Dole Found Listeria In Salad Processing Plant As Far Back As 2014, Kept Shipping Veggies

Is it a crime for a company or its representatives to keep on shipping food products that may be dangerous to the public if they know that the items may be contaminated? Dole’s Springfield, OH processing plant has started shipping salad again, but new evidence shows that the company kept shipping lettuce even as it was aware of Listeria contamination in the building as far back as 2014.

The company won’t say what it has done to eradicate the Listeria in the facility that caused an outbreak that hospitalized 33 people in the U.S. and Canada, and killed four. Seeking more information on the history of inspections of the facility and any possible history of contamination in the facility, the blog Food Safety News filed a Freedom of Information request with the FDA. (Food Safety News is an independent publication published by Bill Marler, an attorney who represents victims of food poisoning.)

The first record of Listeria on surfaces in the plant was in July 2014. The company followed its normal protocol of “focused cleaning/sanitization” along with follow-up testing after tests showed positive results in July and September 2014, then again during the outbreak period in September, November, and December 2015. The focused cleaning and sanitization apparently weren’t working, but the facility kept cranking out bags of salad for the Dole brand and U.S. and Canadian store brands anyway.

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, chair of the subcommittee that oversees and funds the FDA, spoke out about the contamination. “The Dole facility in question has said that they have taken corrective actions, but we need specific answers as to what those actions are,” she said in a statement. “If Dole’s actions are not sufficient to ensure food safety, then this facility must be shut down.”

Senior food safety attorney David Plunkett of the Center for Science in the Public Interest had harsh things to say about Dole’s behavior now that the public knows about the Ohio plant’s history of Listeria. “Dole’s failure to stop shipping products and clean up its plant before the outbreak showed a total disregard for its customers’ health,” he wrote. “Moreover, its press releases afterwards in recalling the bagged salads showed more concern over the company’s public image than for the people who buy its products.”

Dole announced in a statement last week that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the outbreak, and the company is cooperating with that investigation.
Dole knew of Listeria; feds launch criminal investigation [Food Safety News]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Franchisees’ Challenge To Seattle’s $15/Hour Minimum Wage Falls Short

When Seattle city leadership voted in 2014 to approve a plan to raise minimum wage to $15/hour over the course of several years, franchisees in the city said the rules were unfair and vowed to challenge the higher wages in court. Today that challenge came to a quiet end when the U.S. Supreme Court elected to not hear the matter.

The Seattle wage phase-in process provides different timelines for employers depending on their size. Businesses with more than 500 employees have to meet the $15/hour wage by 2017 (or 2018 if they contribute to employees’ health benefits), while smaller businesses have an additional 3-4 years.

What concerns franchisees is that the city is not considering each franchisee’s employee count, but the employee count of the franchisor, in determining which side of the 500 worker threshold a company falls.

So if a McDonald’s franchisee only operates a single store with a few dozen employees, they face the same timeline as a larger corporate employer with thousands of employees.

The International Franchise Association sued the city in 2014, claiming that this aspect of the wage phase-in was discriminatory, and that each franchisee should be viewed as an individual business.

But the trade group had no success in convincing either a U.S. District Court in Seattle, or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, both of which rejected the franchisees’ argument.

The IFA petitioned the Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort, but this morning the group’s petition was denied without comment by SCOTUS.

“Today’s decision from the Supreme Court is clearly a disappointment as our appeal has always focused solely on the discriminatory treatment of franchisees under Seattle’s wage law and the motivation to discriminate against interstate commerce,” said IFA President & CEO Robert Cresanti in a statement. “Seattle’s ordinance is blatantly discriminatory and affirmatively harms Seattle hard-working franchise small business owners every day since it has gone into effect.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Lawsuit Claims Starbucks’ Iced Beverages Have Too Much Ice

For some caffeine lovers, there’s nothing more refreshing than adding some ice to a cup of coffee or tea to bring the temperature down and the energy levels up. Balance is important — too much ice and not enough coffee can result in a weak drink. According to a new lawsuit, Starbucks baristas have been upsetting that balance by allegedly adding too much ice to cold coffee drinks.

A Starbucks customer filed a class action [PDF] against Starbucks in Northern Illinois Federal Court last week, claiming that the chain’s cold drinks are almost half ice, and that Starbucks misrepresents the fluid ounces of its iced coffee and tea beverages.

In the complaint, the lead plaintiff points out that Starbucks makes a hefty chunk of change on cold drinks prepared in-store, “accounting for billions of dollars in revenue” each year.

Despite the fact that Starbucks advertises four sizes of drinks — Tall, Grande, Venti and Trenta, which correspond to 12, 16, 24 and 30 fluid ounces, respectively — the plaintiff claims that customers don’t get the full advertised fluid ounces because the company fills much of those cups up with ice.

“A Starbucks customer who orders a Venti cold drink receives only 14 fluid ounces of that drink — just over half the advertised amount, and just over half the amount for which they are paying,” the 29-page complaint states. “In the iced coffee example, a Starbucks customer who orders and pays for a Venti iced coffee, expecting to receive 24 fluid ounces of iced coffee based on Starbucks’ advertisement and marketing, will instead receive only about 14 fluid ounces of iced coffee.”

What this all boils down to, the complaint says, is that Starbucks is, in essence, “advertising the size of its cold drink cups on its menu, rather than the amount of fluid a customer will receive when they purchase a cold drink — and deceiving its customers in the process.”

Adding insult to injury, the customer claims, is that Starbucks charges more for cold drinks than their hot partners, even though customers opting for the cold version get less of the product than hot-drink customers.

That enables Starbucks to reap higher profits off cold drinks, the complaint claims: “Starbucks’ Cold Drinks are underfilled to make more money and higher profits, to the detriment of consumers who are misled by Starbucks’ intentionally misleading advertising practices.”

To solve this problem, the plaintiff suggests, Starbucks could serve cold drinks in larger cups that allow room for the advertised amount of beverage, while still allowing for ice.

“Starbucks is misleading customers who expect to receive the advertised amount of fluid ounces,” the lawsuit states. “For example, if a gallon of gas is advertised as costing three dollars, and a customer pays three dollars and pumps gas, that customer is expecting to receive a gallon of gas — not approximately half a gallon.”

The plaintiff is seeking to represent a class of anyone who bought a cold drink from Starbucks in the last 10 years. She’s accusing Starbucks of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warrant of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and fraud.

“We are aware of the plaintiff’s claims, which we fully believe to be without merit. Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any ‘iced’ beverage,” a Starbucks spokesperson told Courthouse News. “If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it.”

Starbucks is under fire on the hot side of its beverage menu as well: just last month, customers filed another lawsuit accusing the chain of underfilling lattes.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

GNC Looking To Sell Itself, Other Restructuring Options

Amid declining sales and increased scrutiny on the supplements industry, GNC Holdings is looking to either restructure its business or sell itself.

The Wall Street Journal reports that GNC has started a review of its business that could result in the sale of the company.

“We are in the early stages of a broad review and will take the time we need to thoroughly evaluate our opportunities to achieve the best result for our shareholders, business partners, and associates,” GNC Chairman Michael Hines told the WSJ.

The board’s review comes just days after GNC reported same-store sales declines, and shares dropped 29%, the WSJ notes.

CEO Michael Archbold said at the time that the quality were results were “unacceptable” and the company’s turnaround progress was “insufficient.”

The diet supplements market has come under increased scrutiny from regulators and law enforcement in recent years, with companies accused of producing mislabeled products with inconsistent ingredients, and making questionable health claims. In March 2015, following a probe by the New York Attorney General’s office, GNC agreed to use DNA barcode testing to verify the ingredients in its herbal supplements.

GNC Holdings Considering Selling Itself [The Wall Street Journal]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Comcast “Cares” On Twitter. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

If there is one lesson that large corporations really, really need to take to heart about the 21st century, it is this: unless you are universally beloved (and maybe even then), probably don’t self-promote with Twitter hashtags. It will not end well for you. And who would be the latest business to fall for this trap? It’s Comcast, the cable company America loves to hate.

Like many other large corporations and conglomerates, Comcast participates in corporate philanthropy. Among their outreach efforts is an annual volunteer day, where Comcast and NBCUniversal employees don branded t-shirts and go serve meals, clean playgrounds, paint schools, and do a thousand other small good-works projects in targeted areas around the nation.

Corporate volunteer events are fairly common, and they’re usually a good way both to generate some positive PR for the business as well as to get some local projects completed with a small army of free labor — a win/win. And of course, in 2016, how else quickly to push images, video, and short statements but on social media? And naturally organizers unify the social media presence with a hashtag… something quick and easily searchable, like #ComcastCaresDay.

The problem, of course, is that Comcast is, well, not exactly known for caring, as such. Kind of the complete opposite, really. Their customer service is widely loathed, despite repeated executive promises and detailed improvement plans.

Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian perhaps landed the most direct punch, tweeting, “Maybe @Comcast should extend #ComcastCaresDay so they actually care the other 364 days of the year?”

Ohanian was far from alone. A selection of other quips, comments, and complaints that made the rounds:

Show someone you care. Bill them for the three weeks their cable was out due to a hurricane. #ComcastCaresDay

— Gregor Mendel (@GregortheMendel) April 30, 2016

In honor of #ComcastCaresDay I'm also going to put everyone who calls me on hold for 20 minutes and then eventually hang up.

— Claire Zulkey (@Zulkey) April 30, 2016

#ComcastCaresDay unless you're an existing customer of course – you know what I'm saying

— Jon In Seattle (@JonInSeattle1) April 30, 2016

Comcast customer service reps hung up on me three times in a row one day#ComcastCaresDay

— Böb Jänke (@Bob_Janke) April 30, 2016

As far as Comcast is concerned, of course, their volunteer day was a resounding success. Over 100,000 employees went out and volunteered their time for the company’s 15th annual community day, and that’s a pretty big feat. And let’s be real: if Comcast actually cared about anyone’s complaints, it would be a very different company.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

4 Tips From Contractors To Keep Your Home Remodel From Spiraling Out Of Control

When preparing to give your home a little facelift — inside, outside, or otherwise — most of us will probably seek out the assistance of a professional. But finding someone to complete your renovation on time, on budget, and to your liking can be more difficult than it seems, especially when you consider that the construction industry is currently dealing with a labor shortage. 

As with other industries, when demand outpaces available resources, the home remodeling business has become an attractive avenue for ne’er-do-wells looking to get their hands on your cash, sometimes without ever putting hammer to nail in your soon-to-be remodeled kitchen.

A new report from our colleagues down the hall at Consumer Reports examined the dangers of the home remodeling industry and how consumers — who are expected to spend $155 billion on projects this year — can ensure they get the best for their time and money when it comes to hiring contractors for their home projects.

A survey of 300 general contractors from around the country conducted by CR found that the home construction industry — which has lost more than two million jobs in the last nine years — is now populated with many inexperienced and unskilled workers who may employ a variety of unscrupulous and shady practices.

For example, 35% of contractors surveyed said they had seen peers winning jobs with lowball bids and then jacking up the cost later with “unforeseen problems.”

Another 31% of contractors say their rivals use unskilled or inexperienced laborers during projects, or take on more jobs than they could handle at once, often leaving customers high and dry.

Some contractors are able to increase their bottom line by overcharging for materials: it’s a practice 24% of survey respondents said they’ve witnessed.

To avoid some of these remodeling pitfalls, CR created a list of tips for consumers to follow:

• Check credentials: While proper credentials aren’t a guarantee of quality, they’re a good sign that the general contractor runs a reputable business, Consumer Reports advises.

According to CR’s survey 69% of contractors reported they were licensed, registered, and insured, while the remaining 31% said they were not.

• Remember budgets can change: While setting a budget is important, it’s also imperative that homeowners understand costs can change. For example, the planning phase may show one cost, while the actual purchase of a materials may fluctuate depending on demand.

• Always negotiate: Although homeowners might not consider bargaining a standard practice when it comes to remodeling, an overwhelming majority of contractors tell CR they would be at least somewhat willing to negotiate on prices.

Keeping the business of a repeat customer was the biggest reason to haggle, with 75% of general contractors telling CR they have offered a median discount of 10% for some customers. Additionally, when projects involved more than one area, two-thirds of the general contractors said they would offer deals to customers.

• Get everything in writing: A written contract is an essential protection for both homeowners and contractors. The plans should specify the full scope of the work, including a detailed breakdown of labor and material costs for each part of the project.

CR also suggests that contract also spells out “exclusions,” or what’s not included. For example, if you want to save money by handling the debris removal or finish painting on your own, that should be clearly stipulated.

For additional tips on how to ensure your home remodeling project is everything you dreamed of and more, check out Consumer Reports’ full “Home Renovation Without Aggravation” report.

Home Renovation Without Aggravation [Consumer Reports]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear POM Wonderful’s Appeal In False Advertising Case

After nearly six years of legal wrangling over allegations of false advertising, the makers of POM Wonderful pomegranate beverages ran into a dead end this morning when the nation’s highest court refused to hear the company’s appeal.

The dispute between POM and the Federal Trade Commission goes back to 2010, when the FTC accused the company of making unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of its products. At the time, the company’s marketing touted that medical research had shown that its products fought atherosclerosis, prostate cancer and other specific diseases.

In May 2012, an administrative law judge ruled that 19 POM ads were deceptive, but then in Jan. 2013, the FTC decided that a total of 36 ads were problematic, and ordered the company to stop making any kind of health-related claims without independent peer-reviewed studies to back those claims up.

Two years ago, POM appealed this ruling, arguing that the FTC overstepped its authority and that the requirement of having to undertake bona fide scientific studies (as opposed to just making things up) was overly burdensome.

And let’s not forget John Oliver’s attempt to re-label POM as containing rat urine and real pomeranians (it doesn’t), and the company’s thinly veiled response that Oliver should shove a case of their drink where the sun don’t shine.

Things finally seemed to come to a close in Jan. 2015, when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately sided with the FTC, writing that “Many of those ads mischaracterized the scientific evidence concerning the health benefits of POM’s products with regard to those diseases.”

In a statement, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez says she is pleased to finally have this dispute resolved.

“The outcome of this case makes clear that companies like POM making serious health claims about food and nutritional supplement products must have rigorous scientific evidence to back them up,” says Ramirez. “Consumers deserve no less.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist