Understanding the rapidly emerging disease, Coronavirus

/in , , , /by

Nissa Shaffi

On January 30, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated the Coronavirus as a global health emergency. The virus first emerged from a seafood and poultry market in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China, in December 2019. Since then, it has paralyzed several cities around the world, metastasizing into a global public health and economic crisis.

Coronavirus, officially renamed COVID-19 by WHO, is a member of a large *family of viruses that can cause illnesses ranging from the common cold to more severe, life-threatening conditions. Coronaviruses are transmitted between animals and people (zoonotic). There have been only two prior coronaviruses that have exhibited zoonotic transmission, which include the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Secure Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

COVID-19 is a *novel coronavirus that has not previously presented in humans. With nearly 80,000 confirmed cases across 37 countries—which resulted in over 2,700 deaths—WHO warns that COVID-19 is likely to become a global pandemic. Nancy Messonnier, director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, cautioned that the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. is inevitable and could cause severe disruptions to everyday life.

Here’s what you need to know about COVID-19 

Risk Factors

Based on surveillance of COVID-19 thus far, it appears that the virus is nondiscriminatory, and *anyone could be at risk for contracting the virus.

Symptoms

According to the CDC, the *incubation period for COVID-19 may range from two to 14 days, and symptoms include high fever, cough, and shortness of breath. In more *severe cases, the virus develops into pneumonia, which presents the most danger.

Transmission

The method of transmission is suspected to be from person to person via droplets resulting from breathing, coughing, or sneezing. The virus is also suspected to be transmitted via contaminated surfaces. WHO recommends maintaining a distance of at least one meter (three feet) between yourself and anyone who presents the symptoms mentioned above.

Precautions

WHO recommends regular hand washing with either an alcohol-based gel or soap and water to prevent the spread of infection. Individuals should also cover their mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing and should avoid close contact with anyone showing similar symptoms of respiratory illness. Additionally, while getting the *flu shot cannot protect you from contracting COVID-19, it does protect you from the flu, a condition that has a far higher mortality rate than COVID-19.

Travel

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has advised that older and at-risk travelers limit travel to Japan, Italy, and Iran, where the disease is rapidly gaining ground. CDC has also explicitly advised against all non-essential travel to South Korea and China. For more information on CDC’s travel advisories, please click here.

Although the rapid spread of the disease is concerning, the promising news is that the number of new cases in China has dropped–indicating that aggressive interventions deployed by health officials in the region are working. While there are international efforts underway to develop treatments for COVID-19, there is currently *no vaccine to prevent the disease. According to the CDC, the best way to prevent contracting the virus is to avoid exposure. For more information on prevention against COVID-19, click *here and here.

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

Florence Kelley and women’s suffrage at the National Archives

/in , , , , , , /by

Today the National Consumers League staff is visiting the exhibit at the National Archives entitled Rightfully Hers: American Women and the Vote. As many are aware, 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of women’s right to vote in the United States. In 1920, American democracy dramatically expanded when the newly ratified 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the states from denying the vote on the basis of sex.  

As the exhibit notes, “The U.S. Constitution as drafted in 1787 did not specify eligibility requirements for voting. It left that power to the states. Subsequent constitutional amendments and Federal laws have gradually restricted states’ power to decide who votes. But before 1920, the only constitutional restriction prohibited states from barring voters on the basis of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude. States’ power to determine voter eligibility made the struggle for women’s voting rights a piecemeal process.” So the 19th Amendment was critically important because we no longer had to rely on states to grant women the right to vote. It became mandatory.

The National Consumers League, led by the towering reformer Florence Kelley, was a leading voice for women’s suffrage long before ratification of the 19th Amendment. In February 1898, Kelley wrote a paper entitled “The Working Woman’s Need of the Ballot,” which was read at hearings on “the philosophy of the [women’s suffrage] movement.

As Kathryn Kish Sklar points out in her biography of Kelley – Florence Kelley and the Nation’s Work, conducted by the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Women’s Suffrage: “No one needs all the powers of the fullest citizenship more urgently than the wage-earning woman …. Since she was “cut off from the protection awarded to her sisters abroad” but had no power “to defend her interests at the polls.” Kelley argued this impaired her standing in the community and lowered “her value as a human being and consequently as a worker.”

Florence Kelley and her fellow Progressive Era reformers led the fight for women’s suffrage in speeches, reports, and testimony before Congress. We thank them for their bravery and refusal to back down in the face of brutal opposition from many forces and we celebrate with them this 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment as we enjoy and take in all that this exhibit has to offer. Thanks to the National Archives and our dear friend Professor Robyn Muncy of the University of Maryland, who co-curated the exhibit with the Archives’ Corinne Porter.

Capitol Hill briefing alerts lawmakers to public health ramifications of CBD proliferation

/in , , , , , /by

Lawmakers need to be aware of the threats to public health posed by the proliferation of unregulated, untested CBD products currently widely available in the marketplace. There is a great deal of work to be done in Washington to better understand the healing potential of CBD, while also protecting consumers from the dangers of what is currently an anything-goes market environment.

That was the compelling message participants took from a congressional staff briefing last week on “The Future of Cannabis as a Drug.” Expert speakers, including National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg, issued a two-pronged call for action: to intensify clinical research into new medical treatments containing CBD, while encouraging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to proactively regulate non-medical, over-the-counter CBD products that are frequently mislabeled and contain potentially harmful ingredients.

The briefing featured opening remarks by U.S. Representatives Scott Peters (D-CA) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and was moderated by Ron Manderscheid, Executive Director of the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors and the National Association for Rural Mental Health. “We would like to have more understanding and more confidence in CBD products,” Rep. Peters explained. “You should know what you’re getting”.

Attendees received eye-opening data about the ways in which readily-available CBD products—sold in the form of oils, lotions, food additives, and more—have the potential to make consumers ill. Few realize, for example, that an independent study found 70 percent of the top-selling CBD products contain substances such as pesticides, arsenic, and toxic mold.

NCL’s Greenberg previewed upcoming academic research that will place a spotlight on the questionable science being utilized by CBD and cannabis companies, often in partnership with academia, to lend legitimacy to these products and short-cut the regulatory approval process. “Not only are these products untested, but they are inaccurately labeled,” said Greenberg. “We want FDA to do what it’s supposed to do, and what we as consumers expect it to do.”

NCL launched Consumers for Safe CBD to warn the public of the potential health and safety risks associated with unregulated and unlawfully marketed CBD products.

Susan Audino, a board member of the Center for Research on Environmental Medicine in Maryland, shared her findings on the lack of quality controls currently in the CBD marketplace and how product marketing is accelerating faster than the science used to substantiate claims of enhanced health and well-being. “We even trust McDonald’s to inform us of the number of calories in a Big Mac,” said Audino. “When it comes to cannabis, we are not afforded that same safety and assurance.”

James Werline, a pharmacist and the father of a daughter with a severe form of epilepsy, spoke to the promise and importance of CBD-related research. The only CBD medication currently approved by the FDA is used to prevent seizures caused by rare forms of childhood epilepsy. Angelique Lee-Rowley, Vice President, Global Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer at Greenwich Biosciences, discussed the importance of clinical research into new CBD treatments and shed light on the restrictions pharmaceutical companies have in educating consumers on product efficacy versus the retail and online marketers who have few boundaries in the claims they can make.

“We are on the verge of a major breakthrough,” said Rep. McMorris Rogers. “We want to be encouraging those breakthroughs. I am committed to helping with those developments.”

The briefing served to alert congressional staff to the seriousness of this issue. By 2022, the CBD marketplace is expected to reach $1.8 billion in sales, more than triple what it was just four years earlier. As the commerce expands, so do—without adequate consumer protections—the threats to health and safety.

Enough is enough! It’s time for the FTC to protect consumers from deceptive automatic renewal clauses

/in , , , , /by

Brian Young

If you’re like most Americans ,you have probably had a bad experience with an automatic renewal or—as they are sometimes referred to—a negative option clause. Regardless of the name they go by, these clauses cause contracts and subscriptions (ranging from equipment leases to gym memberships) to renew if a consumer fails to cancel the contract. Unfortunately for consumers, these clauses are increasingly being slipped into the fine print of contracts or misleadingly disclosed to customers during the checkout process.  

Some companies take this practice a step further by offering a free or low-fee trials to a customer only to later lock them into an expensive and lengthy contract without obtaining their informed consent. One survey found that this has happened to 59 percent of consumers, and that number appears to be growing. A Better Business Bureau study of FTC complaint data found that complaints about free trials doubled between 2015 and 2017. With the average loss rates for deceptive free trials reaching $186 per incident, it is clear that action is sorely needed.

While states like California and the District of Columbia have taken steps to protect their residents from these disreputable “gotcha” clauses, a majority of Americans still lack adequate protections. Some businesses will not only utilize deceptive negative option clauses, but also place unnecessary barriers in the cancelation process to prevent consumers from managing or canceling their subscriptions and contracts. Indeed, nearly 42 percent of Americans have complained about the difficulty companies have created  in the cancellation process.

Thankfully, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is finally considering improving consumer protections in this space. While the FTC already offers a few modest protections through laws and regulations like the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA), a series of loopholes exist, allowing companies to mask rate hikes, roll consumers into lengthy trials without their informed consent, and hide these clauses in the fine print.

To help encourage the FTC to require meaningful protections, NCL recently filed a comment letter urging the Commission to:

  • Require clear and conspicuous disclosure of any automatic renewal clause, regardless of where or how the consumer enters into it;
  • Require companies to provide meaningful notifications prior to any contract or subscription renewal;
  • Ensure that businesses receive a consumer’s consent for their free or low-fee trial to be rolled over into a contract; and
  • End the practice of businesses making it difficult for consumers to amend, manage, or cancel their subscription.

NCL believes that the FTC has a real opportunity to extend long overdue automatic renewal protections to all Americans. As more companies incorporate the use of negative option clauses in their contracts, consumers need meaningful notifications and protections that ensure that they remain in control of their financial decisions. A strong FTC negative option rule will ensure that businesses compete over quality and price, not over who can create the most painful cancellation procedures or earn the most revenue by slamming consumers with unexpected and costly contracts. The time is now for the FTC to act.

Read NCL’s full comment filing here (PDF).

How consumers must respond to the security threat inside nearly every 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.

CBD is not the cure for whatever ails you

/in , , , /by

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve surely seen the dozens of ‘miraculous’ CBD products available today. Health food stores, pet supply stores, gas stations, and even your neighborhood pharmacy and grocery stores are carrying a plethora of CBD-infused products. CBD is included in everything from lotions and oils, beauty products, pet treats, and “tampons.” You can buy CBD-infused workout clothing and even take CBD yoga classes.

CBD, or cannabidiol, is a compound found in cannabis and derived from the hemp plant. After the passage of the Farm Bill, CBD is now legal and CBD products are marketed as having little or no THC, the primary psychoactive element in marijuana. However, under the bill, these products may lawfully contain as much as 0.3 percent THC, which is enough to produce intoxication or a positive result on a drug test, which has led to many workers unwittingly losing their jobs.

Sales of products containing CBD have exploded in recent years. In 2018, Americans purchased $500 million in products containing CBD. By 2022, that amount is expected to more than triple to reach $1.8 billion nationwide.

Consumers, take note! Illegal marketing of these products include unsubstantiated health claims as innocuous as offering “a higher sense of well-being” to the extreme claims of therapeutic benefits such as treating Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, or AIDS. 

Our concern is that most CBD products on the shelves today fail to meet the safety standards we have come to expect:

  • Most have not been scientifically tested for safety and efficacy.
  • CBD product labels aren’t accurate in lists of ingredients and potency.
  • The purity and potency of ingredients in most CBD products have not been verified by reliable third parties.

Without these safeguards, consumers may be using these products or offering them to their children and pets with blindfolds on.

Exaggerated claims of unproven benefits are nothing new, but with the legalization of CBD, there’s a new explosion of untested products that demand attention from regulators. CBD could be key to the development of many new treatments and therapies. One indication is the success of the first FDA-approved drug containing CBD in controlling two types of rare, childhood-onset seizures. However, without better regulation and enforcement, unsafe dosages of CBD and the use of adulterated products make for a minefield of consumer caveat emptor.

Clinical studies have demonstrated potential risks of CBD, including liver toxicity, fatigue, and harmful interactions with other drugs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently begun to take action. In October, it issued a strongly worded advisory discouraging pregnant and breastfeeding mothers from using CBD products. It also recently warned a Florida company that was illegally selling unapproved products containing CBD online with unsubstantiated claims that the products treat teething pain and earaches in infants, autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), among other conditions or diseases. We welcome that action by the FDA, and we want to see it doing more.

Advocates recognize the dangers for consumers and we are mobilizing. Earlier this month, National Consumers League (NCL) staff presented at a roundtable discussion of consumers and other partners about FDA’s authority to protect consumers via product testing and regulation of product marketing. The discussion allowed further sharing of information and identified opportunities to bring commonsense changes to the marketplace.

Consumers need access to good information about CBD, how to understand concentration levels in products, and the products’ risks. The FDA should take a more active role as a regulatory agency overseeing products that make health benefit claims. Our regulators should help consumers understand the difference between FDA-approved medicines and consumer products, including a definition of a safe level of CBD.

We welcome the potential that CBD has to offer new therapies and treatments, but the products in the marketplace must be safe and proven effective with hard science. NCL is committed to doing its part to help protect and educate consumers.

Computer chip defects force consumers to choose between speed and security

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

October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month! Since the first observation of this month 15 years ago, the world has gone from about 800 million Internet users to approximately 4.5 billion. Over that same period of time, there has been an extensive amount of time and energy dedicated to improving cybersecurity and cyber hygiene.

Sadly, despite those good faith efforts, it does not appear that consumers have become safer. In fact, it is clear by now that most individuals have, in one way or another, been affected by some sort of hack or data breach—either on a personal computer or through a company that they have entrusted with their sensitive information.

To make matters worse, beyond the heightened cyber threat environment that exists today, a new hardware-based vulnerability found in almost every processor in the world has recently emerged, and it is making it increasingly difficult for consumers to keep their data protected.

A new report released by the National Consumers League’s #DataInsecurity Project, “Data Insecurity: How One of the Worst Computer Defects Ever Sacrificed Security for Speed,” discusses the threat these processor flaws pose to consumers—both in terms of the security of their data and the performance of their computer after security patches are applied—and how they can protect themselves in the future.

The report details seven publicly disclosed exploits, known as “Spectre,” “Meltdown,” “Foreshadow,” “Zombieload,” “RIDL,” “Fallout,” and “SWAPGS,” that take advantage of the flaws found in CPUs manufactured by AMD, ARM, and Intel. While Spectre affects all three major chip manufacturers, all six subsequent exploits largely affect only Intel processors.

The exploits, in short, can allow a hacker to obtain unauthorized access to privileged information. And while patches have been released alongside each exploit, they have led to a decrease in computer speed and performance—as much as 40 percent according to some reports. In addition, the patch is only good until the next exploit is discovered.

The flaws create a real challenge for consumers: apply each temporary “fix” as new exploits are discovered and risk slowing down your device, or don’t and put your sensitive information at risk. And consumers who apply patches remain at the mercy of companies that hold their sensitive data and are faced with a similar dilemma, particularly as they must consider the expenses of implementing these fixes—including costs to add computing power lost by each patch.

The report concludes that the best protection for consumers is to buy a new computer that has a CPU with hardware-level security fixes or is immune from some of the exploits. Unfortunately, this is not practical for many consumers. Therefore, consumers are advised to perform frequent software updates. NCL is also strongly supporting data security bills, such as the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017, which would require companies to take preventative steps to defend against cyberattacks and data breaches and to provide consumers with notice and appropriate protection when a data breach occurs.

As we mark this year’s National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, we should certainly celebrate the progress that we have made. We cannot lose sight, however, of the need to better secure our information and systems moving forward. Awareness and smart data hygiene by consumers is one part. Companies must do their part to secure our information as well.

If you are interested in learning more, you can find NCL’s latest report here.

If you care about cramped airline seats, you should care about the FAA’s evacuation tests

/in , , , , /by

Last month, I had the pleasure of testifying before the House Aviation Subcommittee on the implementation of the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2018 reauthorization bill. My testimony touched on many of the pressing consumer protection priorities for airline passengers teed up by the 2016 and 2018 FAA reauthorization bills. 

The big news coming out of that hearing, however, was FAA Deputy Administrator Daniel Elwell announcing that the FAA will this November conduct its first evacuation tests with live participants in two decades. While this may sound like the kind of announcement only politicos should care about, it’s actually a very big deal for anyone who flies.  

Why is that, you may ask?  

FAA regulations require that the “maximum capacity” of an aircraft must be able to be evacuated in less than 90 seconds in an emergency. The analogy is to the “maximum capacity” signs you may have seen in conference rooms, hotels, or other public spaces. Since the 1990’s, airlines have gotten fuller, seats have gotten smaller, and more bags and support animals have been brought into the cabin. Despite these changes, FAA has not updated its evacuation standards and has been content to allow airlines to self-certify that they can meet the 90-second threshold, largely based on computer simulations. 

This all changed last July when Congress passed the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act which requires FAA to set minimum seat size standards. That’s why Dan Elwell announced that the FAA will be conducting the tests in November. The airlines, which have been pulling down record profits in recent years as they’ve steadily crammed more butts into more and smaller seats, will almost certainly want the FAA to give its blessing that their sardine cans are safe.  

Unfortunately, the FAA seems intent on granting them their wish. The advisory committee it appointed to provide feedback on the evacuation standards is packed with industry insiders and hamstrung by its own charter from considering seat sizes and seat pitch (the room between seats) as part of its recommendations. The DOT’s Office of Inspector General has an ongoing audit of the evacuation standards, but there’s no indication that the FAA will wait on the results of that audit before it conducts its tests. 

We can’t let the FAA rubber stamp the airlines’ current inhumane and potentially unsafe seating configurations. That’s why NCL, along with a coalition of consumer and flyers rights groups this week sent a letter to the FAA and the DOT urging them to update their evacuation standards before the November tests. We’re calling on the agency to update its evacuation testing standards to account for things like the presence of passengers with disabilities, parents who are separated from their children (thanks in no small part to rising seat reservation fees), full overhead bins, and passengers who insist on taking their bags with them when they evacuate (or, even worse, filming themselves evacuating). These are all factors that are likely to slow down evacuations, but FAA’s evacuation testing standards don’t account for them. 

Updating evacuation testing standards may sound like wonky, inside-the-Beltway bureaucratese, but the consequences of not doing so could be deadly.

Why won’t New York’s governor Cuomo ban a nasty pesticide that harms children?

/in , , , , , , /by

Reid Maki is the director of child labor advocacy at the National Consumers League and he coordinates the Child Labor Coalition.

Something really curious is happening in New York State. In June, the New York Assembly passed a bill to ban the nasty pesticide chlorpyrifos, which damages the development of children. But that’s not the weird part.

What’s surprising is that Governor Andrew Cuomo has not signed the bill, despite the fact that the NY Attorney General Letitia James joined five other attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration’s federal Environmental Protection Agency because it overturned an Obama Administration ban on the pesticide.

“Chlorpyrifos is extremely dangerous, especially to the health of our children,” said Attorney General Letitia James. “Yet, the Trump Administration continues to ignore both the science and law, by allowing this toxic pesticide to contaminate food at unsafe levels. If the Trump EPA won’t do its job and protect the health and safety of New Yorkers, my office will take them to court and force them to fulfill their responsibilities.”

The other states that joined the suit are Washington, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, and California—the latter is the country’s largest agricultural producer (measured by cash receipts) and has decided to remove chlorpyrifos from the market in 2020. 

Studies have also linked chlorpyrifos to autism, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention deficit disorders, and delayed motor development.

Nationally, home use was banned in 2001 because of its impact on children’s developing brains. In 2018, Hawaii became the first state to enact a complete ban on its use, which includes farms.

Chlorpyrifos is also thought to damage male reproductive organs to the point that it can make men sterile.

Since food safety authorities determined that there was no safe exposure level to chlorpyrifos—that any trace of the pesticide was too dangerous—the European Union is expected to ban entry of food products contaminated with the pesticide next year.

In August, the National Consumers League (NCL) and the Child Labor Coalition (CLC), which NCL co-chairs, joined 80+ groups—including many from New York—on a letter, urging Governor Cuomo to sign the chlorpyrifos ban. We were naïve enough to think he would.

With an avalanche of data suggesting it is too dangerous to use and his own attorney general suing over its use, why has Cuomo seemingly decided not to ban the pesticide? We can only guess. In July, the governor signed landmark legislation to protect farmworkers from labor abuses, ensure equitable housing and working conditions, and grant them collective bargaining, overtime pay, unemployment compensation and other benefits.

Farmworkers are some of the most exploited workers in America, and we applaud the governor for doing the right thing, but he seems to be taking the position that—having done something farm owners didn’t like—he shouldn’t sign the chlorpyrifos ban because they won’t like that either. The farmers see the pesticide as an effective tool to help them grow crops.

The problem is that chlorpyrifos doesn’t just harm those who eat farm produce; It harms the very people that produce crops—the farmers and the farmworkers and the children of both.

Should giving farmworker labor rights mean that it’s okay to endanger their fertility and cause their children to suffer developmental delays or autism? And from the farmers’ perspective, shouldn’t their children be protected from those afflictions? The governor shouldn’t be striving to protect some of the people some of the time, but should protect all of the people all of the time.

Reducing the mountain of waste on airplanes

/in , , , , , /by

On a flight to Idaho earlier this week, I brought my own coffee mug. My flight attendant was unexpectedly enthusiastic: “Anything that will help save the planet,” she said. I do not find this to be the case at Starbucks, where baristas insist on giving me a new plastic cup when I’m getting my iced tea, or at the Nespresso counter at Bloomingdales, which recently refused to serve me a coffee in my own cup. Reducing our personal footprint should be a big issue for all of us as we see the rapid pace of climate change and what it is doing to our beloved planet.  

At home, I can compost food scraps, choose to take public transportation, minimize food waste, and drive a hybrid car.  But it’s tough to do your part to conserve, reduce, reuse, and recycle and try to “save the planet,” as an airline passenger.  The New York Times reports that the average air passenger generates three pounds of waste in the form of plastic cups, the headphones, food left on plates, wrapping for snacks, and plastic cutlery; multiply that times 4 billion passengers a year, and it really adds up! 

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg opted to sail to New York from Europe to avoid being part of the problem: emissions from airplanes.  

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), a trade group representing the airlines, estimated that planes generated 6.7 million tons of cabin waste last year. Another group that studied the waste found that it broke down as 33 percent food waste, 28 percent cardboard and paper, and 12 percent plastic.   

So, what are the airlines doing, and how can consumers be part of the solution? Well, airlines are under pressure to conserve precisely because consumers are demanding they do so, as the New York Times article reported.  Air France said it would eliminate 210 million single–use plastic items like cups and coffee stirrers. Qantas has removed individually packaged servings of milk and Vegemite, and now serves meals in containers made from sugar cane, and utensils made from crop starch. Some United Airlines flights use “fully compostable or recyclable service ware.”  

Consumers can inquire about recycling products and demand changes in rigid rules on tossing out untouched food and drink, in place supposedly to protect agriculture. The trade group IATA estimates that these untouched items make up 20 percent of total airline waste. As reported by the New York Times, companies employed to help reduce airline waste are making dishes from pressed wheat bran and “sporks” from coconut palm wood. 

Asking the airlines what they are doing to reduce waste is a good start. Let’s press the airlines for answers and—while we are it: what about hybrid or electric engines on planes? That is a topic we can explore another day.