An Independence Day flick: ‘Hot Coffee,’ tort reform, and the American lawsuit – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Michael Finch, Roosevelt Summer Academy Fellow at NCL

Newspapers and the blogosphere are buzzing about Susan Saladoff’s documentary, “Hot Coffee,” which premiered July 27th on HBO. The award-winning documentary explores the issues of tort reform and mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts, and the people they can hurt. Saladoff also wrote a blog at Politico, called “Signing away constitutional rights,” which deals with the same issues as the film.

Saladoff’s Politico blog and documentary seem to be pretty effectively spreading the word about the inaccuracy of the “Americans love to file frivolous lawsuits” meme that exists in our culture.

The movie’s namesake is the widely-known and oft-maligned case of a woman (Stella Liebeck) who spilled McDonald’s coffee on herself and sued for millions. But as Saladoff’s documentary shows, the situation is nothing like people think. Liebeck’s injuries were extensive, McDonald’s had received reports that their coffee was too hot and had burnt other consumers, and Liebeck never asked for, nor did she receive, “millions.” She initially asked only for $20,000, to pay for past and projected medical expenses and loss of income. McDonald’s offered her $800. The case escalated, repeatedly, and Liebeck ended up being awarded less than $600,000 in an out-of-court settlement.

Liebeck’s case, however, is an outlier. The even more important issue that Saladoff’s film brings up is the push for tort reform. There is a great deal of risk that enacting tort reform will deprive people of help that they desperately need. People use the court system as a last resort, not as a quick way to make a buck. If the number of people suing for frivolous reasons is grossly exaggerated, then the only result of making it even more of a hassle to bring a case to court will be hampering people with legitimate concerns.

For example, medical malpractice is an area that many people say is full of frivolous lawsuits, and many tort reform discussions center around this issue. However, according to an article by Drs. John Glasson and David Orentlicher in the Journal of the American Medical Association, only 2% of “adverse events due to negligent practice” lead to malpractice claims.

For most people, the court system is simply too difficult to navigate, and the expense and time required to bring a suit outweigh the potential benefits. Unless we greatly change how we view access to and use of the American legal system, any tort reform we enact will carry too great a risk of harming innocent people.

Hopefully “Hot Coffee” will spread the truth and open some eyes to the very real dangers of mandatory arbitration clauses, and this pervasive but inaccurate view of our justice system. Susan Saladoff should be applauded for bringing attention to this very important issue.

Protect yourself: Caller ID spoofing legal despite new FCC rules – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

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

Responding to the passage last December of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, the Federal Communications Commission released rules last week to stop abuses of caller ID spoofing.  This is an important step, but the National Consumers League urges consumers to remain cautious, as spoofing can still occur.

So what’s caller ID spoofing?

Consumers may be surprised to learn that caller ID information that a person sees when receiving a call can be incorrect, manipulated by the caller to mask their identity. Online services such as https://spoofcard.com make caller ID manipulation easy by allowing a caller to enter any caller ID information they want, including both name and number, and then displaying that caller ID information when the call is placed.

As an example, a doctor could call a patient from his or her cell phone but display the caller information, “Dr. Smith, 555-867-5309,” the number of their office.  More dangerous, though, a scammer could enter “Bank of America, 800-432-1000,” and then the person who picks up the call might think their bank is calling.  In one instance, theives stole $15 million, as described in The New York Times.  Needless to say, caller ID spoofing is – in the words of the FCC – “ripe for abuse.”

More work to be done

The newly released FCC rules place financial penalties on those who maliciously use spoofing services.  That’s a good start.  But as the Department of Justice argued, criminalizing malevolent caller ID manipulation will not alone deter scammers already intending to break the law.  Criminals with thousands of dollars to gain from defrauding consumers might not be deterred by a $10,000 fine.

The Department of Justice suggested spoofing services should be required to verify ownership of a given phone number before that number may be used to spoof. While technologically savvy users may be able to get around this requirement, this kind of verification would help ensure that when spoofing is used, it’s the doctor who wants to mask his personal number who benefits, not the fraudster.

The FCC has asked Congress to take another look at this issue by recommending Congress enact legislation that would allow regulation of third-party spoofing services. We urge consideration of this additional legislation to best protect consumers.

How to protect yourself

In the meantime, spoofing remains legal.  And while spoofing scams are now illegal, there are some common sense ways to ensure you

1.     Never give personal information out over the phone when you receive an incoming call.

2.     Don’t rely on caller ID to verify the identity of a caller.

3.     If you didn’t expect a call or aren’t sure who is on the other line, hang up and call them back.

4.     To block your own number from appearing on Caller ID, dial *67

To learn more about Caller ID spoofing, visit the FCC’s website, https://www.fcc.gov/guides/caller-id-and-spoofing

To read the new rules related to spoofing, click here: https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-100A1.pdf


A look at the court cases against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Benjamin Judge, NCL Public Policy Intern

Ever since President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, there have been several challenges to key portions of the act in district courts across the country. Some of these challenges include, but are not limited to, the individual mandate for each American to have a minimum amount of health insurance, federal funding going towards abortion, and according to one case, allowing soldiers to be quartered in our homes.

Challenges to the law

There have been two major cases in which judges have ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.  In the case of Commonwealth ofVirginia vs. Sebelius, Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress was exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause. Virginia argues that requiring people to buy health insurance is not regulating commerce, but rather, forcing commerce on consumers. The federal government is currently appealing this case and there was a hearing on May 10, 2011 in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The other case in which the individual mandate was deemed unconstitutional was State ofFlorida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where Judge Roger Vinson deemed that the mandate is unconstitutional, and since it cannot be separated from the law, then the entire law is void.  The ruling served as an injunction of the laws implementation.  Judge Vinson went on to say that the case should move on to the Supreme Court where a final decision on the law will be made.  The government appealed and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing for the case on June 8, 2011.

Dubious claims

There have also been some court cases that have made very interesting claims. In U.S. Citizens Association v. Obama the plaintiffs claim that, besides the individual mandate being unconstitutional, they are argue that the law violates the third (yes, the amendment regarding quartering of soldiers), fourth, fifth, and ninth amendment by forcing people to divulge private medical information. Although there has not yet been a ruling on this case, the most recent development is that the government’s Motion to Dismiss was denied on November 23, 2010.

Another interesting court case is Independent American Party of Nevada et al v. Obama et al. In this class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs want an injunction against the reform.  The plaintiffs claim that the law violates almost every privacy clause of the Constitution, for example due process and free exercise of religion (a full list can be found here on page three). The plaintiffs also claim that the healthcare law breaks the Thirteenth amendment because “it involuntarily creates a debt and coerces Plaintiffs herein to work off the debt by threat of legal sanction (Source).” The case is currently stalled because the government has not responded to the complaint of the Plaintiffs.

There is a very good chance that some of these cases will spend several more years in the lower courts before eventually going to Supreme Court.  All of the information on the court cases comes from https://www.healthcarelawsuits.org, there are also additional cases if you are interested in reading about more cases.


Reporting from Brussels: TACD bridging Atlantic on consumer issues – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

I recently spent three days with colleagues in Brussels attending a meeting of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), forum formed a dozen years ago by consumer advocates in America and Europe. The forum is intended to bring together US and EU consumer organizations to provide a consumer perspective and input to government officials on issues as diverse as product safety, privacy, food safety, financial services, and intellectual property. There’s a Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue that has a powerful voice at the European Union meetings – the TACD provides a critical counterweight to that as well.

We met with the US Ambassador to Brussels William Kennard and Commissioner Dalli from the European Union for health and safety – they shared their agenda, and we shared ours. But equally important is the cross-fertilization of ideas that comes from hearing what our European colleagues are working on – their successes, their failures (yes, those are important too!), and what work we can do together.

Last night over a glass of Jupiler, the Belgian Budweiser, a German colleague and I discussed the possibility of taking NCL’s work on table saw safety to Germany and perhaps Denmark. The German consumer groups work closely with the trade unions, many of whose members use table saws as they build homes or office buildings in Germany’s booming economy.

The consumer voice is critical – we represent the interests of many millions of consumers in the United States and Europe. We owe a debt of gratitude to American colleagues like Rhoda Karpatkin, the visionary former head of Consumers Union, and Jamie Love, whose work on intellectual property is legendary. They took this idea of having consumers on either side of the Atlantic meet and collaborate and built it into a thriving TACD.

Credit protection plans costing cardholders – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Michael Finch, Roosevelt Summer Academy Fellow at NCL

Michael Finch, a Roosevelt Summer Academy fellow at NCL this summer, is a rising senior at Middle Tennessee State University, where he is majoring in Political Science with a concentration in Public Administration and a minor in History. At MTSU, Michael is the Assistant Editor for the student newspaper, Sidelines, and is in the process of co-founding a chapter of the fraternity Sigma Phi Beta.

Mary (not her real name) had a Capital One credit card, and was making timely payments, often above the required minimum. Her balance varied between about $700 and $800, and she was slowly chipping away at it. One month though, she received her statement and saw that her balance had somehow risen to $1000.

Without realizing it, she’d been signed up for the Capital One Payment Protection Plan, which is for cardholders who worry they may become unemployed or disabled in the future and won’t be able to make payments. If they activate Payment Protection, it pays their minimum balance for a predetermined period of time.

The unwanted charges for the plan, along with charges for other services such as CreditInform, had driven Mary over the limit, causing even more fees and explaining her skyrocketing balance. This, unfortunately, is a common situation among cardholders.

How does this happen?

Capital One’s payment protection plan, like many others, costs the cardholder 99 cents for every $100 of balance at the end of the payment period. This means that, over the course of a year, Mary ended up paying Capital One almost $120 in extra fees just for this one service (which she hadn’t knowingly agreed to).

Many consumers, like Mary, are auto-enrolled in payment protection and other services when they open a credit card, or aren’t informed that these services are optional.

After Mary realized she’d been signed up for a plan she wasn’t informed about, she found it difficult to get it canceled. She was told the plan was handled through a third-party company, which proved difficult to get in touch with.

Consumers who were misled or pressured into signing up often have an even harder time getting the plan canceled, because even though unfair practices were used to get them to enroll, credit card companies argue that they were, in fact, informed.

What can be been done?

In January of 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Capital One, arguing that the restrictions of its payment protection plan weren’t sufficiently explained before cardholders were enrolled, and that if consumers did choose to activate it, the benefits were too difficult to actually receive. Capital One agreed on a settlement, but the payouts ranged from a meager $15 to $63 per consumer. For cardholders who paid hundreds of dollars in fees they didn’t consent to, or who tried to activate payment protection benefits and were denied on a technicality, these amounts obviously aren’t enough.

Despite lawsuits being filed against Capital One and other credit card companies for the unfair practices that victimized Mary and many like her, they continue.

What needs to change?

One pressing issue is the lack of regulation. Payment protection plans are incredibly similar to “credit insurance” plans. The main difference is that credit insurance plans have far more regulations in place to protect consumers.

Insurance companies are required to pay out 40 percent to 70 percent of the premiums they take in. Because credit card companies disguise their credit insurance as “payment protection plans,” they aren’t obligated under this regulation. According to a July 2003 study by the Center for Economic Justice, payment protection plans only paid out about 5 percent of the premiums they collected. Despite this relatively low payout, payment protection plans are 25 percent more expensive, on average, than credit insurance.

Consumers must be educated about the risks of these payment protection plans, but the responsibility isn’t entirely on them. Credit card companies like Capital One are taking advantage of consumers by using deceptive practices, and this must stop.

Hotel guests beware unauthorized charges – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

On two occasions over the past two weeks, when I or friends of mine have stayed at hotels, we’ve noticed charges racked up on the bill for goods or services we didn’t use. In my friend’s, case the hotel added an undeserved $300; in mine it was a more modest $30.

I was charged for eating items from the minibar – I didn’t! In fact, I never do since they are scandalously overpriced. How did I get charged for soft drinks or chips when I didn’t touch them? And the bill comes slipped under your door in the early morning – automatic checkout – so if you don’t scrutinize it carefully, you could end up paying for things you didn’t use.

I am suspicious that this practice isn’t simply an innocent mistake by hotel staff. I suspect that hotels pile charges on in hopes that the traveler will simply fold the bill in her pocketbook and never notice the overages. My friend’s bill was really outrageous: she had to get the hotel to take off all kinds of unauthorized charges. She told me she couldn’t for the life of her figure out how they got there. All of which means “caveat emptor”. Consumers, be sure to look carefully over your hotel bill before you check out. And I wish some consumer protection agency would launch an investigation about hotel billing practices. I could be paranoid, but it seems to me this happens too frequently for it to be totally accidental.

After the 5-4 decision, building a new case against Wal-Mart – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Alex Schneider, NCL Public Policy Intern

In a landmark decision that is sure to have long-lasting implications, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that evidence of alleged gender discrimination as presented in the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Dukes was not sufficient to allow for a class action lawsuit to continue.  Justice Antonin Scalia, who handed down the majority opinion, agreed with a lower court judge’s opinion that the 1.6 million women who filed the lawsuit “have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit.”

According to the majority, the major fault of the plaintiffs was the inability to show that Wal-Mart headquarters was communicating ‘common direction[s]’ to managers that gender discrimination and bias in promotions was justified.  (The entire decision is available from the website of the Supreme Court.)

But in her dissenting opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsberg rejected the idea that Wal-Mart headquarters was blameless.  Based on available evidence, she wrote, “gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s corporate culture.”

According to the plaintiffs, of the few male cashiers at Wal-Mart, most were better paid than female cashiers.  And in departmental assignments, which determine pay, women were tasked with selling baby clothes while men worked in the better paid electronics or sports departments.  The Impact Fund representing some of the plaintiffs said that women held only 14% of management positions in 2001.  As Ginsberg cited, one manager reportedly told an employee that “[m]en are here to make a career and women aren’t.”

A controversial outcome

For the National Consumers League and other consumer and worker rights groups that have advocated against gender discrimination, this verdict proves disheartening.

In a blog post written some months back, NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg explored the implication of the case: “The Wal-Mart case gives the issue of “wage disparity” a woman’s face and in so doing, helps other women, particularly low-wage women earners, to see that positive results can come from their struggle to achieve equal rights in the workplace. This case is a critical bellwether for women in workplaces all over the nation.”

Liz Featherstone emphasizes many of the same themes in a post on NPR’s website, telling of “women like Betty Dukes, the lead plaintiff, a pastor in her Pittsburg, California church who has been telling her “David and Goliath” story to her congregation for years, hoping to inspire them to stand up to injustice in their own lives.”  As Featherstone puts it, “Women — whether or not we work at Wal-Mart — are furious about this Supreme Court ruling.”

Moving forward, a decade later

Since 2001, the plaintiffs have tried to bring this case before a jury, only to have their hopes of success shattered ten years later even before a hearing on the merits of the case.  As noted in the Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart persevered in the end, having chosen not to follow the advice of its lawyers to settle the case.

The verdict of the Supreme Court in the case is final, and while views of the decision differ widely, forward thinking is necessary.

Wal-Mart has not faced its final test.  While the ruling makes legal proceedings difficult especially given the costs to individuals of filing lawsuits as well as the difficulty of proving wrong-doing after so many years, lawsuits will move forward and Wal-Mart may still be found guilty.  With 1.6 million workers affected and a potential $1,000 loss per worker (according to the New York Times), successful lawsuits could result in over $1 billion in payouts.

But in the end, the final verdict lies with consumers.  After ten years, Wal-Mart claims to have cleaned up its operation and to have increased the representation of women at all levels of management. That’s a good start.  But Wal-Mart should make amends, settle claims, and ensure that those who acted in a discriminatory fashion no longer have a place at the company.

Making amends isn’t easy, and it isn’t cheap.  But it is the right thing to do.  Until then, consumers who are angry with Wal-Mart can show they aren’t willing to give in to its policy of denying that discrimination existed at its stores.  There are ‘low prices’ to be found elsewhere, and consumers don’t have to give Wal-Mart their business.

Longoria Lifts Efforts to Protect Child Farmworkers in Washington, D.C. – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Reid Maki, NCL’s Director, Social Responsibility and Fair Labor Standards

Efforts to protect child farmworkers got a big boost last Thursday, June 16th when the popular actress Eva Longoria helped Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) introduce legislation to extend child labor law protection to agriculture. “The Children’s Act for Responsible Employment,” has been introduced several times over the last decade but garnered increased support in the last Congress when 106 House members joined Roybal-Allard in co-sponsoring the bill.

“Agriculture is the only industry governed by labor laws that allow children as young as 12 to work with virtually no restrictions on the number of hours they spend in the fields outside of the school day,” Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard told attendees at the press conference.  “Tragically, unable to keep up with the competing demands of long work hours in the fields and school, a recent report found that child farmworkers drop out of school at four times the national dropout rate – slamming the door shut on the very pathway that could one day help them escape a lifetime of unrelenting work harvesting our crops.”

“I want to commend Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard for her leadership in Congress on the CARE Act,” said Longoria, one of the stars of ABC’s Desperate Housewives.

Eva Longoria speaking on the plight of the estimated 400,000 migrant farmworker children in the US

When Longoria learned about these working children, she became so concerned she decided to produce a film about child farmworkers: “The Harvest/La Cosecha.”

The film had its D.C. premiere on Capitol Hill later in the day. It focuses on three young farmworkers, ages 12, 14 and 16, who are among the estimated 400,000 children who work as migrant laborers on America’s farms.  As it detailed their day-to-day struggles, the emotional toll of poverty and migration was palpable. Even veteran farmworker advocates found it incredibly moving. Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the United Farmworkers of America with Cesar Chavez found herself wiping away tears as she talked after the film. She said it reminded her of her and Cesar’s young days as farmworkers and organizers.

The teens travel with their families across thousands of miles to pick crops in southern Texas, northern Michigan and northern Florida during the harvest season. Along the way, they face backbreaking labor in 100-degree heat, physical hazards from pesticides, the emotional burden of helping their families through economic crises when work opportunities dry up, separation from their families and peer groups, and dwindling hope for their educational and economic advancement.

The film will be released theatrically in Los Angeles and in New York in July, along with special screenings in 30 cities nationally. Advocates hope the film will bring much needed attention to a problem that is little known by most Americans.

While retaining current exemptions for family farms, the CARE Act would bring age and work hour standards for children in agriculture up to the standards for children working in all other industries. Under CARE, teenagers would be required to be at least 14 years of age to work in agriculture and at least 18 years of age to perform particularly hazardous work. 14 and 15-year-olds would be permitted to work in certain agriculture jobs, as decided by the Department of Labor.

Reid Maki at last Thursday’s press conference. 4 out of 5 Americans believe that all children should be protected equally from child labor.

I was among the speakers at the press conference and I pointed out the inconsistencies of U.S law, which does not allow a 12-year-old to work in an air-conditioned office but will allow that same child to work 14 hours in 100-degree heat, performing back-breaking labor in fields treated with pesticides. I feel fortunate to coordinate the Child Labor Coalition (CLC), co-chaired by NCL, which has had protecting child farmworkers as a priority for the last 10 years.

During the press conference, I noted the results of NCL’s new consumer poll on attitudes about child labor in agriculture, which found that 4 out of 5 Americans believe that all children should be protected equally from child labor, no matter the industry they toil in. The poll found that only 3 percent of Americans would let their own children work more than 40 hours per week in the fields—something many 12-year-old migrants do today. Given the public’s concern about child labor, it’s unfathomable that Congress has so far refused to fix this glaring glitch in our child labor laws.

Norma Flores López of the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs—also a CLC member—said, “Starting at the young age of 12, I worked in the fields alongside my family. I worked to help my family survive, often until my hands were so swollen that I could not hold a pencil at school. Like thousands of American farmworker children today, I experienced the hazards of child labor in agriculture first hand, which is why I know how important it is to equalize the child labor law by passing the CARE Act.”

Please consider writing or calling your Representative or Senator today and telling them that you protect equal child labor protections for agriculture. Can we afford to sacrifice another generation of farmworker youth?

Staying safe in the summer sun – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Benjamin Judge, NCL Public Policy Intern

With school out and summer in full swing, weekends are filling up with BBQs, swimming pools, lawn games, and other fun outdoor activities. But all that time outside in the hot sun can have serious health consequences, and the beginning of summer is a great time to remind ourselves of the importance of sun protection. We all want to have fun in the sun, but we need to make sure to take in the summer rays as safely as possible. Luckily, the FDA recently made some regulation changes that will provide consumers with more information regarding the effectiveness of different sunscreens.

A few changes

The FDA recently announced new rules, which specify which lotions work the best while debunking the idea that sunscreens are truly “waterproof.” The FDA will ban sunscreen manufactures from saying their products are sweatproof or waterproof, and will instead allow them to list the amount of time (in minutes) that their lotion is water-resistant. The FDA will also require that sunscreens protect equally from both UVA and UVB radiation before earning “broad spectrum protection” label.

For the full list of FDA regulation changes, which will go into effect next year, visit their site *here.

Dangers to prolonged exposure to the sun.

I’m sure everyone reading this has been sunburned at one time or another. However, there are many other serious sun health risks beyond the ubiquitous sunburn. Most people have heard of the dangers caused by UV-rays, but it’s important to distinguish between UVA and UVB rays. UVB rays are the radiation that causes sunburns and does not penetrate the upper layer of skin (epidermis).  However UVA rays are much more dangerous because they can penetrate the upper layer and be absorbed in the middle layer of the skin (dermis), causing skin damage and the possibility of skin cancer. According to the Melanoma Education Foundation one blistering sunburn before the age of 20 doubles your lifetime risk of melanoma.  The foundation also says “skin damage from UV exposure is cumulative throughout your lifetime and cannot be reversed.” So it’s important to choose the sun protection that will most likely mitigate these unwanted problems.

How to stay safe

Staying safe is simple if you follow a few basic tips:

  • Apply sunscreen before exposing yourself to the sun.
  • Wear protective clothing like a hat and sunglasses.
  • When spending long amount of time in the sun, don’t forget to reapply sunscreen every two hours, even more often when sweating or swimming.
  • Use sunscreen that has at least SPF 15 in order to protect against sunburns, skin damage, and skin cancer.

Now get out there and enjoy the great summer weather!

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80iPEfwE80&feature=player_embedded]

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

By pyramid or by dishware, is one-size-fits-all the right approach? – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Alex Schneider, NCL Public Policy Intern

The two-decades old food pyramid is gone, replaced by a plate, bowl, and fork, with spoon and knife conspicuously absent.  Few will mourn the passing of the food pyramid, a relic of the days when no state had an obesity rate of more than 15 percent. Today, according to McClatchy, that rate is over 20 percent for every state except Colorado and Washington, D.C.

A 20-year history

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) introduced the food pyramid in the early 1990s and then revamped it in 2005. The concept of the original pyramid was that foods at the top of the structure – fatty and oily foods – should be eaten less than foods occupying more space at the bottom of the structure, such as grains, fruits, and vegetables. That concept was abandoned when the Bush administration unveiled its 2005 pyramid, which adhered to the old structure but, in hindsight, no longer made sense in the context of a pyramid.  The new model included adjacent triangles representing food groups, proportionally filling the front face of the pyramid just as food groups now fill the new food plate.

Critics pointed to various flaws, as described in a history of the pyramid published by the Washington Post. Unhealthy snacks were equated with good fats and oils, bacon and beef were equated with lean poultry, and white bread was equated with whole wheat. Plus, as the Post humorously notes, “the wide bottom layer of bread products contributed to the wide bottoms of bread-scarfing Americans.”

Let’s Move Campaign

The move toward the plate model is part of First Lady Michelle Obama’s campaign called “Let’s Move.”  The campaign focuses on stemming the rise in obesity in the US by empowering consumers with facts about what to eat and what to avoid. The plate highlights a shift in dietary recommendations favoring fruits and vegetables, as Obama explained, “As long as [plates are] half full of fruits and vegetables, and paired with lean proteins, whole grains and low-fat dairy, we’re golden. That’s how easy it is.”

Along with the plate, the USDA released guidelines on making healthy choices, guidelines that are key to educating consumers, giving concrete ideas on how to improve their diets.

–       Enjoy your food, but eat less

–       Avoid oversized portions

–       Make half your plate fruits and vegetables

–       Drink water instead of sugary drinks

–       Make at least half your grains whole grains

–       Switch to fat-free or low-fat (1 percent) milk

–       Compare sodium in foods like soup, bread, and frozen meals

Nutrition isn’t simple

For all the benefits of new USDA guidelines, one fact remains: nutrition isn’t a one-size-fits-all formula.  No two consumers have the same needs and tastes, and certainly, no two want the exact same foods on their plates all the time.

As a teaching tool, the new food plate is useful.  But it may be just too simple, generalizing that all food, regardless of nutrition facts, would be acceptable.  As an example, as highlighted in The Boston Globe, some dairy products are fattening and should not be consumed daily, while proteins vary widely in type and nutritional value and should not be grouped together.  And with no mention of beneficial dietary fats, such as olive oils, or dessert in general, the new model may just be unrealistic.

That’s why the guidelines that accompany the chart are even more important.  Consumers should take time to visit the USDA’s new website, https://www.choosemyplate.gov/, where they can learn about healthy choices.

Education is key

The National Consumers League led the fight for the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, a law that created the Food and Drug Administration and, as a result, led to a number of new safety and nutrition requirements. The FDA’s work includes ensuring that nutrition facts are accurate and clear, that food will not harm consumers, and that consumers know about what they are eating.  That important work continues today, work that must continue to hold food producers accountable for the safety of their products before they even get to our plates.

Perhaps the best kind of graphic, then, is one that emphasizes the FDA mandated nutrition facts label, the true indicator of what we should or should not eat.

Thankfully, the government’s already done that.  Now it’s time to stop reinventing the one-size-fits-all food groups model and instead focus on helping Americans distinguish good foods from bad ones in the supermarket aisle.