Not so sweet: Child labor in banana production

/in , , , , , /by

By Child Labor Coalition intern Ellie Murphy

Americans eat a lot of bananas. The U.S. is the world’s biggest importer of bananas, eating between 28 and 30 bananas per person per year. Worldwide, bananas are the most popular fruit with 100 billion consumed annually. The fruit is nutritious and cheap. Prices generally fluctuate between 30 cents and $1.00 per banana. It’s a great deal for the consumer, but someone is paying a heavy price to produce bananas: exploited farmworkers, including many children.
Stagnating banana prices have put the squeeze on farmers, leading some planters to hire the cheapest workers—children. The work is hard, often dangerous, and not fit for children. Yet they toil in the fields to help their impoverished families.

Countries that use child labor to produce bananas include Ecuador, Belize, Brazil, Nicaragua, and the Philippines, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (USDOL) List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor.

Poverty is the main driver of child labor, but children in the developing world face barriers to accessing education that can push them to farm work. Besides the cost of school, uniforms, and books, there are also some countries that don’t have enough schools, classrooms, or teachers. And transportation problems can impact children’s ability to attend school.

Child labor in the banana sector poses significant challenges to children’s health and overall well-being. Child workers employed at these plantations are often forced to handle sharp tools like machetes, carry heavy loads, and face exposure to agrochemicals like pesticides and fungicides without protective clothing or gear. Dizziness, nausea, and negative long-term health conditions can result in child workers, and because child workers often live on banana plantations, escaping these health hazards is nearly impossible.

Let’s take a closer look at Ecuador, the world’s top exporter of bananas.

A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report released in April 2002 found widespread labor and human rights abuses on Ecuadorian banana plantations. Children as young as eight were found performing hazardous work. “The use of harmful child labor is widespread in Ecuador’s banana sector,” concluded HRW. Report authors interviewed 45 child banana workers and found that 41 began working between eight and 13 with most starting at age 10 or 11. “Their average workday lasted twelve hours, and fewer than 40 percent of the children were still in school by the time they turned fourteen,” noted HRW. According to USDOL, almost half of indigenous children in rural areas do not attend school, “which can make them more vulnerable to child labor.

“In the course of their work, [child banana workers] were exposed to toxic pesticides, used sharp knives and machetes, hauled heavy loads of bananas, drank unsanitary water, and some were sexually harassed,” noted HRW.

Roughly 90 percent of the children HRW interviewed reported that they “continued working while toxic fungicides were sprayed from airplanes flying overhead. In an attempt to avoid harmful chemicals, children interviewed about their experience stated that they used various methods to avoid toxic chemicals: “hiding under banana leaves, bowing their heads, covering their faces with their shirts, covering their noses and mouths with their hands, and placing banana cartons on their heads.”

About one in 20 Ecuadorian children in the 5-14 age group work—and four in five of these child workers toil on farms, according to data from USDOL released in its 2019 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor (2019) report.

Clearly, child labor laws in Ecuador are not being adequately enforced. Alarmingly, according to the USDOL, funding for Ecuador’s labor inspectorate fell dramatically from $1.5 million in 2017 to $265,398 in 2018. During that time the number of inspectors increased from 150 to 249. There is no explanation provided for these conflicting numbers but USDOL did note there were fiscal pressures on the Ecuadorian government.

The 2002 HRW report cited many causes of child labor, including discrimination against unionized adult workers who earn higher wages. As a result, many workers who unionize are fired and replaced with children who earn around $3.50 per day, 60 percent of the minimum wage for banana farmers. “Ecuadorian law fails to protect effectively the right to freedom of association, and employers take advantage of the weak law and even weaker enforcement to impede worker organizing,” noted HRW.

Since the 2002 HRW report, Ecuador has raised the minimum age of employment to 15, banned children from hazardous work, and raised fines for employers hiring children.

In its 2019 child labor Findings report, USDOL noted that “in 2018, Ecuador made a significant advancement in efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.” One change involved better protecting unionized employees against discrimination so that children are not targeted for cheap labor. Ecuador has also created more social programs for children susceptible to child labor, including the “Lifetime Plan” that provides conditional cash transfers to vulnerable children from birth.

Despite the positive ranking for Ecuador, child labor in the banana sector continues to be prevalent in Ecuador.  Poverty and limited law enforcement make child labor an unfortunate reality for families.

Banana exporting companies often fail to address adequately child labor and hazardous working conditions in their supply chains. The big players –Dole, Del Monte, and Chiquita Fyffes—need to do more if we are to end child labor in banana production. Dole claims to prohibit child labor stating that “[it prohibits] any people younger than 18 from being hired or employed in *any form.” Yet, child labor in the sector flourishes in at least five of the major exporting countries, according to USDOL.

In its Findings report, USDOL makes a number of recommendations to help reduce child labor in Ecuador, including a call for a new national child labor survey, added funding to hire more labor inspectors, and social programs in rural farm areas and informal sectors. USDOL also suggests “removing school-related fees, increasing classroom space, and providing adequate transportation.” These modifications will specifically help children living in rural areas such as migrant children and indigenous children stay in school.

Concerted efforts by the Ecuadorian government and multinational banana exporters are needed if child labor is to be reduced.

Consumers have a part to play in the solution as well. The Food Empowerment Project advises consumers to buy bananas produced with less exploitation. They recommend buying from Equal Exchange. Bananas from small farmer-owned cooperatives are available in some parts of the United States. Look for bananas from Coliman, Earth University, and Organics Unlimited/Grow. “If your grocery stores do not carry these brands of bananas, we encourage you to ask them to,” says the Food Empowerment Project.

Consumers should make their voices heard: the sweetest banana is a child-labor-free banana.

Ellie Murphy is a rising junior at Tufts University, majoring in International Relations and Sociology.

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

Mail-in and absentee voting during COVID-19

/in , , , , /by

By NCL Executive Assistant Adrienne Archer

The National Consumers League (NCL) wants consumers to know that voting by mail or absentee ballot during the COVID-19 pandemic is safe. Due to conflicting information being shared by the media, and federal, state and local governments, it can be difficult to determine how best to vote. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a voter should always focus on keeping themselves and their family safe and healthy. Whether voting by mail-in or absentee ballot, it’s important to have a plan. However, due to the variety of challenges posed by the pandemic, it might be difficult to keep up with the changes or updates to a state’s voting guidelines. Voters should contact their local elections office.

Many states and the District of Columbia have made it easier to vote early by mail or by absentee ballot. In the past, voters needed a reason why they couldn’t vote in person. National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) has resources for on *state laws governing voting across the U.S. To know exactly when to vote in your state, contact your local elections office. USA.gov also offers information on the time frames for early or absentee voting.

All states will offer a form of mail-in voting and some states will make it more accessible to vote than others. Some states are still crafting legislation to make it easier for people to vote by mail or absentee ballot. The New York state legislature passed three bills allowing voters to request an absentee ballot or mail-in ballot because of COVID-19 fears. One of the bills allows for absentee ballots to be postmarked as late as election day and still be counted.

Government officials have noted possible instances of voter fraud. Some states have voiced concerns that mail-in ballots can easily be stolen, altered, or forged. Voters worry that they will not receive their ballot in time to vote. Congress is worried that the increase in mail will overwhelm the United States Postal Service (USPS) and delay the delivery of ballots. To add to the problems, the U.S. Postmaster General has made budget cuts to the USPS, dismantled machines, collected mailboxes, and reduced mail services causing consumers to worry that the USPS will not be able to process the increase in mail. Disability advocates want to ensure that mail-in voting will not be more difficult for voters with disabilities to exercise their right to vote.

Voting by mail is a safe option: it increases the overall voter response in the election. Even with these challenges to voting, military members and older Americans have been always encouraged to vote absentee. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has provided *recommendations for people to handle mail-in ballots safely when they are received. In response to consumer requests, the USPS has created a website to help voters ensure that they can receive and return their ballot safely. Also, voters should remember that the main goal of voting during this pandemic is to safely cast their votes.

