среда, 10 июня 2015 г.

uNYC May Become First U.S. City To Require High-Sodium Warning Labels At Chain Restaurantsr


4 4 4 9
  • The health war wages on in New York City, where the ghost of the failed ban on large sodas is said to still haunt city hall, moaning the name of a certain former mayor. This time, city officials are taking on sodium, proposing a requirement that chain restaurants put a label on menu items that are high in salt.

    NYC would become the first U.S. city to require warning labels on such dishes, health officials told the Associated Press.

    The city’s Department of Health is set to propose a rule today that would have all chain restaurants adding a salt shaker symbol or something similar next to products that contain more than the recommended daily limit of 2,300 milligrams of sodium, or about 1 teaspoon of salt.

    As it goes with these things, people are definitely taking sides.

    Public health advocates are on board, seeing it as a step toward tackling a big health problem. Eating too much sodium can increase the risk of high blood pressure, which can then lead to heart attack and stroke. Only about one in 10 Americans however, meet the 1 teaspoon guideline, with the average person consuming about 3,400 milligrams of sodium each day.

    “High sodium levels are probably the biggest health problem related to our food supply,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. He called the proposal an example of “true leadership,” though also said he thinks it’s a conservative approach. After all, someone eating even half a day’s sodium in one meal would be eating too much salt.

    Those that make salt are not so pleased with the proposal, with the head of the Salt Institute, a trade association for salt producers calling it off-base and based on “faulty, incorrect government targets” discredited by recent research.

    A 2013 study organized by the government found that there’s no health benefit to drastically cutting your salt intake to aim for the lower limit of sodium intake suggested by the government of 1,500 mg per day. Other scientists disagree, saying people still eat too much salt.

    Some restaurant operators say it’d be just another complicated thing to further weigh down food establishments in bureaucracy, as federal law already requires restaurants to provide sodium content information on request.

    “The composition of menus may soon have more warning labels than food products,” the New York State Restaurant Association’s president told the AP.

    According to city Health Commissioner Dr. Mary Travis Bassett, however, this would simply be another way of informing customers.

    “This doesn’t change the food,” Bassett said. “It enables people to identify single items that have a level of salt that is extremely high.”

    An example the AP gives of a menu item that would get the salt shaker treatment: The Italian combo sandwich and its ingredients of seared steak, smoked turkey, ham, salami and onions has 2,830 mg of sodium.

    And Panera Bread is cool with the city’s plan, as the company is a fan of providing nutritional information with menus, so the proposal is “aligned with that same goal,” CEO Ron Shaich said in a statement. These types of measures could prompt change on a national and industrywide level, he said.

    “These are necessary to create real change,” Shaich said.

    The Board of Health will vote today on whether or not to consider the proposal. If it decides to do so, the final vote could be as early as September, with salt shakers popping up on menus by December.

    This isn’t the first time NYC has taken on salt — back in 2010, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg led development of salt-reduction targets for various table staples and got companies to start committing to them voluntarily with his National Salt Reduction Initiative.

    New York officials want high sodium warning on menus [Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uTwo States Probe Apple Music For Antitrust Concernsr


4 4 4 9
  • iPhone6-3Up-AppleMusic-Features-PR-PRINT-1When Apple moved into the e-book market several years ago, the company colluded with the country’s largest book publishers to fix prices and gain a foothold in the market. Now as Apple jumps into the subscription streaming music business, at least two states are asking whether the company may be repeating itself.

    The New York Times reports that the attorneys general for both New York and Connecticut have made inquiries about Apple’s negotiations with record labels to see if the company may have conspired to harm the business of competitors like Pandora or Spotify.

    These services bring in huge piles of cash, some of it through advertising and some through subscriptions for ad-free premium access. Only about 20% of Pandora’s annual revenue comes from users who pay for the ad-free premium version of the service, but Spotify says that almost all of its $1.3 billion came through subscription fees, even though only about 25% of its users pay for the service.

    Apple Music, which will only be available as a $10/month subscription service when it launches later this month, might benefit from making it more difficult or expensive for so-called “freemium” competitors to obtain content.

    In a letter obtained by the Times, Universal Music Group states that it does not “currently have any agreements with Apple Inc. to impede the availability of third-party free or ad-supported music streaming services, or that limit, restrict, or prevent UMG from licensing its recorded music repertoire to any third-party music streaming service on any terms that UMG may choose. Nor does UMG intend to enter into any such agreements.”

    The company says it has also not reached any deals with Sony or Warner Music that would, as a group, restrict availability of music to freemium services.

    However, Universal acknowledges that it does “offer limited exclusive content to some music streaming services, ISPs, and/or wireless suppliers, and reserves the right to continue to offer limited content on an exclusive basis in the future,” so long as the exclusivity is based on a legitimate business decision and “not part of an agreement to restrain competition.”

    The office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman tells the Times that “It’s important to ensure that the market continues to develop free from collusion and other anticompetitive practices.”

    In the e-book price-fixing case, federal prosecutors showed that Apple convinced book publishers to change their pricing models so that the publishers set the retail price rather than the sellers. This prevented any one seller from offering deep discounts to compete with Apple. It also resulted in consumers paying more for e-books on Amazon than they were for printed and bound copies of the same titles.

    The publishers in that case all settled without admitting any wrongdoing, but Apple was ultimately found liable at trial.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uSome Marriott Hotels Will Offer Guests Access To Netflix On Room TVsr


4 4 4 9
  • Because not everyone wants to watch programming on a laptop or tablet while they’re away from home, Marriott Hotels has partnered with Netflix to offer access to the streaming service on room TVs to guests staying at certain Marriott locations.

    It seems its tests of in-room streaming access were successful: Marriott has added the Netflix app to hotel room Internet-connected TVs at six locations thus far, and has plans to add it at six others this summer, the company announced in a press release today. Guests at those locations can either start a new Netflix subscription via the app or sign in to their existing accounts.

    “Our collaboration with Netflix responds to changing consumer preferences in the way our guests access and watch content, while recognizing the leading role Netflix is playing in driving this transformation,” said Matthew Carroll, vice president brand management, Marriott Hotels says in a statement. “Because consumers are choosing to take their streaming content with them when they travel, Marriott Hotels is making the industry’s first rollout of Netflix a priority.”

    Guests will only have to login once to their Netflix accounts throughout their stay. If you’re worried you’ll have the next guest eyeing your viewing history, Marriott says that when guests check out all their account information is “wiped clean” from the televisions.

    Let’s hope that happens, or there could be some very amused staffers wondering how you could watch that many episodes of Charmed in two days. Perhaps setting a reminder to sign out yourself would be a good idea, just in case.

    Marriott says it plans to expand Netflix to 100 hotels by the end of 2015, and to nearly all of its more than 300 locations in the U.S. by the end of 2016.

    Current hotels offering Netflix in rooms:
    • New York Marriott East Side
    • San Jose Marriott
    • Princeton Marriott
    • Newport Marriott
    • Dallas/Fort Worth Marriott Solana
    • Bethesda Marriott Suites

    Coming this summer:
    • Marriott Marquis Washington, DC
    • San Francisco Marriott Marquis
    • Atlanta Marriott Marquis
    • Dayton Marriott
    • San Juan Marriott Resort & Stellaris Casino
    • Anaheim Marriott



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uHouse Passes Permanent Ban On Tax For Internet Servicer


4 4 4 9
  • (Steve)

    (Steve)

    In 1998, Congress passed a temporary moratorium on state taxes collected for Internet access (though a number of states were still allowed to collect them). The ban has been extended numerous times in the 17 years since, but is set to expire again this fall. Rather than merely kick the can down the road with another extension, the House of Representatives has voted (again) to make the moratorium permanent.

    The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act would simply remove the current end date of Oct. 1, 2015 from the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

    Supporters of the bill say that if the moratorium were allowed to expire, American consumers would be hit with a “substantial” potential tax burden from states that choose to start taxing your broadband access.

    Where things get complicated is for the handful of states that had been collecting taxes before the 1998 Act and were grandfathered in. The permanent ban would allow those exceptions to expire, meaning those states would be out hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.

    The permanent ban does nothing to limit states from collecting sales tax on e-commerce. While many states now collect taxes on purchases from Amazon and other e-tailers, there is still no single federal regulation that clarifies the issue.

    This isn’t the first time the House has passed a permanent ban on Internet access taxes. In 2014, a similar piece of legislation was approved by Congress but failed to make it through the Senate. It remains to be seen if the same fate awaits the 2015 version of the legislation.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uMore Free Iced Tea To Celebrate Nonsense Holiday At Wendy’s And Walmartr


4 4 4 9
ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


вторник, 9 июня 2015 г.

uTech Industry Asks President To Please Not Weaken Encryptionr


4 4 4 9
  • (jayRaz)

    (jayRaz)

    While U.S. lawmakers recently passed legislation that would end certain types of invasive snooping by federal agencies, the Justice Dept. continues to push electronics manufacturers for backdoors that would allow law enforcement to access encrypted devices. A pair of trade groups representing a wide variety of electronics and online businesses have written President Obama asking him to consider the “global implications” of these efforts.

    “We are opposed to any policy actions or measures that would undermine encryption as an available and effective tool,” reads the letter [PDF] sent yesterday to the President by the Information Technology Industry Council and the Software & Information Industry Association. “Encryption is an essential asset of the global digital infrastructure, enabling security and confidentiality for transactions as well as assurances to individuals that their communications are private and information is protected.”

    As both software developers and manufacturers have begun to make their products more secure, the DOJ, most notably FBI Director James Comey, has pushed for the development of some sort of loophole or backdoor that would allow law enforcement, in certain warranted circumstances, to work around locks and encryption.

    For example, after Apple changed its iOS operating system so that the company could no longer force-unlock a customer’s device, Comey called for legislation that would compel law-enforcement access for devices and communications apps.

    “[W]e urge you not to pursue any policy or proposal that would require or encourage companies to weaken these technologies, including the weakening of encryption or creating encryption ‘work-arounds,'” continues the letter from the tech trade groups, who acknowledge that law enforcement may have a legitimate need for certain information in investigating crimes and threats, but say that backdoors are not the answer.

    “Doing so would compromise the security of [communications] products and services, rendering them more vulnerable to attacks and would erode consumers’ trust in the products and services they rely on for protecting their information,” explains the letter.

    The groups also express concern about a possible domino effect of a U.S. decision to compromise encryption, saying it would “send a signal to the rest of the world. Should the U.S. government require companies to weaken encryption technology, such requirements will legitimize similar efforts by foreign governments. This would threaten the global marketplace as well as deprive individuals of certain liberties.”

    The White House position has been that manufacturers and developers trying to cater to consumers who crave more privacy may also be unwittingly abetting crime and terror.

    However, cybersecurity experts have warned that any weakness or work-around for encryption is basically like putting out a welcome mat for hackers.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uCampbell Soup Goes Grocery Shopping, Spends $231M On Hummusr


4 4 4 9
  • CCkx71VWEAEQ2JpConsumers have made their preferences known: their tastes are turning more toward fresh, organic, and minimally processed food. Large food manufacturers like Hormel and Campbell Soup Company are solving this problem by going out and acquiring smaller independent brands in the “fresh and organic” sector that people already like. The Campbell Soup Company announced today that it’s buying Michigan-based Garden Fresh Gourmet for $231 million.

    While “organic” has a set meaning according to the U.S. Department of agriculture, other terms like “fresh,” “natural,” and “local” don’t. That’s what consumers want, though, and that’s why Spam-maker Hormel purchased “natural and organic” meat company Applegate Farms last month. General Mills bought beloved organic snack and pasta company Annie’s last year, a transaction that made some customers react with outrage, and others with a shrug.

    In these transactions, the “natural” brand keeps its identity, but becomes part of a larger company with a more expansive distribution network. That’s how such acquisitions are supposed to work, anyway: in a few years, it will be interesting to see whether these brands stay independent.

    How did Campbell executives find Garden Fresh Gourmet? The head of the company’s “fresh” division told Reuters that they literally wandered around a grocery store looking for brands that no larger conglomerate had acquired yet.

    “Garden Fresh was the only significant brand in that space that hadn’t been acquired,” he explained. “We knew eventually the family was going to sell the business.”

    Garden Fresh Gourmet makes hummus, salsa, chips, and dip. While the new acquisition is supposed to remain independent within the larger Campbellverse, there are interesting overlaps with its existing Pepperidge Farm and Pace divisions. Acquiring new customers by acquiring independent brands has worked out well for Campbell, which also owns the Bolthouse Farms vegetable and Plum Organics baby food brands.

    Campbell Soup to buy salsa maker Garden Fresh for $231 mlm [Reuters]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist