European Union’s scheme for airline passengers’ rights – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

SG-headshot.jpgIn September 2015, I arrived at JFK airport in New York at 10:30 am for a quick flight to Washington, DC. I had a full day of meetings and was eager to get to the office. To my unpleasant surprise, I ended up arriving home at 6:00 pm. Weather was not a factor for the lengthy delays because the weather conditions were perfect in both DC and New York. Ultimately, American Airlines (AA) noted that it was their own mechanical and crew problems that caused the full day of delays. But, AA did not offer any passengers a dime of compensation for wasting their entire day. This seemed so wrong to me that it sparked my interest in what other countries provide for airline passengers’ rights.The National Consumers League (NCL) is advocating to expand airline passengers’ rights so that consumers are fairly compensated after they are wronged. So while in Brussels this week attending the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TADCD), I jumped at the chance to meet with the EU’s head of airline passenger rights when a European colleague offered to set up an impromptu meeting.

Alisa Tiganj, a Member of the Cabinet of the Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc, who is responsible for overseeing airline passenger rights, was kind enough to welcome me and spend a few minutes discussing the EU scheme.[1] In the US, we have few, if any, passenger compensation obligations for flights that are canceled or delayed, even when the airline is at fault.[2]  By the way, a total of 632 million passengers boarded domestic flights in the United States in the year 2010.  This averages to 1.73 million passengers flying per day.[3] 750 million people used EU airports in 2009.[4]

NCL would like to see that changed along the lines of what the EU provides.

The EU is made up of 28 member states with a population of 508 million.  We in the US, have a population of 300 million.  If you are a citizen of the EU flying on a European airline and your flight is delayed for more than three hours—or if it is canceled—you’re entitled to compensation. I should add that there are of course “extraordinary circumstances” where no compensation is guaranteed if the fault lies with weather or other force majeure. The general schedule for passenger compensation for delayed or canceled flights is below:

  • EUR 250 for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less
  • EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres
  • EUR 600 for all other flights

The rules also state, “Compensation shall be paid in cash, at the passenger’s bank account, by bank transfer or by check…. The right to assistance also applies to passengers who face long delays.” The right to assistance means that the carrier should offer these items below for free:

  • Meals and refreshments in proportion to the waiting time
  • Hotel accommodation for overnight stay if necessary
  • Transport between accommodation and airport
  • Two free telephone calls or to send two telex, fax, or e-mail messages

The latest rules were developed and adopted in 2013. Not surprisingly, the European airlines are fighting passenger claims and challenging the interpretation of the rules in court. But meanwhile, EU consumers are being compensated. All they must do is apply for compensation through an online form. The process is not onerous.

If airlines have to pay serious compensation for delaying and canceling flights, they will try harder to find a way to get passengers to their destination more efficiently. Right now, American carriers know they can do whatever they want—even keep someone waiting all day—and passengers are left without recourse. That’s a dangerous imbalance in rights and protections and NCL believes that needs to change.

New York Attorney General report shows anti-consumer practices remain rampant in ticketing industry – National Consumers League

/in /by

January 28, 2016

Contact: Cindy Hoang, National Consumers League, cindyh@nclnet.org or (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL) welcomes a new report on the ticketing industry released today by the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Though NCL disagrees with some of the report’s recommendations, the Schneiderman investigation highlights the rampant ticket industry abuse and need for reforms that NCL and others have long advocated.

The following statement is attributable to John Breyault, NCL vice president of public policy, telecommunications and fraud:

Consumers across the country shouldn’t be surprised by the findings of the New York Attorney General’s report on live event ticketing practices. NCL was an early and vocal critic of the live event ticketing industry. The report’s finding—that the modern ticket marketplace is rife with abuses that prevent consumers from accessing tickets to popular events at a fair price—has long been known to anyone that tries to buy a live event ticket.

There are no white knights in this marketplace. Unscrupulous ticket brokers abuse the market and violate the law by using sophisticated ticket-buying “bot” software to purchase large numbers of tickets and resell them at outrageous markups. Conversely, ticketing monopolists, promoters, and venue owners engage in the anti-consumer practice of holding back huge numbers of tickets for well-connected “insiders.” Indeed, as revealed recently, these same insiders often turn around and resell the tickets themselves.

We agree with many of the New York Attorney General’s recommendations. These include requiring better disclosure of bot activity to enforcement agencies by primary ticketers, more transparency on ticket “holds,” and better enforcement of existing consumer protections against abusive ticket broker practices. However, we disagree with the Attorney General’s recommendation that New York’s existing “paperless option” law should be repealed. The law, unique in the United States, ensures that primary ticketers in New York can’t take away a consumer’s right to give away, resell, or donate a tickets on an open and competitive secondary market. Rather than restrict consumers’ rights, legislators in New York and elsewhere should mandate transparency at all levels of the ticket marketplace, ensure that existing consumer protections are well-enforced and promote competition in the sale of live event tickets.

###

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.

TACD TTIP debate in Brussels – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

SG-headshot.jpgThe Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) conference is in full swing in Brussels today in a robust series of panel discussions about the compatibility of trade agreements and consumer protection. The TACD is made up of European and American consumer advocates and the group is laser-focused on the effort by the EU and the US governments to adopt Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP).So far, we have heard from European Union Trade Commissioner Cecelia Maelstrom who supports the trade agreement, US Federal Trade Commissioner Julie Brill, who takes no position but spoke about the FTC’s enforcement authority and the importance of preserving that authority, and Monique Goyens, head of BEUC, the European consumer organization, who noted that industry sees consumer protection regulations as hindering business.

Consumer groups in the US and Europe have opposed TTIP because consumer protection regulations writ large are subject to being deemed a barrier to trade and therefore subject to repeal or weakening. A recent example demonstrates how this process works. In 2013, the US adopted a rule requiring Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) on beef and pork products, something that 90 percent of American consumers say they want and helps guide them when making purchasing decisions.

The National Consumers League, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and the National Farmers Union all support COOL. Well, COOL labeling rules were repealed by Congress this past month because an international court deemed them to be a trade violation and the US was threatened with having to pay fines up to $3.6 billion.  Indeed, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), an opponent of current trade agreements generally, said, “No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws,” the bill to repeal COOL shows that “trade agreements have a direct effect on our sovereignty.”  Industry makes these claims too about our laws and protections not being under threat. They seem like empty promises since the evidence is pointing in the opposite direction.

On today’s panel in Brussels, Jean Halloran from Consumers Union and Mary Bottari from the Center for Media and Democracy used concrete examples to demonstrate the dumbing down of protections that approval of TTIP would invite. Peter Chase from the US Chamber of Commerce claims that labor and environmental protections would be increased but he offered no concrete examples of how that will work.

So what could help make TTIP acceptable to consumer groups? One suggestion is to take all consumer matters out of the trade agreement; others consumers say we should exclude an international WHO-style court that decides whether countries are in violation of this trade agreement. This debate shows the critical role consumer groups play in raising questions and challenging empty promises that fly in the face of evidence that consumer protections will be maintained in Europe and the US.

The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, taken with a “grain of salt” – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

ali.jpgEarlier this week, as I rode the metro to work, I overheard a woman describe to her friends the new “clean eating” challenge she was trying. I expect she is one of thousands across the country excitedly exchanging New Year diet strategies with other inspired colleagues and friends. In the U.S., we are bombarded with weight loss advice, especially during the holidays. Often, one diet plan contradicts the next, leaving consumers to choose one randomly and then lose momentum quickly afterwards. The Eighth Edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans was released in the first week of January, just in time to bring some clarity to our diet woes! Unfortunately, the 2015-2020 nutrition guidelines are not exactly straightforward.Every five years the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revise dietary guidelines intended to inform federal, state, and local food policy. A committee of nutrition experts and researchers advise federal agencies on the latest nutrition science and information. Historically, the Guidelines have affected American eating habits, how advertisers promote products, and the way public health professionals respond to health problems.

The first edition of the Guidelines, released in 1980, recommended that Americans greatly reduce their consumption of fat. This became one of the most controversial recommendations in the history of the Guidelines. Nutrition scientists weren’t wrong; certain fats, consumed in large amounts, will cause negative health effects. However, the recommendations were released during the tipping point of the national obesity problem, making it seem that inaccurate recommendations were to blame for the surging epidemic. Linking the obesity problem to one tangible document takes responsibility away from the consumer and industry interventions.

Michael Jacobson, President of the Center for Food Science in the Public Interest, explains, “The nutrition scientists who do the long, hard slog of working out details of official dietary advice might only dream of the life-altering powers now being attributed to them. The public has never eaten the diet they recommend, and still does not today.” But consumers are not totally at fault. Many companies replaced fat with sugar and rebranded their products to proudly announce “fat free.” Over-consumption of refined grains and added sugar ensued. Nonetheless, overall consumption of fat didn’t actually decrease. Instead consumers were eating too much fat, sugar, and carbs, calumniating in a major epidemic. Whether the 1980 Guidelines exacerbated the obesity problem or not, they did stimulate discussion over the accuracy and effectiveness of nutritional recommendations.

Critics of the 2015-2020 Guidelines consistently point to its vague recommendations. Still, the Guidelines do offer some concrete advice:

  1. No more than 10 percent of daily calories should come from added sugar
  2. Eating eggs is acceptable again, as limits on cholesterol have been dropped
  3. No more than 10 percent of daily intake should come from saturated fats
  4. Moderate coffee consumption (3-5  8-oz cups/day or up to 400 mg/day of caffeine) can be incorporated into a healthy diet

While these recommendations seem straightforward, nutrition experts are still concerned about the Guidelines’ inconsistencies. Experts recommended that Americans consume less red meat because it has been linked to clogging arteries and heart disease. However, the final version of the Guidelines replaced an explicit warning on red meat with this generalized suggestion: “Some individuals, especially teen boys and adult men, also need to reduce overall intake of protein foods by decreasing intakes of meats, poultry, and eggs.” This recommendation is far too broad and contradicts other statements promoting low fat proteins like eggs. Nutrition researchers are also disappointed that the Guidelines only include a limit on added sugar and do not single out soda and sweetened beverages, which are responsible for the most concentrated amounts of added sugar in the American diet.

The USDA and HHS’s avoidance of specific language may stem from a fear of aggravating an existing public health problem (like what happened in the “low fat” era). Another theory, promoted by many nutrition experts, is that pressure from the industry ultimately overrode scientific evidence. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard’s School of Public Health, speculates in a recent Los Angeles Times article, “there was a lot of pushback or interference by the food industry, Congress and special interest groups …That has certainly influenced the translation of the scientific evidence into the policy document.”

Now that the Guidelines have been published, nutrition and food policy experts are providing the pushback. The Physicians Committee of Responsible Medicine has filed a lawsuit against the USDA and HHS arguing that pressure from the egg industry led to weakened cholesterol recommendations. Esteemed cardiologist Steven E. Nissen, MD and food policy expert and professor of nutrition and food studies Marion Nestle Ph.D, M.P.H (among many others) have both blamed industry influence for deceptive and confusing language.

On the bright side, the Dietary Guidelines do provide plenty of useful information for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Still, consumers should refer to the Guidelines with a critical lens. The major contention of experts is that recommendations do not go far enough. This puts responsibility back in the hands of the consumer.

Here are some tips to go one step ahead just reading the Dietary Guidelines:

  1. Make sure to read labels and menus ahead of time
  2. Rethink products with too much added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium
  3. Diversify your meals by eating lean proteins and colorful produce
  4. Stay informed and follow nutrition advice that is supported by science, not politics

Demanding change at the Metro – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

SG-headshot.jpg

Washington, DC is the capital city of the richest, most successful economy in the history of the world. So it stands to reason that Washington should therefore have a world-class subway system, right?Instead, argues NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg in this week’s Washington Business Journal, our subway system is perennially unreliable, dirty, broken down, expensive, and outmoded–and poses serious safety issues. Washington’s deteriorating and constantly delayed system plagues riders and has a negative impact on businesses in the area. Read more.

Groups send letter to FCC calling for action on broadband privacy and data security – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

January 20, 2016

Tom Wheeler
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20554

Re: Broadband Privacy Rulemaking

Dear Chairman Wheeler: 

The undersigned organizations urge you to commence a rulemaking as soon as possible to protect the privacy of broadband consumers. As Commissioner Julie Brill of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated in a recent speech on broadband and privacy, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) reclassification of broadband as a Title II common carrier service adds it as “a brawnier cop on the beat” on privacy issues. She welcomed the opportunity for the two agencies to work in cooperation to create “strong consumer privacy and data security [that] are key ingredients of our data-intensive economy, including the practices of broadband providers.”

Providers of broadband Internet access service, including fixed and mobile telephone, cable, and satellite television providers, have a unique role in the online ecosystem. Their position as Internet gatekeepers gives them a comprehensive view of consumer behavior and until now privacy protections for consumers using those services have been unclear. Nor is there any way for consumers to avoid data collection by the entities that provide Internet access service. As the role of the Internet in the daily lives of consumers increases, this means an increased potential for surveillance. This can create a chilling effect on speech and increase the potential for discriminatory practices derived from data use. By contrast, commonsense protections may lead to a broader adoption and use of the Internet, as individuals gain confidence in conducting everyday business and exploring new services online.

With the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding on Consumer Protection between the FCC and FTC outlining continuing interagency cooperation on privacy, the FCC is now well positioned to take its place as that “brawnier cop on the beat” focusing on broadband providers. We therefore strongly urge that the FCC move forward as quickly as possible on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing strong rules to protect consumers from having their personal data collected and shared by their broadband provider without affirmative consent, or for purposes other than providing broadband Internet access service. The proposed rules should also provide for notice of data breaches, and hold broadband providers accountable for any failure to take suitable precautions to protect personal data collected from users. In addition, the rules should require broadband providers to clearly disclose their data collection practices to subscribers, and allow subscribers to ascertain to whom their data is disclosed.

We thank you for your continuing commitment to consumer privacy protection. In addition to the Commission’s important decision last year to retain authority to protect consumer privacy on broadband telecommunications services, the FCC has worked diligently under your administration to enforce existing privacy protections for voice communication, and to require greater transparency for broadband provider service practices. We look forward to working with you to modernize these existing rules to clarify crucially important protections for consumers online.

 

Sincerely, 

Access
Access Humboldt
Access Sonoma Broadband
American Association of Law Libraries
American Civil Liberties Union
Appalshop, Inc.
Ashbury Senior Computer Community Center
Benton Foundation
Broadband Alliance of Mendocino County
California Center for Rural Policy
CALPIRG
Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood
Caney Fork Headwaters Association
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Digital Democracy
Center for Rural Strategies
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Chicago Consumer Coalition
Children Now
Common Sense Kids Action
Consumer Action
Consumer Assistance Council of Cape Cod and the Islands of Massachusetts
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Federation of California
Consumer Watchdog
Cornucopia Network NJ/TN Chapter
Cumberland Countians for Ecojustice
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Press
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Kentucky Equal Justice Center
Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition
Massachusetts Consumer Council
Maui County Community Television
Mountain Area Information Network
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients)
National Consumers League
National Digital Inclusion Alliance
National Hispanic Media Coalition
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ
North Carolina Consumers Council
Oklahoma Policy Institute
Open Library
Open Technology Institute at New America
Oregon Consumer League
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Privacy Times
Public Citizen
Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law
Public Knowledge
Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, University of Connecticut
Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB Coalition)
Southern California Tribal Digital Village
Texas Legal Services Center
U.S. PIRG
United Church of Christ, OC Inc.
World Privacy Forum
X-Lab

MLK reflections – National Consumers League

/in /by

Today we celebrate the birthday of one of America’s greatest leaders, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who would have been 87. What a different place America might have been had he lived. He was gunned down in 1968 at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, where he was rallying in support of the sanitation workers’ strike after workers had been killed on the job due to unsafe conditions. MLK is revered by National Consumers League and labor leaders alike. 

What made MLK such a great leader? He rose above the fray, and he made connections with issues beyond his own sphere. He opposed the Vietnam War, he fought the militant and divisive image of Malcolm X, the public face of the Nation of Islam, he spoke against anti-Semitism, and he drew connections between worker protections and the civil rights movement. 

Dr. King’s legacy as a civil rights icon and irreplaceable voice of humanity and nonviolence is very much with us today. 

As I watched the 2015 Kennedy Center Awards, I thought of Dr. King and how I think he would have been proud of the mosaic of honorees that night. He played an enormous role in making all of this possible by waging a struggle for civil rights for all Americans. And though there is much work to be done and American has many problems ahead of us, the Kennedy Center Awards evening showcases America’s best qualities: 

George Lucas, the Star Wars creator and director, a hugely original creative mind and a white man – married to an African American woman; Cicely Tyson, a 90 year old African American actress with a stunning list of credits who is currently – yes currently – acting in the Broadway show The Gin Game with James Earl Jones.

Rita Moreno, an 84 year old Puerto Rican dancer, singer and actress who has won an Oscar, an Emmy, a Grammy and Tony award

Seiji Ozawa, Japanese-born conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra who served for 29 years in that role

Carole King, a Jew from Brooklyn whose iconic hits like “You’ve Got a Friend” and “Up on the Roof” have been recorded by African American singers like the Drifters and singers like Ben E King; and whose song “Natural Woman” was stunningly performed by Aretha Franklin on the Kennedy Center Stage before an audience that included America’s first African American President and first lady.  

We miss the wisdom and presence of the great leaders, like Dr. King, but his legacy is with us every day.

The Affordable Care Act is not harming the job market – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

karinb.jpgDespite dire predictions to the contrary by Obamacare opponents, three recent studies have found that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) hasn’t hurt the labor market. Critics claimed massive numbers of workers would be moved from full-time to part-time jobs to avoid the cost of the employer mandate on health insurance. Critics also warned that people might choose to work less because they could either get health insurance on the exchanges or qualify under expanded Medicaid coverage.None of those scenarios is playing out. There’s no significant increase in part-time jobs, nor significant shifts in employment patterns in states with expanded Medicaid programs. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality data shows no increase in the likelihood of working part-time after the employer coverage mandate went into effect in 2015. On Medicaid expansion, while one of the studies published in Health Affairs found that people were about 0.6 percentage points more likely to leave a job in the states that expanded Medicaid eligibility to 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, the difference is not statistically significant. Not only that, but we now have Obamacare firmly in place and the economy is booming.

Throughout NCL’s history, our leaders have called for universal health insurance, and we, and many other supporters are vindicated by these findings. Turns out providing health insurance for all may be good for the economy and can even help create jobs. The President noted in his State of the Union on Tuesday: “It’s about filling the gaps in employer based care so that when you lose a job, or you go back to school, or you strike out and launch that new business, you’ll still have coverage. Nearly 18 million people have gained coverage so far, and in the process health care inflation has slowed, our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.”

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, there has been “unprecedented demand” for Marketplace coverage with more than 11.3 million people signed up for coverage through January 2, 2016. Open Enrollment ends on January 31.

Sadly, the Affordable Care Act continues to come under attack by the Republican-led Congress. On January 6, yet again, the House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal the ACA. The Senate had passed the same bill last month. Noting the harm the bill “would cause to the health and financial security of millions of Americans,” President Obama vetoed it. The House will vote to override the veto on January 26, but is expected to fall far short of the 2/3 vote necessary for a veto override.

While the fight over the ACA continues, this news should take the wind out of the sails of hardened Obamacare opponents. In the meantime, the National Consumers League will continue to work with its allies in the advocacy arena to preserve this landmark piece of legislation that–at last–ensures essential health coverage for millions of people. This is truly President Obama’s crowning achievement and one that NCL had been working for since our founding in 1899.

National Consumers League statement on today’s U.S. Supreme Court argument on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association – National Consumers League

/in , /by

January 11, 2016

Contact: Cindy Hoang, National Consumers League, cindyh@nclnet.org or (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC–The National Consumers League, the nation’s pioneering consumer and worker advocacy group, has released the following statement about Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court today.

Friedrichs v California Teachers Association is a case handpicked by special, powerful anti-worker interests asking the Supreme Court to overrule a longstanding precedent established under Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

Last fall, NCL joined a Friend of The Court brief, signing on with the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights and the National Women’s Law Center, arguing that the Court should uphold Abood v. Detroit Bd of Ed (1977), holding that public sector collective bargaining agreements may include “fair share” provisions. The brief details how unions provide one of the most successful vehicles for providing economic and professional opportunities for women, people of color, and LGBT individuals, including lowering the income gap and increasing access to basic benefits like health insurance and parental leave, and providing important protections against discrimination.

The National Consumers League believes that Abood is based on the constitutional principle that those covered by a union contract should be required to pay their share of fees. When employees elect a union to represent them, everyone who benefits from a negotiated contract should contribute to the costs of securing that contract, even those who might not agree with every union position.

Indeed, there are communities right here in Washington that work within this current fair share regime to very positive effect. In Montgomery County, MD, the superintendent, along with the three unions in the county, actually all sit at the table together each year to create a budget that aims to keep necessary cuts away from directly affecting students.

“It’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court is revisiting Abood, a case that has stood for 35 years. Since our founding in 1899, the NCL has supported the rights of workers to organize, be represented by a union, and have a communal voice that allows them to have an equal say over working conditions, benefits, and health and safety,” said NCL’s Executive Director Sally Greenberg. “That means that those benefitting from these contracts should contribute their fair share in dues and fees. The current system benefits the whole community because it brings better public services, stronger public schools, and more vibrant communities. If the Court bans fair share, it will make it more difficult for teachers, firefighters, and nurses to negotiate for wages, benefits, and improved public services. We call on the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and affirm the obligation of all covered by union contracts to pay their fair share.”

###

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.

Chipotle’s misdirected food safety efforts – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

92_chipotle_stock_photo.jpgBy Ali Schklair, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow 

Back in August, Chipotle launched its ‘G-M-Over it’ campaign. In the name of food safety, it pledged to eliminate all genetically modified ingredients from its food supply. But the hype didn’t last long. By September, Chipotle was facing a class-action lawsuit challenging the validity of their GMO ban. Plaintiffs argued that the meat and dairy products served at the chain come from animals that feed on GMO corn and soy, not to mention the corn syrup used in Chipotle’s juices and soft drinks.

Fast-forward to December, and Chipotle was being linked to numerous foodborne illness outbreaks. Over a six-month period, 500 people were sickened and 20 were hospitalized from norovirus, salmonella, or one of two different strains of E. coli. 2016 isn’t looking much better for Chipotle. A federal grand jury has served the company with a subpoena asking for documents relating to the norovirus outbreak at a Simi Valley, CA location. At this point, it is safe to say that Chipotle has greatly misdirected its food safety efforts.

Outbreaks at restaurants are serious. In 1993 an E. Coli outbreak at the fast food restaurant Jack In The Box infected 732 people. The bacterium originated from undercooked beef patties in hamburgers. The outbreak involved 73 Jack In The Box restaurants in California, Idaho, Washington, and Nevada and has been described as “far and away the most infamous food poison outbreak in contemporary history.” Four children died, and 178 other victims were left with permanent injury, including kidney and brain damage. The FDA implemented new guidelines and regulations after the Jack In The Box tragedy, including setting temperatures for cooking beef to destroy pathogens.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that approximately 48 million Americans are infected by foodborne diseases each year. Consumers are twice as likely to get sick from food prepared at a restaurant. Since pathogens can grow and spread anywhere throughout the supply chain, it’s often hard to track the source of an outbreak. When restaurants have multiple supply sources, as does Chipotle, it is even harder to identify the origin. As discussed in a recent New Yorker article, “while Chipotle has said that it is introducing more stringent testing and reassessing its food-handling practices, its reliance on local suppliers means that the task of insuring the integrity of its supply chain will be harder.” Not only will Chipotle have to revamp its food safety protocols, but it may also need to reconsider its entire local sourcing model—something that is a draw for many devoted Chipotle customers.

Where does that leave consumers who eat out? The CDC suggests taking these four precautionary steps when picking a restaurant or dining out:

  1. Check inspection scores. Search online to see how the restaurant scored on their state health department health inspection.
  2. Make sure the restaurant is clean. Look around to see how used plates and utensils are handled. If you can see it, notice how food is being prepared and how cooking spaces are cleaned.
  3. Check that your food is cooked properly. Look at your meat to determine whether it is cooked thoroughly, and send it back if it appears too pink or raw in texture.
  4. Handle your leftovers properly. Refrigerate leftovers no more than an hour after leaving the restaurant. Eat leftovers within 3 to 4 days, and discard if you see signs of deterioration – like mold or a bad smell or texture – on leftovers.

The CDC and Food Safety News offer plenty more helpful information about avoiding food borne illness.