Whatever happened to P.E.? – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

As a kid I participated in the President’s Council on Physical Fitness. What did that mean? Well, my classmates and I were required to run the 50-yard-dash (I remember running past my gym teacher who stood with a whistle around her neck and a stopwatch in her hand – my time was disappointing), do a certain number of sit-ups (I surpassed my own expectations) and pull-ups (I could only do the girl version that allowed you to lean back with the pull up bar in front of you) and I can’t remember what else but the point was, the President thought our physical fitness was important and as a result, so did we.

Things are different today, according to the new CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) biennial report. There’s no more expectation from the highest office for the nation’s youth to be physically fit.

Nearly half of all high school students take no physical education classes. In California, while state regs say that elementary students must get at least 20 minutes of exercise a day, only 20 percent of schools are complying. At many schools, there is no gymnasium, and no gym teacher, and thus no opportunity for exercise. In New York, K-3 students are supposed to get phys ed class every day, three times a week for grades 4-6, and 90 minutes a week for 7 and 8th graders. But none of the schools that were audited for the report were complying with this regimen.

What has happened to the focus on physical education that came with the imprimatur of the President of the United States? Principals blame budget cuts and the need to prepare students for tests, but also a lack of attention to phys ed from the Department of Education as well as school boards and superintendents.

It seems like a disconnect to me. First lady Michelle Obama has championed her “Let’s Move” campaign, introducing dance and exercise into schools and the kids love it – dance and music is a really fun way to get exercise. The President should revive the Council on Physical Fitness and make it fun, blending it with Michelle’s Let’s Move program and bringing in classes like power dance, yoga, pilates, and zoomba.

Harvard professor John Ratey, author of “Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain,” says physical education helps promote better academic outcomes, but that phys ed teachers are fighting to hold onto their jobs and that it is dawning on educators that we’ve “missed the boat.” We’re facing ever-growing obesity among our nation’s youth; this CDC report is a wake-up call and a great opportunity for the President to step up and re-brand – Obama-style – what was once a priority for the American President: physical fitness.

Consumer group to testify in support of Bloomberg’s soda restrictions – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

July 24, 2012

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

New York, NY–Today, Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the National Consumers League (NCL), the nation’s oldest consumer advocacy organization, will testify (read remarks here) at a hearing held by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to discuss Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to limit the sale of large sugary beverages in the city.

“NCL strongly supports Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to limit the portion size of sugary drinks,” said Greenberg. “In a nation where two-thirds of American adults and one-third American children are either overweight or obese, it is high time for leaders to enact measures to help combat the growing epidemic.“

In a move that acknowledges that sugary beverages are the single largest source of calories in the American diet, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed limits on the sale of sugary beverages over 16 ounces. “In the past, sugary beverages were consumed in relatively small portions and only as a special treat,” noted Greenberg. Today, portions may be as large as 64 ounces, a serving size that contains the equivalent of more than 50 teaspoons of sugar. 

NCL applauds the Mayor’s “bold effort to place modest limits on the consumption of sugary drinks.” Greenberg’s complete remarks are available here.

### 

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.

Women, work… and making it work – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

Lili Gecker, NCL public policy intern

Lili Gecker, currently a summer public policy intern at NCL, is a rising senior at Brandeis University where she is studying sociology. Lili’s internship was made possible through the Louis D. Brandeis Social Justice World of Work (WOW) Fellowship.

As a summer intern for NCL, I recently had the opportunity to see Professor Marian Baird from the University of Sydney speak at AFL-CIO on the topic of Gender Equality Bargaining. Australia’s National Employment Standards was able to gain many rights for workers, and their policies include rights and needs of women and families. The Fair Work Act 2009, which included 10 entitlements, sets a minimum wage standard each year, and also offers four weeks paid vacation leave, ten days paid sick leave, and the right to request accommodations if a worker is responsible for caring for a preschool-age child or a child under the age of 18 with disabilities, among others. This law provides a baseline and a safety net for all workers.  In addition, on Mother’s Day in 2009, workers gained the right to paid maternity leave. This includes same-sex couples, and adoptive parents.

The United States certainly has a lot of work to do. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, an organization that advocates on behalf of such issues, workers in 145 countries around the world have paid sick days, but not in the United States. In addition, we are one of only three countries (those being Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Liberia) that do not offer paid leave to new mothers. Although unpaid leave is available through the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, (FMLA), it is only available to fewer than 50 percent of workers, and many cannot afford to take it.

Professor Baird explained the role unions can play in reaching gender equality and fair labor standards. Some factors that facilitate equality include:

  • Supportive union leadership
  • Union membership support
  • Negotiator abilities (on both sides)
  • Negotiator gender and age (younger may be open to more diverse ideas)
  • Intra-union cohesion
  • Setting common claims across and within unions
  • Arguing the business case/ building on HR policy
  • Alliances formed with community and other advocacy groups
  • The social and political contexts

Factors that inhibit equality include:

  • Low trust bargaining relationships
  • Delegates attitudes and posturing
  • Centralized union leadership
  • Lack of educating members about family pensions
  • Member minority v. majority interests
  • Organizations’ finances

With all the ways in which the United States is behind, it is no wonder that we are publicly debating if women can “have it all” (and concluding they can’t). A 2011 study by the Families and Work Institute showed that increased flexibility correlates positively with job engagement, job satisfaction, employee retention, and employee health. Other scholars have found that good family policies attract better talent, which results in raised productivity. Perhaps we can look to countries such as Australia as an example. Their use of organized labor and gender equality bargaining played a strong role in progressing their labor practices and transforming gender relations. While they will continue to fight for more progressive changes, such as paid leave for workers who have been victims of domestic violence, we in the United States have more than one job to do—fair and equal labor standards will take work, but it is time to catch up.

Sweetheart deal between banks and universities preying on students – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

*U.S. PIRG released a report recently that reveals an unholy would even say sleazy – relationship between a huge number of well-known colleges and universities and banks that issue debit cards to their students. The colleges may provide student loans onto the cards and then get what amounts to a kickback – some percentage of the fees – when the bank takes fees from the students’ cards for things like overdrafts or for reloading their cards or depositing money on the cards at the ATMs.

PIRG found close to 900 card partnerships between colleges and banks or other financial firms at schools with over 9 million students, or over 2 in 5 (42 percent) of all students nationwide. Thirty-two of the 50 largest public 4-year universities, 26 of the largest 50 community colleges, and 6 of the largest 20 private not-for-profit schools had debit or prepaid card contracts with a bank or a financial firm. US Bank had the most card agreements, at 52 campuses with more than 1.7 million students. Wells Fargo had card agreements at schools with the most students; its contracts were at 43 campuses that have more than 2 million students.

A contract between Ohio State University and Huntington Bank includes $25 million in payments to the school over 15 years. It also includes an additional $100 million in lending and investment to neighborhoods surrounding campus. Fees to students include a variety of per-swipe fees, inactivity fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees, and fees to reload prepaid cards.

The PIRG report is very measured in making a series of recommendations about these practices, like suggesting relationships between banks and colleges should be disclosed so that the public knows that the school chose the debit card program that gives students the best deal rather than the one that gave the college the most money.

So what’s wrong with these programs? Don’t they provide schools with much-needed revenues while giving students the convenience of having their funds on a debit card that they can easily reload?

Plenty, that is what is wrong with these sweetheart deals between colleges and banks. Student debt has topped a trillion dollars. Tuition at colleges has gone up far out of proportion to inflation. (Tuition has seen an average annual increase of 6 percent during the 10 years prior to the economic downturn.)

Therefore *students have to borrow heavily to finance their education. So now we have students getting loans put directly on a debit card and being charged predatory fees with their own colleges getting a cut of those fees. In every way, that is just wrong!

So we applaud US PIRG for its revelatory and important study and urge upon lawmakers and regulators the sensible recommendations provided in the US PIRG study. Someone has to take the side of students and their parents and say, “enough is enough!” US PIRG has given us all the evidence we need to do that. We just need the will to act.

 

*Links are no longer active as the original sources have removed the content, sometimes due to federal website changes or restructurings.

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

/in imported/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/in imported/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/in imported/by

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

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

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

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

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

/in imported/by

By Brianne Pitts, NCL public policy intern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/in imported/by

July 12, 2012

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

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

Background on GFI #209 and #213

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns with the Proposed Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Court Decisions

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

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

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

Recommendations 

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Guidance for Industry #209, 22.

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

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

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

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

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

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

/in imported/by

July 10, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other key survey highlights

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

The survey also contained a number of good news findings:

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

Full survey findings are available here.

Tips from NCL

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

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

Methodology

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

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

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

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

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