Raise a glass to hydration Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Posted by savvyconsumer in Courtney Brein, health.Tags: hydration
add a comment
By Courtney Brein, Linda Golodner Food Safety and Nutrition Fellow
Come rain, shine, snow, or sleet, the human body will require water. While it is important not to neglect one’s liquid diet throughout the year, during the summer months staying hydrated often requires additional effort. The body more easily becomes dehydrated – meaning it loses more fluids than it takes in – in warm weather, and, without adequate fluids, it cannot carry out its normal functions.
To complicate matters, by the time individuals feel “thirsty,” they are often already slightly dehydrated. This problem is exacerbated in older adults, whose bodies less readily sense dehydration.
How can one prevent dehydration? Drink up! All liquids “count” when it comes to hydrating the body, although – for health reasons – sugary drinks should only be consumed occasionally. Eating fruits and vegetables also helps provide the body with the liquid it needs.
Doctors generally recommend that individuals drink approximately eight or nine cups of fluid per day, but check with your physician or consult this calculator to more precisely determine your unique needs.
Exercise (or any other activity that causes sweating) requires additional consumption of liquids. Make an effort to hydrate before, during, and after exercise, in order to replace lost fluids.
Advocates hail passage of financial reform bill Monday, June 28, 2010
Posted by savvyconsumer in finances, legislative issues, Sally Greenberg.Tags: Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, President Obama, U.S. PIRG
add a comment
By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director
President Obama is hailing the deal reached between Senate and House negotiators and passage of the regulatory reform bill. Mr. Obama called it the “toughest financial reform since the ones we created in the aftermath of the Great Depression.” And he plans to sign the bill before the Fourth of July recess. Our consumer colleagues were largely the driving force behind this legislation, though the financial industry won some important victories. Those groups include the Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, U.S. PIRG, and several others. With Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren providing the inspiration for regulating the “gotchas” consumers face in fees and charges buried in the fine print of financial documents, our colleagues led the drive for a consumer protection agency to oversee the financial industry.
Under this bill, we will have a new regulator to oversee and enforce fair rules on checking accounts, mortgages, and payday loans, while preserving the power of state regulators to enforce their own consumer protection laws. That’s important because federal legislation too often preempts state consumer protection laws from being enforced in favor of a federal law – a loss of enforcement power that consumer advocates fight every time.
Lenders will have to make disclosures in complicated legal documents much easier to understand and cannot impose fees – late fees, prepayment fees, willy-nilly.
The bill also contains important protections for investors, calling on banks and others that issue securities to have limit their risks and to have some skin in the game themselves. I particularly liked that Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) tried hard to regulate the derivatives industry but was forced to scale back her original amendment; nevertheless, the industry will now be required to segregate their dealings only in the riskiest categories of derivatives, including the highly structured products like credit default swaps, which sound more complicated than they are (betting that people will default on loans or mortgages). People made millions betting the housing market would implode, and it was in their interest to see it implode.
This is a far-from-perfect bill, but we should take our hats off to all the consumer advocates that led the fight for the bill and Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) in the House and Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) in the Senate for getting the bill over the finish line.
Risk vs. benefits Thursday, June 24, 2010
Posted by savvyconsumer in health, Mimi Johnson.add a comment
By Mimi Johnson, Director, NCL Health Policy
In the world of health care – and more specifically treatments – there is a constant battle between risks and benefits.
This is a dilemma we’ve all faced as we’ve chosen treatments for ourselves or our loved ones. We want the best possible outcome. Policy makers, drug manufacturers, health practitioners, and every day consumers must decide what the best possible outcome is, in addition to determining how to weigh the risks and benefits in achieving the outcome.
The challenge of weighing risks versus benefits is one that sometimes divides the patient advocates from the consumer advocates. Some say that we are all “consumers” of health until we are diagnosed with or seek treatment for a problem … and then we are likely to identify as a “patient.” Traditionally, consumer advocates examine and push others to understand the risks associated with a treatment in an effort to have the safest possible treatments available. Alternatively, patient advocates tend to focus on the benefits of a treatment and the need to have greater and timelier access to treatments, sometimes overlooking risks.
Having battled against a historically bad allergy season, I faced firsthand the challenge of weighing risks and benefits. When treatments weren’t working, my doctor changed my inhaler. The new inhaler helped improve my ability to breathe, but it had a funny side effect … it altered my voice! This was not one of the top-line risks listed in the consumer medication information, and I was not warned about this side effect by my doctor. I did a little sleuthing of my own, and low-and-behold it is a very commonly reported upon side effect by users of this particular inhaler. Though I was feeling 100 percent better, everyone – particularly when talking on the phone – would ask if I was alright and often assumed I was upset by something. In this instance, I was happy to take the risk of changing my voice a bit, knowing that I would once again be able to breathe and resume my normal activities.
Many of the risk versus benefit discussions center on far more serious risks and benefits. For example, it was recently announced that a groundbreaking treatment is available for melanoma patients. The new treatment essentially melts the cancer away. While this has been deemed monumental by doctors and cancer researchers, it does not come without its pitfalls. Risk number one – there is a great chance that it won’t work on you, as it is believed to be effective in only about 20 percent of the population. Risk number two – a common side effect includes developing rheumatoid arthritis. These risks, among others, need to then be weighed against the benefit of extending one’s life.
This challenge of determining what the best outcome is and what we’re willing to face in order to achieve it is nothing new, and it will only intensify as we begin to implement health reform.
Wall Street taking 28 percent from your 401(k) pie Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Posted by savvyconsumer in finances, legislative issues.Tags: 401(k), Rep. George Miller
add a comment
By Amy Blume, NCL Public Policy Intern
At a press conference last Wednesday, we learned that many participants of 401(k) plans lose up to 28 percent of the retirement savings that they would have over their working life due to Wall Street’s high investment fees. The worst part is that most people are entirely unaware of how much of their money goes to fees because the bulk of these fees, which go straight into Wall Street pockets, are hidden fees, invisible, and undisclosed.
Several members of the House of Representatives Education and Labor subcommittee are encouraging adoption of an amendment provision to H.R.4213: “American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act,” hoping to remedy the problem. Chairman George Miller (D-CA) wrote the provision to make information about fees more accessible for consumers and their employers. The provision requires investment companies to disclose all fees upfront and to help workers understand their investment options. But the Senate has been resistant to the provision, likely due to pressure from Wall Street.
To get its point across and urge the Senate to adopt the provision in the bill, the House subcommittee leadership took an innovative approach in a June 16 press conference. The committee designated an apple pie for each Finance Committee Senator, each pie marked with a specific Senator’s name. In each one, a large piece was cut out – equaling roughly 28 percent of the pie – and replaced with a sign which read, “Wall Street’s cut of your 401(k) pie.”
The visual was humorous but also effective. Participants in 401(k) funds deserve to know where their money is going and how much they’re paying in fees upfront. 401(k) plans and other investment options are complex enough without the side problems of hidden fees or penalties. People rely on retirement plans for their future and use these funds to know when a family member can stop working. It’s important for consumers to know how much they’re paying for their investments, with fair and accurate disclosure of all potential taxes and fees, and NCL supports the disclosure amendment.
Watch statements from the Press Conference here.
NY Times exposing child farmworker dangers Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Posted by savvyconsumer in child labor, Child Labor Coalition, legislative issues.Tags: CARE, New York Times
add a comment
By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director
NCL staff woke up to find that Saturday’s New York Times had a front page above the fold story about one of NCL’s core issues: getting farmworker kids out of the field and into school. NCL’s roots, going back to 1899, were focused on eradicating child labor and sweatshop labor. Florence Kelley is largely responsible for advocating, legislating, and litigating most child labor out of existence in the United States.
However, a loophole in landmark worker protections the Fair Labor Standards Act, which prohibited most child labor in the United States, had an exception for agricultural workers. Farmworker kids are often victims of a cycle of poverty – they are pulled out of school while their family migrates for work and end up working 10-hour days in stifling heat exposed to pesticides, sun stroke, lack of water and toilets, and other hardships that come with working in the fields. Many have such a spotty academic record they can’t graduate from high school, thus perpetuating the burden of low-wage jobs and no chance of advancement through education.
Some of the parents quoted in the article feel ambivalent about the law. They want their kids with them – or working – because they need their pay, but they also know the best place for them is school. But that was true 100 years ago when Florence Kelley ran the League. If you look at the problem of child labor from that prism, keeping children out of the fields is ultimate the best solution.
Internet safety should be top priority of FCC Friday, June 18, 2010
Posted by savvyconsumer in legislative issues, telecommunications.add a comment
By Debra Berlyn
Debra Berlyn is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Consumers League. She maintains a Web site and blog at consumerawarenessproject.org. You can also follow her on twitter at @dberlyn.
June is Internet Safety Month and a great time to reflect on the shared responsibility of consumers and their network providers. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have an important role in both protecting their customers and managing the network. While many consumers have seen how malicious users on the network can infiltrate their computers through viruses and spam, there is more that needs to be done to inform all users about how their actions can affect the network.
The safety and security of the network and the protection of users should be a top priority of the Federal Communications Commission. Consumers increasingly rely, both knowingly and unknowingly, on their network providers to reduce the threat of malicious attacks. It is important that we consider both the interests of consumers and the network providers that protect their users, as the Commission considers the best way to approach the issue of network management.
While telecommunications consumers have experienced the benefits of a dynamic industry, the evolution of broadband has presented a series of difficult policy matters. One such issue is the Commission’s proposed reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service. As the FCC and the legislators that oversee it move forward on this important issue, it will be critically important that the safety and security needs of consumers and the ISPs that serve them are taken into account. While there are a variety of opinions on the efficacy of reclassification itself, there should be no disagreement that consumers need to be protected from the ever-evolving threat of malicious online actors.
Chinese worker strikes reveal disturbing conditions Monday, June 14, 2010
Posted by savvyconsumer in China, Sally Greenberg, worker's rights issues.Tags: Florence Kelley, Honda
add a comment
By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director
While American workers struggle to organize and form unions, and the number of unionized workers in the United States grows smaller, there’s some exciting news from the other side of the world. In the past two weeks, Chinese workers have held strikes against Honda, the automaker, at three different plants. The Chinese government, normally intolerant of workers protesting working conditions, is allowing these Honda workers to express their discontent. This may be because Honda is a Japanese company, and anti-Japanese sentiment lingers in China even decades after World War II.
At one of the auto parts plants in southeastern China, 1,700 workers are hoping to see their wages doubled. What is particularly interesting is that the strikers are apparently engaged in sophisticated and democratic union organizing, electing shop stewards, and are demanding the right to form trade unions to be separate from Chinese government-controlled national federation of trade unions.
Two of the plants targeted by strikers have opened back up, with workers winning significant wage increases. Workers at the third plant are demanding the same wage hikes, and labor shortages are giving strikers stronger bargaining power.
But it is really disturbing to learn about the conditions under which they work for Honda, which has a pretty good reputation in the United States as a forward-looking company. These conditions harken back to America’s sweatshops of a century ago – workplaces that NCL’s Florence Kelley fought so hard to reform. The Honda plants require employees, most of whom are in their 20s and more than half of whom are women, to stand for 8 hours at a time; pregnant women are allowed to sit only in their last trimester. Salaries are about $132 for a 42-hour-week, which is minimum wage in Zhongshan, where the current strike is taking place. Workers are forbidden from speaking when they work – which is apparently common in Chinese workplaces – and they have to obtain passes before using the restrooms. And this strike began because a female worker appeared at the factory wearing her badge incorrectly and when she talked back to the guard for turning her away he shoved her to the ground. Workers live near the factories in tiny, 100-square-foot apartments, for which they pay more than 25 percent of their salary – or $44 a month.
Reforms in both salary and working conditions are clearly long overdue for these Chinese workers, and it is their good fortune that labor shortages will give them stronger bargaining power.
American consumers should be far better informed about the conditions under which the products we buy are made. The Honda plant in Zhongshan is a case in point; Honda needs to abide by an international standard of treatment for workers – and negotiate fairly in responding to the modest demands of the Chinese auto parts makers.
Improving access to information impacting public health: passing the Sunshine in Litigation Act 2010 Friday, June 11, 2010
Posted by savvyconsumer in legislative issues.Tags: Roosevelt Institute, Sherman L. Cohn, Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2010
add a comment
By Amy Blume, NCL public policy intern
Amy Blume, an intern at NCL this summer, is rising senior at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. At Wesleyan she is majoring in government and receiving certificates in international relations and environmental studies. She came to Washington, DC through the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive, student-led think tank, and is president of the Wesleyan Chapter, which publishes annual policy journals and engages in local political discourse. Amy also writes blogs for Mother Nature Network, an online environmental company.
National consumer advocacy organizations are working to pass the Sunshine in Litigation Act (H.R. 5419),1 a bill that will require critical health and safety hazards to be opened up to the public instead of hidden in secret settlements between the parties. The bill will enhance measures already taken by 41 states and 94 federal districts, but will also require consistency in reform of federal courts.
In the past few years, several forms of the Sunshine in Litigation Act reached Congress. None passed, but a variety of testimonies identified the need for such a bill, restricting court-ordered secrecy of case histories and settlements on areas of public health concerns. In a testimony before Congress in July 2008, Federal Court Judge Joseph F. Anderson of South Carolina, with 22 years on the bench, discussed the all-too common trend toward court-ordered secrecy in settlement cases. Anderson noted that lawyers often request court-ordered secrecy in settlements, but when it comes to public health concerns, the public deserves access to information. It can protect consumers and help them make more informed decisions. Anderson gave several examples of court secrecy in decisions involving information critical to public health.
Court-ordered secrecy of important information in cases of public health:
In one case before Anderson, 350 plaintiffs contended that the defendant knowingly dumped harmful levels of PCBs into a river upstate. The toxicity caused severe health problems among residents. Concluding with a settlement in which all parties were satisfied, the judges agreed to court-ordered secrecy, but Judge Anderson said that he had second thoughts on whether this was the right choice. Shouldn’t people have the right to information depicting health concerns associated with a large, local, public body of water where residents might swim, boat or fish?
In another case, a child died from an incident involving a defective go-cart. The case was settled for $1.4 million dollars. The settlement was kept out of the public domain and that same hazardously designed go-cart was still being sold. Reform of court-ordered secrecy allows consumers access to make more informed decisions when purchasing products, decisions that can protect health and safety.
Restricting court-ordered secrecy will not impinge on the court system and districts:
Reform will likely improve information available to consumers without taking a major toll on court systems. Judge Anderson’s federal district in South Carolina adopted court-ordered secrecy reform, the only district in South Carolina to do so by the time Anderson testified in 2008. New companies continued to spring up and thrive despite the changes in settlement secrecy. Interestingly, the court did not see any major increase in numbers of cases. In a testimony for the Sunshine in Litigation Act in 2009, Georgetown Law Professor Sherman L. Cohn mentioned that although reform may lead to decreased sums of money exchanged in settlements, a general “loyalty to society,” and a responsibility to public welfare, should transcend other considerations when matters affect public safety.
Information on the safety of a market product, such as a defective go-cart or other hazardous toys, machinery, jewelry, food and water, or land area, is vital to consumers, especially when the problems associated with a product may be fatal. We can’t afford to keep this information from the public. Let’s protect each other’s families and health by improving access to critical information on court cases relevant to public health and supporting the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2010.
