Showing posts with label consumer fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumer fraud. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 24, 2009


CONSUMER AFFAIRS:
CAN YOU TRUST DRUGS FROM WALMART ?:
Cheaper is not always better-or even worthwhile at all. In search of cheaper pharmaceuticals many consumers head down to the Walmart Pharmacy. Like a regular pharmacy Walmart will dispense generic drugs unless explicitly requested not to by the physician. There is, however, a question about the source of many of Walmart's generic drugs. Generic drugs are not necessarily worse than brand name items, and there are many reputable generic suppliers. does Walmart, however, buy exclusively from such reputable companies ? Apparently not, as the following item from the Wake Up Walmart site explains.
For more on the 'Ranbaxy Scandal' that the article refers to see the Wikipedia article on Ranbaxy Laboratories and this article from the American Enterprise Institute.
CCCCCCCCCCCC
EXPOSED: CHEAP WALMART DRUGS COME FROM DISREPUTABLE SUPPLIER:
Is Walmart taking unacceptable risks sourcing its prescription drugs?
Today we released a new report detailing how Walmart sources its much-touted $4 prescription medications from Ranbaxy, the disgraced Indian drug maker.

According to the Department of Justice, Walmart's supplier is responsible for introducing potentially "subpotent, superpotent, or adulterated" drugs into the market. Medications used by millions of Walmart shoppers could have contained active ingredients from unapproved sources, in unapproved blends, and in amounts weaker than FDA-approved doses.

Despite the company's shady dealings, Walmart saw fit to award Ranbaxy with its "prestigious" Outstanding Supplier Award. In fact, Walmart continues to source from the embattled Indian manufacturer even today.

Don't let Walmart play games with the health of millions. Help us blow the whistle on Walmart for its customers to medications made by its unscrupulous supplier.
Let your local newspaper know the truth about Walmart's irresponsible drug sourcing

Despite years of federal warnings concerning "systemic fraudulent conduct," Walmart continues to source cheap drugs from Ranbaxy. This revelation comes on the heels of extensive PR campaigning to brand Walmart as a global health care and ethical sourcing leader.

If Walmart is interested in providing safe products from responsible suppliers, why is it handing out awards to companies under investigation by the FDA and DOJ? It shows, yet again, that Walmart is interested in little more than its own bottom line.

America deserves to know that Walmart has grossly violated the trust of its customers. Help us put Walmart's misconduct into the public eye: read the report and spread the word.
Write a letter to the editor about Walmart's cozy relationship with Ranbaxy.
Don't let Walmart off the hook, take action today.
Thanks for all that you do,
The Team,

Friday, September 26, 2008


CURRENT AFFAIRS:
MELAMINE IN MILK SCANDAL GOES WORLDWIDE:

The number of children affected by melamine adulterated infant formula in China continues to grow. According to the World Health Organization Outbreak Report (dated September 22) 40,000 children in China have been presented for medical treatment, and, at that time 12,000 were hospitalized. Four days ago there were three confirmed deaths related to the products, and, according to the WHO at least one child in Hong Kong has been hospitalized because of the poisoned formula.



While the WHO is, of course, an official and fairly reliable source its updates are often not "breaking news". More recent reports such as one from the CBC yesterday put the number of cases at up to 53,000 and the number of deaths at four (so far).



Meanwhile different governments are taking the matter with different degrees of "seriousness". Yesterday the European Union banned all imports of dairy based child and infant products from China, and India imposed a three month ban on all dairy based products from China according to Bloomberg.Com. In the USA and Canada so far only certain products have been flagged for recall. These include:

-Mr. Brown 3-in-1 Instant Coffee

-Nissin Cha Cha Deserts

-White Rabbit brand candies.

In Canada, at least, infant formula from China was previously prohibited from import, but it may still be available for sale, imported illegally given the lax state of inspection, at Asian food stores. The reader should note that none of the above three products that have been flagged so far are exactly "infant related" (unless your baby has to start his or her day with a good stiff cup of coffee). Like the pet food scandal last year the likely course of this story will be that gradually more and more products will be implicated, and governments such as those of the EU and India will be seen to have taken the prudent course, rather than depending upon "inspection" regimes that have been proven to be haphazard and the furthest thing from complete. According to the CBC article mentioned above officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have said that a complete ban on Chinese dairy based products would be an "over-reaction" as "many are still safe". Does this remind anyone of what happened last year with pet foods ? It also begs the question of "how the hell do they know?". Have they checked each and every product, in all its various shipments (batch #s from China may be next to useless) ? That should take them the next two decades, devoting all their resources to this one question (2 centuries if a new Conservative government has its way and depends on the 'self-regulation-cough,cough, of the corporations). Finally...how about a poll of the parents in China about what would be an "over-reaction".



No doubt this story will grow in the days to come. To keep abreast of it please check the WHO Disease Outbreak Reports mentioned above. From an American perspective watch the Food and Water Watch website. The Center for Science in the Public Interest website also has current news, but their site is difficult to navigate to find current matters.



Despite the sang-froid of the Canadian officials some Asian food chains such as T&T have responded by pulling many more products than those named by the CFIA. Wise move actually. Down Hong Kong way, according to Canwest News Service, foods made under the very famous Heinz brand name, have been pulled by the company because melamine was found in some of the formula. Heinz none the less.



Ah, the age of globalization. Continued scandals such as this are continued proof of the anarchist contention that production of essential things such as foodstuffs should be as decentralized and local as possible. They are also proof of the anarchist contention that people cannot rely on the "benign" procedures of government and business for their protection. Independent organizations, whether they be unions, communities or research and regulatory agencies not funded by government, are as essential component of safety in a global world.



Here's yet another view, from the IUF website, about the meaning of this scandal, one that says that such things are not the result of occasional crooked Chinese businessmen but rather of the whole corporate system under which the whole world suffers today.
................................

Melamine milk contamination exposes the reality of 'global brands':


Behind the melamine milk scandal lies an emerging crisis in corporate branding. One of the reasons for the heavy promotion of "global" brands was so that consumers wouldn't know (and would eventually stop caring) where products are made. Now with a major food contamination scandal that has killed at least 4 babies in China and sickened thousands, consumers are asking why their favourite "local" ice creams, biscuits and dairy products are made overseas.



The major transnational food companies spent the 1980s in a frenzy of mergers and acquisitions, buying up local brands and grabbing bigger market shares. The takeover boom continued into the first half of the 1990s and was complemented by a massive shift in company financial resources into marketing these brands, building an image and creating consumer loyalty. By the mid-90’s companies like Nestle, Unilever and Kraft had built up extensive brand portfolios and held the largest market shares in a range of food products - everything from cooking oil to ice cream, instant coffee and biscuits. They were also under investigation for monopoly practices and price fixing in several countries as a result.



By the end of the 1990s the new logic of financialization set in. The brands themselves became valuable financial assets and their value could be boosted through a blend of Wall Street wizardry and aggressive marketing rather than better manufacturing. So there was an irrational shift to rationalization: cutbacks, restructuring and consolidation. Less is more. Now fewer brands were better. By focusing on a few global brands in overseas markets the financial value of these brands would skyrocket. Nestle and Unilever called these their “billion dollar brands”, while Kraft would “shrink to grow” - with just 10 global “power brands” by 2008.



With the focus on “global brands" many of the popular local brands bought up in the 1980s and 1990s were sold off or simply disappeared. Local jobs disappeared too with them as plants were closed, merged or sold-off. In some cases the global brand was simply the logo alongside the local brand name ... then the name disappeared, and the jobs. Unilever’s "Heartbrand"” ice cream logo, for example, carries global recognition, but is known as “Walls” in the UK and Asia/Pacific regions as well as Selecta (Philippines), Kwality (India), Algida (Italy), Langnese (Germany) and Kibon (Brazil).



With global brands location no longer mattered. Production was relocated overseas (and relocated again and again), while aggressive brand marketing ensured that consumers continued to believe they were buying a locally made product with a global identity. The locally branded frozen fish stick could make a round trip detour of thousands of kilometers for filleting in China on its way to the supermarket shelf, with no questions asked.



The power of the global brand for companies like Nestle, Unilever and Kraft lies with their ability to shift production to countries like China, while loyal consumers believed it was the same product. As an added bonus, the companies could trumpet their "green" credentials and commitment to tackling global warming while loading up the products with thousands of additional food miles. Behind the familiar local brand stands a caring, concerned global company…



Consumers loyal to the brands would also continue to believe that their favorite Kraft, Nestlé or Unilever products were made by… Kraft, Nestlé or Unilever. The global branding exercise provided a convenient cover for these companies to outsource a significant portion of production to third party contractors, known as "co-packers", to manufacture their branded products. For example, one of the melamine-contaminated Nestlé Purina pet food products recalled in North America last year, after thousands of pets were sickened or died, was made by just such a North American co-packer.



Consumers who knew the reality of subcontracting were nevertheless supposed to derive comfort from the brand owners' supposed commitment to rigorous quality control. But finance-driven global branding encouraged a tidal wave of casualizing and subcontracting work within the companies' own operations. Even quality control personnel are managed and hired as casual employees through labour hire agencies. And since they're not formally employed by the company, they can't join the union.



The contamination of milk with melamine in China has now exposed the weakness of these powerful global brands. People throughout the Asia/Pacific region are suddenly finding out that their branded biscuits, ice creams and dairy products are made in China. When did that happen? And how long will it take for these products to find their way onto grocery shelves in the rest of the world - if they haven't already? Meanwhile the companies are rushing to assure consumers that products made outside of China are safe. But who is going to look beyond the global brand to the fine print that reads “Made in ...”? Too late. Companies like Nestle and Unilever long ago obscured the meaning of “made in” to refer to anything from packaging to the printing on the package!



Even the brands of companies like Fonterra and Friesland (both dairy cooperatives that went global) could suffer serious damage to their brands. Friesland’s Dutch Lady dairy products were pulled off supermarket shelves in Southeast Asia after contamination was found in Singapore. Instead of importing Dutch Lady from nearby Malaysia (where quality control is strictly regulated and the workplace is unionized) Friesland was importing from its factories in China where it has a minority ownership stake. Meanwhile Fonterra is trying to explain why it is Sanlu (its joint venture partner in China) and not Anmum made in New Zealand (strictly regulated quality control and unionized) that is tainted with melamine....



