четверг, 21 мая 2015 г.

uMcDonald’s, If It’s Come To This, Just Improve Your Foodr


4 4 4 9
  • “We’ve heard the same rumors you have,” says a recent publication from McDonald’s. “Fillers in our beef, so called ‘pink slime.'” The message is fine, but the location is problematic: McDonald’s is not only protesting a little too much, but this message is on a tray placemat. In one of their restaurants. The kind that you look at while you eat your McDonald’s food.

    “I sort of feel that McDonald’s shouldn’t mention pink slime on its trays,” mused technology journalist Harry McCracken on Twitter, “even if only to debunk it.”

    Let’s refresh our memories about what “pink slime” is. The pink bricks are a way to use trimmings from cow carcasses that would normally be thrown away. These small pieces are cooked, have the fat separated out using a centrifuge, and are sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. Then they’re packed into pink bricks shipped to sellers of ground beef, where it’s used as a filler that is, technically, beef. That’s how the U.S. Department of Agriculture defines it.

    The idea of ammonia-sprayed meat and just the phrase “pink slime” turned the public against the stuff: the company that makes it sued news network ABC for defamation.

    If you don’t like the existence of pink slime, too bad: higher beef prices mean that as of last year, it was popular again as of last year. Just not at McDonald’s. Apparently.

    McDonald’s doesn’t use pink slime now, but they used to. It stopped using the product in their burgers back in 2012, but still fights rumors that it comprises 85% of their ground beef.

    We’ve said this before, of course: once you’re putting on a defensive ad campaign explaining that your food is actually made out of food, you’ve already lost. When you’re reminding people of what used to be in their burgers while they eat their burgers, you’ve really lost.

    With that, we offer some suggestions for alternate placemat messages for McDonald’s.

    • Picture some mucus. That’s not us.
    • We promise we washed our hands.
    • Our food now contains food. (This isn’t far off the message of the current McDonald’s campaign.)
    • Chicken McNuggets are definitely not made from mutant birds the size of goats.
    • Our lemonade is 100% mucus-free.
    • McDonald’s: Better Than Eating Off The Floor!

    Would any of these things have occurred to you before seeing them on your placemat? Probably not!



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


u6 Out Of 11 Extra Virgin Olive Oils Tested Don’t Meet Standardr


4 4 4 9
  • There’s at least some good news out of the National Consumer League’s recent tests of olive oil that they purchased in retail stores in the Washington, DC area: out of all the samples they tested, none of them contained oil that wasn’t olives. That’s an improvement over other recent olive oil testing, including an investigation that the New York Times published last year. Unfortunately, all of that olive oil wasn’t exactly as advertised.

    Consumers pay higher prices to dip their breads and douse their salads in extra virgin olive oil. However, out of the eleven brands tested, six didn’t pass the lab’s stringent tests to meet the “extra virgin” standard. The lab in Australia performed chemical tests on the oil as well as sensory testing by trained humans to determine the flavor profile.

    While they didn’t name which oils failed the tests, here’s a list of brands that they say passed:

    • California Olive Ranch “Extra Virgin Olive Oil”
    • Colavita “Extra Virgin Olive Oil”
    • Trader Joe’s “ Extra Virgin California Estate Olive Oil”
    • Trader Joe’s “100% Italian Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil”
    • Lucini “Premium Select Extra Virgin Olive Oil”

    “The results of our olive oil testing reveal that, while consumers are buying and paying extra for olive oil labeled EVOO, too much of the olive oil bought off the shelf isn’t the real deal,” Sally Greenberg, executive director of the NCL, said in a statement. When more than half of the bottles are degraded, that’s pretty bad, especially when the group says that they took care to choose bottles that were stored away from the light and less likely to be degraded.

    Olive oil mislabeling: Are consumers catching on? [National Consumers League]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uFlickr Robots Auto-Tag Every Photo, Auto-Annoy Usersr


4 4 4 9
  • Flickr’s survival is a minor miracle of the Internet age: it’s one of the few sites that Yahoo acquired in the last decade that it didn’t kill off or change beyond all recognition. That’s because of its core base of very loyal and very talented users. Unfortunately, that kind of base means a popular uprising whenever anything about the site changes, a minor revolt happens.

    We at Consumerist are grateful for the continuing existence of Flickr: thanks to Creative Commons-licensed photos and photos licensed through our own Flickr pool, we populate these pages with original photos contributed by our readers and other talented people.

    This time, what Flickr changed seemed like a really good idea. Maybe if they had made it an opt-in beta test, that could have worked a little better. The site’s innovation was using photo recognition to automatically generate tags for users’ photos.

    zoesquirrelIn a few minutes of poking around Flickr, I saw a hamster labeled “people.” Here’s another relatively non-offensive example, unless you’re my dog: at right is a camera phone snapshot of my dog plotting her next move while watching a squirrel in my backyard. She’s small compared to the rest of the picture and the picture was taken from the back and at an angle so she isn’t dog-shaped, so what did Flickr’s tagging system label her as? A bird. Without any other tags by me to provide context, they tagged the picture with “bird,” “outdoor,” and “animal.”bird

    Other examples were a lot less innocuous. Users noticed photos of black people that were tagged “animal” and “ape.” Don’t call the robot racist, though: photo of a white and blonde woman taken at a color run was tagged “ape.” From an evolutionary point of view, we’re all apes, but that is probably not where the tagging robot was going with that.) A photo of the metal fence outside of the Dachau concentration camp was labeled “jungle gym,” since it kind of looks like one if you’re a photo-recognition computer that doesn’t understand context.

    Or boundaries. Some users complained that they felt like their privacy had been violated because the tagging robot added tags to photos that had been limited to “friends and family” only. “I can’t help but feel violated that the Flickr auto tagging has invaded my [friends and family] photos,” one user posted. “That is very invasive. Flickr has no place trespassing like that. It is just morally wrong. You were not invited in.”

    A Flickr staff member explained to users upset about the change why some of the tags were incredibly generic, like “people” or “indoors.”

    The overwhelming majority of searches on Flickr include some very general terms – sometimes alone and sometimes in conjunction with other, more specific terms. When people search Flickr, general tags often help in getting your photos found.

    If you have a Flickr account and want to opt out of getting auto-tagged entirely, so far your best option is to turn off search for your account. you can do that here. That does mean opting out of having your photos searched and found by strangers.

    Flickr faces complaints over ‘offensive’ auto-tagging for photos [The Guardian]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uFDA Report Shows Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams Failed To Adequately Comply With Testing, Cleaning Proceduresr


4 4 4 9
  • stack_of_pints__05446-1427209886-1280-1280While Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams prepares to reopen its scoop shops this weekend, newly released federal investigation reports show the Ohio-based company’s issues date back several years before its public battle with listeria contamination.

    The Associated Press reports that a recent Food and Drug Administration investigation found Jeni’s relied on inadequate testing and cleaning procedures at its Columbus plant prior to its listeria outbreak last month.

    The 2015 report, which was released as part of a Freedom of Information request by the AP, show Jeni’s did not prescribe to a sufficient testing program and failed to acceptably sanitize surfaces at the plant.

    According to the report, staff responsible for assuring compliance with government food safety standards showed a “lack of competency” by failing to adhere to guidelines.

    An additional report based on a 2008 inspection found many of the same issues, the AP reports.

    Additionally, investigators at that time found evidence of the presence of rodents and insects, as well as inadequate personal cleanliness of workers. Those problems were not found in the most recent report.

    Since recalling all of its products last month and closing its ice cream stores, Jeni’s has reworked production to prevent future contamination.

    The company previously identified the source of the listeria contamination at its production kitchen to a single pint-filling machine.

    Since finding the issue, Jeni’s has turned its focus to creating a production kitchen with the best defenses against any contamination. To do so, the company has enlisted top food safety experts and plans to invest more than $200,000 into the kitchen transformation.

    FDA probe of Jeni’s plant finds inadequate testing, cleaning [The Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uRestaurant Chain Suing Sweets Company Over Smiley-Faced Cookiesr


4 4 4 9
  • No laughing matter.

    No laughing matter.

    In a case that just makes me want to order folks to turn their frowns upside down, a Pennsylvania baked goods company is suing a Chicago business over what it calls a similar use of smiley faces on cookies. Can’t we all just eat cookies featuring joyful visages and be happy about it?

    No, apparently not: Eat’n Park of Pennsylvania is suing Chicago American Sweet & Snacks in federal court over its use of a cookie that features a smiling face drawn in icing, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

    On the one hand, there’s Eat’n Park’s Smiley cookies, which it’s been selling since 1985. Those feature white icing with a smiling face — including a nose — in various colors.

    Chicago American’s “Smiley’s” are a lot like its product, Eat’n Park claims. That iteration of happy baked good is a beige treat filled with chocolate cream, with brown wyes and a smiling mouth. No nose, however.

    Eat’n Park has filed numerous trademark infringement suits against various companies to protect its design in the past, something the company is required to do now and then to defend the Smiley trademarks.

    “In this particular case, the ‘Smiley’s Cookies’ logo name and design used by the company infringes on our brand trademark,“ a spokesman told the paper.

    Eat’n Park sues Chicago cookie-maker over Smiley trademark [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uCredit Bureaus Must Pay $6M, Fix Errors More Quickly Under 31-State Agreementr


4 4 4 9
  • The three largest companies to collect and disseminate credit information for millions of Americans – Experian, Equifax and TransUnion – must significantly change the way they treat disputed information on credit reports as part of a massive multi-state settlement announced this week.

    The credit reporting agencies (CRAs) entered into a settlement with 31 states attorneys general on Wednesday that requires them to pay $6 million to the states and revamp their business practices including fixing disputed information on credit reports more quickly, waiting longer to add potentially damaging information on medical debt and scrutinizing data furnished by outside entities.

    “Today is a good day for all consumers,” Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, who led the charge, said in a statement. “We are announcing a comprehensive multi-state settlement that will help protect consumers from credit reports that are wrong, out of date, or even mixed up with someone else’s report, and it will reduce the chance that a consumer is wrongly denied a house loan, a car loan, or even a job, because of an inaccurate credit report.”

    The settlement stems from an investigation initiated by DeWine back in 2012. That probe, which covered all 31 states that are part of the agreement, focused on consumer disputes about credit report errors, monitoring and disciplining data furnishers, accuracy in consumer credit reports, and the marketing of credit monitoring products to consumers who call the credit reporting agencies to dispute information on their credit report.

    Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt said in a statement that the settlement provides protections to consumers nationwide by ensuring that they will have greater control over their financial lives.

    “This is a comprehensive settlement that has taken participating states years to negotiate,” he said. “I empathize with those Nevadans who have long struggled with these issues, and am actively working to achieve changes and positive results.”

    In all, the agreement requires the three big CRAs to:

    • Maintain information about problems with entities that furnish them data and make that information available to states;
    • Use a better, more detailed system to share data with furnishers;
    • Create an extensive process for complicated disputes involving identity theft, fraud or cases in which two people’s identities have been confused;
    • Launch investigations when consumers report mistakes;
    • Refrain from peddling fee-based credit-monitoring services or other products until a consumer’s complaint is resolved;
    • Educate consumers about how they can further dispute the outcome of an investigation;
    • Provide the name of the original creditor when a debt collector seeks to add an unpaid bill to a credit report

    Additionally, the CRAs are prohibited from adding information about fines and tickets to a consumer’s report and bans the agencies from including medical debt until 180 days after it is reported, in order to give consumers time to work with hospitals and insurance companies.

    When it comes to disputes, the agencies are now required to provide consumers with an extra free credit report in a 12-month period if information they challenged creates a change on their report.

    According to DeWine, the changes will be implemented in three phases to allow the agencies to update their IT systems and procedures. All changes must be made by three years and 90 days following the settlement’s effective date.

    In addition to Ohio and Nevada, states included in the settlement are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

    The multi-state settlement comes nearly three months after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced a similar agreement with the same CRAs.

    According to that arrangement, over the next three years the Experian, Equifax and Transunion must make nationwide policy changes regarding the ways they handle errors, resolve disputes and list unpaid medical bills.

    The three CRAs will now be required to use trained employees to review documentation consumers submit when they believe there is an error in their credit files, even if a creditor says the information is correct.

    Attorney General DeWine Announces Major National Settlement with Credit Reporting Agencies [Attorney General Mike DeWine]
    Attorney General Laxalt announces $6 million settlement with Credit Reporting Agencies [Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uHow Long Until A Hybrid Car Actually Saves Me Money?r


4 4 4 9
  • Because common sense is more common than you might think, sales of hybrid cars are down now that gas prices have fallen as well. That makes sense. Yet there are some circumstances where it makes sense to buy a hybrid car, even when fuel costs are low. How do you know if that includes your situation? The government is here to help.

    The FuelEconomy.gov site helps you compare between a hybrid car and a similar non-hybrid model. The sticker price on hybrid cars is higher, and in theory the better fuel economy should offset that. I plugged in my real-life driving numbers (not very many miles, mostly not on the highway) for a Prius and a similar Toyota Corolla, and found that it would take me nine and a half years to make up the difference in gas savings.

    priuscomp

    Where this tool also reflects the real world, though, is that you can also calculate how much more it will cost you to recoup the cost with a loan: most people don’t pay for a $25,000 vehicle with cash, after all. For me, the hybrid would add more than a year to the amount of time it would take to recoup the cost.

    Can a Hybrid Save Me Money? [FuelEconomy.gov] (via Jalopnik)



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist