The ‘tampon tax’: an unconstitutional loss to American consumers

/in , , , , /by

headshot of NCL LifeSmarts intern Alexa

By NCL LifeSmarts intern Elaina Pevide

Bingo supplies in Missouri, tattoos in Georgia, cotton candy in Iowa, gun club membership in Wisconsin; what do these products and services have in common? They are all treated as tax-exempt by states that still put a tax on tampons.

Sales taxes on menstrual products, often referred to as “tampon taxes”, are still present in 35 states. Tampon taxes are cited as a major contributor to the “pink tax”, the heightened cost of products and services marketed toward women. For example, a purple can of sweet-smelling shaving cream for women will almost always cost more than its male counterpart across the aisle. This trend translates across industries. A 2015 study from the Joint Economic Committee found that women pay more 42 percent of the time for products from pink pens to dry cleaning. These pricier goods and services serve no benefit to the consumer and have no apparent improvement in function or quality. The pink tax cuts into women’s spending power and takes advantage of consumers simply on the basis of gender.

Tampon taxes and the pink tax have both been making waves recently as pressing feminist issues. While markups on products for women are unjust, activists are targeting the tampon tax as priority number one. Menstrual products, they argue, are necessities and states have the power to cut sales taxes on them by labeling them as such. States give tax exemptions to other items– like bingo supplies, tattoos, and cotton candy–that are far less vital to the health and success of consumers. Today, five states do not have sales taxes on any products, five states have always given hygiene products tax-exemption status, and five states have successfully fought to eliminate the tampon tax. Currently, 35 states remain with 32 having tried–and failed–to pass legislation on the matter.

States resistance to eliminate the tampon tax, typically for fiscal reasons, is at odds with the interests and demands of consumers. A survey of 2,000 women, conducted on behalf of menstrual cup company Intimina, found that three out of four women believe the tampon tax should be eradicated. Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed interpreted taxes on feminine products as a form of sexism.

Countless advocacy organizations have been established out of the need to provide consumers with affordable menstrual products and eliminate the tampon tax. One such group, Period Equity, recently launched a campaign with reproductive care company LOLA called “Tax Free. Period.”. Their campaign calls for the remaining 35 states with a tampon tax to eliminate it by Tax Day 2020. In the meantime, they’re gearing up for a legal battle to challenge the states that refuse to comply. Their argument? Taxes on a product that affect only women and other individuals who menstruate is a form of discrimination and thereby unconstitutional.

As reproductive rights groups await the response of state legislatures and federal courts on this issue, the half of Americans that use menstrual products in their lifetime are suffering. Women make less in wages than men but are forced to spend more. The tampon taxes expound gender inequality and costs American consumers millions of dollars each year–dollars that could benefit their families and stimulate the economy elsewhere. Period Equity’s tagline says it best: “Periods are not luxuries. Period.” It’s about time for American tax policy to reflect that reality.

Elaina Pevide is a student at Brandeis University where she majors in Public Policy and Psychology with a minor in Economics. She expects to graduate in May of 2020.

Raise the Wage Act 2019: House majority looking to lift millions out of poverty

/in , , , , /by

headshot of NCL Health Policy intern Alexa

By NCL Health Policy intern Alexa Beeson

June 16 marked the longest period the United States has gone without an increase in the federal minimum wage. The federal wage floor was last raised a decade ago, in 2009. The current minimum wage is just $7.25 an hour, which is a poverty wage by federal standards, but tipped workers and people with disabilities often make even less. Worse yet, the value of this wage has decreased by 13 percent since its enactment due to inflation.

Many states have increased their minimum wages, including some red states like Arkansas and Missouri. These states have done so through the popular-vote referendum process. There is widespread support from all Americans–Democrats and Republicans alike–on this issue. In fact, 70 percent of Republican voters want a raised federal wage floor. There are still 21 states, however, whose workers receive only the bare minimum federal wage or, even worse, a tipped wage.

The U.S. House of Representatives, now led by a Democratic majority for the first time in many years, will be taking up the Raise the Wage Act (H.R. 582), and there is a companion bill by the same name in the Senate (S. 150).

The Raise the Wage Act will incrementally lift the federal wage floor to $15 an hour over the next five years. If enacted, the legislation would reduce levels of poverty across the nation without driving vulnerable populations into unemployment. It will also help decrease the wage gap between minimum and median wage workers. The House is expected to have a roll call vote on H.R. 582 before the August recess. If it does pass in the House, the act will have a hard time making it through the Republican-controlled Senate. However, this is still a progressive step in the right direction.

This act will also end subminimum wages for tipped employees. If employees make less than the $7.25 federal minimum wage, including tips, employers are supposed to add the rest to their paycheck. However, some employers fail to do so. The affected employees can make as little as $5 less than the minimum wage. The way the system works now, customer gratuities act as wage subsidies that we believe should be covered by the employer. For those concerned with whether raising the minimum wage will stop customers from tipping, studies show that eliminating the tiered wage system will not stop patrons from leaving tips.

Raise the Wage will end the subminimum wage for people with disabilities, some of whom make mere pennies an hour. Subminimum wages act as a form of legalized discrimination, and this bill will make it impossible for employers to get new special exemptions to pay their employee’s subminimum wages. It will also end current exemptions because all wages will be increased to $15 an hour in the next seven years.

Some fiscally conservative groups have claimed that raising the wage to $15 an hour would lead to high unemployment or business closures, with small businesses burdened by the extra costs. However, studies contradict those claims. Many show that raising the minimum wage would have little or no impact on employment. A study conducted by the University of California at Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment found that when the town of Berkeley raised the minimum wage, it actually saw a decrease in unemployment and a reduction in poverty. Further research showed that wage increases in 51 counties over 45 states had no adverse effect on employment hours or weeks worked.

NCL has been a long-standing advocate for fair minimum wages. In the early 1900s, the League’s General Secretary Florence Kelley ran a minimum wage campaign, which passed laws in 14 states. We are encouraged to see the House of Representatives taking affirmative steps to raise the federal minimum wage.

Alexa is a student at Washington University in St. Louis where she studies Classics and Anthropology and concentrates in global health and the environment. She expects to graduate in May of 2020.

Oral argument for ACA case will determine the fate of millions

/in , , , , /by

Nissa ShaffiOn Tuesday, July 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit will hear oral arguments that will determine whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be overturned. Throughout the course of its life, the ACA has been under the specter of possible repeal. While there have been piecemeal attempts to strike down the legislation over time, none have been as concerning as the most recent Texas v. United States case, which argues that since the individual mandate is no longer enforced, ACA  would be unconstitutional.

The individual mandate requires that most people maintain a minimum level of health insurance or be subject a financial penalty. In 2017 however, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), set the individual mandate to $0 as of 2019. As a result of this ruling, the Texas v. United States case was filed by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors. The plaintiffs argue that the ruling rendered the individual mandate futile, as it no longer produces revenue for the federal government, and since Congress declared the individual mandate to be “essential” when enacting the ACA, this would now make the entire law invalid.

In an ideal situation, the court would maintain the ACA as it exists today, absent the individual mandate. If the ACA is repealed along with the protections that come with it, close to 20 million people would lose their health coverage. Those affected will include mostly low-income adults and children with chronic or pre-existing conditions, dependent adult children ages 26 and younger, Medicare and Medicaid enrollees, employer and employee groups, and more.

Repealing the ACA would jeopardize Medicaid expansion, further burdening uncompensated care and provider reimbursement. In addition, repealing the ACA would increase health care costs among the uninsured by $50.2 billion, result in more than 9 million people losing federal subsidies to purchase health insurance via the marketplace, and would endanger consumers’ ability to obtain essential health benefits.

California’s Attorney General, Xavier Beccerra, is leading a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general who have intervened to defend the ACA. Advocates interested in joining these efforts can contact izzy@xavierbecerra.com – please do so and sign the petition by July 14. In addition, organizations can participate in the TXvUS Tweetstorm to express their concerns regarding this case, using the hashtags #TXvUS and #WhatsAtStake, on July 9th at 2 pm EST/ 11 am PST.

NCL is a zealous supporter of the ACA and notes that it is still the law of the land. We are following the developments of this case closely and will continue to fight for access to affordable healthcare for all Americans. For more information on developments of this case, please click here.

FDA acts to protect women’s health

/in , , , /by

Nissa Shaffi

Last April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a ban on all sales of pelvic surgical mesh products after determining that the manufacturers, Boston Scientific and Coloplast, failed to “demonstrate [a] reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

The ban comes on the heels of a 2016 reclassification of the product by the FDA, resulting in a class III (high-risk) designation. As a result, the manufacturers were required to undergo meticulous review and obtain premarket approval by the FDA in order to continue sales of their products in the United States.

A surgical mesh is a medical device used to treat urogynecological or pelvic organ issues. Most commonly, surgical mesh has been used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP). POP is a type of pelvic floor disorder that occurs when the muscles and tissues supporting pelvic organs become weakened–often resulting in urinary incontinence typically seen as a result of childbirth or advanced age.

A transvaginal surgical mesh is intended to provide additional support to the pelvic floor muscles to reinforce a weakened vaginal wall for treatment of POP. A urethral sling surgical mesh is supposed to provide support to the urethra or bladder to address urinary incontinence. Surgical mesh comes in two forms: synthetic and animal derived. Synthetic surgical mesh remains in the body indefinitely and acts as a permanent implant. Animal derived mesh, made from the intestine or skin of pig or cow, are absorbable and lose durability over time.

The most frequent complications from these devices include vaginal scarring, mesh erosion, increased risk of infection, and painful urination. Nearly 10 million women worldwide have received mesh implants, with about 10 to 15 percent of these women suffering from complications. Following the ban, there are currently no FDA-approved pelvic surgical mesh products available for sale in the United States.

The FDA advises that women who have already received a transvaginal mesh for the surgical repair of POP should continue their routine follow-up care with their provider and need not take any additional action if they are satisfied with their procedure. Patients should notify their provider if they experience any adverse reactions, such as bleeding or pain, following the procedure.

Given the grave injury these devices have caused in women patients, the National Consumers League questions how they ever received FDA approval in the first place. Nevertheless, banning the devices now is better than keeping them on the market. We must expect better from our healthcare regulators. Thankfully, we now have stronger safety standards that have brought an immediate halt to the sale of these unsafe medical devices.

To read the FDA’s full report on transvaginal mesh, click here.

NCL Health Policy Intern Alexa Beeson contributed to this blog.

What has happened to nurturing and protecting children?

/in , , , /by

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

The Child Labor Coalition is a non-partisan group that is concerned with the health and welfare of children in the U.S. and abroad. We were extremely critical of the Obama administration’s decision to withdraw proposed safety protections for children who work in agriculture—known as “hazardous occupations orders.”

We try to call it as we see it and ignore politics. We love any politician who puts children first. But today, we are stunned by the numerous attacks on children by the Trump administration and left wondering what horror is next? 

Earlier this month, Customs and Border Patrol announced that it would stop education classes, legal aid, and even recreational activities for children at the border detention facilities housing immigrant children. Detained children have already been traumatized by their arduous journey to the U.S., their subsequent detention, and, in many cases, forced family separation. What Grinch would deny them schooling and playtime?

Institutionalization and family separation constitute traumatic experiences that threaten the physical and mental health of children. The New York Times reported on February 27th that the federal government had received more than 4,500 complaints of sexual abuse of children in immigration facilities over four years, including an increase since the Trump administration began separating families. Shouldn’t we focus our energies on reuniting families and easing the psychological damage that has already been done—not penalizing children even further?

The decision to withhold education and recreation was just the latest salvo in what increasingly seems like a war against children by the Trump administration. We recently learned that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had decided to defund children’s health research centers around the U.S. For decades, the centers have brought together researchers and children’s health experts to reduce environmental health risks that children face.

The research centers helped expose the danger of the pesticide chlorpyrifos which damages the development of children’s brains and poses grave health risks to child farmworkers, adult farmworkers, and farmers. EPA had decided to ban the toxic pesticide under the Obama administration, but then reversed the ban under the Trump presidency.

The Trump administration also attempted to reverse an Obama administration ban on children applying pesticides as part of their job on farms. Does our agricultural economy need children to apply pesticides? No. Fortunately, after several months of pursuing the idea, the Trump administration seems to have given up—only to move on to the latest perverse idea.

Recently, the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget officials announced plans to change regulations concerning “agricultural exclusion zones” (AEZs). Under current rules, if a plane or aerator sprays pesticides on a field it must be at least 100 feet from workers in the fields; other applicators must be at least 25 feet from workers. Although not spelled out, everyone is assuming the changes will weaken or eliminate the AEZs–because the Trump administration never acts to increase protections for vulnerable populations.

Some of those field workers who are exposed to spray drift are children toiling with their migrant parents; we also know that the developing bodies of minors are more vulnerable to toxic pesticides than adults. Weakening agricultural exclusion zones will mean more child and adult farmworkers are poisoned by pesticides.

Globally, we’ve made significant progress in the fight against child labor. In the last two decades, the number of children trapped in child labor has fallen to 152 million—a reduction of about 100 million children from two decades ago. This is real progress and the U.S. Department of Labor’s International Labor Affairs Bureau has played a role in that reduction—by gathering incredibly detailed reports on the nature of the problem, advising nation’s on how to reduce child labor and by operating child labor reduction programs around the world.  At $50 to $55 million a year, we think these child labor programs are a great buy.

Unfortunately, the administration has tried to zero out these vital child labor programs since Trump took office.

Bad ideas about child work continue to percolate within the Trump administration, which wants to allow American teens who work in nursing homes to be allowed to operate mechanized patient lifts without assistance and supervision from adults, which current rules require. Safety experts know that this change would lead to severe injuries to patients and teen workers. As is generally the case, the administration presents no compelling rationale for the change.

We are left wondering what new outrage awaits. Does the health and safety of children mean anything to this administration?

Three reasons scientists believe bugs are the next beef

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

Shaunice Wall is NCL’s Linda Golodner Food Safety and Nutrition Fellow

There’s a thin line between hunger and disgust when deep-fried tarantulas and smoked barbeque crickets are on the menu. Many scientists argue that animal protein is not environmentally sustainable, so alternatives–like bugs–may be the answer to the perils of global warming. Recent research supports eating bugs as a way to maintain a protein-rich diet while benefiting the environment.

Infographic comparing the water, feed, and land needs of cattle against the same needs for bugs farming

Why bugs are slowly crawling into our everyday diets

As the world population continues to grow, so will demand for animal protein. By 2050, we’ll be eating more than two-thirds the animal protein we do today, causing a strain to our planet’s resources. The surge in demand for animal protein has also contributed to an increase in greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). These gases lead to extreme weather conditions, ozone depletion, increased danger of wildland fires, loss of biodiversity, stresses to food-producing systems and the global spread of infectious diseases. Even today, climate changes are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually.

Most westerners prefer beef over bugs

While many of us westerners may gag at the thought of maggots in our sausage, more than 2 billion people throughout the world have been eating bugs as a regular part of their diets for millennia. But historically, for westerners, livestock not only yields meat, but also milk and milk products, their hides or skins provide warmth, they are suitable for plough traction, and act as a means of transport. Because of the use of these animals, the benefits of eating insects in many societies has failed to gain much interest. Also, certain insects are transmitters of disease and are virtually a nuisance.

So, why should we eat bugs?

In 2013, a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, urged global citizens to eat more bugs for three reasons:

  1. They’re healthier for you…and tasty too!
    • Bugs are a healthy, nutritious alternative to mainstream staples such as chicken, pork, beef, and fish (from ocean catch).
    • Many insects are rich in protein, good fats, and high in calcium, iron, and zinc.
    • Insects already form a traditional part of many regional and national diets.
    • Bugs can be used as an ingredient substitute for almost any recipe. Here’s a link with ideas on how to make some delicious bug treats!
  2. They’re safer for the environment
    • Bugs promoted as food emit 75 percent fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) than most livestock.
    • Insect rearing is not necessarily a land-based activity and does not require as much land as livestock.
    • Because they are cold-blooded, insects are efficient at converting feed into protein (crickets, for example, need 12 times less feed than cattle, four times less feed than sheep, and half as much feed as pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein).
    • According to the Harvard Political Review, producing one pound of beef requires 10 pounds of feed, 1,000 gallons of water, and 200 square feet of pasture. In contrast, producing one pound of insects only requires two pounds of feed, one gallon of water, and two cubic feet of land space.
  3. They’re lower in cost
    • Bug harvesting/rearing is a low-tech, low-capital investment option that offers economic opportunities to all levels of society.
    • Insect rearing can be low-tech or very sophisticated, depending on the level of investment.

Recent advances in research and development show edible bugs to be a promising alternative to meat for both human consumption and as feedstock. But to make this a reality, regulatory frameworks for safety and nutrition will need to be developed and government, industry, and academia will need to work together.

In the meanwhile, knowing the benefits can help turn disgust to hunger when tarantulas or crickets appear on the menu… Something to think about!

‘Innovation’ = airline speak for finding new ways to gouge consumers

/in , , /by

Brian YoungIf you have been listening to the airline industry, you may think that now is one of the best times to fly. According to its lobbyists, fares are down, and the airlines are working overtime to provide their customers with new and innovative products. However, in reality, if you have spent any time shopping around for a ticket, you are probably intimately aware that all of this “innovation” serves one purpose: to stifle what little competition remains in the airline marketplace and to implement new and creative ways to gouge consumers.

The Government Accountability Office, along with several independent researchers, have found that the proliferation of airline fees have allowed airlines to deceptively appear to be lowering fares while, in fact, they are quietly raising the real cost of travel. This nickel and diming allows airlines to rake in revenue–to the tune of $57 billion dollars a year–in so-called “ancillary fees,” in turn allowing the airlines to bring in record profits. In 2018, the industry is estimated to see a $38.4 billion profit margin.

Airline fees also serve another disturbing purpose: they stifle competition and prevent the free market from functioning properly by undermining the ability of consumers to comparison shop. Most of us are aware of the different fees airlines are now charging for carry-on bags, change fees, and even necessities like water. These fees can greatly complicate the comparison shopping process. The fee Delta charges for carry-on bags could be very different than the fee United charges; in this environment, expecting consumers to calculate the real costs based on fees and add-ons in order to compare real prices is absurd.

Airlines are now flexing their creative muscles to develop new fees that vary depending on the day of the week! Lufthansa, for instance, now has a fee that’s based on fluctuating ticket prices, exchange rates, “market-specific conditions,” and special offers. Similarly, Virgin Atlantic has a fare of $93 for one of its routes, but the airline tacks on carrier-imposed surcharges of $320 and government taxes of $225, which increase the ultimate price of the ticket more than 5-fold.

Unsurprisingly the ever-growing list of varying fees has made it difficult for consumers to comparison shop. Staying updated on the new fees airlines have tacked on can become a full-time job. While some online travel agents and meta-search sites do their best to inform users of the new list of fees, (Google Flights for instance, now allows you to search for flights that include carry-on bag fees in the price of the ticket and will soon add an option to search for flight prices that include checked bags) by and large, the burden of determining what fees one is liable for is carried by the consumer.

In addition to just making comparison shopping complicated, many airlines such as Delta and Southwest also take another approach: prohibiting websites from displaying their fares alongside competitors’ completely. Southwest Airlines has long taken this approach, forcing consumers to go directly to its website to determine the price of a flight.

The industry’s refusal to share fare and schedule data has had a measurable detrimental impact on airline passengers. One industry study found that this practice could cost passengers upwards of $6 billion dollars per year (or $30 per ticket). Even more concerningly, the same study found that if this practice continues, more than 40 million Americans could refrain from flying due to sticker shock.

Fortunately, in 2016 Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx began investigating whether consumers are harmed when airlines restrict their schedule and fare information. However, once the Trump Administration took over the DOT (the relevant cop on the beat for this type of deceptive practice), the agency suspended the investigation, saying that forcing airlines to allow comparison shopping was not needed.

As this administration has signaled a lack of interest in transparent markets, Congress must now act to ensure that competition can once again thrive in the air travel marketplace. At the National Consumers League, we have long believed that an informed consumer is an empowered consumer and that in order for markets to function properly, consumers must be able to comparison shop. If airlines hide behind wildly fluctuating fees and conceal their fare and schedule information from consumers and online travel sites, consumers cannot make informed purchases. It is for this reason than NCL will continue to advocate for transparency in the airline marketplace, both in our advocacy to do away with arbitrary fees, as well as in our work to make sure that passengers can continue to shop around for the best price.

Being Financially Fragile in America – National Consumers League

/in , , , , /by

By NCL Public Policy intern Melissa Cuddington

Nearly 36 percent of working Americans could not cover an unexpected $2,000 expense within 30 days. According to a survey done by the 2015 National Financial Capability Study (NFCS), working adults (ages 25 – 60) who answered “probably not” or “certainly could not” to the question of whether they could come up with $2,000 in 30 days. Such consumers are considered “financially fragile.”

The 2015 Survey for Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) also revealed that 41 percent of respondents are considered financially fragile when faced with an emergency expense of $400. 41 percent said they would have to charge this unexpected expense to a credit card or use money from a savings account.

These statistics are not surprising considering that during the recession of 2008, nearly 50 percent of working adults were considered financially fragile.

Who is financially fragile?

  • Women (42 percent) are significantly more likely to be economically stressed than men (29 percent)
  • Financial fragility decreases steadily with increasing income, thus, paying workers more decreases their precarious finances
  • Financial fragility is about equally distributed across age groups, although fragility is slightly higher among 40- to 49-year-olds

According to a NEFE Digest article, a number of factors can cause financial fragility. A lack of assets include things such as low borrowing capacity on credit cards, inadequate health insurance, renting a house instead of owning and lack of access to traditional bank accounts. The second is debt, including medical, education and credit card debt. Some of these issues can be addressed with improved financial literacy.

The NCL is especially interested financial fragility in the U.S. for reasons that sync up perfectly with our mission: protecting workers and paying them a fair wage and ensuring consumer protections from predatory practices like payday loans and bank fees and excessively high interest on student or auto loans. We also agree with NEFE Digest that financial literacy reduces financial risk because consumers make better, more informed decisions when they have more knowledge and information. NEFE Digest notes that better financial literacy lowers one’s likelihood of being financially fragile–regardless of age or income.

Financially literate consumers bolster the overall health of the economy. This is why programs such as NCL’s LifeSmarts program, which educates youth the environment, health and safety, personal finance, technology and their rights as consumers, are so important. Financial literacy education should start young and continue throughout adulthood. Doing so reduces the risk to all consumers that they will become financially fragile.

Imposters, information theft, and internet scams: the dangers of unregulated online pharmacies – National Consumers League

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

By NCL Food Policy and LifeSmarts Caleigh Bartash

With technology improving rapidly over the past few decades, online retailers have proved more convenient, reducing the market share of brick-and-mortar retailers. However, the convenience of purchasing prescription medication online or over the phone can inadvertently trap consumers in internet scams.Countless issues can arise from ordering prescription medication online. Unapproved internet dealers often evade government recognition or detection, failing to comply with drug safety regulations. Consumers can receive counterfeit, contaminated, or expired drugs. In some cases, these drugs may contain deadly opioids like fentanyl. Unauthorized medications can also have varying amounts of a medicine’s active ingredient — if they contain the correct ingredient at all.

Consumers may be attempting to access medications that they have previously been prescribed. However, they face security threats as soon as they give their personal details to an illegitimate pharmacy. These sellers have poor security protections, with leaks of sensitive customer information all too common. Illegitimate online sellers may even outright sell consumer data to scammers. Moreover, these websites can trick unsuspecting consumers into downloading viruses which further risk personal property and information.

Counterfeit drugs, unauthorized data sharing, and cyber attacks are dangerous, but now, a new threat has emerged involving counterfeit letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Last week, the FDA released a press announcement alerting consumers to fraudulent warning letters claiming to be sent from the government. They advised that any consumer who received a warning message is likely the victim of a scam.

The July 2018 FDA press announcement is unique in that it is targeted directly to consumers. Commonly, these warning letters are used as a tool to inform the public about drug safety issues and are typically sent exclusively to manufacturers and companies creating products under their jurisdiction. FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb summarized the FDA’s policy, stating “we generally don’t take action against individuals for purchasing a medicine online, though we regularly take action against the owners and operators of illegal websites.”

What’s next for those that received a warning letter? The FDA requests that potential victims contact them with information, including pictures and scanned documents if possible, in an effort to help them investigate the scams. Consumers can use the email address FDAInternetPharmacyTaskForce-CDER@fda.hhs.gov as the primary channel for communicating with the agency about suspicious warnings.

The best way to avoid falling victim to any scam involving illegal internet pharmacies is to abstain from suspicious websites. How do you distinguish fake internet pharmacies from safe ones? The FDA offers guidance with their BeSafeRx campaign. Asking a few simple questions at the doctor’s office or calling a certified pharmacist can help consumers protect themselves. Safe online pharmacies usually offer information including address, contact information, and state license. Consumers should be wary if the pharmacy does not require prescriptions to access pharmaceutical drugs. Other warning signs include international addresses, clear spam messages, and unreasonably low prices.

####

Have more questions about fraud? NCL’s Fraud.org site has prevention tips, an outlet for consumer complaints, and an experienced fraud counselor to teach you how to avoid common scams. And for those wanting to learn more about proper medication consumption, our Script Your Future initiative has helpful advice and information so you can navigate your prescriptions with the utmost confidence.

D.C. City Council Angers Voters by Moving to Overturn Initiative 77 – National Consumers League

/in , , , , /by

By NCL Public Policy intern Melissa Cuddington

After the passage of Initiative 77, seven members of D.C. City Council pledged to overturn the initiative, essentially suppressing the will of the voters. This move by the City Council has further outraged D.C. voters, who already feel disenfranchised. Considering the 80,000 DC voters who weighed in on this issue, its no wonder.

In the past few weeks, there has been controversy surrounding Initiative 77 and its hope of survival in D.C. City Council. Initiative 77, a worker-led campaign that passed by a 56% to 44% margin, would raise the minimum tipped wage by $1.50 a year until it reaches $15.00 by 2025. Currently, in the District of Columbia, the minimum tipped wage is a mere $3.33. Employers are allowed to pay tipped workers this small amount if tips make up the difference. Therefore, if tipped workers make at least $13.25 in tips, the current minimum wage, then employers are “off the hook” for covering the difference.

According to a recent article in The Washington Post, even those who voted against the initiative agreed that the City Council should not negate the will of the people. Those interviewed for the article responded with heated comments saying, “it enrages me,” and, “the City Council shouldn’t assume an electorate…doesn’t know what they are voting for.” These are not isolated responses; many voters have reached out to their City Council members, strongly protesting the possibility of repeal.

NCL supported the OFW campaign but regardless, it is not democratic or just for the City Council to overturn the decision of the voters. Many, including the leading group in this effort, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), have accused the City Council of voter suppression and stomping on democracy. 

NCL believes in Initiative 77 and shedding the distinction between a tipped and minimum wage. We also strongly believe that civic participation is the foundation of our democracy. If the City Council moves to overturn this measure, it will send a very negative message to voters about the importance of the democratic process and the value of their voice in it.