Lili Gecker, NCL public policy intern

The life of a college student often involves seeking free food. We often forgo luxuries (like spending $12 on going out to the movies), and instead can be found gathered around a computer screen watching free TV off of Hulu.com. Students today do not have much spare pocket change. A common question among friends will be, “How can you afford to be here? How many grants, loans, scholarships, and jobs did it take you?”

Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduate with debt, and graduates who take out loans leave college with an average of about $24,000 in debt. Even those individuals not currently seeking higher educations have likely noticed the problem (and maybe seen a couple of front pages like this one). This problem affects all of us. An investment in education is an investment in the future workforce.

As college graduates struggle to find employment, why add an increased student loan debt to their plate? Congress was given the deadline of July 1, 2012 to resolve to keep interest rates on Stafford loans at 3.4 percent, or they would double to 6.8 percent.  President Obama calls this is a “no-brainer” and Congress agrees—the question remains just how to pay. While they could not agree to a long-term solution, Congress settled the deal with a compromise: they agreed to freeze interest rates on student loans for one year, allowing it to remain at 3.4 percent, and deal with the problem later.

The bill is great for borrowers this year, but there are some problems: it excludes graduate students. And it puts Congress in the same position next year, with the need to act to either maintain or increase interest rates on Stafford loans. On an optimistic note, it buys time to find real, long-term solution—and many critics of this decision will be advocating for a stronger approach to student loans in the future.

By Steven Dorshkind, NCL public policy intern

The State Department released a new update to its annual Trafficking in Persons Report recently, and the results are shocking. The report states that approximately 27 million people are victims of human trafficking globally. This report also evaluates the countries of the world and places them into four different tiers depending upon the level of commitment and action the individual government have shown to combat trafficking.

Trafficking may take many guises: commercial sexual exploitation, and prostitution of minors, debt bondage and forced labor.

Of the 27 million victims of human trafficking, 55 percent are women and girls who make up 98 percent of the sex trafficking industry. These women and girls can be moved from their home, lured by traffickers by promises of a better life. Once far from home, they often find themselves trapped with no help in sight.

The State Department’s tier system is divided into four components, the First, Second, Second Watch List ,and Third Tier. The First Tier designates countries in which some trafficking may exist, but the government is very proactive in dealing with problem and the country meets the minimum requirements set up by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The Second Tier consists of countries that do not fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into full compliance. The Second Watch List has countries that do not meet the minimum standards and the country has not provided significant evidence that measures are being taken to comply with the standards. The Third Tier has countries that do not comply with the TVPA’s standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.

Thirty three countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, all received First Tier ratings. Ninety four countries, including Albania, Greece, Hong Kong, and Pakistan all received Second Tier ratings. Forty two countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan, and China, received Second Watch List Tier ratings, and sixteen countries received a Third Tier rating, including; Algeria, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Receiving a Third Tier ranking on this report comes with the threat of sanctions: the withdrawal of non-humanitarian and non-trade related forces and assistance, and removal of funding for government employees’ participation in educational and cultural exchange programs, and opposition from the US toward trade and certain development related assistance, from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Many consumer and human rights advocates believe that Uzbekistan should be moved down to the Third Tier because of their blatant disregard for human rights and a lack of effort in trying to meet the minimum standards set up by the TVPA. The groups have written a letter and sent it to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking the State Department to lower the Uzbek government standing from Second Watch List, to the Third Tier. Uzbekistan refuses to allow the International Labor Organization (ILO) to monitor the harvesting of cotton, and therefore an accurate read of how the cotton is harvested cannot be obtained, and many charge that child labor is rampant. The National Consumers League believes this warrants a Third Tier rating, but the United States government has yet to lower the ranking of Uzbekistan.

The ranking of 42 countries has changed from 2011 to 2012. Fifteen countries were lowered in the rankings, and 27 were raised. Countries moved from First Tier to Second Tier are Nigeria and Portugal. Countries moved from Second Tier to Second Watch List are; Bahrain, Djibouti, Jamaica, Kenya, Macau, Malawi, Namibia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, and Syria. The country moved from Second Watch List to the Third Tier was Suriname.

The new report also speaks to the measures that governments can put into place to help ensure the end of human trafficking in their own country. One problem noted by report authors: states that some countries have such strict rules against illegal immigration the victim of trafficking is treated as an illegal alien and tried as a criminal. The report asks for further in-depth study of people found in areas that are considered high risk trafficking zones, suggesting that the police and first-responders to an area must be better trained to identify a trafficked person. This skill is vital to ensure that those who are victims of human trafficking are not merely lumped together with the criminals and treated unjustly. The report puts a large focus on protecting victims.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “Over the coming months we will celebrate the 150^th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, which Abraham Lincoln announced on September 22, 1862 and issued by Executive Order on January 1, 1863.” The idea that slavery is only in the past must be cast out, and the world needs to see that slavery exists in the modern-day and age. Twenty-seven million people are modern slaves who do not enjoy basic human rights and guarantees, they have been pushed to extremes with little food or rest, and they need to be helped. We cannot rest until all of those who are enslaved are freed.

By Christiana Oatman, NCL Communications intern

Christiana Oatman is a native Californian and a rising senior at University of the Pacific, where she studies history and gender studies. She is the Communications intern at NCL. Her internship is part of the Fund for American Studies’ Institute of Political Journalism program at Georgetown University.

I recently had the opportunity to watch National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg testify on a panel at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) budget hearing on June 20, 2012 to propose that the CPSC implement tougher safety standards on table saws, ATVs, and other dangerous products frequently used by American consumers. Greenberg urged the CPSC to dedicate staff, money, and resources to finalize a mandatory safety standard.

NCL, along with other consumer organizations, requested in October 2011 that the CPSC consider enacting “a technology-neutral performance standard that would require manufacturers to equip table saws with safety devices that would mitigate injury when the operator comes in contact with, or in close proximity to, the spinning blade.” Multiple forms of safety technology exist, but only one, SawStop, is currently on the market.

Tens of thousands of accidents involving table saws happen every year, including ten finger amputations a day. According to the NCL, “These injuries cost society well over $2 billion every year.”

For the past 50 years, the only safety technology on table saws was the blade guard. The blade guard is often removed because it is inconvenient for many types of cuts. Two thirds of table saw injuries reported were without a blade guard. Updated technology does not create the same hurdles that the blade guard does. The average cost for adding newer safety technology on a table saw is $100, which is cost-effective compared to the potential medical and emotional costs of a table saw accident.

The Web site Fine Woodworking has a table saw safety guide to prevent as many accidents as possible. It recommends that you never use a table saw tired or under the influence, wear gear to protect your eyes and ears and use a riving knife and push sticks. Many table saw safety tips are designed to prevent kickback, when a piece of stock moves towards you, which is one of the most common causes of table saw injuries. Fine Woodworking recommends that you use a blade guard, but also notes that blade guards cannot be used for every cut. Even with all these precautions, accidents do happen and some could have been prevented by the new technology.

As one of the three interns who watched Greenberg’s testimony, I found her arguments convincing, as did the CPSC members who responded and asked her questions. Greenberg and the CPSC members were very sympathetic to those who have been injured by table saws, and hopefully Greenberg’s persuasive skills will lead to a progressive change in CPSC policy.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped a bombshell a few weeks ago. He proposed limiting sugary drinks sold by restaurants, cinemas, street vendors and stadiums in New York City to 16 ounces. Why did the Mayor make this audacious proposal? For one reason: obesity rates in the US and New York City are soaring and the experts say by 2030 40 percent of Americans will be obese. Two thirds of adults are now overweight or obese; (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 68 percent of adults in the US were either overweight or obese). One third of children are overweight or obese. Will Bloomberg’s proposal work? I don’t know, but it sure has gotten people talking: about nutrition, empty calories, obesity and the role of government. And I think that’s a good thing.

For example, people have learned a little more about sugary sodas. That they have no nutritional value and pack a lot of calories; that they are easily consumed in large quantities. A 12 ounce can of Coca Cola, for instance, has 140 calories. I admit it – I like the taste of real Coca Cola; I even crave it sometimes. But with a large cup, that 140 calorie drink can easily turn into 20 ounces or 233 calories. Also, many consumers have no idea how many calories they are consuming when they buy these oversized drinks or even how many calories they should be consuming in one day. (2,000 calories a day is the recommended intake for the average person.) To make matters worse, fast food joints make it cost-effective to buy the largest sizes; they are often only pennies more than the smallest drinks. Hey, more for less!

Why pick on soft drinks? New York Health Commissioner Tom Farley spoke to this issue. “We know that portion sizes have risen dramatically. And we know that sugary drinks have this uniquely strong connection with weight gain.”

The costs to the health care system of this excess avoirdupois are estimated to be $192 billion a year and unfortunately taxpayers underwrite a lot of those costs. Federal Medicaid and Medicare programs provide health care for millions of patients and thus treat the diseases caused or exacerbated by obesity: diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cancer. And talk about cross purposes! I just learned that food stamps can be used to buy soft drinks. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, $4 billion worth of food stamp money is spent that way. (That shouldn’t be! Soda calories are utterly bereft of any nutritional value. Poor people in America suffer from obesity in far greater numbers and the food stamp program is intended to get people nutritious foods, especially children.)

The soft drink industry is fighting back with every arrow in their PR quiver, as always. PepsiCo threatened to move out of New York a few years ago when there was a threat of an 18 percent tax on soda (to be used to reduce consumption and pay for health care.) This time around, the sugary beverage boosters ran a very funny ad in the New York Times! A sense of humor always helps.

“…soda is not driving the obesity rate,” says Chris Gindlesperger, with the American Beverage Association. “New York City health department has an unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks.” Well, maybe. But there’s a method to their madness.

Meanwhile, unlike the proposed sugar tax, which was crushed by the beverage industry, Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal is virtually assured to pass. Only the city’s health board needs to sign off on it and all are mayoral appointees. One piece of good news is that consumption of sugary drinks is down from 1998 by about 24 percent. Let’s keep that trend going.

One of the biggest obstacles is that efforts to combat consumption of high calorie drinks are drowned out by the advertising of beverages – all kinds of beverages from sweetened sodas, to sports drinks, to power drinks to caffeinated drinks, the list is endless. Most have hidden calories, and little if any nutritional value.

And the ubiquity of these beverages is mind-boggling. Walk into any drug or convenience store and there’s invariably a long wall of refrigerated drinks, most of them not the low-calorie version. I can’t find sugar-free or “diet” ice tea versions in any CVS in my neighborhood.

So I support what Mayor Bloomberg and New York City are trying to do – open up the discussion, say no to the purveyors of oversized, calorie laden and nutritionally empty drinks and in the process lets all learn more about what we’re eating and drinking, whether it has any nutritional value and hopefully keep a check on the explosion in obesity and the related costs associated with this American health epidemic.

Several weeks ago I blogged on the fate of the makers of so-called “pink slime”(its real name is Lean Finely Textured Beef or “LFTB” ) after reading a May 12, 2012 New York Times article by editorial page writer Phillip Boffey entitled “What If It Weren’t Called Pink Slime.” Boffey took a dispassionate look at the product and concluded, as the title of his article indicates, that “The first casualties of the hamburger ingredient contemptuously dubbed ‘pink slime’ will likely not be anyone who eats it but rather the workers who make it.”

At the time of the original media hype, NCL and Consumer Federation of America issued statements in an effort to quell the negative buzz and consumer fear about LFTB, but the horse had left the barn by then and, in the ensuing weeks, the makers of LFTB were forced to drastically cut production.

Boffey bemoaned the loss of 650 jobs at the plants that produce LFTB resulting from media-generated hysteria over what is actually a good product. He said it well: “The irony and the absurdity are that consumer experts say L.F.T.B. is safe, nutritious and relatively inexpensive.”

So two months later, what is the fallout for consumers now that the supply of LFTB is greatly reduced? Well, we looked through data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and ran some calculations. The marketing division at USDA publishes figures on what people are buying and sure enough, because of vastly reduced supply, consumers are now forced to pay more for lean beef, while the fattiest ground beef is available for less. As a result, consumers are opting to buy the cheaper, fattier product. A year ago, fattier ground beef (73 percent lean) made up 37 percent of ground beef sold; it now comprises 48 percent of the ground beef sold. Conversely, there is now 23.3 percent less of the leanest ground beef (93 percent lean) available on the market. Lean ground beef is also 50 cents more expensive per pound at wholesale, meaning the price at the grocery store has jumped by close to 75 cents. This is a marked price increase and one that will hurt consumers.

None of this should have happened. Indeed, it’s a truly unfortunate result at a time when obesity is on the rise in America and every health expert is telling us to reduce, not increase, our fat intake. What I said in my first blog still applies: What a shame.