Americans voting from abroad, or in the military should be aware of the following: potential delays with sending and receiving mail, possible embassy closures due to COVID-19, and ensuring that their personal address is updated with his or her state. Americans abroad should request a ballot immediately from the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s website and check with their local U.S. polling place for instructions on receiving and returning the ballot. Most states permit Americans abroad to request a ballot via email with the caveat that a completed ballot should be returned by well before the November 3rd deadline via postal mail. Under Federal law, ballots should be requested by overseas military voters by September 19th (at least 45 days before the election). The Military Postal Agency has a list of recommended mailing dates. After individuals have returned their ballot, they should be sure to contact their local elections office to ensure that their ballot was received or if they have any questions.

Voting by mail has always been a good way to ensure access to those with disabilities. The American Civil Liberties Union has guidelines to improve accessibility to persons with disabilities. They suggest voters with a disability should receive ballots electronically so they can vote from the safety of their homes. Voters could indicate their candidate on the ballot by using accessibility features on his or her device. Then the ballot should be printed and mailed to his or her local polling place. Some states require witnesses or notarization on the ballot envelope. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wants to dispense with this requirement. Election poll workers should receive training on accessible voting options and how to respectfully interact with voters with a disability. Lastly, every state should raise awareness about accessible voting options.

In summary, to effectively vote by mail or absentee ballot during the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Consumers League suggests these steps:

  1. Create a plan for voting by mail or via absentee ballot.
  2. Check your local polling office to ensure that it has your correct mailing address and you are eligible to vote in the upcoming election.
  3. Request your absentee or mail-in ballot NOW, well before the deadline of October 3rd (45 days before the election) from your local polling office.
  4. If voting from abroad or in the military, allow for extra time to request and receive your ballot.
  5. If you have a disability, every state has in place accommodations so you may vote safely and effectively. If you have questions, please contact your local polling place early so they may be resolved.
  6. When you get your ballot, review the instructions for completing and returning it. If you have questions, contact your local polling office for guidance.
  7. Mail-in your ballot immediately, in advance of your state’s deadline, allowing for time for it to be reviewed and counted.

Above all, vote, vote, vote!

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

Labor Day 2020 sees highest approval ratings for unions since 2003

/in , , /by

Happy Labor Day everyone! The breaking news about this year’s Labor Day Celebrations is that a cross-section of Americans support labor unions in higher numbers. In fact, a recent Gallup poll found that 65 percent approve of unions, compared to just 49 percent in 2009. Today, 83 percent of Democrats support unions, while 64 percent of independents do and 45 percent of Republicans do. That’s telling news about how Americans perceive the value of labor unions.

Why has support for unions gone up? Because unions provide a voice for workers on health care, workplace safety, economic security, and decent wages—something all Americans want and need. Last week NCL asked our union representatives on our Board of Directors to join us for a discussion on COVID-19 and the importance of unions. You can watch the broadcast here: COVID-19: The inside perspective from frontline workers and their unions.

We are also pleased that State Attorneys General are playing an increasingly important part in protecting workers from wage theft and enforcing the law against errant employers.

NCL’s John Breyault has had four interviews with state AG’s in the past several months, focused on fraud and other related issues. The NCL Board and staff support stronger AG action in the coming months, and our work on this issue truly makes NCL’s mission #NeverMoreRelevant in these changing times.

This 2020 Labor Day, we want to thank the many millions of American workers who have showed up each day for work, risked their health and well-being to do their jobs during this very challenging pandemic. With support for unions on the rise, let us commit to reforming labor laws and allowing workers to organize and join unions without undue influence or scare tactics from employers. The rates of union membership should be far higher and would be but for the barriers in place. Once again, to America’s workers we say: stay safe and stay healthy this 2020 Labor Day.

Jeanette Contreras portrait

FDA Emergency Use Authorizations and public trust for COVID-19 treatments

/in , , , , /by

By NCL Director of Health Policy Jeanette Contreras

There has never been a more critical time for consumers to have confidence in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA is charged with ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of the drugs, biologic products, and medical devices needed to treat and prevent the spread of COVID-19. The agency has undergone scrutiny from the scientific community for issuing Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 treatments and diagnostics that appeared to be politically motivated.

On August 23, the FDA issued an EUA for the use of an investigational convalescent plasma to treat patients with COVID-19, touting it as yet another achievement in the Administration’s fight against the pandemic. After just two days of backlash from the scientific community, FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn, took to Twitter to concede his mistake, admitting that the criticism was justified. Commissioner Hahn stated that the EUA is not the final FDA approval and that the agency would revoke authorization if needed. Criticism included former FDA Commissioners who stand by randomized clinical trial as the gold standard for evidence-based medicine.

This renowned round of criticism has come not long after the FDA provided EUA for hydroxychloroquine in March which it revoked in July after further review proved that it lacked efficacy.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides the FDA Commissioner with the authority to issue EUAs for unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of medical products in response to a public health emergency, such as the current pandemic. An EUA can be revoked when new evidence emerges and the risk no longer outweighs the benefit of the unapproved use of a drug or product, yet the Trump Administration claimed that it was revoked due to political reasons.

Since February, when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared the pandemic a public health emergency, the FDA has exercised its authority to issue hundreds of EUAs for diagnostic tests, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and other medical devices to combat COVID-19. In August alone, the FDA revoked EUAs for over 100 diagnostic tests, including antibody and rapid tests. The FDA recognizes that EUA is not intended to replace randomized clinical trials and that clinical trials are critically important for the definitive demonstration of safety and efficacy of a drug, treatment, or product.

Throughout the pandemic, consumers have received conflicting information from the Administration on various COVID-19 treatments, testing products, and safety recommendations. After witnessing the media controversy over EUAs for hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma, we are concerned that consumers may believe that the FDA is hastily approving investigational tests and drugs for political gain. The FDA, now more than ever, needs to reestablish public trust as it proceeds to fast track the approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Be wary of bad hand sanitizers

/in , , , , /by

By NCL Executive Assistant Adrienne Archer

Hand sanitizers help protect and prevent the spread of COVID-19 when soap and water are not readily available. When the coronavirus first emerged, demand for hand sanitizers soared. Stores were unable to maintain ample inventory, resulting in rampant hoarding and price gouging. Essential workers that desperately needed hand sanitizer couldn’t get them, prompting some companies to start making sanitizers that originally did not produce them (i.e. distilleries, cosmetic companies, etc.)

Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) require hand sanitizer to have at least 60 percent ethanol (ethyl alcohol) in order for it to be effective. The CDC does not encourage members of the public to make hand sanitizer for individual use.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has observed a sharp increase in those that, in addition to ethanol, also contain methanol—an ingredient that can be toxic when absorbed through the skin and can be fatal when ingested. Children and adults ingesting certain sanitizers led to blindness, hospitalizations, and even death.

Extended exposure to methanol can cause nausea, vomiting, seizures, permanent blindness, or death. The FDA has also found sanitizers with 1-propanol are also harmful. Accidental ingestions can cause central nervous system depression or death. Consumers that may have been exposed to hand sanitizers containing methanol or 1-propanol should seek medical attention immediately.

The FDA recently updated its *guidelines on temporary policies about testing hand sanitizers to determine methanol levels. As companies produce hand sanitizers, they should frequently test to ensure that methanol is not created as a byproduct of either ethanol or isopropyl alcohol. The testing should be performed by an FDA inspected lab to ensure that it has met current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) standards. CGMP ensures the proper design, monitoring, and control of manufacturing processes and facilities. If alcohol (ethanol) has been found to contain more than 630 parts per million of methanol, it is contaminated and should be disposed of in hazardous waste containers. This *guidance serves to help state-licensed pharmacies and outsourcing facilities report any incidents. The FDA has guidelines for an additional deterrent formula of alcohol to prevent children from ingesting them.

Consumers should also be cautious of false claims that hand sanitizers provide prolonged protection against COVID-19. Carefully inspect any purchased hand sanitizers to see if methanol or 1-propanol is listed.

FDA maintains a current list of hand sanitizers that are not recommended. As consumers review the list, they should compare the manufacturer name, product name, and National Drug Code (NDC) # on the hand sanitizer. If you find a product on the list, dispose of it immediately in a hazardous waste container and NOT down the drain.

The FDA encourages health professionals, consumers, and patients to report adverse effects and problems to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program. Questions can be emailed to COVID-19-HandSanitizers@FHA.nns.gov. The FDA has also created a quiz to test consumer’s knowledge about hand sanitizers and a Q&A section on hand sanitizers and COVID-19 to keep consumers informed.

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

‘Should I stay or should I go?’ How the pandemic has affected higher education

/in , , , , , , /by

By NCL Health Policy intern Talia Zitner

Every morning, I wake up with a new decision to make. Am I going back to campus? Or am I spending the Fall semester taking online classes from the comfort of my childhood bedroom? I’m a rising sophomore at Wesleyan University, and to add insult to injury, I’m also an incoming transfer student. My internal debate about going back to school is near-constant, and despite weighing the pros and cons of each, I still can’t seem to come to a comfortable conclusion.

Around the country, colleges and students are faced with this same, nearly impossible challenge. If schools can’t or won’t open in the fall, they risk closing forever without tuition money. If they do allow students to come back to campus, and an outbreak occurs, they put students, professors, faculty, staff, their families, and the greater community at risk. Students rely on colleges to be their home away from home, a place where they can work and learn in a structured, safe, and healthy environment, not to mention the social benefits.

Consequently, coming back to campus poses a serious financial and ethical question. Like anything else, college and higher education is a business. Consumers want to get the most for their money, and the colleges and universities need consumers to engage to have a sustainable business model. The pandemic has shifted the conversation in many areas of life, higher education included.

This issue is especially complicated because it can be broken down from multiple perspectives. For example, an economic point of view argues that colleges are only re-opening because they need the money. Like many other businesses, they stay open because they have no other choice. Without the money generated through tuition and other forms of revenue like donation and state funding, it would take years for schools to recover from the impact of COVID. But college is a substantial investment for families. Why should consumers be expected to pay full (or reduced) tuition for an experience that is more like a monastery than college? Will the investment really be worth it if schools are simply shut down again because of an outbreak at a campus party?

On the other hand, if students aren’t in school come fall semester, what else would they be doing? Most students are hard-pressed to find a job or internship that’s worth taking a semester off for in this environment. And time off may push back a student’s graduation time, putting them behind the rest of their peers. For very legitimate reasons, students want to come to campus and keep their college experience intact.

This seems to be where my own expectations fall. I have no idea if the situation will improve between now and the spring semester. To me, the only course of action is to enjoy the experience that I will have, even if it means wearing a mask.

Talia is a Washington, DC native and a rising sophomore at Wesleyan University, where she is studying English. Beyond health policy, Talia’s interests are in journalism, law, and social justice.

How you should respond to the security threat likely inside your computer

/in , , , , /by

Nearly two years ago, researchers revealed flaws in the chips of virtually every computer made since the mid-1990’s. The flaws—primarily found in Intel’s chips—create a vulnerability that can be exploited by allowing hackers to obtain unauthorized access to privileged information.


Since the initial exploits were first exposed, new versions have continued to be discovered—the most recent of which was found this past November. While software “fixes” have been released, they tend to reduce the speed and performance of computers—as much as 40 percent, according to some reports. In addition, since the flaw is hardware-based, the “fix” is only good until the next exploit is discovered.

At the time of the discovery of one of the “worst CPU bugs ever found,” there was significant alarm expressed in the news as well as across the cybersecurity community. Since that time, public attention has waned. Unfortunately, the problem has only grown worse. And while there has been considerable discussion of the impact these flaws have on businesses, the impact on consumers has been somewhat overlooked.

That’s why NCL’s #DataInsecurity Project recently released a paper detailing the threat that these bugs—with scary names like Meltdown, Spectre, and Zombieload—pose to consumers, their data, and the performance of their computers.

Every organization or individual running a server or computer with affected hardware should take action to protect themselves. Unfortunately, consumers are less likely to know what to do or have the resources to do it, leaving them more exposed.

For example, consumers are more likely to be running older or outdated software. Consumers are also likely to keep their computers much longer than a business, making their hardware older as well. The way these flaws work, older hardware generally sees a greater slowdown when the security patches are applied.

Additionally, the small businesses that consumers interact with may also be running “legacy” hardware or software. These businesses may not be able to afford the high cost of additional servers to offset the speed loss from the patches or of entirely replacing old systems. This difficult choice for small businesses could mean that some decide against applying patches – with potentially severe consequences for consumers’ data security.

Google has taken preemptive steps to protect consumers, but it also warned that as a result of these security measures, “some users may notice slower performance with some apps and games.” Apple, conversely, has offered software patches but left other security measures as an “opt-in” for consumers.

So, while consumers may not face the same type of risk as businesses, they do face a lot of challenges when it comes to addressing these exploits. Consumers already live in a heightened threat environment, filled with phishing emails and computer viruses. They shouldn’t have to choose between the security of their data or the performance of their computers.

To learn more about these issues and the best way to protect yourself, you can find NCL’s white paper here.

Understand the opioid epidemic and protect yourselves and loved ones

/in , , , , /by

Knowing the rights, risks and responsibilities of prescription opioid use is an important first step to addressing the opioid epidemic. Whether you are taking medication to treat pain, or have friends or family members who have been prescribed opioids, knowing the facts can help prevent misuse before it occurs.

NCL recently partnered with the Allied Against Opioid Abuse (AAOA) to create a new batch of resources to help educate consumers about prescription opioid safety. The new Consumer Toolkit includes educational materials to help reinforce the need for patients, caregivers, parents, and others to understand their rights, risks, and responsibilities associated with prescription opioid use.

Prescription opioids are medications prescribed by healthcare providers to treat moderate to severe pain for health conditions that cause ongoing discomfort as well as for pain following surgery or injury. Common prescription opioids include:

  • Oxycodone
  • Morphine
  • Hydrocodone
  • Oxymorphone
  • Codeine
  • Fentanyl

If you are not sure if your medicine is an opioid, check your prescription labels to look for generic names. The National Safety Council also provides a helpful chart of medicines that contain opioids. You should always ask your healthcare provider or pharmacist if you are not able to find the name or have questions.

Watch for risk factors associated with prescription opioids, including:

  • Mixing opioids with other medications, drugs, nutritional supplements or alcohol
  • Taking more than prescribed
  • Taking a high daily dose of opioids
  • Certain conditions such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, HIV, sleep apnea, or liver or lung disease
  • Pregnancy
  • Older age
  • Family history of substance abuse

Let your doctor know if you or your loved ones have any of these risk factors before filling any opioid prescription.

“Opioid misuse often starts in the home, so safe storage and disposal are key to prevention,” said Sally Greenberg, executive director of NCL. “Make sure that prescription opioids are stored securely and remember to properly dispose of all unused prescription opioids as soon as possible.”

AAOA offers a safe disposal locator for you to find a place to safety get rid of your unused medications. Find details on safe disposal options *here.

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

Consumers for Safe CBD is working to protect, educate Americans

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

As America’s premier consumer advocacy organization, with a rich history of fighting to make the marketplace fair, safe, and healthy for consumers, NCL is hard at work on the most important issues in food and drug safety and to collaborate on improving consumer education.

In recent years, NCL has been observing the CBD, or cannabidiol, marketplace exploding, with products lining shelves of grocery stores, specialty shops—even gas stations. Products were appearing to make many claims or hint at miracle cures, and most consumers had no idea how or whether the products were being regulated. Who is making sure these tinctures, oils, gummies, and lotions are safe, and do they do what they claim?

This is why last year, NCL joined forces with the Consumer Federation of America and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, to create a national campaign called *Consumers for Safe CBD.

NCL had identified a serious need for greater education among consumers about CBD, and that’s why Consumers for Safe CBD was created. Consumers for Safe CBD aims to help educate the public about the risks related to untested, unapproved CBD products on the market, champion the rights of consumers, and call on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and industry to do better to ensure safety and promote a pathway for new products through clinically tested scientific research.

“Cannabidiol, commonly referred to as CBD, is being used in a growing number of consumer products and is illegally sold in stores and on the Internet,” said NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg. “We’re working to educate consumers and ensure accurate labeling, clear guidelines, and further research to protect against unknown and known risks of CBD products.”

NCL and its partners continue to raise awareness among consumers, policymakers, and regulators about the health risks associated with the unregulated CBD marketplace, in particular with the unproven health claims and often inaccurate labeling of products on the market today. Beyond the known health risks associated with unregulated CBD, there are a number of unscrupulous marketing tactics that prey on unsuspecting consumers. This includes false and dangerous claims that CBD has medical benefits that can prevent and stop the spread of the COVID-19.

By warning consumers about these false claims, participating in media interviews and publishing op-eds across the country, highlighting important research and reports, and sending letters to several retailers, state Attorneys General and Members of Congress, the campaign is working to protect consumers across the country from unapproved and potentially dangerous CBD products.

“We need to better understand the potential health benefits of CBD, but this can only be accomplished through clinical testing and scientifically validated methodologies,” said Greenberg. “We need the FDA to step up for consumers and for the public health.”

The time for action is now. CLICK HERE for more information about the Consumers for Safe CBD effort.

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

Reopening the economy prematurely has dire consequences for states

/in , , , , , , , /by

By NCL Health Policy intern Talia Zitner

The past month has seen a serious surge in reported coronavirus cases in the United States. It seems the virus is going to be with us for a while. Of states where COVID is spiking, the majority are in the South, many of which had ambitious reopening plans that are now being reconsidered.

Three of these states—Texas, Florida, and Arizona—have current surges. All three pushed to reopen their economies early in an attempt to “return to normal.” The current deluge in cases that resulted was due to a lack of continuing stay-at-home order and a failure to require masks.

Texas officially started Phase 1 of its reopening plan on May 1, but—as of June 26—had to retract much of the opening that it had started. In total, Texas was only able to reopen the state for 55 days. As of July 27, Texas has seen an average of 8,089 new cases of the coronavirus over a seven-day period. Compared to cases in April, when there were 814, this is astounding. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has since ordered everyone to start wearing face masks and has limited the size of public gatherings.

It does not appear that Texas will shut down again, however. As the governor said, “we need to refocus on slowing the spread, but this time we want to do it without closing down Texas again.” Although it is an issue of public health, the issuance of a statewide masking policy and the staggered re-opening of the economy has become a matter of contention across party lines. Some residents find the Governor’s actions to be inadequate, and others feel as if the newly implemented precautions impede their personal liberties.

Florida and Arizona are not faring much better. As of April, Florida had 1,027 cases reported. In July, it was 6,563. Florida started its reopening plan on May 4 and entered into Phase 2 on June 5. Clearly, cases have surged.

Earlier this week, Florida reported 8,892 new COVID-19 cases. Like Texas, there seems to be a mixed reaction among Florida representatives to slow the spread of the virus. Senator Rick Scott (R) has been vocal about his intentions for Florida, and it appears the state will not roll back any of its reopening course. As Senator Scott put it a couple of months ago, “wearing a mask is a choice you get to make.”

Like Texas and Florida, Arizona is hurting badly, with only 115 in April surging to 4,753 cases in July. Arizona’s stay-at-home order lasted until May 15, and was replaced by the new Stay Healthy, Return Smarter, Return Stronger Executive Order, on May 16. When Arizona first reopened, Governor Doug Ducey did not require residents to wear face masks, but as the case numbers increased, he allowed local governments to set their own masking policies. As of July 1, officials said that Arizona saw the *highest rate of new cases in the entire country.

Many public officials are starting to realize opening too soon was foolhardy and has spread the virus. New revelations by scientists show the virus can actually be airborne, urging those to take indoor transmission more seriously. The virus is also proving to be more of a blood vessel disease than solely a respiratory one, which may lead to long-term impacts that doctors are still learning about.

There’s one takeaway here: following the example of states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona is not recommended. The more seriously states take this crisis the better, and the sooner the entire country will be able to move towards a newer, safer “normal”.

Talia is a Washington, DC native and a rising sophomore at Wesleyan University, where she is studying English. Beyond health policy, Talia’s interests are in journalism, law, and social justice.

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