Believing women patients – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

SG-headshot.jpgLast year, the FDA approved a drug for female low libido–known as Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder or HSDD–for the first time in history. It didn’t happen without a great deal of naysaying by the media, pharmaceutical company critics and most disappointing, some feminists. The skeptics questioned whether the millions of women who complained of having lost their sex drive were imagining the condition.

NCL took the opposite position. We believed these women’s testimonials, validated their experience, and supported approval of a treatment because, first, the science is there. HSDD has been a recognized condition in medical literature since the 1970s. Second, we listened to women patients; we heard them describe the terrible effects this condition had on their self esteem and relationships.

And so, it was with great interest I read about new research into another condition that has many naysayers (and affects mostly women), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or more officially, myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). The existence of ME has also been met with great skepticism over the years and there are no blood tests or biomarkers to diagnose the illness.

I’ve had friends and colleagues who suffered from this condition and it saps their energy, diminishes their ability to work and their zest for life, and takes a huge toll on their families. What that proves to me is that the medical science hasn’t caught up with the illness.

In this new groundbreaking study, researchers looked at stool and blood samples of 48 people diagnosed with ME. They found that those with the illness had less diversity in their gut bacteria and fewer bacteria that were anti-inflammatory. They found evidence of a leaky gut from intestinal problems that allow bacteria to enter the blood.

Cornell University professor Maureen Hanson conducted the study. She noted, “Our work demonstrates that the gut bacterial microbiome in ME/CFS patients isn’t normal, perhaps leading to gastrointestinal and inflammatory symptoms in victims of the disease. Furthermore, our detection of a biological abnormality provides  further evidence against the ridiculous concept that the disease is psychological in origin.” Thank you, Dr. Hanson, for validating the experience of those who suffer from ME. And thank you to NIH for funding the study.

ME advocates believe that several hundred thousand people have this illness in the U.S. They decry the pittance spent by NIH on ME research, leading to a lack of understanding of its cause and sadly, the absence of a viable treatment. Advocates also cite the damage done by failing to recognize this illness: the lost productivity, billions in medical expenses, and lost tax dollars from those unable to work. 

Like HSDD, ME provides yet another example of patient suffering, while critics call into question whether the very condition or illness they are living with day-to-day even exists. Then science discovers a cause and well, maybe yes there is a medical basis to ME.

The lesson is, believe the patients, especially when there are hundreds of thousands–or millions in the case of HSDD–describing the same symptoms. We should hail medical science for finding cures for so many debilitating and deadly diseases. ME shouldn’t be an exception and let’s stop doubting that patients who suffer from debilitating illnesses are having real symptoms.

NCL applauds beer industry nutritional labeling initiative – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

July 12, 2016

Contact: NCL Communications, Cindy Hoang, cindyh@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC–For decades, the National Consumers League (NCL) has been fighting to get nutritional information, specifically an “Alcohol Facts Label” on all alcoholic beverages sold in the US. Consumers very much want this information and have come to rely on nutritional facts labeling on foods they consume.

Consistent with this theme, NCL is pleased that a new initiative from the Beer Institute will mean that participating companies will display specific consumer information on products, packaging or websites. Entitled “Brewers’ Voluntary Disclosure Initiative,” the participants in the initiative make up 81 percent of the beer industry in the US. These companies will voluntarily include a serving facts statement on their products, and will disclose ingredients on either the label or secondary packaging via a list of ingredients, a reference to a website with the information or through a QR code.

“The Beer Institute initiative is a milestone; beer is the most popular alcohol beverage in the United States, and having nutritional information on beer labels is a game changer,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL’s Executive Director. “We applaud the Beer Institute’s leadership for rolling out the Brewers’ Voluntary Disclosure Initiative, which will list calories, carbohydrates, protein, fat and alcohol by volume on their beer products.”

The serving facts statement is consistent with the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Trade Bureau (TTB) ruling 2013-2. In addition, participants in the voluntary agreement will provide freshness dating, and disclose ingredients via a list, a reference to a website with the information, or a QR code on the label or secondary packaging. Beer Institute member companies, including industry leaders such as Anheuser-Busch, MillerCoors, HeinekenUSA, Constellation Brands Beer Division, North American Breweries, and Craft Brew Alliance, have agreed to follow these standards. These companies together produce more than 81 percent of the volume of beer sold in the U.S.

While NCL applauds the Beer Institute’s initiative, Greenberg noted that there are some missed opportunities in the announcement: providing alcohol content information and acknowledging the validity of the standard drink definition, as defined in the US Dietary Guidelines issued by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Those guidelines provide consumers with equivalencies in comparing beer, wine and spirits. Namely, that the average 12 oz of beer, average 5 oz of wine, and average 1.5 oz of spirits all contain the equivalent amounts of alcohol. Given the many positive aspects of the Beer Institute’s initiative today, NCL is urging the industry to embrace this common-sense definition of a standard drink as well.

“Thanks to the leadership of the Beer Institute and its members, consumers can look forward to having much sought nutritional information available for the first time on the label of the beer they consume. This is an encouraging and welcome development,” said Greenberg.

###

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.

Food waste – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

ali.jpgI spend a lot of time thinking about food waste and it’s lasting effects on our environment and our communities. While this may be a natural outcome of working on these issues for NCL, I don’t think it will be long before the average consumer also has this topic on the brain on a daily basis.The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, in partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Massachusetts RecyclingWorks, coordinated Reduce and Recover: Save Food for the People, a two-day event focused on reducing food waste and preventing food loss on June 28-29. Advocates who gathered ranged from environmentalists, anti-hunger advocates, college activists, foundations, government officials, social entrepreneurs, and in NCL’s case, consumer advocates. Industry was also there in force. A central topic of discussion was, “how do we elevate the food waste movement beyond food and environmental spaces and into the conscious of everyday Americans?”

We are often so immersed in the issues we care about that it can be hard to gauge how the general public perceives the issue. Closing this gap between movers and shakers and everyone else is key to creating lasting change.

Consumer food waste ranks as one of the top sources of food loss in this country. Americans are throwing out $165 billion worth of food, yet studies show that 73 percent of consumers think they waste less than the average person. Clearly there is a disconnect, and consumers are contributing to the problem more than they think.

The multifaceted attendees–including industry trade associations like the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Restaurant Association, and Sodexo, all seemed to agree that consumers are mostly operating with good intentions when they overbuy and then throw out food. Whether they are throwing a party and don’t want anyone to go hungry or just shopping for fresh produce for their families, consumers mean well. But these behavioral patterns are creating literally tons of waste. Leaders in the food waste movement are now moving focus from naming the problem to employing strategies to change consumer behavior.

Here are some strategies that emerged from the conference:

First, consumers have to be aware that food waste is a serious problem with economic, moral, and environmental ramifications. A clear understanding of the issue will at least prompt consumers to think about their buying decisions as they shop, eat, and dispose of their food. Media campaigns help create awareness about societal issues and consequently shifting behavioral norms.

Think of the great slogans from previous Ad Council campaigns: “Every Litter Bit Hurts,” “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste,” “Only You can Prevent Forest Fires,” “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk,” and  “Click It or Ticket.” All of us know them and they’ve really help to change behaviors on a societal level. Look at the progress we’ve made on seatbelt usage: In 1982, only 11 percent of drivers and front seat passengers wore seatbelts; Today, 87 percent of drivers and passengers wear seatbelts and hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved as a result. The Ad Council’s new “Save the Food” campaign hopes to raise consumer awareness and change behavior.

Then, there is the issue of date labels on food. Adam Rein from ReFED explained, “100 percent of people experience confusion around date labels.” Date labeling on food packaging are all over the map and leads to consumer waste. They are actually a manufacturer suggestion for a product’s peak freshness, and are in no way connected to food safety. Millions of pounds of food are thrown out each day because of our current hodge-podge date labeling system. To the rescue is a bill introduced in the House and Senate entitled the Food Date Labeling Act, which standardizes date labeling, leading to less unnecessary tossing out of perfectly edible food.

At NCL, we believe the pledge by federal agencies to reduce food waste should be a starting point for the federal government getting their own house in order and serving as an example to the nation on how to reduce food loss. The federal government is the largest consumer of energy, with a footprint that includes 360,000 buildings and $445 billion spent annually on goods and services. Federal facilities could potentially save the nation billions of dollars and perhaps even surpass the national goal to cut food waste in half by 2030. NCL plans to ask President Obama to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to develop food waste reduction policies across the agencies as a standard practice in all federal facilities.

As for the consumer, awareness is the first step to changing behavior. Infrastructure to support consumers, such as legislative changes and support from federal agencies, must be in place to sustain lasting behaviors. Large food corporations like Campbell’s Soup Company, Sodexo, Nestle, and others are beginning to implement food waste reduction strategies throughout their supply chain. Many companies are also supporting legislative changes, like the Food Date Labeling Act, which will reduce the likelihood that consumers will toss out perfectly good food because they are confused by a date label.

The Reduce and Recover conference brought together many of the groups that are going to drive the campaign to reduce food waste in America by 50 percent by 2030. The event followed NCL’s May 11 Food Waste Summit, co-hosted by Keystone Policy Center, which focused on the consumers role in the issue of food waste. It was clear from last week’s conference at Harvard Law School that we have a growing and broad based movement to get a handle on food waste.

From a consumer perspective, if we voice concerns and ask companies to help reduce food waste, we believe that will have an impact on industry. The environmental, moral, and societal imperatives are enormous. They demand that we work overtime to meet America’s stated goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030.

National Consumers League responses to question from the June 15, 2016 pubic hearing on CPSC’s agenda and priorities for FY 2017 and FY 2018 – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

July 1, 2016

 Question 1: During the hearing, Commissioner Buerkle inquired whether the Active Injury Mitigation System (AIMS) technology could be used on all different sizes of table saws.  You answered tentatively that you thought it could be used on all, but indicated that you would like to check and get back to CPSC on that.

NCL Response: AIMS technology is currently being used on both larger and smaller table saws.  Indeed, one manufacturer, SawStop, is currently selling larger cabinet saws and smaller benchtop style jobsite saws, both with an AIMS design.  Another manufacturer, Bosch, is currently selling benchtop style jobsite saws with an AIMS design.  Hence, it is technologically and economically feasible to produce table saws in any size with an AIMS design. 

It is very important that any table saw safety standard that CPSC promulgates include an AIMS requirement for all table saws.  There are significant injury patterns associated with the use of each size of table saw—they all present an unreasonable risk to users, regardless of size.  It is important to stress that the smaller benchtop saws, which are less expensive, are often used by consumers and hobbyists.  For the same reasons that every passenger vehicle sold in the U.S., regardless of size or cost, must provide its occupants with adequate crash protection, so, too, table saws should provide all users with adequate protection from the foreseeable and all-too-frequent injuries from hand-blade contact.  Table saw safety is not a luxury and should not be reserved only for users who can afford to buy larger, better equipped machines.  It is important for hobbyists and less-experienced table saw users to have the same protection as users with more experience who might purchase bigger and more expensive table saws. 

We recognize that adding AIMS technology to table saws will increase the price at retail.  However, as consumers, we believe that, given the frequency and severity of injuries endured by consumers and other users over the past many years, the presence of AIMS is a significant value added to the product and to the overall well-being of society—the benefits far outweigh the costs.  Moreover, as we have seen with many other product categories that have undergone significant safety improvements, once an industry begins to focus its expertise and technological prowess on compliance, the cost of such compliance will fall significantly.

In short, AIMS technology can be applied to all table saws regardless of size—and AIMS technology should be required for all table saws regardless of size.

Question 2:  During the hearing, you commented that the UL Technical Panel on table saws is “heavily dominated by industry members” who have voted against AIMS requirements.  My understanding is that even one of the strongest proponents of a particular mitigation technology voted against including it in the voluntary standard, and that the technology was also omitted from the recently updated IEC standard.  Do these events suggest that industry’s representation on the UL panel is not the key issue?

NCL Response: The industry’s dominant control of the UL committee that votes whether to allow implementation of UL’s safety proposals is very much a key issue.  When CPSC published its ANPR for table saws in October 2011, UL came to the commission in February 2012 and presented a plan for reducing the predictable injuries associated with table saw use by developing and adopting an AIMS requirement for use in its own table saw standard, UL 987.  In essence, working with a special outside Working Group of technical experts, UL would direct its technical staff and test laboratories to develop the performance criteria and test methods needed to upgrade its standard for table saws that would greatly reduce the enormous risks associated with most table saws sold in today’s market.  The final step would put the proposal to a vote of one of UL’s standing Scientific Technical Panels (STP). 

Today, more than four years after UL made that commitment, its effort has ended in failure.  To be clear, UL completed the research and developed the requisite performance criteria and test methods for an AIMS that it believed would reduce or eliminate the types of tragic injuries that occur by the tens of thousands each year.  UL proposed including the AIMS requirement in the next version of its table saw standard.  The decision-making mechanism for final acceptance of the proposal for its own standard was handed over to STP 745 for a vote. 

For table saws, STP 745 was comprised of 21 voting members.  Fifteen members are either employees of the table saw industry, former senior employees of the table saw industry, or staff of the industry trade association, the Power Tool Institute (PTI).  The other six voting members represent consumers, specialty users, etc.  After more than four years of research and laboratory testing, UL developed the performance criteria and test methods for including an AIMS requirement in its own standard, UL 987, the STP voted 14 to 7 against adoption.  With the exception of SawStop, all the industry members and their surrogates voted NO.  SawStop voted YES, as did the other six voting members of the committee, including the three consumer members and the UL member on the committee. 

UL then made adjustments to its first AIMS proposal and proposed adoption of the second version.  Again the industry and its surrogates voted NO via the same overwhelming bloc of votes, thus blocking the adoption of AIMS a second time. 

Clearly, the composition of this committee overwhelmingly favors the industry perspective, and their unified stance on issues controls and dominates the outcome of the committee’s decisions.  The fact that UL’s proposal to upgrade its own table saw standard with an AIMS requirement to protect consumers was summarily blocked by the industry is a prime example of how the application of the consensus process in practice can impede progress in matters of public safety. 

In fact, many of the voluntary standards committees that deal with consumer product safety are severely imbalanced by a dearth of consumer and non-industry representatives, the predictable effect of which is that committee decisions are controlled by the interests of the industry.  While the application of a balance of interests is the theoretical goal for consensus-based decision making, the reality is that far too often there is a tiny number—often zero—of consumers and non-industry members to balance, challenge, and negotiate with the industry members when the critical decisions are being made.  Such circumstances leave the industry free to write standards that suit its specific needs, and then masquerade behind the banner of using a consensus process that offers the opportunity for balanced inputs. 

The same structural flaw exists with international product safety standards.  In this case, for example, the committee that controls the U.S. national position, and therefore its vote, on the IEC standard for table saws is comprised of most of the same industry organizations and surrogates as the industry bloc that controls UL’s STP, with virtually no consumer participation or input.  Indeed, the U.S. committee is managed by the staff of the Power Tool Institute.  Hence, the absence of an AIMS requirement in the “updated” IEC standard is entirely predictable. 

In summary, the lack of committee balance to articulate the needs of consumers and other key safety-focused stakeholders cannot help but result in weak voluntary safety standards, especially where the industry chooses for whatever reason to resist making the changes needed to address serious injury patterns.  The practical effect of relying on the voluntary consensus standards process is that it is virtually impossible to make progress to protect consumers from unreasonable risks unless the industry agrees to negotiate the issue in good faith. 

Fortunately, in the long painful journey for table saw users where meaningful voluntary corrective action has been stalled for years, CPSC has the statutory mandate and the authority to intervene on behalf of consumers. 

  

Sally Greenberg
NCL Executive Director

Karin Bolte
NCL Health Policy Director  

 

Independence Day: Freedom to… – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

This guest post was originally published at the Human Rights at Home blog.

Even amidst the barbeques, beach trips, and sales during 4th of July weekend, most Americans are quick to declare proudly that July 4th is about our independence, our freedom. However we choose to celebrate/observe the holiday, I think we ought to spend some time asking, independent or free to do what, to be what. 

To be clear, though history matters, I am not suggesting we ask what the signatories to the Declaration of Independence wanted, because we know that they permitted, and in some cases embraced, certain ideas we now reject (read: slavery, no voting rights for women, etc.). Independence means we can choose what type of society we want to create.

My wish? I want to live in and contribute to a society that elevates every child and is committed to protecting and ensuring the rights and well-being of all children. On that front, we have a long way to go, as evidenced by the newly-released State of the World’s Children report, published by UNICEF. The annual report has sobering news for those who care about children around the globe. And it shows that the United States has work to do as well. Sure, the United States is performing better than many other countries, but the comparative analysis is not the full picture (after all, what parent of a sick child would willingly accept substandard health care for their child, simply because the provider said, well, in Somalia, some kids have no access to care at all). That the U.S. does better than other poorer countries is not anything to celebrate. 

We shouldn’t use comparisons to make ourselves comfortable. Instead, we should see them as an indication of what’s possible. So, for example, with respect to infant and child (under-5) mortality, 43 countries with lower rates than the United States show that progress is possible. The U.S. is tied for 44th with Malaysia, Serbia Slovakia, and the United Arab Emirates. And our progress has slowed: in 1990, Cuba’s infant mortality rate was higher than the U.S. rate; they have improved and now do better than the United States. 

Each year, the State of the World’s Children report centers around a theme issue; this year, it was inequity. The United States again stood out, for the wrong reasons. UNICEF reports:

  • In some rich countries, children from different backgrounds face starkly unequal prospects. For babies born [in the U.S.], the odds of survival are closely linked to ethnicity: In 2013, infants born to African American parents were more than twice as likely to die as those born to white Americans.
  • [D]isparities are reflected dramatically at the state level. The infant mortality rate of the state of Mississippi in 2013, for example, was double that of the state of Massachusetts.

And infant mortality is just the beginning. A child’s survival does not guarantee it will have the opportunity to develop to his or her full potential. The Declaration of Independence famously asserts that “all men are created equal.” It seems hard to believe that they intended this literally—equal only at the moment of birth, but thereafter we should be okay with significant inequity in survival rates, access to health care and education.

Of course, children are not the only area where human rights work remains. But success in ensuring children’s rights and well-being is foundational to creating a society where young people can realize their full potential and grow into adults who are empowered to realize their rights and contribute to their communities. 

We’re not there yet. But as it’s been 240 years since the Declaration of Independence, it might be time to move a little faster.

Jonathan Todres is a Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law, who has been collaborating with the National Consumers League in Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Protect your skin! Be sun-smart this summer – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

If you ask Americans what the largest organ in their body is, my guess is that a good number would never think to say their skin. But not only is the skin our largest organ, it is a multifunctional one that plays a vital role in protecting our body. Our skin is our first line of defense; it provides a physical barrier between our internal organs and the environment, regulates our body temperature, and has billions of sensory nerves that are responsible for every sensation we feel.

Though our skin plays such an essential role in our health, most of us do not protect it as we should. Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States and worldwide, with over 3.5 million cases diagnosed in the U.S. each year. In 2014, the U.S. Surgeon General declared skin cancer a public health crisis, as one in five Americans will develop it over the course of their lifetime, and incidence rates are steadily increasing. While there are genetic factors, such as race, gender, and family history that may predispose a person to skin cancer, ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the cause of the majority of cases and is a proven human carcinogen. In fact, approximately 90 percent of skin cancer cases are associated with UV radiation from the sun or sun lamps.

The good news is that UV radiation is the most preventable cause of skin cancer, and there are plenty of things you and your family can do to protect yourselves from the sun. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), four out of five cases of skin cancer can be prevented by practicing sun safe behaviors. Perhaps the most common of these behaviors is wearing sunscreen, which works by absorbing and reflecting UV rays before they reach your skin. Each sunscreen has a Sun Protection Factor (SPF), which is a measure of its ability to block harmful UV radiation. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends that a broad- spectrum SPF 15 sunscreen should be used, many other organizations recommend using a broad-spectrum SPF 30 sunscreen, including the American Cancer Society and the National Council for Skin Cancer Prevention.  For recreational activities, a waterproof sunscreen with a higher SPF (SPF ≥ 30) is recommended, and is usually labeled with how long it is effective while swimming or sweating (usually 40 or 80 minutes). Those that are labeled “broad spectrum” are best, as they protect you against both types (UVA and UVB) of UV rays.

Individuals with fair skin and lighter hair generally require sunscreens with a higher SPF, as they are typically more prone to skin damage. On the other hand, a common misconception is that individuals with darker skin do not need to wear sunscreen at all. This is false! Though darker skin tones may be less prone to sunburn, tanning is also evidence of sun damage. There are also other risks associated with UV exposure including premature skin aging, wrinkles, hyperpigmentation, and of course, skin cancer.

There are a number of factors to consider when deciding which sunscreen is best for you and your family. For example, children have different sun protection needs than adults. Questions you may want to consider before choosing a sunscreen are:

  • Will your sun exposure be incidental or continuous?
  • Do you have sensitive skin?
  • Is your skin allergy or acne prone?
  • Do you have dry or oily skin?
  • Does your family have a history of skin cancer?
  • What texture sunscreen would you prefer?

Thankfully, there are a broad range of sunscreens on the market that are safe and effective. Between sprays, creams, sticks, mineral sunscreens, or sunscreens built in to other cosmetic products, it is more than possible to find one that can accommodate your personal preferences and lifestyle. The Skin Cancer Foundation provides a wealth of information on how to choose the right sunscreen for your skin type, and you should feel free to ask your dermatologist for advice as well.

That being said, the only way your sunscreen can truly be effective is to use it as directed. Studies show that most consumers apply less than half of the amount of sunscreen needed to receive the SPF on the label. So whichever sunscreen you choose, be sure to read and follow the directions for appropriate application. Below are a few general tips on how to apply different types of sunscreens:

  • For lotions, use a golf ball size amount to cover your body.
  • For sprays, hold can/bottle 4-6 inches away from your skin, spray until it glistens, and gently spread to cover your skin evenly.
  • For stick sunscreens, apply at least 3-4 passes over the skin.
  • For your face, use an amount equal to the size of a small coin.
  • The American Academy of Dermatology also recommends the following to protect yourself from the sun:
  • Seek shade and limit your time in the midday sun, as the sun’s rays are strongest between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.
  • When going outside, protect your skin with clothing such as wide-brimmed hats, long sleeved shirts, and UV blocking sunglasses.
  • Use extra caution near water, sand, or snow as these surfaces reflect and intensify the damaging rays of the sun, which can increase your chances of sunburn.
  • Do not go to tanning salons. Just like the sun, UV light from tanning beds can cause wrinkling and age spots and can lead to skin cancer. If you want to look tan, consider using a self-tanning product, and continue to use your sunscreen with it.
  • Regularly check your skin for signs of skin cancer. Checking and knowing your skin is a key factor in detecting skin cancer in its earliest, most treatable stages. If you notice something out of the ordinary with your skin, do not hesitate to consult your healthcare provider or dermatologist.

As temperatures rise and we begin to plan our vacations for some much needed fun in the sun, practicing sun safe behaviors is of the utmost importance. It is never too late to integrate sun safe practices into your life and introduce these practices to your family. HAPPY SUMMER!

NCL letter to House opposing anti-Lifeline bill – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

June 21, 2016

The Honorable Paul D. Ryan
Speaker of the House
United States House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader
United States House of Representatives
H-204, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

 

RE: National Consumers League opposition to H.R. 5525, the “End Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of 2016

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi:

On behalf of the National Consumers League,[1] I am writing today to share our concerns regarding H.R. 5525, the End Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of 2016,” which is scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives today. The bill, sponsored by Representative Austin Scott, would  undermine the ability of the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline low-income subsidy program to meet the needs of millions of low-income consumers to access affordable broadband service. We know that the Internet has dramatically enhanced our society, but has also widened the opportunity gap between those who have broadband and those who do not in key areas such as employment, education and healthcare access. At a time when the Lifeline program is undergoing significant modernization, now is not the time to arbitrarily constrain its budget and prevent it from supporting mobile voice and broadband service. We therefore urge you and your colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose this bill.

Organizations from across the consumer, public interest and civil rights communities support the transition of Lifeline to supporting broadband. NCL agrees; we recognize that supporting access to the Internet for low-income consumers is critical to addressing the persistent wage, education and opportunity gaps that exist in our society. As we noted in our filing to the FCC, employers and government agencies are increasingly shifting their application processes for essential benefits programs online to an effort to efficiency. Lack of access to broadband makes it harder for low-income consumers and their families to stay in touch with job opportunities, family support networks and educational institutions.

Government at all levels has historically supported programs that help low-income consumers access to critical infrastructure like water, electricity and telephone service. Broadband Internet access should be no different. 

We urge you to oppose any effort to constrain the FCC’s goal of providing affordable broadband service to millions of low-income consumers. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with you in more detail. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully, 

John Breyault
Vice President, Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud National Consumers League
Phone: (202) 207-2819
Email: johnb@nclnet.org

cc: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

[1] The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is the nation’s pioneering consumer organization.  Our non-profit mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.  

Geneva convenes: COPOLCO or Committee on Consumer Safety – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

This week, I’ve been in Geneva with an international group of consumer experts and advocates who are members of COPOLCO, or the Committee on Consumer Policy. COPOLCO is the consumer component of the International Standards Organization or ISO. I serve as Vice Chair of the U.S. consumer entity—within the American National Standard Institute, which is the official American member of ISO—and am here representing ANSI, along with my product safety mentor and former Consumer Union colleague, Dr. David Pittle.

So what are standards, why do we need them, and why are they important to consumers?

International standards make things work. They give world-class specifications for products, services, and systems, to ensure quality, safety, and efficiency. Imagine a car built without safety standards—without safe tires or with a loose steering wheel. Or a building without any structural safety or without a proper foundation. The car would undoubtedly crash, and the building would collapse. I should note that in the United States, many standards protecting consumers are drafted and enforced by federal agencies like NHTSA, CPSC, FDA, USDA, EPA, etc.

Standards are also instrumental in facilitating international trade. ISO has published more than 21,000 International Standards; all are voluntary standards, but they are specifications that are agreed to by stakeholders from around the world. For developing countries, these that may be all they have for standards. And these standards cover almost every industry, from technology, to food safety, to agriculture, and healthcare. ISO International Standards affect everyone, everywhere.

As important as standards are, consumer participation in the setting of these standards is equally critical. Consumers are the very people affected by products and services and how they work—or don’t. There are two distinct groups participating in this: those who work for the country’s standard setting government agency, and those (like me) who come from a private consumer organization.

What I find most exciting is meeting my consumer counterparts from around the world and rolling up our sleeves and drafting standards together.

I learn a lot from colleagues from developed countries who have been attending these meetings for decades—Australia, Western Europe, and Canada come to mind—about the standards they are working on. Representatives from the UK today described the battle consumers had with energy companies who claimed they owned the meters and therefore the data from those meters. The consumer representatives said disagreed and fought back, arguing that the data is private, personal information that belongs to the consumers, not the energy companies.

I also learn a lot from meeting colleagues from developing countries. At lunch today, two representatives from the government of Panama told us there were no consumer standards in Panama until 1999. I found that hard to believe, but they assured us it was true. They also told us that every time bread is sold in Panama it is weighed to prevent fraud!

Today we had a robust discussion on whether the sharing economy—ride sharing and shared housing rentals—should be subject to international standards. We also discussed whether to develop standards on financial literacy for youth, an issue near and dear to NCL.

Attending this conference are representatives from Trinidad and Tobago, Malaysia, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Korea, Fiji, South Africa, Italy, Namibia, Australia, Sweden, Canada, Greece, and all of Northern Europe. I’m sure I’ve missed a few countries, but this gives you a sense of the breadth and depth of participation. That said, there are many more consumer representatives who might have come if they had the resources to travel and the support of their country. We discussed how to find that support here today as well.

But for the officials that are here, the engagement of their countries in developing standards for safety and quality is incredibly important for the world’s consumers, and it’s an honor to be part of the process.

National Consumers League calls on CPSC for safer table saw standards – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

June 15, 2016

Contact: NCL Communications, Cindy Hoang, cindyh@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—Today the nation’s pioneering consumer advocacy organization is calling on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for the implementation of a requirement that table saws sold in the United States be equipped with technology to prevent serious injuries. Citing CPSC’s own data that indicates Americans suffer 40,000 emergency room-treated table saw injuries every year—about 4,000 of which are amputations—the National Consumers League (NCL) reiterated concerns it first raised before the Commission more than five years ago.

“Tens of thousands of people suffer similar injuries every year working on table saws that are more dangerous than they need to be,” said Karin Bolte, NCL director of health policy, who spoke before the Commission today. “The CPSC has the power to put an end to these unnecessary tragedies. But it must move quickly because every day brings 10 more avoidable amputations.”

In 2003, a petition was filed with the CPSC asking the agency to enact a requirement that every table saw sold in the U.S. be equipped with “active injury mitigation” (AIM) technology that would prevent serious injuries and amputations by stopping the moving saw blade when it comes in contact with, or in close proximity to, human flesh. AIM technology has been proven to virtually eliminate serious injuries resulting from contact with a spinning table saw blade.

In 2010, after the CPSC had not moved forward on a table saw standard in seven years, NCL wrote a letter urging the Commission to take “speedy action” on table saw safety. NCL’s Greenberg also worked with table saw victims from across the country on a public education campaign highlighting the need for a table saw safety regulation. Following NCL’s campaign, in 2011, the Commission voted unanimously to begin the rulemaking process for a table saw safety standard.  

“Every year the CPSC fails to act is another year in which tens of thousands of avoidable injuries occur,” said Bolte. “NCL has a simple message today: CPSC must act with urgency to finally adopt a mandatory safety standard with Active Injury Mitigation technology and thereby put an end to the devastating injuries caused by table saws.”

Read the full testimony here (PDF).

###

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.

Greenberg testimony to FDA on OTC monograph user fees – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

June 10, 2016

Contact: NCL Communications, Cindy Hoang, cindyh@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC–The National Consumers League (NCL) commends FDA for holding this public meeting to gather stakeholder feedback on proposed OTC Monograph User Fees. My name is Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of NCL. Founded in 1899, the National Consumers League has long been concerned with ensuring the safety of foods and drugs. Among NCL’s top priorities are ensuring the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, and medication adherence, which we’ve helped advance through our Script Your Future Campaign.

The FDA’s Federal Register notice states that in the OTC market, there are approximately 800 active ingredients for more than 1,400 different therapeutic uses. In addition, about $32 billion in OTC medicines were sold in the US last year, according to the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, up 4.5 percent from 2010. For the more than 240 million Americans who use OTC medicines every year, these drugs undoubtedly play a vital role in keeping consumers healthy and helping them to feel better when they’re sick.

However, it appears that with the burgeoning OTC marketplace, the FDA is seriously under-resourced, with only 18 full-time employees (FTEs) assigned to oversee the entire OTC market. This is the same number of FTEs it takes to review one novel prescription drug application. 

While the FDA has made determinations about the safety and efficacy of the active ingredients in thousands of products through the OTC monograph review process, there are still many pending monographs for which the ingredients have not been determined to be GRASE – generally recognized as safe and effective for their intended uses.

FDA estimates that at the current funding level, it would take decades to review and finalize the spectrum of OTC drug monographs that are currently in non-final status. The agency is asking for additional resources to finalize pending OTC monographs and address safety issues faster and more efficiently. Finalizing FDA review of these ingredients, as well as devoting additional resources to expeditiously modify labels for new safety concerns, would better serve the public. In addition, a user fee program could benefit both consumers and industry by allowing for more timely review of innovations and new ingredients, ultimately leading to the availability of new and improved OTC options. For these reasons, NCL agrees that it makes sense to create a pathway for the FDA to have additional resources to manage this growing number of OTC products.

With regard to the implementation of OTC user fees, NCL recognizes that the ingredient-based OTC monograph review process may not lend itself to user fee assessment. FDA should consider implementing set user fees such as product and establishment fees that would generate a steady, predictable source of funds for the agency.

That said, we do have a few concerns if the agency moves forward with this proposal. First, we would like to ensure that the FDA take care not to impose burdensome fees on newer or smaller innovative firms that may find it difficult to absorb the fees. Perhaps a tiered fee system should be contemplated for such companies. Secondly, we are mindful of the concerns expressed by some that because industry pays the user fees, industry thereby controls the agency’s agenda and process. We urge the FDA to make it abundantly clear that it will act independent of industry influence and always work to advance the public’s access to safe and effective OTC products.

As for performance goals as part of an OTC user fee program, NCL would like to see FDA commit to initiating a certain number of OTC monograph finalizations per year and recommend the publication of an annual report on progress in addressing the OTC monograph backlog, including highlighting the approval of new and innovative treatments.

We commend the FDA for soliciting the views of the many stakeholders who will be affected by this program and particularly appreciate giving consumer organizations the opportunity to share our views. We look forward to working with the FDA and with the OTC industry, as appropriate, to design a balanced and fair user fee program for OTC drugs.

###

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.