среда, 28 октября 2015 г.

uStudy Claims 43% Of “Wild” Salmon In Stores & Restaurants Isn’t Wild At Allr


4 4 4 9
  • (http://ift.tt/1HbgFnB)

    That wild salmon entrée calling to you from the menu at dinner might not be all it’s advertised. In fact a new study released Wednesday found evidence of mislabeling in nearly half of all salmon sold in restaurants and grocery stores. 

    The study [PDF] from international environmental advocacy group, Oceana, analyzed 82 salmon samples from restaurants and grocery stores, finding that 43% of the products were mislabeled.

    DNA testing confirmed that 69% of the mislabeled product consisted of farmed Atlantic salmon being sold as wild-caught product.

    According to the report, consumers satisfying their salmon craving in restaurants are misled about 67% of the time, while those who buy their seafood in a grocery store are misled 20% of the time.

    “Americans might love salmon, but as our study reveals, they may be falling victim to a bait and switch,” Beth Lowell, senior campaign director at Oceana, said. “When consumers opt for wild-caught U.S. salmon, they don’t expect to get a farmed or lower-value product of questionable origins.”

    Oceana found mislabeled salmon in most areas of the U.S. Nearly 48% of the samples in Virginia, 45% in Washington, D.C., 38% in Chicago, and 37% in New York were mislabeled, according to the report.

    Salmon samples were considered to be mislabeled if they were described as being “wild,” “Alaskan” or “Pacific,” but DNA testing revealed them to be farmed Atlantic salmon; or the samples were labeled as a specific type of salmon, like “Chinook,” but testing revealed them to be different species – often lower valued fish product.

    Samples tested by Oceana were collected during the winter of 2013-2014, when wild salmon were out-of-season.

    “This type of seafood fraud can have serious ecological and economic consequences,” Lowell said. “Not only are consumers getting ripped off, but responsible U.S. fishermen are being cheated when fraudulent products lower the price for their hard-won catch.”

    Wednesday’s report is a contrast to Oceana’s 2013 national survey that found low rates – just 7% – of mislabeled salmon. Unlike the new report, these samples were collected when wild salmon was plentiful.

    When Oceana combined its two studies, which included 466 total salmon samples, the group determined that diners were five times more likely to be misled in restaurants than grocery stores, 38% in restaurants compared to 7% in grocery stores.

    Consumers shopping in national, large grocery stores were less likely to be misled on the origin of their salmon.

    However, salmon purchased out-of-season from all retail types was three times more likely to be mislabeled than salmon purchased during the traditional commercial fishing season.

    “Eat your salmon in season,” Kimberly Warner, senior scientist at Oceana and one of the writers of the study, said. “Time of year makes such a big difference on whether salmon mislabeling is high or low.”

    Oceana’s findings related to wild-caught salmon is the third in the past 12 months regarding mislabeled seafood products.

    Back in April, the group found that 38% of Chesapeake Bay blue crab sold in the Maryland and Washington D.C. area contained imported impostors instead.

    Instead of the locally caught blue crab on the menu, those crab cakes had imported substitutes, most of which were fished unsustainably, the group says.

    Prior to that, the group discovered that a third of Wild Gulf Shrimp sold in U.S. stores and restaurants weren’t what they were advertised to be.

    DNA testing revealed that 30% of the 143 shrimp products sampled by the group contained some kind of misrepresentation including products where one species was swapped for another; product sold as Gulf/wild shrimp were actually farmed; or bags included a mix of different species.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uComcast Loves Corporate Synergy: Announces Jimmy Fallon Ride At Universal Studiosr


4 4 4 9
  • First things first: We have nothing against Jimmy Fallon. He seems like a nice enough guy and we’ve even enjoyed watching his show on occasion. But Fallon, just like any other talk show host, is not exactly someone you’d think to base a theme park ride on. That is, unless you’re Comcast and looking to load up your Universal Studios Orlando park with rides from brands you already control.

    Fallon announced the ride, which will open in 2017 and be called “Race Through New York Starring Jimmy Fallon,” last night on his show on Comcast-owned NBC.

    The host himself seemed a bit amused by the idea, and even managed to get in a dig at the ways in which theme parks prey on their captive audiences.

    “The best part,” he explained, “You get to buy a T-shirt for two-hundred bucks on your way out.”

    Fallon has a contract that keeps him on the show through 2021, so Comcast will have at least four years where they won’t have to worry about quickly rebranding the ride for Seth Meyers.

    Meanwhile, a completely made-up source tells us that Comcast has completely forgotten that Carson Daly exists.

    Very few details of the ride were announced, but we hope it’s not too similar to the driving desk bit that Conan O’Brien perfected during his time on NBC:



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uFederal Budget Proposal Would Allow Government To Robocall Your Cellphone Over Debtsr


4 4 4 9
  • (alexkerhead)
    Federal law currently prohibits non-emergency robocalls to cellphones unless the recipient has given their prior express consent to receive automated pre-recorded calls. But amid the battle over the federal budget, someone has slipped in some language to the budget bill currently before Congress that would exempt government debt collectors from this law.

    Section 301 of the proposed legislation [PDF, starting on p. 10] would amend the Communications Act, which prohibits robocalls “to any telephone number assigned to a… cellular telephone service… or any service for which the called party is charged for the call,” by adding the loophole of “unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.”

    If passed, the FCC would have nine months to enact this rule change, meaning anyone who may have missed a federal student loan payment, have a federal tax issue, a problem with their home loan through the FHA could be receiving nuisance, automated calls as soon as next summer.

    Robocalls are among the most complained-about issues for the FCC, which is currently going through the process of trying limit these annoying intrusions. In 2014 alone, the Commission received some 215,000 gripes from consumers about automated calls — and think of all the people who couldn’t be bothered to go through the red tape of actually filing a complaint.

    “Giving one of the most abusive industries in the U.S. free rein to inundate people with robo-calls to their cellphones is a terrible idea,” said Margot Saunders, Of Counsel to the National Consumer Law Center. “Cellphone calls can distract people while driving, interrupt them at their jobs, and needlessly impose a cost on struggling families by using up scarce minutes. Debt collectors regularly call land lines to harass and threaten friends, family, and even strangers with similar names to the debtor. No one will be safe from receiving abusive calls on their cell phones if this provision goes through.”

    If you want to tell lawmakers how you feel about this issue, GovTrack.us has a list of all members of Congress with links to each of their sites.

    Additionally, our colleagues at Consumers Union are still campaigning to put an end to robocalls. You can read more about that here.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uPrivacy Advocates Concerned As Senate Approves Controversial Cybersecurity Billr


4 4 4 9
  • (Brad Clinesmith)

    Despite previous failures, Congress just keeps on churning through bills that propose to enhance digital security at the cost of digital privacy. The latest in the series sailed through the Senate with wide approval this week, kicking off another wave of privacy concerns.

    What’s the bill?
    The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (S. 754), commonly called CISA. The Senate approved it this week by a vote of 74 to 21. (Five Senators did not vote.)

    What’s it for?
    The core idea behind CISA is to prevent cyberattacks through data-sharing. As we’ve seen over and over in the past couple of years, entities — both public and private — in the U.S. are not exactly on the ball with the whole “preventing hacks” thing. So CISA would create a mechanism streamlining the process of sharing user data for the purposes of enhanced security. Businesses would pass data related to potential threats along to the Department of Homeland Security, who would then pass it through to the NSA, FBI, and so on to ward against threats.

    Why is it controversial?
    In short, because of glaring threats to users’ privacy and the risk of ever-expanding surveillance.

    CISA would not only permit the wide sharing of loads of personal data potentially unrelated to any threats, but also would grant businesses permission to gather and share data “notwithstanding any other provision of law” if they think there’s any cybersecurity threat going on. Given that there’s basically always some cybersecurity threat going on somewhere, that’s a pretty broad mandate.

    It’s also, basically, a funnel for even more information to go directly to the NSA, where all the data would automatically head as soon as it came in to Homeland Security. Given the past few years’ revelations about how widespread, deep, and pervasive the NSA’s surveillance webs are, that sits very poorly with many people.

    Who’s in favor?
    Most of the Senate, obviously. The White House is also in favor (PDF), as are lobbying groups that represent major retailers.

    Politically speaking, it’s a hodgepodge that doesn’t break down along partisan lines. Both the “yea” and “nay” columns had members from both parties voting in them.

    Who’s against?
    Privacy and consumer advocates, including Edward Snowden, the EFF, and the ACLU, are adamantly opposed to the bill.

    Major tech businesses, including Salesforce, Yelp, Twitter, Reddit, and Apple, also oppose the measure, all citing their users’ privacy as being paramount and unlikely to be served by this law.

    What happens next?
    The House passed two related bills in April. Now, a conference committee including members from both houses of Congress will convene to hammer out some unified text that more-or-less resembles both the House and Senate versions. When they’re done, both chambers will have to agree and vote on the final text, which would then go to the White House to be signed into law.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uPolice: Man Stole $50,000 In Cellphones From Two Target Stores By Impersonating Employeer


4 4 4 9
  • 201510562fe5511e47f

    Here at Consumerist, we’re no strangers to reporting on stories of employees behaving badly, but sometimes it’s not an actual worker doing the greedy deed. To that end, police say a man in Georgia allegedly impersonated a Target employee in order to steal more than $50,000 in cellphones. 

    On at least two occasions, police say a man walked into two separate stores pretending to be a Target Mobile representative in order to gain access to a inventory locker full of cellphones, Patch reports.

    According to police, the most recent incident occurred Oct. 17 when the man, dressed in attire for a Target Mobile employee – a black polo shirt and khaki pants – approached the customer service desk asking for the key to the cellphone locker.

    The man reportedly told the Target employee he was a new hire and needed an escort to the locker’s location.

    After reaching the area, the man placed 26 cellphones – worth $18,000 – in a duffel bag. He then put on a grey sweatshirt, returned the key to the desk and left the store.

    Police say the man is also a suspect in an Oct. 3 incident at another nearby Target. In that case, the man allegedly stole nearly $30,000 in cellphones using the same tactic.

    He reportedly returned to the first store after the second heist, but was turned away.

    Authorities say they believe the man may be a former employee as he seems familiar with the practices of Target and knows the names of store and district managers, Patch reports.

    Police: Man Posing as Employee Takes Nearly $50,000 In Cell Phones [Patch.com]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uAnheuser-Busch InBev Gets More Time To Finalize Mega Beer Merger Offerr


4 4 4 9
  • (Scott Lynch)
    Anheuser-Busch InBev — the Belgian-Brazilian maker of “America’s beer” — was supposed to finalize its offer to acquire SABMiller by Oct. 14. That deadline was extended until this afternoon, but just like that really wealthy international student at college who never seemed to get his work done on time, AB InBev has been granted another extension.

    The company announced [PDF] this morning that the two companies have now been given until end-of-business on Nov. 4 to make good on their $104 billion in-principle agreement from earlier this month.

    In its announcement, AB InBev also confirmed that it has lined up financing that would pay for the all-cash deal, which would pay most SABMiller shareholders about 50% more than their stock was worth when the merger was announced. The two largest investors in SABMiller — cigarette giant Altria and the Santo Domingo family of Colombia — would receive slightly less per share, but would retain some investment in the merged company.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that AB InBev and SABMiller have been trying to work out exactly what to do with the latter’s 58% stake in MillerCoors, the joint venture with Molson Coors that is responsible for all the Miller and Coors brands in the U.S.

    If AB InBev and SABMiller were to merge without selling off that stake in MillerCoors, the combined company would control an astounding 70% of the U.S. beer market. It’s widely agreed that antitrust regulators would not approve a deal that includes consolidation of that scale.

    The Journal’s sources say that the merging companies want to get the MillerCoors divestiture lined up quickly, and that the lack of such an arrangement is part of what’s holding up the finalized merger offer.

    As we reported yesterday, regardless of who ends up with SABMiller’s stake in MillerCoors, the deal may still end up resulting in higher prices and fewer choices for consumers.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uTowing Company Wants $48,000 For Hauling Jeep Out Of Mudr


4 4 4 9
  • (Scott Nesham)
    Part of the fun of owning a Jeep is taking it off-road, if that’s a thing that interests you. Here’s the problem with driving far from paved roads, though: when someone’s vehicle breaks down far from actual roads, specialized towing equipment and staff are involved. That’s how one driver ended up with a $48,000 bill that neither he nor his insurance want to pay.

    Off-roading a Jeep into a mud pit sounds super fun, but is how the owner of this vehicle ended up in a mud pit and in a lot of trouble. He didn’t know that the land he was riding on belonged to a utility company, and was arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace. He also owes a lot of money to get his vehicle back, since the towing company has placed a lien on it

    The towing company says that their high bill reflects the elevated danger level: the Jeep was a in a swamp, not in a mud pit as the owner claims, and that getting the vehicle out was a risky seven-man job. There were power lines near the swamp, making the job even more dangerous.

    That might be so, but when insurance industry experts looked at the bill for the Jeep rescue, they pointed out to Fox Boston items on it that normally would have cost a third as much elsewhere. It also had services that the industry group has never heard of, like dangerous condition liability insurance. Whatever it is, they want $5,000 for it according to his itemized bill.

    The customer doesn’t want to pay this bill, and neither does his insurance, so the Jeep is hanging out in limbo for now with a lien on it.

    UPDATE: MA tow association says $48,000 tow bill in excess [Fox Boston]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist