060612katz.pdf

Survey: Majority of ‘tweeners’ now have cell phones, with many parents concerned about cost – National Consumers League

/in /by

July 10, 2012

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

View NCL’s new July 2012 survey conducted by ORC International (PDF)

Listen to audio from today’s tele news event here.

Washington, DC – Cell phones are not just for teenaged children any more. Nearly six out of 10 (56 percent) parents of “tweeners” (children aged 8-12) have provided their children with cell phones, according to a new survey conducted by ORC International for the National Consumers League (NCL), the nation’s oldest consumer organization. Of those parents, roughly a quarter are facing higher bills than they had expected to pay in order for their child to have a cell phone.

The survey is part of NCL’s continuing commitment to providing advice to parents of pre-teens who are considering buying their children’s first cell phones.

Highlights of the NCL tweeners and cell phones survey include the following:

  • Nearly six out of 10 parents with tweeners surveyed (56 percent) have purchased cell phones for their young children, ranging from a high of 62 percent in households earning over $100,000 a year to a low of 41 percent in households under $50,000 a year.
  • Parents in a third of households earning under $50,000 are paying more for their tweener’s cell phone than they had expected. Overall, about a quarter of households (23 percent) report they pay more than they had anticipated would be the case.
  • The 10-11 age range appears to be the “sweet spot” for pre-teens to receive a cell phone. Six out of 10 pre-teens were aged 10-11 when they received their phone. Twenty percent of 8-9 year olds and 15 percent of 12-year olds received a cell phone.
  • Parents who are paying more than they thought they would for their tweener’s cell phone would: investigate parental controls offered by wireless carrier to control costs (62 percent); set a monthly budget with child (38 percent); cancel phone (23 percent); and switch to prepaid or postpaid unlimited plans (22 percent).

“Before the training wheels are coming off their bikes, many children are getting their first cell phones,” said John Breyault, NCL vice president of public policy, telecommunications and fraud. “Our survey underscores the fact that pre-teens are the new ‘growth market’ for the wireless industry. Given the increasingly young age at which kids get these devices, the multiplicity of choices in the cell phone market can be daunting for parents. That’s why it is imperative that parents have the information necessary to make informed buying decisions when it comes to their pre-teens’ first wireless devices.”

Graham Hueber, senior researcher, ORC International, said: “This survey clearly shows that the use of cell phones is now becoming more entrenched at an earlier and earlier age in the U.S. However, even a substantial portion of parents who are comfortable with putting a smartphone in the hands of an eight year old have qualms about the resulting costs and are open to considering options to lower their child’s phone bill. This is likely going to mean that more and more parents will look for ways to pull the purse strings a little tighter, such as setting a budget or exploring prepaid cell phone options.”

Other key survey highlights

  • Tweeners aged 11-12 are more than twice as likely as those aged 8-10 to have a cell phone purchased by their parents, by a margin of 69 percent to 32 percent.
  • The top three reasons parents buy cell phones for tweeners are safety (84 percent); tracking child’s after-school activities (73 percent); and child asked for one (16 percent.)
  • Only 4 percent of tweeners with cell phones got a basic phone with no Web or texting access. About half (48 percent) are provided with a basic cell phone with texting, another 20 percent get a basic non-smartphone with texting and Web access, and 27 percent get a smartphone.
  • 82 percent of parents said that the price of the cell phone service was an important part of their decision. About nine in 10 parents (92 percent) say they have tweener cell phone costs of less than $75 per month.
  • 81 percent of parents of tweeners put their child on a contract-based cell phone plan and 15 percent opted for a prepaid cell phone service. More than four out of five parents (84 percent) added their child to an existing family plan.
  • Most important issues for parents selecting a cell phone for a tweener: total price of service (41 percent); quality of network (34 percent); cost of texting service (29 percent); and price of handset (29 percent).
  • More than half of parents (52 percent) who think they are paying too much for their tweener’s cell phone would consider switching to unlimited cell phone service as a way to cut costs. Six in 10 parents of tweeners in households earning less than $50,000 are not “aware of lower cost, unlimited, prepaid phone plans that would allow your child to make unlimited calling and texting.”

The survey also contained a number of good news findings:

  • Only 16 percent of parents reported friction or disagreements with their child over cell phone use.
  • Tweener cell phone abuse appears isolated. Fewer than one in 10 parents (8 percent each) reported “use of cell phone intrudes on family time” and “distracts your child from school work.” Only 3 percent reported such inappropriate use of a cell phone as “sexting” or cyberbullying by tweeners.
  • Some parents are doing their research. Before purchasing a cell phone for their tweener, 48 percent of parents talked to other parents about their experiences, 33 percent checked handsets/service plans online, and 29 percent did same at one or more retail outlets.
  • 89 percent of 10 parents of tweeners who bought cell phones for their child have no regrets.

Full survey findings are available here.

Tips from NCL

Before beginning the shopping for a tween’s cell phone, parents should ask themselves some basic questions in order to set expectations:

  • Why does your child need a cell phone?
  • Will the phone be used primarily to stay in touch with parents and for emergency use? Or will your child be using the phone for entertainment or to communicate with friends?
  • How much do you want to spend per month on service?
  • How much do you want to spend on the initial purchase of the cell phone itself?
  • Is your tween mature enough to keep their minutes, texting, and data use within plan limits?
  • Is your tween mature enough to use the phone responsibly and avoid viewing or sending inappropriate content?
  • What is your tween’s school’s policy on cell phones in school?
  • Does your tween have a habit of losing things or can he or she handle the responsibility of caring for a phone?

Methodology

The ORC International survey for National Consumers League presents the findings of a telephone poll conducted among a sample of 802 adults who are the parent of a child between the ages of 8 and 12.  The national survey was conducted during the period of June 15-20, 2012. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 3 percentage points at the full sample level.

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 gratefully acknowledges underwriting from TracFone Wireless, Inc., whose unrestricted educational grant made this survey possible.

MEDIA CONTACTS: Ailis Aaron Wolf, for NCL, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com; and Carol McKay, NCL, (412) 945-3242 or carolm@nclnet.org.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the related news event will be available on the Web at https://nclnet.org as of 5 p.m. EDT on July 10, 2012.

Students saddled with increasing debt loads – National Consumers League

/in /by

Lili Gecker, NCL public policy intern

The life of a college student often involves seeking free food. We often forgo luxuries (like spending $12 on going out to the movies), and instead can be found gathered around a computer screen watching free TV off of Hulu.com. Students today do not have much spare pocket change. A common question among friends will be, “How can you afford to be here? How many grants, loans, scholarships, and jobs did it take you?”

Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduate with debt, and graduates who take out loans leave college with an average of about $24,000 in debt. Even those individuals not currently seeking higher educations have likely noticed the problem (and maybe seen a couple of front pages like this one). This problem affects all of us. An investment in education is an investment in the future workforce.

As college graduates struggle to find employment, why add an increased student loan debt to their plate? Congress was given the deadline of July 1, 2012 to resolve to keep interest rates on Stafford loans at 3.4 percent, or they would double to 6.8 percent.  President Obama calls this is a “no-brainer” and Congress agrees—the question remains just how to pay. While they could not agree to a long-term solution, Congress settled the deal with a compromise: they agreed to freeze interest rates on student loans for one year, allowing it to remain at 3.4 percent, and deal with the problem later.

The bill is great for borrowers this year, but there are some problems: it excludes graduate students. And it puts Congress in the same position next year, with the need to act to either maintain or increase interest rates on Stafford loans. On an optimistic note, it buys time to find real, long-term solution—and many critics of this decision will be advocating for a stronger approach to student loans in the future.

Tweens and cell phones: A guide for responsible use – National Consumers League

/in /by

Cell phones are becoming increasingly common among younger teens and tweens. To help parents manage their tween’s use of a cell phone, NCL has put together advice for families on how to shop for tweens’ phones, how to keep down costs, and how to set some simple rules to make sure a child doesn’t misuse the phone.

Cell phones seem to be as much a part of teenage life as schoolwork, hanging out at the mall, and obsessing over what to wear to prom. But these days, children are beginning to receive their first wireless phones at progressively younger ages. According to a new 2012 NCL survey, nearly six out of 10 parents with tweeners surveyed (56 percent) have purchased cell phones for their young children.

Although cell phones are becoming more common among younger teens and tweens, there are major differences in the issues parents face when shopping for and managing the use of a tween’s mobile device as opposed to an older teenager’s phone. For example, a 16-year-old driving herself to an after-school job is likely to use a wireless device differently than a 12 year-old who is still dependent on a parent for rides to soccer practice and not venturing far from home independently.

Figuring out how to manage a child’s use of one of these high-tech gadgets can often require the skills of a seasoned diplomat, the steely nerve of a tightrope walker, and the tech savvy of a Silicon Valley computer geek. To help parents plan for and manage their tween’s use of a cell phone, NCL offers the following advice on how to shop for tweens’ phones, how to manage their costs, and how to set some simple rules to make sure a tween doesn’t misuse the phone.

Before you buy

Before beginning the shopping for a tween’s cell phone, ask yourself some basic questions to set expectations for your family.

  • Why does your child need a cell phone?
  • Will the phone be used primarily to stay in touch with parents and for emergency use? Or will your child be using the phone for entertainment or to communicate with friends?
  • How much to you want to spend per month on service?
  • How much do you want to spend on the initial purchase of the cell phone itself?
  • Is your tween mature enough to keep their minute use, texting and data within plan limits?
  • Is your tween mature enough to use the phone responsibly and avoid viewing or sending inappropriate content?
  • What is your tween’s school’s policy on cell phones in school?
  • Does your tween have a habit of losing things or can he or she handle the responsibility of caring for a phone?

Write out your answers to these questions and keep it with you when you shop. Having this list with you can help keep these important factors in mind when shopping for a cell phone. It will also help you stay focused when your tween inevitably starts to drool over phones that may not fit their and your needs.

Things to consider: Shopping for a tween’s cell phone

Once you have a good grasp on what exactly your want out of your tween’s cell phone experience, it’s time to start shopping. You may want to start online. There are dozens of Web sites that offer consumer reviews of cell service, handsets, and features. Checking these out first can help you narrow your choices before you check out the carriers’ Web sites and start being influenced by their marketing hype.

Coverage

Once you’ve narrowed down your choices, check out Web sites of the carriers that offer service in your home calling area. The carrier should fully cover all of the places that your tween is likely to use a cell phone on a regular basis. Many carriers’ Web sites feature coverage maps that show where voice and data service are offered in a particular geographic area. These maps aren’t foolproof, however.  It may be necessary to ask friend and family if they know of persistent “dead zones” in areas that your tween will be frequently using her phone. Once you’ve found a carrier that covers your area, talk to friends who use the carrier or carriers you are considering to see how they rate the service.

Postpaid or prepaid?

The second major decision involves choosing between a prepaid and a postpaid service. Most consumers are familiar with postpaid/contract-based services from national companies like AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless or regional carriers like US Cellular, Cellular South or nTelos. With postpaid, subscribers pay based on a monthly bill that lists out costs of use. One benefit of postpaid service for parents shopping for a tween’s cell phone is that the phone itself is likely to be significantly discounted or even free (though an activation fee is typically charged). You will also get a monthly bucket of minutes, text messages, and data to draw from, and you may be able to place limits on your child’s use to ensure he or she doesn’t go over and rack up extra costs.

On the minus side, to get cheap phone, a new subscriber typically must sign a 1-2 year service agreement, which generally includes a hefty early termination fee. Going over monthly voice, text, or data limits can quickly run up big overage charges as well. This could be an issue if your tween has trouble controlling her usage. Finally, if you already have postpaid cellular service, you can generally add your child’s line to your account (typically, for an additional fee) and have them share your monthly allotments of voice, text and data. Keep in mind that you may need to increase your plan limits to accommodate this new usage without going over plan limits.

Alternatively, a prepaid plan typically contains no contract or overage charges. Instead of paying for a defined allotment of minutes, texts, and data every month, the subscriber pays for their allotment up front (commonly known as a “top up”). Subsequent usage then deducts from this allotment (often referred to as “units”). Unless the prepaid plan provides for unlimited calling/browsing/texting, once the allotment is used up, the phone can no longer be used until additional units are purchased or the monthly allotment is replenished (on monthly prepaid plans). In addition to not having to worry about contracts or overages, prepaid offers the benefit of only having to pay for what is used. Postpaid cellular plans typically add a significant amount of fees and taxes to the advertised prices. These fees are generally included in the initial cost.

On the minus side, prepaid handsets are not discounted as heavily as postpaid. For moderate-to-heavy users, the per-unit cost of use may be more expensive than postpaid plans, unless you have an unlimited minutes, Web browsing, and texting prepaid plan. Prepaid carriers are just now starting to offer the latest current-generation smartphones, which might be an important consideration for your family.

The importance of texting

Teens are texters – more than face-to-face contact, email, instant messaging, and voice calling, the primary way kids prefer to communicate with each other is via text messaging. Among 12-year-olds, 35 percent report sending a text message to a friend on a daily basis. Among tweens ages 11-13, 43 percent prefer texting to emailing as a way to communicate with their friends.

This means, for parents of tweens, text-messaging costs are key when shopping for a plan. The most expensive option for frequently-texting tweens is typically pay-as-you go, where each text sent and received typically costs between 15 and 20 cents. A more affordable option may be to buy a bucket of text messages or an unlimited texting plan, which tend to run anywhere from $10-20 per month. Many prepaid plans that bill monthly offer unlimited texting as part of the monthly fee.

Mobile data

More and more these days, it seems everyone is using a smartphone – cell phones that are essentially pocket-sized mini-computers. They can be used to send email, download apps, play music, surf the Web, and more. All of these gee-whiz features come with a significant catch, however: the need for a data plan. Data plans vary greatly in cost and capacity. The big national carriers typically offer metered postpaid data plans starting in the $10 for less than 100 megabytes per month and ranging up to $100 for 10 or more gigabytes per month. Some of the smaller prepaid carriers offer unlimited data plans for as little as $35 per month. Bundles of unlimited voice, text, and data are being increasingly offered on prepaid plans as well.

From a parent’s perspective, whether or not to get a data plan for a tween will likely come down to a question of budget and how comfortable you are with your child’s ability to manage their use. A data-enabled smartphone has many of the same capabilities of a small computer, allowing a tween to surf the Web, download apps (often at a price) and send instant messages. Setting clear rules and taking advantage of available parental controls to manage usage of the device are important factors to consider before getting your tween a data plan.

On the plus side, many free apps are available to allow users to send text messages at no cost. If you are comfortable with your tween having a smartphone, using one of these apps could allow you to avoid paying for a text-messaging plan.

Try before you buy

It’s generally a smart idea to have your tween see the phone in person and try it out before you purchase it. Test out the keyboard or number pad (for texting comfort), and place a test call to test volume and microphone pickup. Check out the user interface to see if it’s easy to navigate. How comfortable is it for your tween to hold the phone up to her ear for an extended period of time?

Once you’ve settled on a particular handset, see what kinds of discounts are being offered. Often, the carriers offer special online-only discounts that beat the price of the handset in the store.

NOTE: Many carriers offer a 14-30 day money-back guarantee. If you find that the phone isn’t working as advertised or if coverage is spotty, you may be able to return it in this window and avoid an early termination fee (in the case of postpaid plans).

Setting the rules of the road

Managing usage of your tween’s new cell phone can easily become a source of conflict unless clear rules are set ahead of time. Since each tween is different, the rules they are expected to follow will differ. However, there are many areas that parents and tweens should have an understanding about to ensure responsible use.

  • Set a monthly budget and stick with it. Be clear about our commitment to avoiding overages (for postpaid plans) or your willingness to purchase additional minutes (for prepaid plans),
  • Discuss whether the phone may be used for making purchases of ringtones, apps, games, etc. If you don’t want it used for these, consider setting up parental controls to block these features.
  • Talk to your children about cyberbullying. A quarter (26 percent) of teens report having been bullied or harassed through text messages and phone calls. Discuss strategies for handling cyberbullying responsibly.
  • Discuss inappropriate use of the phone. “Sexting” or sending or receiving inappropriate photos can quickly come back to haunt a tween.
  • Discuss whom the tween is and is not allowed to contact with their phone. A good strategy is to program in all allowable numbers into the phone’s contact list so that the caller ID function shows who is calling. Be clear about whether you want your child to answer calls from unknown numbers.
  • Make sure your tween knows not to give out their cell number to people they don’t know, particularly online.
  • Make sure your tween knows about distracted biking. Just as adults need to make sure and avoid texting while driving, tweens should remember to keep their eyes on the road, not their cell phones, while they’re on two wheels or walking in public places where traffic could be an issue.

NCL thanks TracFone Wireless for its support for these tips for smart and safe family use of cell phones.

Consumer group hails vote on California table saw safety bill – National Consumers League

/in /by

July 6, 2012

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

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL) is celebrating the July 3 passage of the Table Saw Safety Act in the California Senate Judiciary Committee, receiving the three votes needed to move it from the Committee to the full State Senate. The California State Assembly had already passed the bill by a vote of 64-4.

NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg, who traveled to Sacramento to speak in support of the bill, commended its author, Senator Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara), and the three members of the Judiciary Committee for their support. Greenberg testified that “based on national data, California consumers suffer 6,700 injuries each year from table saws and about one amputation each day. And the grave hazards posed by a 100mph-spinning table saw blade can be completely eliminated by technology either currently available or in development. We urge the Committee to act on this critical consumer safety measure.”

The California bill requires that, after January 1, 2015, any new table saw sold in the state of California must be designed with an “active injury mitigation system.” Such technology must be able to prevent or detect contact with, or dangerous proximity between, a hand or finger and the teeth of a spinning table saw blade, and act to prevent severe injury to the hand or the finger. Similar technology is already available on table saws in the market and they have proven successful at virtually eliminating the horrific lacerations and amputations that occur on table saws without the technology. The legislation is supported by consumer organizations, labor unions, and medical associations. It is opposed by table saw manufacturers and associated industry groups.

Daniel Curtin, Director of the California Conference of Carpenters, endorsed the legislation. He said, “The carpenters proudly support AB 2218 (Williams) because safety devices on table saws protect our members from severe injuries and possible loss of their livelihood.”

“The technology required by AB 2218 would help ensure that construction workers using dangerous table saws would have one more way to remain safe on the job,” said Cesar Diaz, Legislative & Political Director, State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO.

The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission is also working on a proposed rule for a mandatory safety standard on table saws, but the time it will take for completion of a federal safety standard is unknown.

###

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.

Challenges of modernizing hallmark food safety laws – National Consumers League

/in /by

Earlier this week, we wished a happy 106th birthday to the Pure Food and Drugs Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act, both of which were signed into law on June 30, 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt. While commemorating the history of these laws is important, so is looking ahead and thinking about what the future holds for the important institutions created by these landmark pieces of legislation.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law on January 4, 2011 by President Obama, is an example of the positive ways in which legislation can be modernized. FSMA would transform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from an agency which merely responds to foodborne illnesses to one which actively works to prevent them. Unfortunately, this law is facing two major challenges to its implementation.

The first challenge facing FSMA is the current budget climate. With vastly increased responsibilities, FDA needs a corresponding increase in funding. However, in an era of fiscal austerity, government agencies across the board face funding cuts. This means FDA must do more with less, leaving the agency to make tough decisions about priorities. The inevitable result of this process of prioritization is that some things will slip through the cracks.

The second challenge facing FDA is the job of actually implementing the new law, a task which requires the release of many new regulations according to a time table. Four of these important rules, dealing with preventative controls (for both human food and animal feed), the foreign supplier verification program and produce safety, were due to be released in January. As of the writing of this blog post, these essential rules are being held up at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House. Because these rules are integral to the implementation of FSMA, food safety advocates have been joined by the industry in urging OMB to release the rules immediately. Without these rules, FSMA enactment is essentially stalled.

While FSMA seeks to modernize the FDA by improving and expanding the government’s role in keeping food safe, a proposed rule recently released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) entitled “Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection,” would roll back the government’s role in keeping our food safe. If the proposed rule was enacted, some inspection duties, traditionally performed by trained government inspectors, would be transferred to plant employees who are under no training requirement. Additionally, the new program would decrease the number of federal inspectors on the line while simultaneously increasing allowable line speeds to 175 birds per minute. The practical result is that while inspectors had been examining one bird every three seconds, they would now be inspecting three birds every second. This increase in line speeds is a concern not only for food safety but also for workers. Both consumer and labor organization have called for USDA to back away from its proposal.

Today the Pure Food and Drugs Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act face challenges of modernization. Modernization must be accompanied by sound science and must above all be free from political considerations. Modernization will require the teamwork of all the stakeholders involved. Consumers especially must let their elected officials know that these laws, the agencies they created and the continuation of the protections they provide are essential aspects of any modernization scheme.