<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>U.S. PIRG Consumer Blog</title>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:37:18 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.17</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Warren: Why we need the Consumer Financial Protection Agency</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMJ6xD8n3uE"><img alt="edeliz.gif" src="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/edeliz.gif" width="150" height="110" align="left" hspace="5" vspace="5" target="blank"/></a><br />
Before we both testified the other day in the House Financial Services Committee, Professor Elizabeth Warren and I talked about the idea, right there in front of the door, with our videographer-intern, Ashi Soni. <strong><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMJ6xD8n3uE" target="blank">Click here or on the picture</a></strong> to go to Youtube.  You can go to our <a href="https://www.uspirg.org/action/financial-privacy/consumer-financial-product-agency" target="blank">action page to support the Consumer Financial Protection Agency</a>. Tom Donohue, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is pictured against. More on <a href="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/consumer_financ.html" target="blank">industry opposition</a> to this sensible, necessary idea.</p>

<p>Keep checking our home page for more and more U.S. PIRG videos. Right now, Gary Kalman is also up there at <a href="http://www.uspirg.org">uspirg.org</a> -- talking health care reform. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/warren_why_we_n.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/warren_why_we_n.html</guid>
<category>Ideas for New Congress</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:37:18 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>More Simplicity cribs recalled, death toll now at 13 infants</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The CPSC has announced its <a href="http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09260.html" target="blank">latest recall</a> of Chinese-made cribs from Simplicity and its successor SFCA: "This recall involves all drop side cribs with a different or “newer” style of plastic hardware from those cribs recalled in September 2007." In an <a href="http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09260list.html" target="blank">accompanying release <strong>CPSC Urges Consumers to Check Their Homes for Numerous Simplicity Nursery Product Recalls</strong> and list of all Simplicity recalls</a> since 2005, the CPSC leads with: <blockquote>SFCA Inc., the Reading, Pa.-based company that purchased the assets of juvenile product manufacturer Simplicity Inc. after foreclosure, appears to no longer be conducting day to day operations. SFCA Inc. is no longer answering phone calls, responding to e-mails from consumers, or providing repair kits to fix hundreds of thousands of defective cribs. At least 13 children have tragically died in recalled Simplicity cribs and bassinets. CPSC is urging all parents, caregivers, online sellers and purchasers, daycare providers, and thrift store owners to immediately check if they have one of the following Simplicity-made or Simplicity-branded products and dispose of those units where there is no longer a remedy.</blockquote> Link to recent CPSC <a href="http://cpsc.gov/infantsleep.html" target="blank">crib safety event</a> featuring <a href="http://cpsc.gov/kid.pdf" target="blank">Nancy Cowles of Kids In Danger</a>. Our previous <a href="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2008/10/simplicity_crib.html" target="blank">blog</a> on some of the Simplicity/SFCA/Blackwater private equity firm corporate machinations that have exacerbated this ongoing tragedy.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/more_simplicity.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/more_simplicity.html</guid>
<category>Dangerous Products</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:39:53 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Got Shmutz?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><img alt="floorshmutz08.jpg" src="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/floorshmutz08.jpg" width="182" height="225" align="left" vspace="5" hspace="5" />Last week <a href="http://www.NYPIRG.org" target="blank">NYPIRG's</a> popular and effective <a href="www.straphangers.org" target="blank">Straphangers Campaign</a> released its latest <a href="http://www.straphangers.org/shmutz08/index.html" target="blank">Subway Shmutz Survey</a>, ranking subway line cleanliness. As the New York Times headline stated, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/nyregion/26shmutz.html?ref=nyregion" target="blank">Clean Subway? The No. 7 Line Is as Good as It Gets.</a> From the <a href="http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20339965&BRD=2731&PAG=461&dept_id=574908&rfi=6" target="blank">Queens Chronicle</a>:  <blockquote>If a car was “basically dirt free” or had the occasional ground-in spots but was relatively clean, it was rated clean. Cars were rated unclean if they had a “dingy floor” and “one or two sticky dry spots.” And those that received dunce caps were caught having “heavy dirt, opened or spilled food, hazardous conditions, sticky wet spots and seats unusable due to unclean conditions.” The survey did not rate litter.</blockquote> From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmutz" target="blank">Wikipedia</a>: [The Yiddish word shmutz] can designate a range of types of unpleasant substances [...] </p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/got_shmutz.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/got_shmutz.html</guid>
<category>1. Reports &amp; News Releases</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:21:11 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>American Prospect Special Report: The Financial Crisis</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.prospect.org" target="blank">American Prospect</a> has issued a <a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/special_report" target="blank">Special Report: July/August 2009: The Credit Crisis and Working America</a>. It includes an article <a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=regulation_as_civic_empowerment" target="blank">Regulation as Civic Empowerment</a>, by me. Excerpt from my article on the CRA, community right to know laws on toxics, and other laws that empower consumers and citizens: <blockquote>Laws that help citizens or workers build countervailing power are an underused mechanism for building better, more efficient government that intrudes less into markets and achieves better outcomes. [...] All of these citizenship strategies address the same broad problem: the imbalance between the concentrated power of affected industries and the diffuse power of ordinary people. By designing regulation so that it engages and informs citizens, facilitates organizing, and puts citizens into direct encounters with the industry as well as with regulators, these policies energize citizenship, and they begin to redress the structural power imbalance.</blockquote></p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/american_prospe.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/american_prospe.html</guid>
<category>1. Reports &amp; News Releases</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:48:06 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&quot;Harry and Louise&quot; to oppose consumer financial protection agency?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><img alt="handl.jpg" src="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/handl.jpg" width="135" height="90" hspace="5" vspace="5" align="right"/> Back when the Clintons proposed health care reform in 1993, the health insurance industry helped crush it with a PR campaign based on a massive TV ad campaign featuring a special-interest oriented actor-couple attempting to pass as average consumers and whining about the government. Unfortunately, because the industry had so much money, they did pass as average consumers. The ploy worked in killing the health care plan. Now, after several days of reading whining comments from bank lobbyists about the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, it appears that the banks -- another industry that has failed us but still has a lot of money, that money buoyed by its taxpayer contributions from the TARP -- is thinking about bringing back Harry and Louise to kill the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. First, here's a typical whining comment, this one from Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable (Washington Post): <blockquote>"If you argue against the agency, then you could be incorrectly painted as arguing against consumer protection," said Scott Talbot, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable.</blockquote> But now, as reported by Jessica Holzer of the <a href="http://www.easybourse.com/bourse-actualite/marches/groups-mull-harry-and-louise-ads-to-sink-consumer-agency-695726">Dow Jones newswires</a>, <blockquote>Financial industry and other business groups are considering running "Harry and Louise"-style ads to sway public opinion against the Obama administration's proposed Consumer Financial Products Agency. The original Harry and Louise television spot, financed by the insurance industry, helped defeat the Clinton health plan in the early 1990s. In the commercial, a middle-class married couple laments they are worse off under the new health-care regime, describing it as a bureaucratic nightmare.</blockquote> If I had time, I'd write a script, but you've heard it all before. But don't be fooled. The banks like the current system that has failed us and will be doing all they can to maintain it. Expect nothing less than a full-scale assault on the Obama plan over the next few months.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/harry_and_louis.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/07/harry_and_louis.html</guid>
<category>Corporate Crime</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:12:13 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Harold Feld: Ode to FCC Commissioner Adelstein</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>We totally agree with Harold Feld's blog comments <a href="http://www.wetmachine.com/item/1582">praising departing FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein</a>. The good news, however, is that he is not departing government -- he is moving over to run the rural broadband program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service where he'll make sure that rural America benefits from enhanced broadband deployment. Here's a 2007 blog entry of mine with <a href="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2007/01/ncmr2007_commis.html">some pictures of Adelstein onstage jamming</a> with first the North Mississippi All-Stars and then with the Austin Lounge Lizards.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/harold_feld_ode.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/harold_feld_ode.html</guid>
<category>Consumer Champions</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:51:13 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Administration releases draft consumer financial protection agency bill</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>UPDATE: Excerpt from <a href="http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003156870">CQ Midday Update</a>: Despite industry objections, the proposal to create the agency – in one form or another – will almost certainly make its way into the final overhaul bill in both chambers. Barney Frank , D-Mass., and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd ., D-Conn., the chairmen of the banking committees in the House and Senate, have both announced their support for the idea. <strong>“It’s going to happen,” Frank said last week. “You all keep writing about it like this is some kind of issue. It’s not. It’s going to happen.”</strong></p>

<p>We're reading it now. Here is the <a href="http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/CFPA-Act.pdf" target="blank">152 page CFPA draft</a> and here is an amendment to the <a href="http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/TITLE-XI.pdf" target="blank">FTC Act</a>. More at <a href="http://financialstability.gov/" target="blank">financialstability.gov</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/administration.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/administration.html</guid>
<category>Corporate Crime</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:10:26 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>NYTimes: New program ties student loan payments to income</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In recognition that the skyrocketing cost of education has long driven graduates away from low and moderate paying public service careers such as teaching, with the problem exacerbated by the double whammy of the horrible economy limiting availability of any job, the <a href="http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/IBRPlan.jsp#content" target="blank">U.S. Department of Education launches tomorrow</a> <blockquote>"a repayment plan that lets graduates reduce their loan payments, based on their income,"</blockquote> as reported by Jonathan Glater in his NY Times story <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/education/30college.html" target="blank">New Plan Ties Reduced College Loan Payments to Income</a>, which goes on to cite U.S. PIRG higher education program director Christine Lindstrom:<blockquote> "It enables all borrowers to be able to face their life circumstances and know there is some flexibility and responsiveness based on what life throws their way.”</blockquote> The program was enacted in the last Congress.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/nytimes_new_pro.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/nytimes_new_pro.html</guid>
<category>Student loans and debts</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:22:20 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Banks pay &quot;bonuses&quot; if consumers tricked into high-fee programs</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>UPDATE: Reuters on <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090630/bs_nm/us_bankofamerica_protest" target="blank">the launch</a>.</p>

<p>As reported by the <a href="http://www.tri-cityherald.com/business/business_wire/story/631003.html" target="blank">Associated Press</a> and the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bofa30-2009jun30,0,6339542.story" target="blank">LA Times</a>, we will be participating in a campaign that <a href="http://www.seiu.org">SEIU </a>is launching today to help whistle-blower workers protest their incentive-based participation in programs designed to put consumers into the worst accounts, extra accounts and over-priced loans and mortgages. From Daniel Wagner's AP story: </p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/banks_pay_bonus.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/banks_pay_bonus.html</guid>
<category>The Poor Still Pay More</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:31:30 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>States win a round on bank law preemption</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>UPDATE: LA Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-banks30-2009jun30,0,5039415.story" target="blank">story</a>. New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30bizcourt.html" target="blank">story</a>. USA Today <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-06-29-national-banks-ruling_N.htm" target="blank">story</a>. Finally, here is the Forbes <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/29/supreme-court-roberts-business-washington-discrimination.html" target="blank">story</a>. The bank kids do a good job in all these stories of sticking to their tired, false "patchwork" messaging. They seem to like that better than "balkanization" these days even if neither is accurate. What happened is this: The court simply put real corporate crime cops back on the beat enforcing their narrow set of non-preempted laws. The next step, reinstating all the other state laws OCC wrongly preempted, is up to Congress.</p>

<p>Original post: The Supreme Court has issued its decision in <a href="http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html" target="blank">Cuomo vs. Clearinghouse and OCC</a>, holding that when a state attorney general seeks to enforce state laws over national banks in his or her role as the state's chief law enforcer, he or she is not preempted by the overly-broad OCC preemption rules. However, the decision is not 100% on our side, as it is unclear how investigations could be conducted under the lines drawn by the court. In any case, we knew that win this case or not, we'd still need Congress and the President to go further to reinstate state rights, as the President has proposed. We'll have more after our legal eagles analyze the scope of the decision. </p>

<p>We were <a href="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/04/court_hears_imp.html" target="blank">amicus</a> in the case on the side of the states. <a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200906291109DOWJONESDJONLINE000391_FORTUNE5.htm" target="blank">Dow Jones via CNN Money</a>. Lauren Saunders of the <a href="http://www.nclc.org" target="blank">National Consumer Law Center</a> has issued a statement: Excerpt:</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/states_win_a_ro.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/states_win_a_ro.html</guid>
<category>5. States: Laboratories of democracy</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:48:51 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Consumer financial protection agency fight heats up</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>We expect to see legislative language from the Treasury Department implementing President Obama's proposal for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) sent to the hill, probably Monday. Following Wednesday's House Financial Services hearing on the proposed CFPA (<a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/hrfc_062409.shtml" target="blank">watch video, download testimony</a>), the fight is just getting started. Industry groups have staked out their position: they strongly oppose an agency to protect consumers. They like the current system. But that system failed, the last I checked. But the bankers like it because they dominate its captured regulators. As the American Bankers Association's <a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/yingling.pdf" target="blank">Ed Yingling testified</a> as he sat right next to me: "We believe that a separate consumer regulator should not be enacted…." Further, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will oppose a standalone agency "that cannibalizes regulatory expertise, adding yet another regulatory layer." (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/obama-proposes-new-agency-police-lenders-protect-consumers/" target="blank">AP</a>) The Chamber has also launched a $100 million campaign against “mounting government regulations:”  (<a href="http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/chamber-ramping-up-free-enterp.php" target="blank">National Journal</a>). Even the Wall Street lobby group (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association-SIFMA) whose members’ excesses and greed exacerbated the collapse has a new campaign on <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNBWPPxGyWaU" target="blank">‘Populist Overreaction’</a> (Bloomberg).</p>

<p>The New York Times, in its editorial today <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28sun1.html" target="blank">On the Road to Regulation</a>, points out that a key test of the new CFPA legislation will be whether it gives consumers the right to enforce the banking laws, too. <blockquote>"Lawmakers will also have to ensure that the administration’s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/opinion/24wed1.html?ref=opinion" target="blank">very good idea</a> (link to previous editorial) for a consumer financial-products safety commission translates into a truly robust agency. One sign that is happening would be for the law to include a right for consumers to sue firms that violate certain doctrines established by the new agency." </blockquote> We strongly agree. We can never be sure that any federal agency, no matter how well-intentioned or provisioned, will be able to adequately police the marketplace. We do expect that the language implementing the new agency will clearly reinstate state authority to enact and enforce stronger laws, returning federal law to a floor of protection, not a ceiling. That's a critical reform.</p>

<p>After the jump, I have a lot more commentary plus links to news stories on what will be a critical reform battle between the banking lobby that failed our economy and the people and groups trying to ensure that it won't happen again.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/consumer_financ.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/consumer_financ.html</guid>
<category>The Poor Still Pay More</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:33:13 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>GM bankruptcy reportedly will protect product defect victims</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>UPDATE MONDAY: Stories today (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802466.html" target="blank">Washington Post</a>) say that GM has agreed to only compensate victims of defect cases that arise after the bankruptcy is finalized.  From the Post: <blockquote>Consumers could file the claims even if their vehicles were made by the "old" GM. However, those with past claims would have to pursue the GM left behind in bankruptcy with nothing but unwanted assets, debts and other liabilities.</blockquote> Current cases will be considered as "creditors" not victims. Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) has proposed legislation requiring bankrupt automakers, including Chrysler, to purchase liability insurance to compensate all victims.</p>

<p>ORIGINAL: The New York Times is reporting today that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/business/28gm.html" target="blank">G.M. to Maintain Legal Liability for Claims</a>. Recently, U.S. PIRG had joined other leading advocacy groups in <a href="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/dangerous_defec.html" target="blank">a letter to the President</a> urging this condition to the government-negotiated bankruptcy plan. Otherwise, victims who are maimed or killed by product defects would have little or no recourse. From the Times: <blockquote>G.M. and the administration’s auto task force have been negotiating with more than a dozen state attorneys general who have objected to the company’s plan to sell its desirable assets to a new, government-financed entity. A hearing to approve the plan is scheduled for Tuesday in federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan. </blockquote> Our colleagues at the Center for Justice and Democracy have been covering the issue extensively over at their <a href="http://www.thepoptort.com/2009/06/more-chryslergm-bankruptcy-loophole-buzz.html" target="blank">Pop Tort blog</a>. Recent <a href="http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=442088&A=3673" target="blank">statement on his objection</a> filed with the court from one of those intervening attorneys general, Connecticut's Dick Blumenthal.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/gm_bankruptcy_r.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/gm_bankruptcy_r.html</guid>
<category>Access To Justice</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:13:27 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>PIRG TARP Report CARD: Treasury gets a C</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>U.S.PIRG tax and budget analyst Nicole Tichon has released our latest TARP transparency and accountability report card. The Obama administration gets a first quarter 09 "C", up from the Bush Treasury's last quarter 08 "F."</p>

<p>Our web site is still being rebuilt after a server crash, so the <a href="http://www.uspirg.org/issues/financial-security/challenging-the-bailout" target="blank">full report</a> may not be available today, but you can read more about it over at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/treasury-earns-c-average_n_219797.html" target="blank">Arthur Delaney's Huffington Post interview with Nicole</a>:  <blockquote>"We're coming from an abysmal state: There was no information available about the participants, no information about why they were receiving the money," said U.S. PIRG's Nicole Tichon, author of the report card, in an interview with the Huffington Post. "The fact that there's lip service being paid to taxpayer protection is a great step." The report card praises the administration for making "important progress around transparency in terms of developing online resources, fact sheets, guidelines, interactive programs and tools to help taxpayers navigate the myriad programs and hundreds of participants" in the TARP.</blockquote> Remember, it is still a "C" -- there is much room to improve.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/pirg_tarp_repor.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/pirg_tarp_repor.html</guid>
<category>1. Reports &amp; News Releases</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:47:39 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bacteria-Laced Cookie Dough Plot Thickens</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062604354.html" target="blank">Associated Press</a> (via Washington Post) is reporting that <blockquote>"Inspection reports from a Nestlé USA cookie dough factory released yesterday show the company declined several times in the past five years to provide Food and Drug Administration inspectors with complaint logs, pest-control records and other information."</blockquote> The story goes on to quote FDA as saying that this is all legal and standard although "the FDA can force a company to comply if public health is at stake." That's of course, if FDA already knows about a problem. Actually, things are worse than that. As <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08435t.pdf" target="blank">GAO points out</a>: <blockquote>[Unlike CPSC and DOT] Currently, food recalls are largely voluntary—federal agencies responsible for food safety, including FDA, have no authority to compel companies to recall contaminated foods, with the exception of FDA’s authority to require a recall for infant formula.</blockquote> Even before 2008 Congressional upgrades to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's authorities, companies had to notify that agency when they learned -- through testing, through consumer complaints or phone calls, or reports from hospitals or doctors -- that a consumer product might pose hazards. And the CPSC has long had authority to order mandatory recalls, although voluntary recalls were much more widely used. The mandatory recall process was tough to use, but the threat of it at least made voluntary recalls a little more negotiable. FDA information on <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm168346.htm" target="blank">Nestle cookie dough recall</a> and the serious health effects of the particularly virulent strain of E. coli contained in the dough. And Congress, don't forget food safety reform.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/bacterialaced_c.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/bacterialaced_c.html</guid>
<category>Dangerous Products</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:04:41 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Florida governor vetoes legislative giveaway to big insurance cos.</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Kudos to Florida's Republican governor Charlie Crist who, unlike his legislature, stood up to the powerful insurance lobby and just vetoed an outrageous legislative giveaway to the biggest property insurance companies. Here is Florida PIRG legislative advocate Brad Ashwell's <a href="http://www.floridapirg.org/news-releases/property-insurance-reform/property-insurance-reform/statement-by-brad-ashwell-in-response-to-gov.-crists-veto-of-sb-1171----a-bill-designed-to-eliminate-insurance-rate-regulation" target="blank">statement</a> praising the veto. (Previous <a href="http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/insurance_indus.html" target="blank">blog</a> has link to Brad's op-ed explaining the issue.) Florida <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-insurance-veto-062409,0,1140685.story" target="blank">Sun-Sentinel</a>: <blockquote>Although the legislation (HB 1171) was called the "consumer choice" bill, it actually would have allowed about 40 of the largest property insurers to start charging virtually any price they want for policies with hurricane coverage, and to bypass regulations the state imposes on other companies.</blockquote></p>]]></description>
<link>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/forida_governor.html</link>
<guid>http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2009/06/forida_governor.html</guid>
<category>5. States: Laboratories of democracy</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:39:06 -0500</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>