Stopping robocalls takes a village – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

breyault.jpgRemember the days when dinner was routinely interrupted by a phone call from someone trying to sell something? If you had a phone in your house before 2003, chances are that any time the phone rang in the evening it was likely to be a telemarketer on the other end of the line. Unsurprisingly, all those unwanted phone calls generated significant consumer outrage.

Thanks to all those consumer complaints and the diligent work of consumer advocates, Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003. Because of that law, for the first time, telemarketers (with some carefully limited exceptions) were prohibited from calling consumers who registered their phone numbers on the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry. Faced with the opportunity to avoid those dinner time telemarketing calls, consumers flocked to register their numbers on the Registry. As of September 2015, there were over 222 million active registrations in the DNC Registry, making the law one of the most popular consumer protections of all time.

Thanks to another consumer protection law, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), telemarketers are prohibited from calling cell phones using automated dialers (so-called “autodialers”), under threat of private litigation and other enforcement measures. As anyone who’s gotten a call from “Rachel at Card Services” or received an “urgent message about the status of your auto warranty” on their cell phones can attest, however, annoying robocalls remain a fact of life for many cell phone owners.

Unfortunately, fraudsters are increasingly taking advantage of advanced Internet calling technology to hide the source of their calls. In addition, they often base their operations overseas – beyond the easy reach of U.S. law enforcement. This is a major reason why an estimated 2.3 billion robocalls (or 51,523 calls every minute) made it through to consumers’ phones in January 2016 alone.

Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced new steps to address the growing threat of fraudulent robocalls. In particular, the FCC clarified that phone carriers are not prohibited from offering robocall-blocking technology to their customers. The Commission also noted that the TCPA protects consumers from auto-dialed text messages sent to their wireless devices in the same way it protects them from auto-dialed voice calls. A number of companies currently offer robocall-blocking technology, and major wireless and landline phone carriers have been investigating ways to address the problem.

At the same time that criminal robocallers are using powerful technology to circumvent protections against fraudulent telemarketing calls, recent legislation has created a loophole in the consumer protections that the TCPA provides. Although the use of so-called autodialers to call cellular phones is generally illegal under the TCPA, language inserted into last year’s federal Bipartisan Budget Act allows debt collectors to use autodialers to call the cellphones of consumers who owe money for student loans, back taxes, and other debts owed the federal government.

In response, and with the support of more than a dozen consumer and civil rights groups, Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representative Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) introduced the HANGUP Act, which would repeal the language included in the budget act. That bill is currently stuck in committee, despite vigorous advocacy from our colleagues at Consumers Union.

Between criminal robocalls from technologically savvy fraudsters and legislative weakening of the TCPA, it’s easy to be pessimistic about the chances of putting a dent in the robocall problem any time soon. There is some good news to report on this front, however. The FCC’S proposed rules to implement the Budget Act changes would limit the number of calls or texts that federal debt collectors can make to consumers without consent to three per month. The FCC’s rules would also require federal debt collectors to respect a request by the call recipient to cease calls. In addition, thanks in part to efforts like the Federal Trade Commission’s Robocall Challenge (and its successor contest – “Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back”), innovative startups are emerging that offer consumers technology that can help block unwanted robocalls.

The TCPA is a critical piece of consumer protection legislation for protecting consumers from the plague of unwanted robocalls. However, the TCPA alone won’t solve the problem. A comprehensive solution will take cooperation by the entire ecosystem of stakeholders in the fight against robocalls – consumers, phone companies, regulators and Congress— to make a dent in the problem.

Get smart about caffeine – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

ali.jpgMarch is both Caffeine Awareness Month and National Nutrition Month, an appropriate time to take an updated look at the world’s most consumed “pick-me-up.” Caffeine consumption is widespread in the United States, with 85 percent of the population drinking at least one caffeinated beverage per day. This year, for the first time in its 35-year history, the official U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans includes findings and recommendations on caffeine.Here are relevant facts that many Americans might not know about caffeine, including the latest recommendations from the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

  1. Caffeine has been consumed by humans for thousands of years. It is reported that tea was first consumed in China as early as 3000 BC, and there is evidence of coffee consumption as early as the 9th century in Ethiopia. So, humanity has had a caffeine predilection for a long time. Caffeine is found naturally in over 60 plants including coffee beans, cocoa beans, tea leaves, kola nuts, yerba mate, and guarana. It is also produced synthetically and added to other products including soft drinks and energy drinks. However, there is no difference between the naturally occurring caffeine in plants and synthetic caffeine.
  2. Americans are not alone in their enjoyment of a cup of joe! Large parts of the world’s population consume caffeine in one form or another, every day. Countries that consume the most caffeine include places like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
  3. There appears to be widespread agreement regarding the safety of a moderate daily intake level of caffeine for healthy adults of 400 milligrams (mg). The recently released Dietary Guidelines conclude that moderate coffee consumption (up to 400 mg/day of caffeine) can be part of a healthy diet. Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority have also declared moderate caffeine intake of up to 400 mg/day safe.Graphics_-_CaffeineFacts_2.jpg
  4. The vast majority of Americans consume far less than 400 mg/day of caffeine.  According to the Dietary Guidelines, average intakes of caffeine among adults range from 110 mg/day (for women ages 19-30) up to 260 mg/day (for men ages 51-70).  Average intakes for children (5-32 mg/day) and teens (63-80 mg/day) are lower.
  5. Consumption has remained consistent. Despite concerns expressed by some about proliferation of caffeine in the food supply, U.S. dietary patterns indicate that caffeine intake has remained steady over the past decade.
  6. Most of our intake of caffeine in the United States continues to come from coffee, tea, and soda. This is consistent with a recent FDA-sponsored study that found between 70 and 90 percent of caffeine intake is from coffee and tea.
  7. Consuming 400 mg is probably harder than you think. The Dietary Guidelines confirm that caffeinated beverages can vary in caffeine content. So consumers should be aware of how much caffeine is in commonly consumed beverages. To assist, the following examples illustrate how much you would have to drink to reach 400 mg of caffeine.
    • 16.6 servings of green tea (24 mg caffeine/8 fl. oz.)
    • 11.5 servings of brand cola (average 35 mg caffeine/8 fl. oz.)
    • 8.5 servings of black tea (47 mg caffeine/8 fl. oz.)
    • 5 servings of Red Bull energy drink (80 mg caffeine/8.4 fl. oz.)
    • 4.2 servings of regular brewed coffee (95.2 mg caffeine/8 fl. oz.)
    • 2.2 servings of coffee house coffee (180mg caffeine/8 fl. oz.)
    • 2 servings of 5-Hour Energy (200 mg caffeine/2 fl. oz.)
    • 1 serving of 10-Hour Energy shot (422 mg caffeine/2 fl. oz.)
  8. Surprise! The darker the coffee roast, the less caffeine it has.  For tea, it’s the opposite: the darker the tea, the higher the caffeine content.
  9. Caffeine is one of the most thoroughly studied substances in the human diet. Over time, scientists have scrutinized, studied, and dissected caffeine; it has been surveyed, assessed and analyzed by chemists, toxicologists, and statisticians; and importantly, the effects of caffeine have been examined, discussed, and experienced first-hand by the billions of people that consume coffee, tea, chocolate, cola, or energy drinks on a daily basis. While it has been suspected of various harmful effects, for the most part, it has been exonerated. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines finds strong and consistent evidence that moderate caffeine consumption in healthy adults is not associated with an increased risk of major chronic diseases (e.g., cancer, heart disease) or premature death.
  10. Caffeine isn’t for everyone. There are some people who should limit their caffeine intake.  The Dietary Guidelines recommend that pregnant women, those who may become pregnant, and those who are breastfeeding should consult their health care providers for advice concerning caffeine consumption. Although the Guidelines are silent on other populations, everyone is different when it comes to caffeine. Children and teens should generally consume less caffeine due to weight concerns (and parents should monitor). Health Canada, for example, recommends specific ranges for different age groups. In addition, those who are especially sensitive to caffeine may want to limit their intake, and while caffeine is great to help get your morning started, it shouldn’t be used as a replacement for sleep.
  11. Some animals should not consume caffeine. Dogs, cats, and birds cannot metabolize caffeine, so don’t feed your pets chocolate or anything with caffeine!
  12. Cold brewed coffee products are gaining popularity. Given the extended steeping time during manufacture and processing, these products tend to have higher caffeine concentrations. An example of this is Chameleon Cold Brew, which contains a huge 2,160 mg of caffeine per 32 fl. oz. bottle. While the product label recommends consuming this as eight servings, it is still an excessive amount of caffeine to have in one container, and amounts to 270 mg per serving.
  13. Caffeine is sometimes found in surprising places like orange soda, lemonade, and enhanced water beverages.
  14. Caffeine is caffeine. The Dietary Guidelines treat caffeine holistically, focusing on the ingredient itself, whether naturally occurring, synthetic, or a combination of both–versus individual caffeinated products.  We agree with this approach.  Caffeine is the same, regardless of the food or beverage.

We believe that all products containing caffeine should declare the amount of caffeine per serving–and per container–on the label. To be able to track caffeine intake, using the 400 mg/day moderate level of intake as a maximum for recommended intake, consumers need to know how much caffeine is in the foods and beverages they consume. But, that can be an issue, particularly for products like energy shots and the new wave of highly caffeinated cold brew coffee products.

FDA currently requires food labels to disclose added caffeine as an ingredient, but the label is not required to provide the amount of caffeine. Very few products voluntarily list the amount of caffeine they contain, although some companies, like Red Bull and Monster, and some soft drinks, provide this information voluntarily. Because caffeine is not a nutrient, it is not listed in the Nutrition Facts label. But, would it be so hard to provide caffeine content elsewhere on the information panel?

As in all things, a little common sense goes a long way and sensitivity levels can vary from person to person. We likely all know someone who can drink an espresso after dinner and still fall asleep, while other friends may not be able to drink a Diet Coke in the afternoon without it affecting their sleep quality. Let your individual sensitivity to caffeine be your guide.

Graphics_-_CaffeineFacts.jpg

National Nutrition Month is an annual initiative led by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
DISCLOSURE: while researching facts for this blog, approximately 220 mg of caffeine (3 cappuccinos) was consumed.  

Combatting the opioid abuse epidemic – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

karinb.jpgIn the midst of a national epidemic of opioid abuse, our healthcare policymakers are trying to figure out how best to combat this intractable problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), opioids, (which include the prescription painkillers oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, and others) and the illegal drug heroin were involved in 28,647 overdose deaths in 2014. Drug overdose deaths are now the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States, even surpassing car crashes.A certain laxness in prescribing addictive opioids for legitimate purposes has helped to fuel the current crisis. In 2013, almost 2 million Americans, age 12 or older, either abused or were dependent on opioid pain relievers. Once addicted, it’s incredibly difficult to stop using the drug.

This overprescribing of opioids and resulting increase in addiction, has in turn led to a resurgence in the use and abuse of heroin, which is cheaper and easier to find than prescription opioids.

The policy challenge is this: to ensure that prescribers are not creating a new population of addicts who–when they are unable to refill a prescription–turn to street drugs such as heroin to address the craving created by opioids. At the same time, we also need to ensure that people who are in pain get the relief they need. Balancing these two concerns represents a tough challenge.

The National Consumers League (NCL), which has long been concerned with the safe use of medications, welcomes the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) announcement this month of a series of actions designed to combat the opioid abuse epidemic. Among other initiatives, the FDA will:

  • convene an Advisory Committee before approving certain new opioids
  • expand access to abuse-deterrent formulations to discourage abuse (like not allowing drugs to be ground into powder and combined with liquid to be made into possible injectables)
  • strengthen post-marketing study requirements
  • increase access to pain management training for healthcare professionals
  • work to protect appropriate patient access to needed pain medications.

The FDA’s efforts are part of a larger governmental strategy to address this growing problem. On February 2, the Obama Administration announced that it would ask Congress to spend an additional $1.1 billion next year to expand access to treatment, support programs to prevent prescription drug overdoses, and crack down on illegal sales. For its part, the CDC is currently working on new guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain.

We hope that these new initiatives will help lessen the burden of opioid abuse, and we welcome the development of better pain management options and alternative treatments for patients.

If you or someone you know has a substance abuse problem, help is available 24/7 at 1-800-662-HELP (4357).

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.

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.

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.

Top 10 child labor stories of 2015 – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

sg.jpgThis post appeared on the Huffington Post on January 6, 2016

There were plenty of ups and downs in the fight against child labor this year. With an estimated 168 million children still trapped in exploitative labor, including 85 million doing hazardous work, we have an ambitious agenda ahead of us in 2016. Here are 10 highs and lows from 2015…1. The U.S. Department of Labor’s international child labor programs avoided the ax of conservative appropriators in the Congressional budget package released on December 17. During the battle, the child labor advocacy community argued that the International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB) plays a vital role in the fight against child labor, which has seen a reduction of nearly 80 million children over the last 15 years. ILAB documents the prevalence of child labor on a country-by-country basis, and then uses that information to fund about $60 million in remediation programs each year. In the end, appropriators shaved off $5 million but kept these valuable programs intact.

2. In June, India’s government provisionally approved a huge loophole in a 2012 ban on child work under the age of 14. Unfortunately, it allows children under that age to work in “family enterprises,” which will make child labor laws harder to enforce. Last year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner Kailash Satyarthi noted that millions of Indian children said to be working in family businesses are actually sold into bonded labor and other forms of slavery. A New York Times editorial weighed in on the proposed policy in June, and the advocacy community continued to fight against the proposal as the year drew to a close.labor-slider.jpg

3. The battle against child labor in U.S. tobacco continued to gather strength in 2015. Altria Group, parent to three tobacco companies, implemented a new policy (announced in late 2014) that prohibits its growers from hiring children under 16. Implementing and monitoring such a policy presents challenges, and it’s difficult to gauge yet how well that policy is working, but it’s good to see a step forward and an acknowledgement that children and teens should not be harvesting this hazardous crop. The members of the Child Labor Coalition, which my organization coordinates, continue to press for a total ban on workers under 18. We organized a House and Senate briefing on child labor in tobacco this year. Legislation in the House, HR 1848, with 19 co-sponsors, and a companion bill in the Senate, S.974, with seven co-sponsors, would both ban child labor in tobacco. More than 40,000 individuals signed an AVAAZ.org petition asking President Obama and Secretary of Labor Perez to ban child labor in the crop.

4. Child Labor in hazardous gold mining received focused attention in 2015. In April, ILAB, the CLC, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) convened a stakeholder meeting to improve child labor interventions in small-scale gold mining communities. In May, a government report from Burkina Faso revealed that nearly 20,000 children were working in small-scale gold mines–part of an upsurge over the last few years. In June, HRW released Precious Metal, Cheap Labor: Child Labor and Corporate Responsibility in Ghana’s Artisanal Gold Mines, documenting the use of child labor in Ghana’s unlicensed mines and the use of highly toxic mercury by children. HRW asked refiners to take immediate steps to eliminate gold from their supply chains. In September, HRW released a report on child labor in small-scale gold mining in the Philippines, exploring the dangerous work of underwater compressor divers. PBS NewsHour won an Emmy for its coverage of this most-dangerous form of child labor.

5. In July, Tulane University researchers estimated that 2.12 million child laborers were still working in cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana during the 2014-2014 harvest. The study, commissioned by ILAB, found a 59 percent increase in the number of children in cocoa production since the last survey in 2008/2009–despite a decade-and-half-long multi-stakeholder initiative to reduce child labor in cocoa led by the West African countries and the major chocolate companies. Researchers found a 46 percent increase in hazardous work by children on the cocoa plantations.

6. News out of Panama in 2015 showed an almost 50 percent reduction in child labor over two years. The census by the Panamanian government reported a drop from 50,410 children in child labor (about seven percent of childhood population) to 26,710. Advocates express hope that the country could be largely child labor-free in the next few years.

7. In May, South Sudan ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, followed by Somalia in October, leaving the United States as the only UN Nation not to ratify the international child rights treaty. HRW’s Jo Becker shares her views on what it means for the United States to be in a “Club of One.”

8. In September, the Department of Labor’s ILAB launched the Sweat and Toil app, putting more than 1,000 pages of country-by-country research on child labor and forced labor in the palm of consumers’ hands. We’ve never had such easy access to supply chain info, nor been able to track individual countries’ progress in removing child labor and slavery. An android version of the app will be available shortly.

9. Mega retailer Target announced a partnership with CLC member GoodWeave to sell child-labor-free certified rugs. We rarely see major corporations making that type of commitment to join the fight against child labor, and we applaud this partnership, which will help reduce the number of children who are chained to the loom.

10. This year has seen progress in cleaning up South Asia’s notorious brick kilns. In February, officials helped free 333 bonded kiln workers, including 75 children, in Pudukuppam, India. Workers were paid $3 a week, if they were paid at all. There were a number of similar raids during the year. An ongoing program, “Better Brick Nepal,” conducted by CLC members Global Fairness Initiative and GoodWeave, is working to ensure that laborers who produce bricks are not exploited and that Nepal’s 60,000 child brick workers are protected.

Hotels increasingly sharing airlines’ fee addiction – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

breyault.jpgAsk practically any flier what their biggest gripes are with airlines and the word “fees” will almost certainly come up. From $25 baggage fees, to $200 change fees, to $50 standby fees and more, fees are big business for the U.S. airlines — bringing in a reported $38 billion (with a “b”) in revenue in 2014 alone. Here at NCL, we’ve voiced plenty of gripes about the fee-based profit model at U.S. airlines, but so far little has changed to break the big U.S. airlines of their addiction to fees.Unfortunately, the hotel industry is increasingly taking a page out of the airlines’ playbook when it comes to socking consumers with add-on fees. As Amy Zipkin’s excellent New York Times piece this week lays out, big hotel chains like Marriott International and Hilton and room-sharing apps like Airbnb and HomeAway are joining the fee trend. Things like $40 last-minute booking fees, $50 cancellation penalties, 6-12% “guest service fees” and mandatory resort fees look like they could become the the norm instead of the exception. It’s not hard to see why. According to New York University professor Bjorn Hanson, hotel fees and surcharges are expected to bring in $2.47 billion (again, with a “b”) in revenue in 2015, up from $2.35 billion only a year earlier.

Interestingly, not all experts in the hotel industry think this trend towards more fees is a bad thing. “Hotel reservations have long been way too flexible,” said Christopher K. Anderson, a faculty member at the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration who was quoted in the Times.

We couldn’t agree less with Mr. Anderson. Consumers have long appreciated the flexibility of being able to cancel a hotel reservation without a charge if their plans change at the last minute. The need to make such changes are often outside a consumer’s control (think: death or illness in the family, weather-related flight cancellations, etc.). It is outrageous that a consumer should get socked with a hefty fee through no fault of their own.

While there’s no one single regulator with jurisdiction over hotels, there are steps that consumer protection agencies can take to address the growth in fees. For one, hotel fees should be disclosed more up front both on hotels’ own websites and on online booking websites like Hotels.com, Expedia, Airbnb.com, and others. Ensuring honest advertising is a job for the Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General. The Department of Transportation can also play a role by requiring better disclosure when hotels are booked as part of a package with airfare. Earlier this year, NCL testified before the DOT’s Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection and called on the agency to do just that.

Until that happens, however, consumers themselves need to express their outrage with these new fees directly to the hotels (preferably loudly, frequently, and with their pocketbooks!). If you get hit with a fee that you think is unfair, we want to hear from you!  Drop us an email at info@nclnet.org or drop us a line on our Facebook page or on Twitter at @ncl_tweets.