NCL leads advocates in urging FDA to protect patient access to critical therapy for preterm birth

/in , , , , /by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

The National Consumers League and 14 leading health organizations and individual providers have collaborated in sending a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the agency considers whether to withdraw the only FDA-approved therapy that reduces the risk of preterm birth in women with a history of preterm birth.

Why did we and our fellow advocates decide to send this letter in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic? Several important reasons.

First, preventing preterm birth is always a vital cause—during or without a pandemic. The leading cause of infant death in the United States, premature birth has devastating effects on families and is very costly to our health care system. For babies who do survive, short and long-term complications can accompany preterm birth. For mothers, a history of spontaneous preterm birth is a leading risk factor for recurrent preterm birth, yet providers have only one therapeutic option – hydroxyprogesterone caproate or “17P,” in one branded and five generic forms – to prevent recurrent preterm birth for these at-risk mothers.

Taking away these options—especially in the midst of a pandemic—would be concerning for pregnant women who are at high-risk for preterm birth, including those that reduce their risk of being admitted to the hospital for early delivery.

Secondly, as recent events surrounding both COVID-19 and continued fundamental rights injustices have reminded us, a profound and systemic inequity exists in the United States where institutional racism contributes to health disparities—including preterm birth and infant mortality. COVID-19 has disproportionally impacted African American women, the same population that is most likely to experience preterm birth. The preterm birth rate among U.S. black women is 49 percent higher than the rate among all other women, according to the March of Dimes.

Thirdly, 17P is the only FDA-approved therapy that reduces the risk of preterm birth and has been used for nearly a decade. We are concerned that removing access to the only FDA-approved therapy may deepen maternal and infant health inequities that exist within the U.S.

It is also troubling that if providers cannot access FDA-approved forms of 17P, this may expose pregnant women to compounded medications, which have no labeling to provide guidance on administration, contraindications, or potential side effects.

Removing 17P products in the absence of suitable alternatives would leave patients and providers significantly disadvantaged in the fight against prematurity. While we recognize the FDA is encountering tremendous challenges in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to underscore the public health need for continued access to approved treatment options, and we trust that the agency will consider the patient impact as they evaluate this issue.

To add your voice to the letter to FDA, urging the agency to preserve patient access to the only FDA-approved therapy to reduce the risk of preterm birth, you can sign on here.

The impact of COVID-19 on child labor

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Child Labor Coalition intern Ellie Murphy

Combatting child labor during a global pandemic is a staggering challenge. In countries like Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Bangladesh—and dozens more—school cancellations and lost family income may push children into the labor market. Once in, it may be hard for them to get out and return to school. In the face of this dire emergency, governments, the corporate world, and charitable institutions will need to support vulnerable families during this unprecedented time.

There is a strong correlation between access to education and preventing child labor. “Lack of access to education keeps the cycle of exploitation, illiteracy, and poverty going—limiting future options and forcing children to accept low-wage work as adults and to raise their own children in poverty,” noted the children’s advocacy group, Their World.

With nine in 10 children across the globe prevented from attending school in person, Human Rights Watch notes that interrupting formal education will have a huge impact on children and jeopardize their opportunity for better employment opportunities in the future: “For many children, the COVID-19 crisis will mean limited or no education, or falling further behind their peers.”

Poverty is the single greatest cause of child labor. Because many parents have lost or will lose their jobs, children are facing increased pressure to supplement family incomes. “Children work because their survival and that of their families depend on it, and in many cases because unscrupulous adults take advantage of their vulnerability,” notes the International Labour Organization.

Countries are being impacted by COVID-19 differently, but developing countries are expected to feel more negative consequences than developed countries, according to a report from WorldAtlas.com. Tourism and trade helps fuel many of these economies and the COVID pandemic has devastated both sectors.

Developing countries—primarily in Africa and Asia—already house 90 percent of working children, according to the International Journal of Health Sciences. Economic pressure from the pandemic will likely drive even more children into the workforce.

Before the pandemic, child labor in West Africa was widespread. 2.1 million child laborers were employed by cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast and 900,000 children on cocoa farms in Ghana, according to researchers from Tulane University. Ghana and the Ivory Coast produce about 60 percent of the world’s cocoa—a critical ingredient in chocolate. A recent Voice of America (VOA) article included predications that “there will be increased economic pressures on farming families, and ongoing school closures in Ghana [meaning] children are more likely to accompany their parents to their farms and be exposed to hazardous activities.”

The VOA cited research by the International Cocoa Initiative that analyzed the impacts of income loss on child labor rates in the Ivory Coast and found that a 10 percent drop in income for families in the cocoa industry is expected to produce a 5 percent increase in child labor.

Bangladesh, which had a reported 1.2 million children trapped in the worst forms of child labor in 2015, according to the ILO, is also at risk of seeing child labor increase. Most Bangladeshi workers—87 percent—earn money in the informal economy performing daily labor, unpaid work for their family, or piece-rate work. COVID-19 impacts have left families struggling with a severe drop in income of around 70 percent in many cases. Many adults and children who work making parts of products like garments have seen their income disappear entirely. “Those who depend on daily wages, for example, day labourers, rickshaw pullers, construction workers, street vendors, workers at small informal factories have lost their incomes with the hit of the pandemic,” noted researchers with the Institute for Development Studies. With this dramatic loss of income, it is expected that families will turn to their children to earn more money to buy basic necessities for survival.

In an effort to combat the potential increase in child labor, human rights organizations have urged governments to support families during this crisis—including the use of cash transfer programs. This entails direct cash payments to destitute families. Sometimes there are strings attached to the payments. Families that accept the money must promise to keep children in school and not allow them to enter the labor market. Cash transfers, often involving small amounts of money, have proven effective, in varying degrees, in reducing child labor in many countries.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, even small amounts of money might prevent starvation—or keep children out of the labor market. Save the Children argues that cash transfers help reduce the rate of child mortality, increase access to education, and reduce child abuse. Researchers Jacobus DeHoop and Eric Edmonds recently noted that 133 countries were working on social protection responses that provide financial support to vulnerable families in an effort to combat an increase in child labor during this time. Human Rights Watch has a series of recommendations for governments, including cash transfer payments.

Government efforts alone may not be enough. Companies that employ vulnerable demographics must also respond. Verité, an organization that works to eliminate abusive labor and empower workers, issued a series of recommendations to help companies address COVID impacts. Among the recommendations was a call for companies that work in areas with high rates of child labor to monitor “hot spots” for exploitation and intervene when necessary. Additionally, Verite urged companies to provide benefits for families who experience a loss of a parent due to the pandemic, make work remote when possible, and provide longer sick leaves for employees.

The COVID-19 crisis calls for innovative efforts to protect vulnerable families and children. As Jo Becker, the children’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, notes “the choices governments make now are crucial, not only to mitigate the worst harm of the pandemic, but also to benefit children over the long term.” By providing families with desperately needed resources during this unprecedented time, it may be possible to help curtail the increase of child labor worldwide.

In the last two decades, the world has seen the number of child laborers drop by nearly 100 million. “We do not want to see those hard-won gains reversed,” said Reid Maki, director of child labor advocacy for the National Consumers League and the coordinator of the Child Labor Coalition. “Concerted and robust action is required.” The actions that those in power take today will have long-lasting impacts that go far beyond COVID-19.

Ellie Murphy is a rising junior at Tufts University, majoring in International Relations and Sociology.

Consumer guide to general purpose reloadable cards – National Consumers League

/in , , , /by


General Purpose Reloadable prepaid cards (GPR) are the fastest growing payment method in the country. They are increasingly popular with consumers who can’t qualify for traditional credit or debit cards or for those who need a convenient way to help them stick to a budget, since the cards generally can’t be overdrawn. While GPR cards have similar uses and even look nearly identical to credit or debit cards, consumers should know that there are important differences in terms of fees and consumer protections.

 

This guide is designed to help consumers learn what makes GPR cards different from other types of plastic cards, about the fees associated with the cards, and understand their rights under the law.

What is a GPR card?
General purpose reloadable prepaid cards (GPR cards) are much like the debit cards that many consumers use. However, they are not linked to a traditional checking account. Consumers can use them to purchase retail items at stores or online, pay bills online, get cash from ATMs, and have paychecks directly deposited onto them. GPR cards can be purchased from retailers like drug stores, grocery stores or check-cashing outlets, bank branches, and online.

  • What is the difference between a GPR card and a bank account debit card?

    • A bank account debit card is linked to your bank’s checking account. GPR cards are not linked to a personal checking account.

    • Your bank account debit card may allow you to spend more than the amount that is in your account if you have opted in to an overdraft service. Prepaid debit cards do not let you spend more money than you have loaded on to a card.

  • What is the difference between a GPR card and a credit card?

    • When you use a GPR card, you are using your own money that you have already loaded on to the card. You can only spend as much money as you have pre-loaded.

    • When using a credit card, you are using borrowed money that you have to pay back at the end of each month (with interest, if you carry a balance). Credit card use is limited by the credit limit on the card.

  • What is the difference between a GPR card and a gift card?

    • GPR cards are reloadable, so when the money on the card is used up, you can add additional funds. Gift cards are often not reloadable.

    • GPR card users can withdraw cash from their cards at an ATM. Gift card holders cannot.

  • What is the difference between a GPR card and a payroll card?

    • A payroll card is an alternative to paper checks and to bank account direct deposits. Your employer can load your pay directly to a payroll card.

    • Payroll cards are provided by employers to their workers and are not typically marketed or purchasable by consumers. GPR cards are marketed to consumers and available for purchase by the general public.

For tips on how to protect the right GPR card for you, click here.

NCL statement condemning threats to public health officials

/in , , , , , , /by

June 25, 2020

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL) is deeply concerned with the rise in harassment and threats to public health leaders across the country in response to the nationwide shutdowns due to COVID-19.

Public health leaders are being subjected to pressure following guidelines regarding social distancing and face mask usage. Critics of these guidelines have politicized preventive health measures due to perceived disruptions in personal liberties. They have resorted to “doxxing” public health officials—a practice that involves revealing someone’s private information, such as place of employment and residential address, publicly over the Internet. Other intimidation tactics that have been employed include protesting outside of health officials’ homes to incite fear.

These tactics have created hostile work environments for public health officials, leading to 27 resignations or request of reassignments across 13 states—in the interest of personal safety. Public health workers also fear that these actions could potentially have a negative effect on recruiting people into pursuing careers in the public health field.

“Public health departments are already underfunded and understaffed, and in the midst of this pandemic, we need our full arsenal of public health experts on the front lines,” said NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg. “We cannot afford to lose any personnel in this space at this time. The U.S. is already behind regarding testing and other preventive measures. We need to let public health workers do their jobs to keep us safe, informed, and empowered regarding our health.

“NCL unequivocally condemns the threats placed against our public health workers. We rely on these individuals to keep us healthy, and we need them now more than ever. All they ask from us in return in our cooperation in flattening the curve.”

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

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.

Vaccine hesitancy and the unique challenge of COVID-19

/in , , , , , /by

headshot of NCL Health Policy intern Talia

By NCL Health Policy intern Talia Zitner

Around the globe, researchers and scientists are racing to find a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus. Developing a safe, effective, and affordable vaccine is already a challenging feat, but vaccine hesitancy presents another unique challenge to scientists, government researchers, and community leaders.

“Vaccine hesitancy” refers to the reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or have one’s children vaccinated against a disease, even if a vaccine is proven to be safe and effective. Vaccine hesitancy poses dangers to both the individual and their community, since exposure to a contagious disease puts the person at risk, and they are far more likely to spread the disease to others if they won’t get vaccinated. Ironically, these communities may be the most vulnerable to COVID-19, and a serious effort must be made to create a sense of comfort around the COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available to the public.

Not to be confused with the vaccine-hesitant, “anti-vaxxers” represent a movement of people who dispute the safety of vaccinations and challenge laws that mandate vaccinations. This is a more insidious movement funded by dubious sources (reportedly, one New York couple has donated millions of dollars to the movement) that deceptively politicize public health measures under the guise of protecting personal liberties.

Public health agencies are trying to get vaccination levels to 95 percent to guarantee herd immunity. Some concerns that are top of mind for consumers include knowing the timeframe for a vaccine, who will have access to it, what it will cost consumers, if anything, and how states will determine methods of enforcing vaccination. The possibility of a COVID-19 vaccine also begs the question of whether vaccination will be mandatory for public schools and government workers.

Perhaps one of the most important projects right now surrounding vaccine hesitancy is the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP), which is dedicated to “conducting a global study to track public sentiment and emotions around current and potential measures to contain and treat COVID-19.” Using a mix of population surveys and social media tracking, VCP “will investigate perception and sentiment of COVID-19 social distancing measures and potential medical tools globally.” This project will be essential moving forward, as it will continue to inform understanding on how the global population perceives the eventual vaccine.

As of now, VCP reports that only 25 percent of African Americans—a population that has been disproportionately hit by the virus—plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Why is this the case? Due to lack of access to hospitals, pharmacies, doctors and clinics in Black communities, failure to expand Medicaid, and other root causes; the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the disparities in our health care system.

To ensure herd immunity—which is somewhere north of 90 percent immunity—much work needs to be done, especially with the Black community, to increase confidence when a COVID-19 vaccine is released. At this time, Black leaders such as former U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, and current U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, are among those leading the charge to encourage public health efforts such as advocating for face-mask usage and collaborating with the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) Coronavirus Task Force and Resource Center, which provides expertise on the virus and its impact on the Black community.

Another community that will be crucial to prioritize surrounding vaccine hesitancy is the older Americans. The New York Times reported that of the “241 interventional COVID-19 studies undertaken in the United States and listed on clinicaltrials.gov…37 of these trials—testing drugs, vaccines and devices—set specific age limits and would not enroll participants older than 75, 80 or 85 years old. A few even excluded those over 65.” Why would older Americans trust a vaccine not tested for their age groups? Clinical trials will need to include people across all ages, otherwise, this will only increase vaccine hesitation. The vaccine must be safe and effective, and ample outreach must be conducted to ensure vaccine confidence across all demographics.

There are many questions left to be addressed. As we continue to navigate preventive measures for COVID-19, independent researchers and organizations will become increasingly more important to guiding decision making before and after a vaccine is developed.

Vaccine hesitancy is a global problem that will only be compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Fostering vaccine confidence will be imperative when the second wave of the virus sweeps the globe, as it inevitably will.

Talia is a Washington, D.C. native, and a rising sophomore at Wesleyan University, where she majors in English. Beyond health, Talia’s interests are in journalism, law, and social justice.

NCL commends two GOP senators who will oppose Beck nomination to lead consumer safety agency

/in /by

June 22, 2020

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers (NCL) League greatly appreciates the principled stance of two GOP senators who have stated publicly that they cannot support Dr. Nancy Beck for the Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). One of those senators, Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), holds a critical seat on the committee of jurisdiction over the CPSC. That committee will vote either to send her nomination to the full Senate or not.

“Dr. Nancy Beck’s record as it relates to PFAS chemicals, as well as her responses to my questions and the questions of other senators at yesterday’s Commerce Committee hearing have led me to conclude that she is not the right person to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which heard from Dr. Beck at her nomination hearing this week.

“I do not believe that Dr. Nancy Beck’s views on chemical safety, including on PFAS substances and asbestos, align with the Consumer Products Safety Commission’s mission,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said in a statement.

Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats. If two more Republicans announce their opposition, the party would lack a majority to confirm Beck, assuming all Democrats and independents who caucus as Democrats oppose her.

PFAS Concerns

Concerns about Beck’s responses on PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) and asbestos were evident during Tuesday’s Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee nomination hearing. Beck promised senators to champion policies “supported by objective and transparent science.”

Beck’s previous position as a political appointee in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and her work for the American Chemistry Council raised concerns.

The Commerce panel won’t schedule a vote on Beck’s nomination for at least two weeks to allow for members to ask additional questions for the record, a Republican committee aide said.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the top Democrat on the Commerce Committee, also will vote against Beck’s nomination; Cantwell asked Beck a number of probing questions, as did Senators Tom Udall (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Jacky Rosen (D-NV).

Democrats, environmental, and consumer groups have criticized Beck’s nomination to lead the commission, citing her consistent actions to slow or block banning dangerous chemicals and advancing the interests of the chemical industry.

The following letters were sent to the Senate Commerce Committee’s Chairman Roger Wicker and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell, opposing the nomination of Nancy Beck to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

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 hails sweeping Supreme Court decision protecting LGBTQ employees

/in , , , , /by

June 19, 2020

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—With a mission of protecting workers and consumers, the National Consumers League (NCL) applauds the Supreme Court’s landmark employment protection decision this week finding that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited under federal civil rights law. This statement is attributable to Sally Greenberg, NCL’s executive director:

We are applauding this week’s landmark 6-3 Supreme Court decision finding that the law’s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment extends to those who identify as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender). We commend and thank Justice Neil Gorsuch and his five fellow justices for concluding that ‘An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.’ NCL was founded to advocate for the rights of workers to receive decent pay, work in safe conditions and be free from discrimination in the workplace. This decision further extends these critical protections to the LGBT community.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, religion, national origin and sex. We are pleased that the court found that “sex” is a distinct characteristic but inseparable from the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The decision is the most significant affirmation of LGBT rights in the United States since the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage and the Court’s first decision addressing transgender civil rights.

Before the decision, LGBT job discrimination was still technically legal in much of the nation. Less than half the states have laws explicitly prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. An estimated 11 million Americans identify as LGBT, according to the Williams Institute.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

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 applauds Supreme Court decision protecting DREAMERS

/in , , , , , , /by

June 18, 2020

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL) applauds the Supreme Court’s decision today to block the Trump Administration’s attempt to end the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program for so-called “DREAMERS”—young people who came to the United States as children with parents who were not documented citizens at the time. Millions of these young people grew up in the United States, but their citizenship status is precarious. Thus, under this Obama-era program established in 2012, DACA is critically important to protect these young people and give them a path to citizenship.

This statement is attributable to NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg:

NCL applauds the 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court today blocking the Trump Administration’s efforts to undo the protections of DACA. Thousands of aspiring and promising young people who arrived in the United States as children of undocumented immigrants will not, as a result of this decision, lose critical protections DACA provides. Today we join with them in celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision to block Mr. Trump from undermining these essential protections. NCL’s long history of fighting for the rights of workers and consumers includes the rights of immigrants, who remain among the most vulnerable targets of workplace and marketplace abuses. They deserve the same protections that flow to all American citizens. NCL’s policy position on this issue was adopted in 2013.

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act—the proposal to grant temporary conditional residency, with the right to work, to qualifying immigrants who entered the United States as minor—and, if they later satisfy further qualifications, they would attain permanent residency.  

DACA was introduced by President Barack Obama in 2012 and allows young people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children to stay in the country and work without being deported on a two-year, renewable term. As of March 31, 2020, 640,000 people have active DACA status, and since 2012, more than 825,000 people have utilized the program. The 5-4 Supreme Court majority, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that President Trump and DHS did not adequately consider the impact on the DACA recipients themselves and the potential hardships for the some 700,000 young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children by their parents. 

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

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.

Sweetened with what? Lack of transparency and misleading claims make reducing added sugars confusing

/in , , , , /by

Many of us are probably trying to heed the advice of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce our consumption of added sugars. FDA has made “Added Sugars” content per serving a mandatory line on the Nutrition Facts label and has established a Daily Value of 50g of added sugars based on a 2,000 calorie a day diet. FDA’s actions, however, have had some unintended consequences.

The agency’s decision to include “Added Sugars” on the Nutrition Facts label has created a marketing incentive for food and beverage manufacturers to replace added sugars with alternative or substitute sweeteners.  Leading brand name products bear prominent claims such as “No Added Sugars,” “Zero Sugar,” and “Reduced Sugars,” implying that the new product is healthier than the original without disclosing how the sugar has been reduced. As detailed in a recent Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) letter and an industry citizen’s petition filed with the FDA (Docket No. FDA-2020-P-1478), consumers have little idea that when they purchase a no/reduced sugar product, they may be buying a food that contains alternative sweeteners, highly processed, or artificial substances.

Most of us following the FDA’s advice aren’t looking to load up on combinations of new-fangled sweetening agents, sugar alcohols and other synthetic substances. CSPI’s January 9, 2020 letter asks that FDA enforce standards for nutrient content claims related to added or reduced sugar. We support that request.

The petition was filed by the Sugar Association, whose members are clearly concerned about competition from alternative sweeteners. But their complaint to the FDA makes a strong case for transparency by citing products that make no/reduced added sugars on the front label, but fail to disclose that sugars have been replaced by other sweeteners—many unfamiliar, some artificial, and some with known glycemic index effects. For example:

  • Rebel Ice Cream claims “No Sugar Added” but is sweetened with Erythritol, Chicory Root Fiber, Vegetable Glycerin, and Monk Fruit;
  • Kool-Aid Jammers claim “Zero Sugar” but are sweetened with Sucralose and Acesulfame Potassium;
  • Oikos Greek Yogurt claims “No Added Sugar and No Artificial Sweeteners” but contains Stevia and Chicory Root Fiber;
  • Quest Nutrition’s Hero Blueberry Cobbler Bar claims “1g” of sugar but is sweetened with Allulose, Erythritol, Sucralose, and Steviol Glycosides (Stevia);
  • Snack Pack Juicy Gels claim “Sugar Free” but are sweetened with Sucralose;
  • ONE Maple Glazed Doughnut Bar claims “1g” of sugar but is sweetened with Maltitol, Vegetable Glycerin, and Sucralose;
  • Snack Pack Chocolate Pudding Cups claim “Sugar Free” but are sweetened with Sorbitol, Maltitol, Sucralose, and Acesulfame Potassium;
  • Welch’s Fruit Snacks claim “Reduced Sugar” but are sweetened with Chicory Root Fiber and Maltitol Syrup;

The petition, among other steps, urges FDA to require that such substances be clearly disclosed as a “sweetener” in the ingredient list. That step seems reasonable to insure transparency and ensure that consumers know what they are purchasing.

The petition also calls for action against outright misleading claims regarding sugar content. The CSPI letter and industry petition blows the whistle on deceptive claims like these:

  • The reduced sugar version of Skippy peanut butter has 1/3 less sugar than its traditional counterpart but has more calories and fat per serving than the regular version. Despite having 1g less added sugars, the reformulated product provides 20 more calories per 2 tablespoon serving. The claim on the front label is misleading because it implies that the reformulated version is healthier due to the reduction in added sugars when the reformulated version is higher in calories.
  • Welch’s Fruit Snacks Reduced Sugar version claims 25 percent less sugar than the original version. The claim is predicated upon a reduction in the serving size of the reformulated version of the product. The original version has a serving size of 25.5g while the Reduced Sugar version has decreased to 22.7g.
  • Oikos Triple Zero blended Greek Yogurt makes a “0 Added Sugar” claim but has more calories per serving than the company’s regular Greek yogurt. The zero added sugars product, which is sweetened with Stevia Leaf Extract, has 120 calories per serving while the company’s original version has 110 calories per serving.

Statements like these turn the supermarket aisle into a minefield of misleading claims that are not good for consumers who are trying to sort out health values. We urge the FDA to prohibit misleading labeling of alternative sweeteners in processed foods and beverages and to grant the citizens’ petition for greater transparency in food labeling when it comes to these artificial sweeteners.

 

Top of mind: HHS’s reversal of Obama-era transgender nondiscrimination healthcare protections

/in , , , /by

Nissa Shaffi

By Nissa Shaffi, NCL Associate Director of Health Policy

On June 12, the Trump Administration finalized a rule that proposed to revise, and in effect reverse, Obama-era protections offered in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557, known as the Health Care Rights Law, prevents discrimination of patients based on “race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.” In 2016, the Obama Administration expanded the definition of sex to encompass aspects of gender identity as well—extending protections to transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. 

The finalized rule will drastically impact how LGBTQ individuals navigate their health care and health insurance, with regard to nondiscrimination protections. The rule would essentially affect aspects of coverage related to access, cost-sharing, and health plan benefits, specifically, denial of treatment based on someone’s gender transition and/or a provider’s moral or religious beliefs.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a statement following this news expressing that reinstating the original definition of the protections offered would relieve the American people of approximately $2.9 billion in “unnecessary regulatory burdens”. These so-called burdens also include eliminating mandates for regulated entities to provide patients and customers with language accessibility pertaining to health care literature.

Considering the nexus of a global pandemic, civil unrest due to systemic racism, compounded by the epidemic of fatal violence against Black transgender people – the timing of this rule is not only inopportune but exceptionally cruel. The National Consumers League is appalled at the reversal of these protections during a pandemic that is disproportionately impacting vulnerable communities. We urge health insurers and providers to do the right to protect patients by keeping politics out of professional medical judgment when providing services to their patients and customers.