Federal Advisory Panel Recommends Clearer Disclosure Of Airline, Hotel Resort Fees

(kevindean)

It’s no secret that airlines have increased their fees and shrunk the size of their seats over the years in an attempt to maximize revenue. While those extra costs and seat sizes are generally available through the carrier’s website, a federal panel thinks that information would better serve passengers if it were readily available during the ticket purchasing process.

That was just one recommendation from the Advisory Committee For Aviation Consumer Protections meeting on Tuesday, which included several suggestions related to the travel industry, namely regarding airline and hotel fees.

When it came to recommendations for the airline industry, the panel determined that carriers should clearly disclose the cost of change and cancellation fees, as well as the size of a plane’s seats before the purchase of a ticket is made.

The recommendations – which will form the basis for a report to Department of Transportation’s on improvements to be made for existing consumer protection programs – came after the panel heard testimony from passengers about the difficulty they encounter when trying to find information about change or cancellation fees on airlines’ websites and their claims that airlines hid fee information in the fine print of tickets.

The issue of seat shrinkage was discussed by the panel following concerns that passengers may not be able to properly exit planes in the case of an emergency.

Those fears have increased in recent years as airlines have decreased the distance between a seat and the seat in front of it by as much as six inches in order to cram more passengers on flights, the Associated Press reports.

Charles Leocha, a panel member and founder of consumer group Travelers Union, said that while the Federal Aviation Administration requires that aircraft makers demonstrate that all passengers can be evacuated from a plane within 90 seconds, most planes in use were tested before seating room was reduced.

The panel recommended that the FAA conduct more realistic evacuation tests on planes with seats closer together and that airlines include seat dimensions clearly on their websites.

Additionally, the panel encouraged the DOT to continue investigating the safety and security issues related to inflight mobile electronic communications.

“The panel recommends that, if safe and secure, the DOT allow airlines to decide whether passengers can use mobile phones for in-flight calls,” Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General and panel member said.

In addition to addressing changes related to airlines, the panel also handed down recommendations for the hotel industry, specifically regarding the increased use of mandatory surcharges called “resort fees.”

Back in 2012, the Federal Trade Commission sent warnings to 22 different hotel operators warning them that they weren’t doing enough to disclose these fees, but no legal actions have been taken since, in spite of the fact that some popular tourist destinations are hiding their resort fees until the final payment screen.

In July, consumer advocacy groups called on the FTC to put an end to the deceptive fees and take action against hotel operators that refused to follow the orders.

On Tuesday, the Advisory Committee For Aviation Consumer Protections echoed some of those sentiments with a recommendation – directed at the FTC – that hotels be required to include any mandatory fees in their room rates.

“If the room is $125 a night and resort fee is $50, they now have to say the room is $175, that’s our recommendation,” Kane said.

Leocha noted that hotels can continue to list their fees separately once a consumer is at the facility, when it comes to booking the price must include all fees as one figure.

[via The Associated Press]

Scientists Working Hard To Save Us All From Rapidly Melting Ice Cream Cones

(Barbara L. Hanson)

It’s a hot day, you’ve got a cool treat — it’s inevitable. That ice cream scoop, once so perfect in its rounded form, is going to melt, forcing you to fight the age-old battle against drips with your tongue as your only weapon. Take heart, dessert warriors: there are scientists out there who are trying to help us all, by developing an ice cream that takes a bit longer to melt.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh have taken on the task of preventing ice cream from dribbling down your arm so it can instead get into your mouth, reports Public Radio International in a recent segment of “The World” available online.

“We’re not talking about ice cream that doesn’t melt at all, we’re talking about ice cream that melts more slowly than you would typically expect from a scoop of ice cream sitting on top of an ice cream cone for example,” Kate MacPhee, a professor of biological physics in the Institute of Condensed Matter and Complex Systems at the University of Edinburgh told The World.

The team is working with a protein called BsIA that binds together air, fat and water in ice cream in what they call a “bacterial raincoat” to keep it frozen longer. The naturally-occuring protein adheres to fat droplets and air bubbles, making them more stable.

“That’s what you have in ice cream,” says MacPhee. “You have an oil and a sugar-syrup mixture, and you have air in there to keep it light and allow you to scoop it up, and you also have the solid surfaces, which are the ice crystals in there, so our protein can stabilize all of those.”

When the ingredients are stabilized by this bacterial raincoat, it slows the melting process and prevents gritty ice crystals from forming (like in freezer burn, perhaps) so your ice cream will be even smoother and creamier and still hold up for as much as 10 minutes longer than usual on a hot day. That’s good news when it comes to doing the laundry.

“We can predict then that children should be able to get all the way through an ice cream cone without it dribbling all down the sides, which I think will be a bonus to parents all around the world,” MacPhee adds.

Yes, ah, parents. They’re the only ones who have to worry about huge chocolate ice cream stains ravaging a pair of new white shorts after deciding that yes, a double scoop is necessary even when it’s 100 degrees and there are no clouds in the sky.

A newer, slower melting ice cream cone is coming soon [PRI.org]

Radioshack Creditors Claim Pre-Bankruptcy Shenanigans Go Back To Early 2014

(Matthew Hunt)

The electronics retailer RadioShack had been obviously doomed for a while, finally declaring bankruptcy in February of 2015. Yet lenders kept giving the company money to keep the lights on and keep paying employees to ask for phone numbers and buy extended warranties. Now a group of junior creditors have filed a lawsuit against former Radioshack leaders and the hedge fund Standard General, alleging that this whole bankruptcy was deliberately planned to deliver RadioShack to Standard General at a fire-sale price.

Like people, corporations have secured and unsecured creditors: a secured line of credit, for example, would be a car loan, since the bank has the right to take the car back if you default on a loan. An unsecured line of credit for a person would be a credit card. If you declare bankruptcy, things and property that you own can be sold to repay creditors. You can keep a car to get around, but not an antique car collection. You can keep the home you live in, but your ski villas have to go.

Ideally, these assets would be sold to the highest bidder to raise the largest amount of money possible for creditors. Instead, more than half of all stores were closed, and 1,700 sold to Standard General, the senior creditor, using RadioShack’s debt as payment. Junior creditors objected, but at the time the bankruptcy judge said that saving jobs in those 1,700 stores was an important priority: other bidders for the stores themselves were liquidators.

In a complaint filed in federal court this week, the creditors claim that RadioShack CEO Joseph Magnacca began working with Standard General at the beginning of 2014, trading the top position in the chain’s lineup of creditors for a seat on the board at another company Standard General has lent millions to, American Apparel. (That company is also looking doomed right now.)
==
The creditors say that selling RadioShack stores at the “reduced price” of $145.5 million deprived junior creditors of receiving more bankruptcy proceeds, even if it did save thousands of jobs.

RadioShack Creditors Sue Hedge Fund Over Chain’s Collapse [Bloomberg News]

Analyst: Best Buy’s Prices Now Much Closer To Amazon’s

(Rob Lawton)

When looking for the best deal on electronics consumers used to flock to a little chain called Best Buy, but over time Amazon – with the growing convenience of shopping from home, speedy deliveries and discounts – has crowded into the electronic store’s customer pool. Now, after years of playing catchup, it appears that Best Buy has closed the pricing gap with its online rival.

That’s according to a new report based on price checks at both stores conducted by SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Barron’s reports.

The price checks of 50 accessories and larger ticket items found for the first time that both retailers were charging virtually the same prices.

“In the past, we’ve seen a gradual tightening of the spread between the two retailers,” David Magee, managing director for SunTrust Robinson Humphery, said. “This time, the basket totals were essentially at parity.”

Magee goes on to explain that the pricing parity is another important step in Best Buy’s turnaround efforts.

As Consumerist reported last month, the electronics retailer has turned a corner by getting back to what executives called the basics: offering advice, service and convenience at competitive prices.

The company has also benefited from its new mini-store concept and deals with tech companies such as Apple.

The retailer was the first non-Apple entity to sell the Apple Watch, and recently it announced it would expand the availability of the smart watch to all of its stores in the U.S.

Additionally, Best Buy announced last week that it has officially become an Apple authorized reseller. While the company has sold Apple products for years, they weren’t an official location for service for Apple products until recently.

Best Buy Achieves Price Parity With Amazon For First Time: SunTrust [Barron’s]

Following Deaths, FDA Warns Makers Of Powdered Caffeine That Their Products Are Dangerous

(Carbon Arc)

Last summer, two young adults died after ingesting powdered caffeine, leading the Food and Drug Administration to warn consumers of the potential hazards of the popular stimulant while public health advocates called for a ban on the powdered product. Now the FDA is taking things to the next level and warning caffeine manufacturers that their products are “dangerous and present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.”

The FDA announced today that it has sent letters to five different companies, letting them know that continued sale of their products as “dietary supplements” with their current labeling and usage instructions could result in seizure by the agency.

One of the repeated themes in the letters is the potency of powdered caffeine and the difficulty consumers have with measuring amounts recommended on product labels.

For example, one product label provides the following instruction: “As a dietary supplement, take 50 to 200 mg up to three times daily. Use an accurate milligram scale for measurement.”

First, the FDA notes that most consumers don’t have scales precise enough to accurately measure this tiny amount. And if you want to take a volumetric approach to measuring, you get into sizes like 200mg of the powder equaling about 1/14 of a teaspoon, which is not an option you find on the measuring spoons in most kitchens.

Other products were cited for instructing users to ingest a “rounded 1/32 teaspoon,” which is both a imprecise measurement and an uncommon measuring spoon size.

And if users of these products do turn to common measuring devices they run the risk of doing real damage says the FDA.

“A single teaspoon of pure powdered caffeine is roughly equivalent to the amount in 28 cups of coffee,” writes the agency. “Consuming as little as one teaspoon of caffeine has been associated with symptoms including nausea, vomiting, anxiety, and heart palpitations.”

Make the common mistake of confusing a teaspoon and a tablespoon and you’re tripling the amount of caffeine ingested. The FDA says this level of consumption has been associated with symptoms including chest pain, hypokalemia, elevated blood glucose, tachycardia, bigeminy, agitation, respiratory alkalosis, irregular heartbeat, and death.

Another problem with some powdered caffeine products is the size of the packaging. Given the small amount of caffeine per recommended dose, a 10 kg package contains around 50,000 servings. One product was sold in a 25 kg package, equivalent to anywhere from 125,000 to 500,000 servings of that particular product.

The companies have 15 days to reply to the FDA with details of how they are planning to address the violations cited in the warning letters. If violations continue, the FDA could take further action and seize products.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has petitioned the FDA to ban the retail distribution of powdered caffeine, says today’s FDA announcement is a first step in the right direction.

“Pure caffeine never should have been sold to consumers,” says CSPI Regulatory Affairs Director Laura MacCleery in a statement. “A teaspoon is a fatal dose for a child, and two teaspoons would kill most adults. FDA has clear authority to ban such a hazardous product and should do so.”

McDonald’s Can’t Use The Word “Artisan” To Describe Limited-Edition Burger In Ireland

(McDonald’s)

In a world where marketers are constantly trying to catch shoppers attention with products that are seen as fresh, wholesome and healthy, there are some words that perhaps used to mean something more to people than they used to. Like “artisan” — in the past, this would’ve meant a skilled worker spending time and great effort on making something. Now, that could just mean more premium ingredients on your fast food burger. But in Ireland, it’s not so easy to use such words lightly, as McDonald’s recently found out with its first attempt at an “artisan” Irish burger.

McDonald’s was using the word to herald the arrival of its limited-edition special burger, the McMór, reports The Irish Times, calling it a “tribute to the best produce and finest flavours from across Ireland.” The burger is made with Ballymaloe relish, Charleville cheddar and a “potato-flaked bun” layered with shredded cabbage atop beef and bacon.

Ireland’s food authorities have rules on what can be dubbed artisan, however: under Food Safety Authority of Ireland guidelines published earlier this summer, the term artisan only applies if the product is made in limited quantities by skilled craftspeople, the processing method isn’t totally mechanized and it should use food grown or produced locally “where seasonally available and practical.”

McDonald’s has now agreed to not use the term in connection to the McMór.

“The usage of the term artisan is, as we are now aware, inaccurate in so far as it is in breach of some of the recently launched, voluntary guidelines around the usage of the term in the marketing of food,” McDonald’s said in a statement. “This specific term will no longer be used in any news release around the limited-edition McMór.”

McDonald’s ‘artisan’ burger fails to cut mustard with authority [The Irish Times]

Lawsuit Alleges Chipotle Misleads Customers About Use Of GMOs

(Josh Bassett)

Back in April, Chipotle proudly declared that it was the only major fast food chain in the country to contain an entirely GMO-free menu. Now, just four months later, a recently filed class-action lawsuit says that proclamation isn’t exactly truthful, accusing the fast casual restaurant of false advertising and deceiving diners into paying more for their food.

The class-action lawsuit [PDF], filed by a California woman in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that Chipotle violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because its food labeling is false and misleading, and the company deceived diners into paying more for their food on the basis that it was GMO-free and “aligned with consumers’ ethical eating choices.”

According to the lawsuit — which aims to cover everyone who bought Chipotle in California since the April 27 “no GMOs” announcement — Chipotle has been selling itself to health-conscious consumers since at least 2009.

“Chipotle has carefully tailored its public image by marketing to healthy-lifestyle and environmentally conscious consumers that it knows are willing to pay premium prices for its food,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs contend that Chipotle’s recent public statements do not accurately reflect the company’s practices.

“As Chipotle told consumers it was ‘G-M-Over it,’ the opposite was true. In fact, Chipotle’s menu has never been at any time free of GMOs,” the lawsuit states.

Among other things, the complaint claims that Chipotle continues to serve meat products that come from animals which feed on GMOs, including corn and soy.

The suit also asserts that the sour cream and cheese products used at the company come from dairy farms that feed animals with GMOs. Additionally, Coca-Cola and other soft drinks sold by the chain are made with corn-syrup that likely contains GMOs.

While the company’s advertisements don’t mention that GMOs may be found in its products, its website does contain notices that some of its products – including soft drinks and meat – may include GMOs.

In one instance, the company notes that “most animal feed in the U.S. is genetically modified, which means that the meat and dairy served at Chipotle are likely to come from animals given at least some GMO feed.”

Chipotle’s GMO-dedicated page notes that some of its products may not be entirely GMO-free.

However, the lawsuit claims these disclaimers are not good enough, noting that “Chipotle only discloses this information on its website because it knows its fast-food customers never need to visit Chipotle’s website to buy food.”

“Chipotle knows that its menu contains ingredients with GMOs, it takes no meaningful steps to clarify consumer misconceptions in its advertisements and on its billboards, both in stores and in print, which instead say ‘all’ of the ingredients used in its Food Products are ‘non-GMO,'” the suit states. “A ‘hipotle meal was, and remains, the very definition of a GMO meal.”

As a result of Chipotle’s conduct, the suit alleges, that customers are routinely deceived into buying the company’s food, or paying more for Chipotle products than they would have otherwise paid.

“Consumers today are very concerned about what they eat, and restaurants know that consumers place a premium on food that is considered to be healthy or natural,” an attorney representing the proposed class-action said in a statement. “Chipotle’s advertising in its stores should have accurately informed customers about the source and quality of its ingredients and should not mislead consumers that they are serving food without GMOs when in fact they are.”

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the class.