Ensuring safe treats this Halloween – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

From costumes and candy apples to haunted houses and hayrides, Halloween offers activities to please the most demure and daring alike. For parents of children planning to trick-or-treat, however, concerns about the safety of the candy their youngsters collect can dampen the festive mood.

For many Americans both young and old, Halloween stands out as the highlight of the fall. To keep Halloween about treats and terrors, rather than tricks and tummy-aches, follow these safe sweets tips:

  • Don’t let your kids go trick-or-treating on an empty stomach! This will help minimize the temptation of snacking on candy that you haven’t had a chance to inspect yet.
  • Instruct children not to eat any candy or other treats until a parent has had a chance to inspect their goodies. In addition to preventing youngsters from eating suspect treats, it will also keep concerns about choking, candy overconsumption, and allergenic items at bay – at least while wandering the neighborhood.
  • Throw away baked goods, open items, and anything else not commercially packaged, even if your child thinks it came from a house you know. Following this rule with all items helps avoid dissent over desirable homemade treats.
  • Throw away any treats that look like they may have been tampered with or appear suspect in any way.
  • If you have a child with food allergies, check the ingredients on all items.
  • If you have a small child, look for choking hazards, such as hard candies and chewing gum, and remove them from the stash.
  • If you own a pet, keep candy well out of reach. Chocolate is particularly dangerous for dogs, and consumption of candy – and wrappers – is not good for any pets.

Have a happy, healthy Halloween!

Advocates taking sides on food stamps for sugary beverages controversy – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Should it be possible to use food stamps to buy sugar-sweetened beverages? This very issue is causing people and groups that are often allies to line up on opposing sides.

In recent weeks, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has asked the United States Department of Agriculture for permission to temporarily bar New York City’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from buying sugary drinks with their benefits, commonly known as food stamps. The proposed two-year change to the program would allow researchers to study the potential impact of such a ban on public health. But a number of anti-hunger advocates – including Ellen Vollinger, the legal director of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), and Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger – are opposing the Mayor’s request.

These individuals and organizations dedicated to fighting hunger in America, especially among children, think Bloomberg’s action would perpetuate the myth that people who need government assistance make bad choices at the supermarket. The food stamp program serves 41.8 million individuals, about half of them children.

Though I strongly support the work of FRAC and other anti-hunger organizations – in fact, NCL directed funds to FRAC from a legal settlement we reached recently – and, of course, believe that we should be respectful of those who rely on food stamps to eat each month, I think I come down on the side of Mayor Bloomberg on this one. He’s not saying that people on food stamps can’t buy sugary drinks – they just can’t use these benefits meant as “supplemental nutrition assistance” dollars for products that have no nutritional value, and sugary drinks give new meaning to the term “no nutritional value.” Check the label sometime to try to find anything that is good for you and you’ll come up short.

As the name implies, the food stamp program is intended to supplement the nutritional needs of struggling Americans. You can’t use them to buy alcohol or cigarettes; I would put sugary drinks in the same category.

Another argument in the Mayor’s favor is the alarming number of Americans who are now considered overweight – 2/3 of all of us fall into that category. Sugary drinks contribute mightily to that problem, adding nutritionally bereft calories to the diets of far too many Americans, especially kids. The findings from numerous studies demonstrate a link between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain, overweight, and obesity.

Noting one of anti-hunger advocates’ central arguments against the proposal, Joel Berg stated, “It’s sending the message to low-income people that they are uniquely the only people in America who don’t know how to take care of their family.” I get that, but in this case, I think Mayor Bloomberg has the stronger argument.

Caveat: we have active dissent from my position among our staff – and they make some compelling arguments. So, in this case I’m stating my opinion and not all of NCL’s. I’d welcome others’ thoughts and ideas.

Consumers deserve better than blocking – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

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

According to today’s Wall Street Journal, several networks, including CBS, NBC, and ABC are blocking their online content from being viewed on the new Google TV devices that are being sold by Logitech and Sony.

The networks justify this in part because of a fear that video listings delivered via the Google TV devices will not adequately filter for pirated video content. The more cynical suspicion (which the WSJ article explicitly states) is that the networks have not yet figured out how to monetize this new viewing platform and are holding back their most popular content until they do.

What should not be debatable is that consumers expect to be able to connect any device of their choosing to a home broadband or cable TV connection and use it to access the same content they would if they were looking for it on their home computers or surfing their DVR content.

From a consumer’s point of view, watching video on a Google TV-enabled television should be little different from watching video on a laptop computer. In both cases, a browser is being used to surf online content and make it accessible. Many consumers will undoubtedly be angry if they spend thousands of dollars on one of the new Google TV-enabled televisions only to find that many of their favorite shows are unavailable.

Network using heavy-handed blocking techniques rather than finding new ways to adapt to disruptive business models is not new. Content providers fought against the VCR because it enabled consumers to record live television and play it back later and (more importantly to the networks) fast forward through commercials. It was not until later that they realized the goldmine the VCR represented in terms of the sale of content on video cassettes.

Today, content providers seem to be taking the same “fire, ready, aim” approach to Google TV and the raft of similar devices that will make their way to market in the future. Rather than realizing the potential of the new technology to both enrich consumers’ viewing experiences and the networks’ bottom lines, they are seeking to kill the new technology in its infancy.

As the ongoing Fox-Cablevision dispute illustrates, consumers are the ultimate losers in these fights between content companies on one hand and platform and technology providers on the other.  Consumers inevitably end up paying more for content (in the form of higher cable bills and pay walls) or not getting access to content at all.  Neither scenario benefits the public interest and we would urge the companies to come together to ensure that consumers are allowed to access the content of their choice without restrictions.

LifeSmarts alum a good reminder of need for financial literacy – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Brandi Williams, LifeSmarts Program Assistant

On October 7, the National Consumers League held our 2010 Trumpeter Awards in Washington, DC, honoring Surgeon General Regina Benjamin, Kenneth Feinberg and Jean Ann Fox. Amongst these notables was LifeSmarts alum Tony Aronica of Washington state, who was invited by NCL to speak to the audience about how his experience in LifeSmarts helped prepare him for life after high school. Check out the LifeSmarts Facebook page for photos.

Tony’s remarks served as yet another reminder to me of the importance of consumer education and personal financial literacy for young adults. Personal finance is one of the core topics we cover in LifeSmarts, and it was exciting to hear from a past participant that those lessons had an impact on his future decisions. While policymakers and religious leaders debate topics like sex education and school prayer in the public arena, more and more young people are entering the realm of adulthood ill-equipped to deal with realities like understanding financial terms, choosing credit cards, workplace safety, and setting financial goals, because these topics aren’t flashy enough for public debate. In the meantime, parents making poor financial decisions continue to pass on bad habits to their children.

“Learning to be a steward of one’s personal finances, setting personal goals and preparing steps to achieve established goals is not intuitive, but a collection of learned skills,” Tony said passionately, receiving nods and murmurs of agreement from the audience as he summed up the necessity for programs like LifeSmarts that teach kids to be smart consumers able to advocate for themselves in the marketplace.

And he’s right.  Personal financial literacy is important for people of all ages, especially the 13 to 19-year-olds who are estimated to spend $200 billion annually. According to the National Council on Economic Education, in 2009 only 13 states required students to take a personal finance course in order to graduate.

This is why programs like LifeSmarts are so important to young people in helping to bridge the gap between economics lessons in class and making personal financial choices outside of the classroom. “Combining consumer awareness tips, household budgeting, personal fitness and nutritional information within a competitive team format meant that we were receiving knowledge that was largely unavailable in a standard academic experience,” Tony told the Trumpeter audience, adding “we were absorbing it in a way that was extremely helpful.”

It is so exciting to have the opportunity to interact with the young people who have benefitted from LifeSmarts.  And when I do, it is truly a pleasure. These young people are so enthusiastic, excited, and eager to soak up what LifeSmarts is teaching them, to master the skills to think independently and interact with the marketplace as informed consumers able to advocate for themselves and others.

When I have the chance to visit state LifeSmarts competitions in the winter, the comment I hear most often from adults is: “I wish this program was around when I was a kid.”

Well, it’s here now for our kids.

 

Medicine based on the evidence, right? Not necessarily – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Rebecca Burkholder, NCL VP Public Policy, Health

The practice of medicine is based on the best evidence, right? Not necessarily, as I am learning at the International Cochrane Colloquium in Colorado this week. Many health care treatment decisions are still made without up-to-date, reliable evidence on their benefits and possible harms. There have been many individual studies on a specific drug or treatment, but, surprisingly, often no one has looked at all the studies together and what they tell us.

The Cochrane Collaboration is an international organization, with more than 11,000 contributors from around the world, that reviews existing research on health care interventions so that health care practitioners, consumers, and policymakers can make well–informed decisions about health care. So what does that mean? Basically, after carefully looking at all the studies done on a drug or procedure, Cochrane puts out a review on whether the treatment works or not (or if there is not enough evidence). The goal for Cochrane is that with evidence health care practitioners and patients can make good choices about health care.

Here’s an example of what Cochrane reviews found: Giving women at risk of preterm birth a single course of corticosteroids speeds up fetal lung development and should be considered routine for preterm delivery to reduce the number of babies who die or suffer breathing problems at birth. Other reviews have found that remaining upright during the first stage of labor can reduce labor by an hour, that weight-loss surgery is more effective than other strategies for shedding pounds but may not be safe, that statins given to the elderly do not reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s or other dementias, and that Echinacea doesn’t get rid of a cold any faster than doing nothing. Cochrane has reviewed the evidence to answer such questions as – Will taking the dietary supplement glucosamine help relieve the arthritis in my knee? Should I treat my asthma with allergy shots? Is there a cure for morning sickness?

Unless consumers (as well as health care practitioners) have good evidence on whether a drug or procedure works and the benefits and risks, we are in the dark. Armed with evidence, we can, in consultation with our doctor, make informed decisions about our health care and figure out what is best for us

Check out the Cochrane reviews, and those that have been translated for consumers, at the Cochrane site. And the next time your doctor recommends a drug or treatment, don’t be afraid to talk to your doctor about the evidence.

Gap between the richest and the rest a widening problem – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

With the economy stagnant, unemployment continuing to hover near 10 percent, a depressing mid-term election a few weeks away, Americans are angry, frustrated, frightened about their economic future and looking for someone to blame.

In terms of cause and effect, I think it’s impossible for economists – and the rest of us – to ignore any longer the staggering gap between the richest Americans and the rest of us.

Columnist Robert Frank in the New York Times cites some sobering statistics. During the three decades after WWII, incomes rose in the United States at almost 3 percent a year for people at all income levels. America, Frank says, had an economically vibrant middle class. Roads and bridges were well maintained and people were optimistic. The contrast between today and 1976 is stark. The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which was 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent.

Frank says economists are reluctant to confront rising income inequality and they by and large refuse to take a position on whether the growing income inequality is a good or bad trend.

Worker productivity has grown over the past two decades. Workers are now earning only 83 cents of every dollar they earned more than 35 years ago, while their productivity has increased a dramatic 80 percent. This is the central explanation for the *explosion in corporate profits and the growing income gap in America.

But the gains from that increased productivity have not gone to workers; they have been scooped up by management — good manufacturing jobs, including union jobs with good benefits that provided a solid middle class income to working Americans, have disappeared. The percentage of private sector union jobs has shrunk to 7 percent.

But, for reasons I don’t understand, outsize pay packages – including probably the most outrageous case – $1 billion in total compensation claimed by the former head of United Health Care – (who felt he was entitled to take those kind of profits from the health care system when we have 50 million Americans with no health insurance) haven’t generated all that much anger and outrage.

The widening gap between the super rich in America and the amount of income they have taken out of the economy – at the expense of the vast majority of hard working Americans who struggle to make ends meet every day– may just be far more destructive than any of us understand.

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

Companies amassing cash instead of investing in workers – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

While visiting family in Minneapolis, I read an article in the Star Tribune about Minnesota companies piling up the cash and not spending it on hiring new workers or buying new equipment. This is written as the United States faces 10 percent unemployment. The piece was written with a cool remove – just reporting the facts. But there were numerous references to the impact of these policies – with an emphasis on how much the companies care about investors and paying dividends and such – with little or no concern about workers. On the list were Hormel ($288+million), Medtronic (nearly $4 billion), 3M (nearly $5 billion), and United Health Group ($11 billion)

And how did these companies amass the cash? In 3M’s case, it slashed 4,000 jobs, got rid of free lunches for employees, and banned merit increases. What did they do with all the money they saved? They’ve acquired three new companies for $2 billion. The biggest concern in making these investments is expanding the company – and ensuring rewards to investors. The article notes that “cash-rich United Health Group upped its annual dividend this year to 50 cents a share,” and “Target hiked its quarterly dividend to 25 cents a share.”

Yes, that’s important. But equally important is making sure that the workers in these companies aren’t summarily laid off or deprived of basic benefits like health care or decent 401k contributions, and that these companies realize that those who go to work each day for them, their loyal employees, are the capital that allows the company to amass its billions in reserves. And yet you don’t hear about the things the company is doing to shore up its workforce, boost morale, or reward performance that has lead to greater productivity. There’s something wrong with this picture, in my view, when investors become more important than the folks that keep the company going day to day. But I guess I’m naïve – clearly the authors of this article think the emphasis on paying bigger dividends and acquiring more companies is more important.

NCL Statement on FCC “Bill Shock” Initiative – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

The National Consumers League, the nation’s pioneering consumer organization, today reaffirmed its support for robust action by the Federal Communications Commission to address the problem of “bill shock.” The following statement may be attributed to Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumer League:

“Wireless phone bills have become a source of confusion for consumers in recent years. Increasingly data-hungry applications, high rates for data, voice and text-messaging overages and a shift away from paper bills and towards automatic bill pay have all combined to put consumers at the mercy of wireless companies’ billing systems. While many carriers have instituted usage control technologies, they typically rely on proactive user engagement and often require a fee to take advantage of the most useful features. Action by the FCC is needed to give consumers, regardless of carrier, the necessary disclosures and warnings before they experience “bill shock.”  We applaud Chairman Genachowski for his pro-consumer position on this issue.”

Know your medicine, know your pharmacist – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

October is Pharmacists’ Month!  Whether you fill your script regularly or you interact with a pharmacist for that once-a-year bug you get, chances are, you underestimate their ability to help you improve and manage your health!

In our changing society, chances are you – as a health care consumer – have several choices when deciding how and where to fill your prescription.  We can choose between the local mom-and-pop shop, the chain with multiple locations, or the mail order pharmacy.

Still, do you know what your pharmacist can do for you? Pharmacists are medicine experts, and we as consumers need to make better use of this skill.  We continue to take more and more medicines (not to mention supplements like vitamins), and we often don’t understand what they’re for, how they work, and how they interact with one another. That’s where the pharmacist can help! The pharmacist can help up manage our medicines and provide information about the medications we take. By talking to the pharmacist – we can often learn interesting things about our medication regimen (we’re taking two of the same thing, one pill we’re taking makes another work funny, etc.).

Check in with your pharmacist to see what they’re doing to celebrate this month. Maybe you’ll find an interesting health screening, get your flu vaccine, or learn about a new service they can provide. The pharmacist is one more member of your health care team working to help you achieve your greatest level of health.

2010 Trumpeter a success – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

 

National Consumers League Trumpeter Awards recipients and presenters at the 2010 event on Thursday, Oct. 7. NCL honored Surgeon General Regina Benjamin and Compensation Czar Kenneth Feinberg with the 2010 Trumpeter Award. CFA's Jean Ann Fox, lifelong consumer advocate, received the Florence Kelley Consumer Leadership Award.