jikBill Seeks (Again) To End Over-Use Of Antibiotics In Farm Animalsde

4 4 4 4

(Martijn Venhuizen)

Antibiotic resistance is a big problem. Farmers know it. Consumer advocates know it. Doctors, the CDC, and the FDA all know it. You know it. And the largest contributor by far to the crisis is the 80% of antibiotics that are used in industrial farming. And Congress is, once again, taking a stab at making agricultural antibiotic abuse against the law before it’s too late.

Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York today introduced a bill — PAMTA, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act — intended to stem the tide of antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

The bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to severely limit the non-theraputic use of any medically important human antibiotic drugs in agriculture. Specifically, it would mean you can only use antibiotics to treat animals who are actually sick with bacterial infections. Currently, antibiotics are widely used in industrially-farmed animals’ food and water to promote animal growth and as preventative measures against disease outbreak from unsanitary conditions.

Antibiotic resistance is a critical problem in modern medicine, as more people every year suffer from infections that are now difficult or impossible to treat. In a press statement, Slaughter’s office specified that over two million Americans acquire antibiotic-resistant infections each year — and over 23,000 of those prove fatal. Globally, that figure is approximately 700,000 fatalities due to antibiotic-resistant infections each year.

Despite the worsening situation, the abuse of antibiotics in farming has increased, rather than decreased in recent years. The effects are already being seen basically everywhere.

In her statement, Slaughter called antibiotic resistance “the most pressing public health crisis of our time.” She continued, “Both the American people and the U.S. government need to give this issue the attention it demands. Right now, we are allowing the greatest medical advancement of the 20th century to be frittered away, in part because it’s cheaper for factory farms to feed these critical drugs to animals rather than clean up the deplorable conditions on the farm.”

“The Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Congress have all failed to enact meaningful changes to the status quo, endangering countless Americans,” Slaughter added. “If we want to prevent a nightmarish post-antibiotic future, citizens of this country need to speak up and demand that their leaders enact enforceable, verifiable limits on the use of antibiotics on the farm. Anything short of that, and we will only be biding our time until a major outbreak causes widespread devastation in this country and throughout the world.”

The bill, which already has 21 co-sponsors, was referred to the Health subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where it will presumably, and unfortunately, never again see the light of day.

In the meantime, some businesses are slowly responding to consumer concern and taking steps to buy meat from farms that do not use non-theraputic antibiotics.

Slaughter introduced earlier versions of the bill in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013; perhaps the fifth time’s the charm.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

jikStudent Loan Borrower’s Bill Of Rights Would Reform Disclosure And Servicing Standardsde

4 4 4 4

(Michael)

In recent weeks, legislators have introduced a range of bills aimed at addressing student loans and revamping the laws governing those debts. Today, that push continued with the reintroduction of a bill that would ensure student borrowers are treated fairly and understand the range of options at their disposal.

The Student Loan Borrower’s Bill of Rights – which was first introduced last year, but failed to move forward – was introduced today by Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

The bill, intended to provide reform disclosure and servicing standards for student loans, comes just weeks after President Obama introduced his own Student Aid Bill of Rights.

That measure establishes two centralized websites allowing borrowers to view their loan information more easily, while creating mandates for servicers to more clearly disclose changes to the debt and provide fair, affordable payment requirements.

“More must be done to help the nearly 40 million Americans holding some $1.2 trillion in student loan debt,” Dick Durbin says in a statement. “The Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights will ensure that all borrowers have basic rights and protections as they repay their student loans and more repayment options if they find that, despite their best efforts, they are unable to make their monthly payments in full.”

Under the newly introduced bill, federal and private student loan borrowers would be given six basic rights, the legislation’s authors say in a statement [PDF].

Rights afforded by the proposed measure include:

• The right to have options such as alternative payment plans to avoid default.

• The right to be informed about key terms and conditions of the loan and any repayment options to ensure changing plans won’t cost more.

• The right to know your loan’s servicer and who to reach out to when there is a problem.

• The right to consistency when it comes to how monthly payments are applied. Lenders and servicers should also honor promotions and promises that are advertised or offered.

• The right to fairness, like grace periods when loans are transferred or debt cancellation when the borrower dies or becomes disabled.

• The right to accountability, including timely resolution of errors and certification of private loans.

The Student Loan Borrower’s Bill of Rights also puts a special emphasis on servicemember and veteran borrowers by requiring loan servicers to provide each borrower with a liaison specifically trained in the benefits available to military borrowers.

Recent legislation intended to alleviate the burden felt by student loan borrowers include measures that would allow borrowers to discharge private student loans in bankruptcy and would allow loan interest rates to be refinanced.

Durbin, Warren, Reed: Bill Would Put Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights Into Law [Sen. Dick Durbin]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

jikPetition Wants To Make Ohio The Fifth State To Legalize Marijuanade

4 4 4 4

(BAMCAT)

A group in Ohio wants the state to join Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska in the legal recreational marijuana club, with a new petition to amend the state’s constitution.

The petition from ResponsibleOhio must collect 300,000 signatures before the amendment making marijuana legal medically and for recreational use could be put to a vote in November, reports CNNMoney.

The group is made up of investors from several companies who want the state to allow residents 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of pot for personal use and allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for some medical conditions. Residents could also grow a limited amount of cannabis plants at home.

Under the amendment, nonprofit dispensaries for medical marijuana and retail stores for recreational weed would get permits from the state to sell their wares. On a large scale, production would be limited to 10 commercial growing facilities in locations throughout the state.

As such, critics of the effort say the investors just want to create a marijuana cartel to control those facilities and thus, run the pot business in the state. But ResponsibleOhio insists that the facilities would be operated by different companies that would compete for consumers’ business. There would also be 1,100 permits for Ohioans looking to get into the world of small businesses, the group says.

“There is no coordination between them, they will be trying to make money by selling the best goods at the best prices to stores, dispensaries and manufacturers,” ResponsibleOhio says on its website.

Ohio may legalize pot this year [CNNMoney]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

jikWatch Out For Fake Magazine Renewal Invoicesde

4 4 4 4

(Sean Winters)

When you subscribe to a magazine and a subscription renewal form arrives in the mail, you pay the invoice and keep the magazines coming, right? No, not quite: at least, not if your address and subscription information have fallen into the hands of a company called Subscription Billing Service, which customers say collects money without bothering to mention that they have no relationship to the magazine publisher.

Wait, what? How is that even a thing that happens? When CBS Sacramento’s Kurtis Ming investigated the complaint of a local viewer who had this problem, he learned that the scam is surprisingly common. A Better Business Bureau representative explained that the company operates under dozens of different names, none of which have any actual relationship to the publishers.

How can you prevent yourself from falling for a similar scheme? Renew using invoices that you’re sure come directly from the magazine, or even using the publication’s website. If an invoice arrives with a price that you can’t resist, take note of the mailing address and call the magazine’s customer service number to make sure that it’s from the real company that handles their subscription billing. (Call the number printed in the magazine, not a number on the invoice that you receive.)

Call Kurtis: I Paid To Renew A Magazine, Where Is It? [CBS Sacramento]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

jikWould You Pay To Watch Video From YouTube Stars Before Everyone Else Gets It For Free?de

4 4 4 4

(Pamela Greer)

We want what we want, when we want it — but that doesn’t always mean we’re willing to pay for it if we can get it for free later on down the line. One company is betting that some fans of certain popular YouTube stars won’t be so patient, and will be willing to shell out the cash to gain access to some content before everyone else.

A new online service called Vessel launched today, reports the Los Angeles Times, offering up $2.99 monthly subscription access to videos from online stars three or more days before the same content is free of charge on YouTube for the general public.

Those who sign up before Friday will get a year free without having to put a credit card number down, but after that, new users will get just a month free.

Videomakers signed up to work with Vessel include GloZell Green, MinutePhysics, FailArmy, Brittani Louise Taylor, Shane Dawson and many more people you may or may not have heard of. Other content will be exclusive to Vessel, including a reality show starring Alec Baldwin about romantic relationships. Yes, you read that right.

Some fans are already ticked off, complaining that the service puts some fans above others who may not be able to afford it, or just don’t want to pay.

Vessel says however that the monthly rate is affordable, and that it’s in line with the changes in the way we consume media. For example, movies that sell first on an on-demand platform before airing on a cable channel and then moving on to free broadcast networks.

What do you think?

With Vessel, others, YouTube stars advance to charging for videos [Los Angeles Times]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

jikSouthwest Airlines Kicks Passenger Off Flight For “Broad F****ing City” T-Shirtde

4 4 4 4

(FOX 2 News)

For those unfamiliar with the Comedy Central show Broad City, the two main characters are a pair of unapologetically potty-mouthed friends with a penchant for using colorful language to describe any and all situations. But in showing his fandom with a T-shirt bearing the word “F***ing” between “Broad” and “City,” a Southwest Airlines passenger was reportedly kicked off his flight after refusing to cover up during an unscheduled stopover.

A college student on a Southwest flight from Dallas to Chicago landed in hot water with airline employees in St. Louis, when his plane made an unplanned stop at Lambert Airport due to bad weather, reports FOX 2 News.

Though his T-shirt reading “Broad F***ing City” had been covered up while he had his jacket on, he took the outer layer off after deplaning to use the restroom. That’s when he says a gate agent noticed his shirt and told him he’d have to take it off.

“It’s only when I got back on the plane when it was gonna take off, ya know, you have this much space, you’re gonna take your jacket off because it’s hot,” he explained. “I took my jacket off, so he sent someone to remove me from the flight.”

Though he claimed to the news station that he wasn’t given a chance to take the shirt off or cover it up, and that he “gladly would’ve done so” before re-boarding the plane, he provided a video that shows otherwise.

In the video, an employee asks him at the door of the aircraft if someone asked him about his shirt, which he affirms. The worker asks if he can change his shirt, to which he says, “Nope.” He then asks if he can put his jacket on and leave it on for the flight, and his answer is inaudible. Turn it inside out? “Nope.”

“Is there anything you can do not to display the shirt because at this point we can’t allow you to go,” the worker says.

At that point, the student brings up freedom of speech and insists it’s not bothering anyone. The worker notes that Southwest’s contract of carriage doesn’t allow for shirts with offensive sayings, and the passenger asks if a poll can be taken instead.

That doesn’t happen, and he was instead asked to leave the plane. He says he was escorted by airport police from the terminal after he confronted the gate agent on the way out. He then reportedly contacted local media.

“There are more than a hundred people on the plane trying to get to Chicago and the most important thing is my shirt?” he says. “How does that work? Where’s the sense of priority?”

Southwest said in a statement that it stood behind the actions of its employees in the incident.

“We rely on our employees and customers to use common sense and good judgment,” a spokesman told FOX 2.

According to Southwest’s policy, it will “may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at any

point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary for the

comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members,” including: “Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.”

The passenger eventually boarded a later flight to his final destination in New York after agreeing to change his shirt.

Man kicked off Southwest flight over language on t-shirt [FOX 2 News]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

jikAirports Propose Increasing Facility Fees To Pay For Infrastructure Improvementsde

4 4 4 4

(largeprime)

With airlines introducing new fees for just about everything from reserved seats, carry on bags and even water, it appears that the actual airports are looking to get a piece of the action with a proposed increase to the passenger facility fee.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the proposed fee increase – from $4.50 to $8.50 per leg of the trip – would be used to finance construction projects at airports.

The possible increase, which has continuously been proposed by airports since 2007, is slated for debate by Congress as part of policy legislation for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Facility fees last increased to $4.50 in 2000. Proponents of the new fee say that 15 years has been too long for the stagnant fee when inflation and construction costs are considered.

A recent report from two airport industry groups say that current buildings around the country need nearly $75 billion in construction upgrades.

Airlines and their trade association Airlines for America tell the Inquirer they oppose the fee because it could discourage air travel for consumers.

The groups say that airports have several other options to generate the funds needed for improvements to infrastructure, such as airline rentals, concessions and rental-car operators.

As for the report on needed facility updates, Airlines for America contends that most of those have already been made.

“Since 2008, more than $70 billion in capital improvement projects have been completed, are underway, or have been approved by U.S. airlines and their airport partners at the country’s largest 30 airports,” the group tells the Inquirer.

Still, the airports assert that the $8 total increase in fees pales in comparison to the fees charged by airlines for checked bags and itinerary changes which can range from $20 to more than $200.

“This is not a tax,” Philadelphia International Airport CEO Mark Gale tells the Inquirer. “This does not go off to the federal government. This comes to the airports, and has to be spent on projects approved by the FAA.”

Also fighting the proposed increase is passenger rights group, FlyersRights.org – which called for a cap to airline change fees for international flights last month – says consumers shouldn’t have to pay more for infrastructure needs.

“Air travel costs are being inflated by 50 percent or more by unnecessary taxes and airline- [and] airport-imposed fees and charges,” Paul Hudson, president of FlyersRights, tells the Inquirer. “They should be giving back to the traveling public, not seeking to take more.”

Airports look to nearly double ‘facility fee’ [The Philadelphia Inquirer]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist