By Rebecca Burkholder, VP for Health Policy at NCL

This week I spoke at a Food and Drug Administration public meeting on whether certain drugs should be available without a prescription and sold from “behind-the-counter” with counseling from a pharmacist. This “BTC” class of drugs would make some drugs that were previously available only with a prescription available to consumers without spending time and money on a doctor’s visit. The public meeting was a chance for FDA officials to hear the wide range of arguments both for and against establishing this new class of drugs, and to get a glimpse at the many issues that would be raised with the introduction of a new class of drugs. Some type of BTC or pharmacy class of drugs already exists in many other countries. Canadians, Australians, and residents of the United Kingdom have access to BTC drugs. Should Americans be next?

I’m in favor of the creation of this third BTC class because it would increase patient access to the meds we know they can safely use, after consulting with a pharmacist, to self-treat conditions they can easily diagnose for themselves, like allergies or migraines. However, along with other consumer groups, we have some concerns about how the system would work. There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered. Which drugs can safely be placed behind-the-counter? And how can we ensure that consumers get useful counseling by the pharmacist in a private area?All too often the line at the pharmacy counter is endless, and pharmacists’ time too short to provide counseling.

By the end of the day the FDA acknowledged that it was not ready to make a decision regarding a new BTC class of drugs, but that it was helpful to hear the variety of opinions. After reviewing all the comments submitted on this issue, the FDA will consider where to go from here.

by Susan Grant, Director of NCL’s Fraud Center

When you work on a national public education
project, it’s often hard to tell if the message really works. So it’s been gratifying to hear from consumers (below) that our effort to warn people about fake check scams is succeeding! On October 3, we launched a new Web site, www.fakechecks.org, and a major publicity campaign in partnership with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, major banks, money transfer services, and others who shared our concern about the epidemic of fake check scams that is sweeping our nation.

You’ve probably seen the commercials, like the one with the guy on the bus who tries to give the woman a check as a down payment for the millions she has supposedly won in a foreign lottery. Fake check scams have become the top telemarketing fraud and the second most common Internet scam reported to NCL’s Fraud Center. The average loss is $3,000-$4,000 — that’s a lot of money for most of us. But the consequences can be even more severe.

Victims’ bank accounts may be closed, and they may have difficultly opening new accounts. They may be sued if they can’t pay the money back to their banks right away, and some are even being prosecuted for check fraud.

Essentially, these scammers are stealing money from the banks and leaving consumers holding the bag. That’s why it’s so important for consumers to be aware of these scams and understand that just because the funds are available doesn’t mean the check is good. The new Web site is getting tons of hits, but even more gratifying are the messages that many consumers are including when they report these scams through the Web site, like the following ones we recently received.

THANK YOU for the warning. I was recently contacted by unsolicited email after posting my resume on Monster.com. I did respond to the offer, but now that I saw your advertised warning this evening, I am planning on NOT depositing any checks sent to me by the company in question…If not for this warning, I would have lost money and time I do not have.

M.F., Bellflower, CA

I had received a letter in the mail with a check of $2875.00. The letter stated for me to keep $300 of that and send $2520.00 as a money gram through Wal-Mart to an address in Canada, and $55 was for the money gram itself.

They wanted me to do this “assignment” to evaluate the effectiveness of a payment system… I thought about it and decided to “look it up” on the internet. I found this website and thank God I did!!! Thanks!!! Needless to say I didn’t cash it…I want these people stopped.”

S.P., Wharton, TX

by Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Butter-flavored microwave popcorn has long been a consumer favorite, but the chemical that gives it that buttery flavor – diacetyl – has caused serious lung impairment, known as “popcorn lung,” so called because many cases have occurred among factory workers who make the product. This is a concern for workers and consumers alike. On October 17, 2007, I attended a “roundtable discussion” outside Washington DC called by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) to discuss “popcorn lung” disease.

I went because I wanted to hear these federal officials explain why they haven’t done anything yet to protect workers from “popcorn lung” despite having become aware of the problem years ago. I never heard a good explanation, but OSHA did say it would look at regulating the use of diacetyl. I also went out of concern for consumers who eat microwave popcorn and are therefore exposed to the chemical that has made workers sick.

It seems that the government called this meeting after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a recent bill (H.R. 2693) ordering OSHA to develop interim standards limiting diacetyl exposure by workers in flavor manufacturing plants and microwave popcorn factories.

OSHA officials, scientists, environmental health specialists, labor union representatives, and lawyers representing workers who were exposed to diacetyl were all at this meeting. One of those workers, a guy from Missouri named Eric Peoples who is pictured here on the left, was there, and he was wearing his breathing apparatus, having contracted lung disease during the short 1 ½ years he worked at a Jasper, MO plant making butter-flavored popcorn.

In 2000, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted an investigation of the Jasper plant. Peoples and 8 of his fellow employees, who had worked in the plant anywhere from 8 months to 17 years, were diagnosed with “popcorn lung,” known in the medical community as “brochiolitis obliterans.” Five of the employees had worked in the room where butter flavorings and oil were mixed. The other four had worked on packaging lines where popcorn and the oil/flavorings are added to microwaveable bags and packaged for shipment. All of the employees experienced similar symptoms, including progressive shortness of breath, persistent cough, and unusual fatigue. Five of the nine employees were placed on a lung transplant candidate list, and one of the employees died in April 2006 before receiving a lung transplant. She had worked for 18 months at the plant during the mid-1990s. NIOSH surveyed other plants and identified six additional employees with similar “popcorn lung” symptoms.

So we know the production of butter-flavored popcorn involving diacetyl isn’t perfectly safe for workers, and the government is starting to do something about it. Are the products safe for consumers? Stay tuned for an upcoming blog on that.

The National Consumers League, which convenes the Child Labor Coalition, just issued a statement in reaction to admissions from Gap Inc. that one of the vendors somewhere along its supply chain had used the services of bonded child laborers. Turns out the products were in a line of clothing that would have ended up at GapKids.

Yuck.

NCL’s take on it? Good that Gap pulled the products. Bad that it came at this cost. 

by Susan Grant

The answer, in my opinion, is that they can and should do more, and that was the focus of a speech I gave on October 16 a conference organized by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the federal agency that regulates national banks. The conference brought together people who handle consumers’ questions and complaints from the OCC, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I used four problems — the current mortgage foreclosure crisis, identity theft, unauthorized debits from consumers’ bank accounts, and the explosion of fake check scams — to provide examples of how banks can help their customers avoid becoming fraud victims. I also asserted that the people who work in the bank regulators’ helplines can play an important role in educating both consumers and banks and in spotting serious problems that may need to be addressed quickly.