Day two from the RNC – National Consumers League

/in /by

SG_HEADSHOT.jpgThe buzz at the breakfast event on St. Clair today was all about the plagiarized sections of Melania Trump’s speech and how in the world that could have happened. At my morning event sponsored by The Atlantic Magazine, I sat next to a theater professor from a Maryland college who is spending her sabbatical studying the theatricality of the campaign. She regularly vets student papers for plagiarism through commonly used websites. Oops-guess the Trump campaign forgot to undertake that simple task.

What most of America doesn’t know is that conventions are a big party for a week. It was beautiful to be outdoors; in the low 80s, perfect for walking around and people watching. Though you need credentials to get into the actual convention site-in Cleveland it’s where LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers just a few weeks ago won the national championship-the Quicken Arena–but a lot of what goes on is outside the official venue.

Cities hosting conventions have their venues booked out for months and hotels are all full, Airbnb’s are charging $700 for closet-sized rooms, and a city like Cleveland, on the upswing, provides endless entertainment at bars, restaurants, media outlets this week. All the big events are within a mile of each other and this is proving to be a very walkable city. I palled around with two friends from event to event.

One scary site: The Ohio Minutemen, draped by automatic weapons, a phalanx of six white men with patches on their jackets identifying who they are. I asked one member what they stand for. He mumbled, “Just defending the Constitution, Ma’am.” 

Then there’s the ubiquitous misogynist slogans on buttons, T-shirts and signs directed at Hillary Clinton; they are too crude to pass along but you can imagine the fear the first woman endorsed by a major party running for President instills.

I attended The Atlantic event with Ron Brownstein, moderating a discussion about how Donald Trump can turn the electoral map in his favor.  It’s a challenge–how does he get the Rust Belt white male votes and also appeal to the Millennials in purple swing states like Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. I learned later from commentators that Republicans don’t think they have much of a chance with Millennials, who are looking for a more positive message that is far more inclusive.

T-shirts and bobbleheads for sale, music and entertainment on the streets. We walked down West Fourth today where MSNBC is based and Chuck Todd doing a live interview as we walked by. The Washington Post has staked out its temporary headquarters and the women of CodePink were there in their pink braziers and skirts with signs reading “Bust Up Militarism” and “Women Say Disarm Disarm.”

I attended a luncheon sponsored by Pfizer on the global benefits of fighting polio with a panel of experts. Two members of Congress, Tom Emmer (R-MN) and Phil Roe (R-TN), a doctor, both spoke in support of international funding for eradicating polio and a goal of vaccinating every child on the planet. I was disappointed that Rep. Emmer gave credence to the vaccine naysayers; he did implore us to listen to the families with autistic children who are convinced there’s a link to vaccinations but thankfully Dr. Roe emphasized that the “science just isn’t there” to support the link. 

Corporations and nonprofits–Atlantic Monthly and Center for American Progress for example–both held excellent and substantive panel discussions throughout the day. Receptions and cocktail parties abound, many in the most picturesque Cleveland sites: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame where I was last night is on what has become gorgeous Lake Erie, tonight Proctor & Gamble and Roll Call newspaper booked the old Powerhouse in the Flats area right off downtown–a charming site on the Cuyahoga River where boat rowing crews glided by. The P&G panel featured elected Republican women discussing how to get more of their colleagues elected to political office. I enjoyed talking to nuns on the Bus, a progressive group of sisters who lobby for social change and came at the invitation of Roll Call.

I had the chance to spend time with two Republican officials NCL works closely with, Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen of the FTC, who is a thoughtful and insightful pro-consumer member of the Commission, and former FTC Chairwoman Debbie Majoras who hosted the P&G event tonight and who is a strong advocate for electing women of whatever stripe to political office. She also grasps the importance of her company being consumer-focused. 

Tonight as I watch speakers like Trump’s daughter Tiffany, Governor Chris Christie, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan addressing the delegates, I’m glad to say I’m here soaking up the flavor of the Republican convention at the most unpredictable and unfathomable Presidential election in modern history. 

 

[1] Apparently, though I‘ve never tried it, you can put in a section of a speech and Google will tell you whether it’s from some other famous passage or talk. “Grammarly” is a website that is an automated proofreader and plagiarism checks. The problem was, Melania said she wrote the speech herself. But when it turned out much of it was lifted was Michelle Obama’s convention speech from 2008, she said someone else wrote it.

[1] CNN has the passages side by side and highlighted in yellow. Sections of Michelle’s and Melania’s speech appear word for word: https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/

 

Day one from the RNC – National Consumers League

/in /by

Here I am in Cleveland, the host city of the Republican National Convention. I ended my day at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a must-see American museum icon with gorgeous views of this beautiful city on Lake Erie. Cleveland is an unlikely host city for the RNC; it remains a stronghold of democratic activism:

Yet the RNC is in Cleveland because Ohio is a swing state in electoral politics, and Cleveland’s political leaders—many of them Democrats—fought hard to bring the money and luster of the convention to their city. But so many Republican stalwarts are missing; no Bush family members, no Gov. John Kasich speaking.

But today, the first of the convention, was filled with tension. There were police from every corner of America; I saw their badges and I asked them about being in Cleveland. It’s hot today—88 degrees. They are weighed down head to toe with walkie talkies, guns in holsters, and all sorts of other equipment. I feel for them and admire their willingness to be here.

From Kansas to California law enforcement, they said they were recruited nationwide to ensure there was no shortage of protection for delegates and visitors. They told me there were police from 140 places. I expected to see a vivid array of firearms, but was relieved that there were no civilians carrying guns. I walked over to St. Clair Street before noon; a 20 something kid with a ragged beard and a sign “GOP=Same Old Klan” directed me. The protestors marched with #BlackLivesMatter and Socialism signs peacefully and were accompanied by at least 150 police on bicycles. But the crowd was small; I think that many people stayed home.

Starbucks was full of reporters using the free Wifi to file stories before rushing to their next assignment.

Walking around town was a mixed bag. Many locals are selling Donald Trump tshirts and buttons, spouting sexist insults directed at the first woman nominated by a major party in America. I guess they can’t resist using the B word and worse. I felt anger welling up at the kind of misogynist slogans aimed.

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman welcomed two former VP hopefuls—Newt Gingrich and Sen. Joni Ernst—at a speech at Cuyahoga Community College, in support of Sen. Portman. I was pleased that Sen. Ernst talked about passing legislation against human trafficking, something NCL cares about deeply.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame featured an excellent session on data security and privacy with Republican FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen, who is especially articulate on these issues.

I worried about getting around, but it’s not too bad. I saw no taxis, but Ubers and Lyfts abound. I got rides within five minutes of my call, and we worked around the traffic with little difficulty.

I’ll be at the RNC every day posting my observations. Hope today’s smooth sailing continues through the week!

Different perspectives on the controversial soda tax – National Consumers League

/in , /by

soda_tax.jpgBy Maureen Chircop, NCL Intern

In 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York proposed a tax on sweetened beverages that the New York Court of Appeals struck down. Despite the soda tax’s failure, Mayor Bloomberg believed the tax would improve public health. On June 16, 2016, Philadelphia passed a soda tax bill. Instead of focusing on public health benefits, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney concentrated on the community benefits of the soda tax, which amounts to an extra 1.5 cent on each ounce of soda sold.

Mayor Kenney predicts about $90 million in revenue will be generated by the end of next year. This money will be reinvested into community programs such as universal pre-k, community schools, and recreation centers. Not only do taxes on unhealthy habits work to promote positive public health benefits, but utilizing taxes to fund community programs are good for communities and should be encouraged.

For example, a previous tax that promoted positive public benefits is the federal cigarette tax that was passed in 2009. The law aimed to deter smoking by taxing cigarettes. An article from Fortune states that statistics show a decline in smoking occurs when tobacco taxes are present. The same article explains that “…tobacco taxes and consumption are strongly inversely related.” As the price of cigarettes increased, study after study has shown that smoking numbers have gone down. Therefore, it wouldn’t be surprising that a soda tax can garner similar results.

Opposing the tax, the American Beverage Association (ABA) believes that the positive health benefits are false. The ABA believes that the decline in soda consumption does not result in the decline of obesity. Although not all studies are complete because of the relative novelty of the tax, there are some promising trends. Studies do find a reduction in consumption of sugary beverages as their prices rise. According to a National Institute of Health (NIH) article, a 10 percent tax increase on soda has led to a 8 percent average decrease in consumption.

Despite the evident health benefits, those who oppose the soda tax say it may impact low income families more than middle class individuals. Even though this may be true, low income families reap the most benefits from a soda tax. The New England Journal of Medicine states that, “[H]igher taxes are particularly effective in poorer…groups,” which means that lower income individuals thus have a stronger incentive to curb their soda appetite. In addition, the health benefits are progressive for them.

A related tax that is creating positive public health benefits is the “junk food” tax in Mexico. The tax on junk foods in Mexico includes soda, of which Mexico has the fourth highest consumption rate. Despite contributing factors such as unemployment, marketing strategies, and other minor factors, overall soda consumption went down 12 percent over a year in Mexico.

Improved health is only one of the benefit of the soda tax. The tax can also produce much-sought-after funds for communities. For instance, in Mexico, the “junk food” tax raises $150,000 per month to orchestrate community initiatives to improve the health of the community. Similar to Mexico, Philadelphia politicians want to steer the funds to low-income communities for critical programs such as universal pre-k.

Critics that deny a correlation between taxes and health benefits are not looking at the tax through the correct lens. Yes, a soda tax may produce minimal health benefits, but there are still tangible health effects. Despite critics’ notion that a soda tax may not greatly reduce obesity rates, the revenue garnered from the tax will provide much needed community programs and initiatives that are extremely beneficial to lower income communities. In addition, a soda tax will reap fundamental revenue to invest in future generations of citizens.

National Consumers League statement on FTC’s settlement with Herbalife – National Consumers League

/in /by

July 15, 2016

Contact: NCL Communications, Cindy Hoang, cindyh@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL) today welcomed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) action to require fundamental restructuring and significant consumer redress as part of its settlement with multi-level marketing company Herbalife. In March 2013, NCL was the first consumer group to call on the Commission to investigate allegations that Herbalife was engaging in a sophisticated pyramid scheme. In March 2014, the FTC responded to calls from NCL and others by opening an investigation into the company’s conduct.

The following statement is attributable to NCL Executive Director, Sally Greenberg:

“The FTC’s action today addresses many of the concerns that NCL and other experts on pyramid schemes raised about Herbalife’s business practices. Specifically, consumers will benefit greatly from the settlement’s requirement that Herbalife base its compensation structure on verifiable retail sales to end-users of the product, not recruitment of new distributors. This is the core distinction, as enumerated by more than 30 years of case law, between a legal direct-selling company and a fraudulent pyramid scheme. The settlement’s requirement that at least 80 percent of product sales, companywide, must be made to end-users will further address concerns about a lack of retail sales to buyers outside the business opportunity. The FTC’s settlement will also address many of the blatantly unsubstantiated earning claims made by Herbalife’s distributors to entice new recruits to join the business opportunity and keep existing distributors paying to remain in the business opportunity. We look forward to the FTC’s forthcoming guidance to the direct selling industry as an opportunity to address the persistent lack of clarity that has characterized many industry practices.”

 ###

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 statement on House Energy and Commerce Committee votes on H.R. 5104 and H.R. 5111 – National Consumers League

/in /by

July 14, 2016

Contact: NCL Communications, Cindy Hoang, cindyh@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL), America’s pioneering consumer and worker advocacy organization, today released statements regarding the passage of two consumer-focused bills in the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

NCL applauds the House Energy and Commerce committee’s passage of H.R. 5104, the Better On-line Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act of 2016, an excellent first step forward toward the goal of promoting a fair live event ticketing marketplace.

The following statement is attributable to John Breyault, the Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud:

“The bipartisan BOTS Act represents an important first step in promoting a fair ticketing marketplace for all consumers. Prohibiting the use of ticket bots to electronically ‘jump the line,’ ahead of consumers patiently waiting to purchase tickets will help promote a fair live event ticketing marketplace for consumers. Although this bill’s passage is a significant win for consumers, this bill also represents a missed opportunity to protect consumers from unethical ticketing practices. Prohibiting bot usage alone as the BOTS Act proposes, only fixes part of the problem. To put more tickets in the hands of everyday fans at a fair price, the live event ticket market needs additional transparency to require disclosure of how many tickets actually go to general sale as well as greater consumer protections to help empower fans to make better purchasing decisions.”

NCL applauds the Commerce Committee’s bipartisan passage of H.R. 5111, the Consumer Review Fairness Act. H.R. 5111 will protect consumers’ First Amendment right to provide honest reviews of products and services without fear of legal retribution from merchants who hide behind non-disparagement clauses in their terms of service agreements.

The following statement is attributable to John Breyault, the Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud:

“Consumers rely on honest product reviews to make many important purchasing decisions. Unfortunately, some merchants and vendors want to remove this quintessential American right of  free expression by inserting so called “non-disparagement” clauses that threaten legal action against consumers who post negative reviews  H.R. 5111 would nullify these ‘terms of service’ rules aimed at silencing honest feedback, allowing consumers to benefit from accurate reviews. NCL welcomes these protections.“

###

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.

Believing women patients – National Consumers League

/in /by

SG-headshot.jpgLast year, the FDA approved a drug for female low libido–known as Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder or HSDD–for the first time in history. It didn’t happen without a great deal of naysaying by the media, pharmaceutical company critics and most disappointing, some feminists. The skeptics questioned whether the millions of women who complained of having lost their sex drive were imagining the condition.

NCL took the opposite position. We believed these women’s testimonials, validated their experience, and supported approval of a treatment because, first, the science is there. HSDD has been a recognized condition in medical literature since the 1970s. Second, we listened to women patients; we heard them describe the terrible effects this condition had on their self esteem and relationships.

And so, it was with great interest I read about new research into another condition that has many naysayers (and affects mostly women), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or more officially, myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). The existence of ME has also been met with great skepticism over the years and there are no blood tests or biomarkers to diagnose the illness.

I’ve had friends and colleagues who suffered from this condition and it saps their energy, diminishes their ability to work and their zest for life, and takes a huge toll on their families. What that proves to me is that the medical science hasn’t caught up with the illness.

In this new groundbreaking study, researchers looked at stool and blood samples of 48 people diagnosed with ME. They found that those with the illness had less diversity in their gut bacteria and fewer bacteria that were anti-inflammatory. They found evidence of a leaky gut from intestinal problems that allow bacteria to enter the blood.

Cornell University professor Maureen Hanson conducted the study. She noted, “Our work demonstrates that the gut bacterial microbiome in ME/CFS patients isn’t normal, perhaps leading to gastrointestinal and inflammatory symptoms in victims of the disease. Furthermore, our detection of a biological abnormality provides  further evidence against the ridiculous concept that the disease is psychological in origin.” Thank you, Dr. Hanson, for validating the experience of those who suffer from ME. And thank you to NIH for funding the study.

ME advocates believe that several hundred thousand people have this illness in the U.S. They decry the pittance spent by NIH on ME research, leading to a lack of understanding of its cause and sadly, the absence of a viable treatment. Advocates also cite the damage done by failing to recognize this illness: the lost productivity, billions in medical expenses, and lost tax dollars from those unable to work. 

Like HSDD, ME provides yet another example of patient suffering, while critics call into question whether the very condition or illness they are living with day-to-day even exists. Then science discovers a cause and well, maybe yes there is a medical basis to ME.

The lesson is, believe the patients, especially when there are hundreds of thousands–or millions in the case of HSDD–describing the same symptoms. We should hail medical science for finding cures for so many debilitating and deadly diseases. ME shouldn’t be an exception and let’s stop doubting that patients who suffer from debilitating illnesses are having real symptoms.

NCL applauds beer industry nutritional labeling initiative – National Consumers League

/in /by

July 12, 2016

Contact: NCL Communications, Cindy Hoang, cindyh@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC–For decades, the National Consumers League (NCL) has been fighting to get nutritional information, specifically an “Alcohol Facts Label” on all alcoholic beverages sold in the US. Consumers very much want this information and have come to rely on nutritional facts labeling on foods they consume.

Consistent with this theme, NCL is pleased that a new initiative from the Beer Institute will mean that participating companies will display specific consumer information on products, packaging or websites. Entitled “Brewers’ Voluntary Disclosure Initiative,” the participants in the initiative make up 81 percent of the beer industry in the US. These companies will voluntarily include a serving facts statement on their products, and will disclose ingredients on either the label or secondary packaging via a list of ingredients, a reference to a website with the information or through a QR code.

“The Beer Institute initiative is a milestone; beer is the most popular alcohol beverage in the United States, and having nutritional information on beer labels is a game changer,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL’s Executive Director. “We applaud the Beer Institute’s leadership for rolling out the Brewers’ Voluntary Disclosure Initiative, which will list calories, carbohydrates, protein, fat and alcohol by volume on their beer products.”

The serving facts statement is consistent with the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Trade Bureau (TTB) ruling 2013-2. In addition, participants in the voluntary agreement will provide freshness dating, and disclose ingredients via a list, a reference to a website with the information, or a QR code on the label or secondary packaging. Beer Institute member companies, including industry leaders such as Anheuser-Busch, MillerCoors, HeinekenUSA, Constellation Brands Beer Division, North American Breweries, and Craft Brew Alliance, have agreed to follow these standards. These companies together produce more than 81 percent of the volume of beer sold in the U.S.

While NCL applauds the Beer Institute’s initiative, Greenberg noted that there are some missed opportunities in the announcement: providing alcohol content information and acknowledging the validity of the standard drink definition, as defined in the US Dietary Guidelines issued by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Those guidelines provide consumers with equivalencies in comparing beer, wine and spirits. Namely, that the average 12 oz of beer, average 5 oz of wine, and average 1.5 oz of spirits all contain the equivalent amounts of alcohol. Given the many positive aspects of the Beer Institute’s initiative today, NCL is urging the industry to embrace this common-sense definition of a standard drink as well.

“Thanks to the leadership of the Beer Institute and its members, consumers can look forward to having much sought nutritional information available for the first time on the label of the beer they consume. This is an encouraging and welcome development,” said Greenberg.

###

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.

Food waste – National Consumers League

/in /by

ali.jpgI spend a lot of time thinking about food waste and it’s lasting effects on our environment and our communities. While this may be a natural outcome of working on these issues for NCL, I don’t think it will be long before the average consumer also has this topic on the brain on a daily basis.The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, in partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Massachusetts RecyclingWorks, coordinated Reduce and Recover: Save Food for the People, a two-day event focused on reducing food waste and preventing food loss on June 28-29. Advocates who gathered ranged from environmentalists, anti-hunger advocates, college activists, foundations, government officials, social entrepreneurs, and in NCL’s case, consumer advocates. Industry was also there in force. A central topic of discussion was, “how do we elevate the food waste movement beyond food and environmental spaces and into the conscious of everyday Americans?”

We are often so immersed in the issues we care about that it can be hard to gauge how the general public perceives the issue. Closing this gap between movers and shakers and everyone else is key to creating lasting change.

Consumer food waste ranks as one of the top sources of food loss in this country. Americans are throwing out $165 billion worth of food, yet studies show that 73 percent of consumers think they waste less than the average person. Clearly there is a disconnect, and consumers are contributing to the problem more than they think.

The multifaceted attendees–including industry trade associations like the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Restaurant Association, and Sodexo, all seemed to agree that consumers are mostly operating with good intentions when they overbuy and then throw out food. Whether they are throwing a party and don’t want anyone to go hungry or just shopping for fresh produce for their families, consumers mean well. But these behavioral patterns are creating literally tons of waste. Leaders in the food waste movement are now moving focus from naming the problem to employing strategies to change consumer behavior.

Here are some strategies that emerged from the conference:

First, consumers have to be aware that food waste is a serious problem with economic, moral, and environmental ramifications. A clear understanding of the issue will at least prompt consumers to think about their buying decisions as they shop, eat, and dispose of their food. Media campaigns help create awareness about societal issues and consequently shifting behavioral norms.

Think of the great slogans from previous Ad Council campaigns: “Every Litter Bit Hurts,” “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste,” “Only You can Prevent Forest Fires,” “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk,” and  “Click It or Ticket.” All of us know them and they’ve really help to change behaviors on a societal level. Look at the progress we’ve made on seatbelt usage: In 1982, only 11 percent of drivers and front seat passengers wore seatbelts; Today, 87 percent of drivers and passengers wear seatbelts and hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved as a result. The Ad Council’s new “Save the Food” campaign hopes to raise consumer awareness and change behavior.

Then, there is the issue of date labels on food. Adam Rein from ReFED explained, “100 percent of people experience confusion around date labels.” Date labeling on food packaging are all over the map and leads to consumer waste. They are actually a manufacturer suggestion for a product’s peak freshness, and are in no way connected to food safety. Millions of pounds of food are thrown out each day because of our current hodge-podge date labeling system. To the rescue is a bill introduced in the House and Senate entitled the Food Date Labeling Act, which standardizes date labeling, leading to less unnecessary tossing out of perfectly edible food.

At NCL, we believe the pledge by federal agencies to reduce food waste should be a starting point for the federal government getting their own house in order and serving as an example to the nation on how to reduce food loss. The federal government is the largest consumer of energy, with a footprint that includes 360,000 buildings and $445 billion spent annually on goods and services. Federal facilities could potentially save the nation billions of dollars and perhaps even surpass the national goal to cut food waste in half by 2030. NCL plans to ask President Obama to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to develop food waste reduction policies across the agencies as a standard practice in all federal facilities.

As for the consumer, awareness is the first step to changing behavior. Infrastructure to support consumers, such as legislative changes and support from federal agencies, must be in place to sustain lasting behaviors. Large food corporations like Campbell’s Soup Company, Sodexo, Nestle, and others are beginning to implement food waste reduction strategies throughout their supply chain. Many companies are also supporting legislative changes, like the Food Date Labeling Act, which will reduce the likelihood that consumers will toss out perfectly good food because they are confused by a date label.

The Reduce and Recover conference brought together many of the groups that are going to drive the campaign to reduce food waste in America by 50 percent by 2030. The event followed NCL’s May 11 Food Waste Summit, co-hosted by Keystone Policy Center, which focused on the consumers role in the issue of food waste. It was clear from last week’s conference at Harvard Law School that we have a growing and broad based movement to get a handle on food waste.

From a consumer perspective, if we voice concerns and ask companies to help reduce food waste, we believe that will have an impact on industry. The environmental, moral, and societal imperatives are enormous. They demand that we work overtime to meet America’s stated goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030.

National Consumers League responses to question from the June 15, 2016 pubic hearing on CPSC’s agenda and priorities for FY 2017 and FY 2018 – National Consumers League

/in /by

July 1, 2016

 Question 1: During the hearing, Commissioner Buerkle inquired whether the Active Injury Mitigation System (AIMS) technology could be used on all different sizes of table saws.  You answered tentatively that you thought it could be used on all, but indicated that you would like to check and get back to CPSC on that.

NCL Response: AIMS technology is currently being used on both larger and smaller table saws.  Indeed, one manufacturer, SawStop, is currently selling larger cabinet saws and smaller benchtop style jobsite saws, both with an AIMS design.  Another manufacturer, Bosch, is currently selling benchtop style jobsite saws with an AIMS design.  Hence, it is technologically and economically feasible to produce table saws in any size with an AIMS design. 

It is very important that any table saw safety standard that CPSC promulgates include an AIMS requirement for all table saws.  There are significant injury patterns associated with the use of each size of table saw—they all present an unreasonable risk to users, regardless of size.  It is important to stress that the smaller benchtop saws, which are less expensive, are often used by consumers and hobbyists.  For the same reasons that every passenger vehicle sold in the U.S., regardless of size or cost, must provide its occupants with adequate crash protection, so, too, table saws should provide all users with adequate protection from the foreseeable and all-too-frequent injuries from hand-blade contact.  Table saw safety is not a luxury and should not be reserved only for users who can afford to buy larger, better equipped machines.  It is important for hobbyists and less-experienced table saw users to have the same protection as users with more experience who might purchase bigger and more expensive table saws. 

We recognize that adding AIMS technology to table saws will increase the price at retail.  However, as consumers, we believe that, given the frequency and severity of injuries endured by consumers and other users over the past many years, the presence of AIMS is a significant value added to the product and to the overall well-being of society—the benefits far outweigh the costs.  Moreover, as we have seen with many other product categories that have undergone significant safety improvements, once an industry begins to focus its expertise and technological prowess on compliance, the cost of such compliance will fall significantly.

In short, AIMS technology can be applied to all table saws regardless of size—and AIMS technology should be required for all table saws regardless of size.

Question 2:  During the hearing, you commented that the UL Technical Panel on table saws is “heavily dominated by industry members” who have voted against AIMS requirements.  My understanding is that even one of the strongest proponents of a particular mitigation technology voted against including it in the voluntary standard, and that the technology was also omitted from the recently updated IEC standard.  Do these events suggest that industry’s representation on the UL panel is not the key issue?

NCL Response: The industry’s dominant control of the UL committee that votes whether to allow implementation of UL’s safety proposals is very much a key issue.  When CPSC published its ANPR for table saws in October 2011, UL came to the commission in February 2012 and presented a plan for reducing the predictable injuries associated with table saw use by developing and adopting an AIMS requirement for use in its own table saw standard, UL 987.  In essence, working with a special outside Working Group of technical experts, UL would direct its technical staff and test laboratories to develop the performance criteria and test methods needed to upgrade its standard for table saws that would greatly reduce the enormous risks associated with most table saws sold in today’s market.  The final step would put the proposal to a vote of one of UL’s standing Scientific Technical Panels (STP). 

Today, more than four years after UL made that commitment, its effort has ended in failure.  To be clear, UL completed the research and developed the requisite performance criteria and test methods for an AIMS that it believed would reduce or eliminate the types of tragic injuries that occur by the tens of thousands each year.  UL proposed including the AIMS requirement in the next version of its table saw standard.  The decision-making mechanism for final acceptance of the proposal for its own standard was handed over to STP 745 for a vote. 

For table saws, STP 745 was comprised of 21 voting members.  Fifteen members are either employees of the table saw industry, former senior employees of the table saw industry, or staff of the industry trade association, the Power Tool Institute (PTI).  The other six voting members represent consumers, specialty users, etc.  After more than four years of research and laboratory testing, UL developed the performance criteria and test methods for including an AIMS requirement in its own standard, UL 987, the STP voted 14 to 7 against adoption.  With the exception of SawStop, all the industry members and their surrogates voted NO.  SawStop voted YES, as did the other six voting members of the committee, including the three consumer members and the UL member on the committee. 

UL then made adjustments to its first AIMS proposal and proposed adoption of the second version.  Again the industry and its surrogates voted NO via the same overwhelming bloc of votes, thus blocking the adoption of AIMS a second time. 

Clearly, the composition of this committee overwhelmingly favors the industry perspective, and their unified stance on issues controls and dominates the outcome of the committee’s decisions.  The fact that UL’s proposal to upgrade its own table saw standard with an AIMS requirement to protect consumers was summarily blocked by the industry is a prime example of how the application of the consensus process in practice can impede progress in matters of public safety. 

In fact, many of the voluntary standards committees that deal with consumer product safety are severely imbalanced by a dearth of consumer and non-industry representatives, the predictable effect of which is that committee decisions are controlled by the interests of the industry.  While the application of a balance of interests is the theoretical goal for consensus-based decision making, the reality is that far too often there is a tiny number—often zero—of consumers and non-industry members to balance, challenge, and negotiate with the industry members when the critical decisions are being made.  Such circumstances leave the industry free to write standards that suit its specific needs, and then masquerade behind the banner of using a consensus process that offers the opportunity for balanced inputs. 

The same structural flaw exists with international product safety standards.  In this case, for example, the committee that controls the U.S. national position, and therefore its vote, on the IEC standard for table saws is comprised of most of the same industry organizations and surrogates as the industry bloc that controls UL’s STP, with virtually no consumer participation or input.  Indeed, the U.S. committee is managed by the staff of the Power Tool Institute.  Hence, the absence of an AIMS requirement in the “updated” IEC standard is entirely predictable. 

In summary, the lack of committee balance to articulate the needs of consumers and other key safety-focused stakeholders cannot help but result in weak voluntary safety standards, especially where the industry chooses for whatever reason to resist making the changes needed to address serious injury patterns.  The practical effect of relying on the voluntary consensus standards process is that it is virtually impossible to make progress to protect consumers from unreasonable risks unless the industry agrees to negotiate the issue in good faith. 

Fortunately, in the long painful journey for table saw users where meaningful voluntary corrective action has been stalled for years, CPSC has the statutory mandate and the authority to intervene on behalf of consumers. 

  

Sally Greenberg
NCL Executive Director

Karin Bolte
NCL Health Policy Director  

 

Reduce and Recover conference strategizes on how to cut down on America’s food waste problem

/in , , /by

I spend a lot of time thinking about food waste and it’s lasting effects on our environment and our communities. While this may be a natural outcome of working on these issues for NCL, I don’t think it will be long before the average consumer also has this topic on the brain on a daily basis.

The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, in partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Massachusetts RecyclingWorks, coordinated Reduce and Recover: Save Food for the People, a two-day event focused on reducing food waste and preventing food loss on June 28-29. Advocates who gathered ranged from environmentalists, anti-hunger advocates, college activists, foundations, government officials, social entrepreneurs, and in NCL’s case, consumer advocates. Industry was also there in force. A central topic of discussion was, “how do we elevate the food waste movement beyond food and environmental spaces and into the conscious of everyday Americans?”

We are often so immersed in the issues we care about that it can be hard to gauge how the general public perceives the issue. Closing this gap between movers and shakers and everyone else is key to creating lasting change.

Consumer food waste ranks as one of the top sources of food loss in this country. Americans are throwing out $165 billion worth of food, yet studies show that 73 percent of consumers think they waste less than the average person. Clearly there is a disconnect, and consumers are contributing to the problem more than they think.

The multifaceted attendees–including industry trade associations like the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Restaurant Association, and Sodexo, all seemed to agree that consumers are mostly operating with good intentions when they overbuy and then throw out food. Whether they are throwing a party and don’t want anyone to go hungry or just shopping for fresh produce for their families, consumers mean well. But these behavioral patterns are creating literally tons of waste. Leaders in the food waste movement are now moving focus from naming the problem to employing strategies to change consumer behavior.

Here are some strategies that emerged from the conference:

First, consumers have to be aware that food waste is a serious problem with economic, moral, and environmental ramifications. A clear understanding of the issue will at least prompt consumers to think about their buying decisions as they shop, eat, and dispose of their food. Media campaigns help create awareness about societal issues and consequently shifting behavioral norms.

Think of the great slogans from previous Ad Council campaigns: “Every Litter Bit Hurts,” “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste,” “Only You can Prevent Forest Fires,” “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk,” and  “Click It or Ticket.” All of us know them and they’ve really help to change behaviors on a societal level. Look at the progress we’ve made on seatbelt usage: In 1982, only 11 percent of drivers and front seat passengers wore seatbelts; Today, 87 percent of drivers and passengers wear seatbelts and hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved as a result. The Ad Council’s new “Save the Food” campaign hopes to raise consumer awareness and change behavior.

Then, there is the issue of date labels on food. Adam Rein from ReFED explained, “100 percent of people experience confusion around date labels.” Date labeling on food packaging are all over the map and leads to consumer waste. They are actually a manufacturer suggestion for a product’s peak freshness, and are in no way connected to food safety. Millions of pounds of food are thrown out each day because of our current hodge-podge date labeling system. To the rescue is a bill introduced in the House and Senate entitled the Food Date Labeling Act, which standardizes date labeling, leading to less unnecessary tossing out of perfectly edible food.

At NCL, we believe the pledge by federal agencies to reduce food waste should be a starting point for the federal government getting their own house in order and serving as an example to the nation on how to reduce food loss. The federal government is the largest consumer of energy, with a footprint that includes 360,000 buildings and $445 billion spent annually on goods and services. Federal facilities could potentially save the nation billions of dollars and perhaps even surpass the national goal to cut food waste in half by 2030. NCL plans to ask President Obama to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to develop food waste reduction policies across the agencies as a standard practice in all federal facilities.

As for the consumer, awareness is the first step to changing behavior. Infrastructure to support consumers, such as legislative changes and support from federal agencies, must be in place to sustain lasting behaviors. Large food corporations like Campbell’s Soup Company, Sodexo, Nestle, and others are beginning to implement food waste reduction strategies throughout their supply chain. Many companies are also supporting legislative changes, like the Food Date Labeling Act, which will reduce the likelihood that consumers will toss out perfectly good food because they are confused by a date label.

The Reduce and Recover conference brought together many of the groups that are going to drive the campaign to reduce food waste in America by 50 percent by 2030. The event followed NCL’s May 11 Food Waste Summit, co-hosted by Keystone Policy Center, which focused on the consumers role in the issue of food waste. It was clear from last week’s conference at Harvard Law School that we have a growing and broad based movement to get a handle on food waste.

From a consumer perspective, if we voice concerns and ask companies to help reduce food waste, we believe that will have an impact on industry. The environmental, moral, and societal imperatives are enormous. They demand that we work overtime to meet America’s stated goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030.