As the contamination scandal grows there is a greater likelihood that consumers will react against the global brand regardless of whether it contains milk or milk powder from China. The global brand will be tainted. Consumers will now associate Oreo (Kraft’s top global “power brand”, recently pulled from the shelves in Singapore after melamine turned up), Friesland’s Dutch Lady and Nestle’s Dreyer’s ice cream with melamine. Expensive and aggressive marketing may fix this. Maybe.



The financial impact of product recalls and lower sales (and possible lawsuits) and new marketing drives will be passed on through the company and won’t be limited to the operations in China. Workers in other countries will face more cost cutting and restructuring as a result.

Saturday, September 08, 2007




BABY EINSTEIN: "EDUCATION" AS BRAIN DAMAGE:


OR 'THE MOUSE LOSES THIS ROUND':


In 1997 the Baby Einstein Company was founded by Julie Aigner-Clark of Denver Colorado. It was a typical home startup business in which she and her husband Bill clark invested $18,000 to produce the first VHS/DVD entitled 'Baby Einstein'. It was later remarketed under the name of 'Language Nursery'. This original production featured a number of toys and visuals illustrated by a mix of stories, music, numbers and words in several languages.



The video grew, and by 1998 it was a million dollar franchise. By the year 2000 it was grossing $10 million a year. Fads are indeed wonderful things. Aigner-Clark sold 20% of the shares in her company in February, 2000 to Artisan Entertainment and the rest to the Walt Disney Company in November 2001 for an undisclosed large amount. The manic mouse took the idea to new heights, spawning such titles as 'Baby MacDonald' (about agriculture), 'Baby Bach Musical Adventures', 'Baby da Vinci From Head to Toe', 'Baby Monet Discovering the Seasons','Baby Mozart Digital Board Book','Baby Galileo','Baby Beethoven's Symphony of Fun', and 'Baby Newton World of Shapes'. You name it they got it. The website of the line which, of course, connects to the 'Disney Shopping Site' lists no less than 24 unique DVDs, three packages of same and 11 CDs for sale. The line is available in 7 different languages in 12 different countries. It also now includes books, 'discovery cards', toys, puppets, party supplies, baby clothes and bibs. One has to wonder how much of this line is manufactured in China, one of the countries where Baby Einstein is marketed. The Mouse under its 'Disney Channel' mask created an animated television series called Baby Einsteins in 2005.
The Baby Einstein line under the tutelage of the Mouse went from success to success. After selling out to the Mouse Aigner-Clark remained active as a "consultant" and visible spokeswoman for the series. The height of publicity came on January 23, 2007 when US President George Bush mentioned the company during his State of the Union address. He also acknowledged Aiger-Clark whose was invited to sit in the gallery at the time. This led to a little bad publicity for the President as the media dug up the fact that Aiger-Clark's husband William E. Clark had donated $5,150 to the RNC and Bush in 2004. For sheer pettiness this deserves an Academy Award as this may stand as the cheapest mass advertising ever purchased on the sly from a head of state in the western world. It sounds more on the line of what you'd be able to buy from the President of a tiny Pacific Ocean island nation with a population of 25,000 people. But from the head of the greatest empire the world has ever known ???
Storm clouds, however, were beginning to gather on the happy cartoon horizons for both the Mouse and Baby Einstein. In may of 2006 the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood filed a lawsuit and launched a complaint with the US Federal Communications Commission against not just Baby Einstein but also other makers of videos for very young children. They alleged false advertising citing the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that children under 2 years of age should watch NO television; that's NONE, ZERO. A survey also cited found that only six percent of parents were aware of this recommendation while fully 49 percent were under the misapprehension that "educational" videos were important in the intellectual development of young children. Now, the two things that amaze Molly about this survey is 1)that as much as six percent were aware of this recommendation(somebody is doing their job right,whether it be parents or doctors) and 2)that almost half of the population lacks the common sense to know that it's obvious that plunking kids in front of a TV- whatever the show may be,"educational" or otherwise- is bad news and only to be resorted to in extremis. You really don't have to be aware of a medical recommendation to recognize the obvious.
This lawsuit and complaint was chugging its merry way along at the usual glacial speed of such things as the profits accumulated when an unexpected bombshell landed in the front yard of the Mouse. Last August Drs Frederick Zimmerman, Dimitri Christakis and Andrew Meltzoff of the University of Washington published a study on language development in children under two years of age in the online Journal of Pediatrics. Entitled 'Associations between Media viewing and Language Development in Children Under Age 2 Years' the study came to the conclusion that viewing of such "educational" videos by children aged 8 to 16 months was associated with significantly lower scores on standard language development tests. In 'toddlers' from ages 17 to 24 months where neural connections had escaped a critical period where they were susceptible to damage the videos had neither a positive nor negative effect. The senior author of the study, Dr. Zimmerman, couched his conclusions in cautious terms saying, "It is possible that heavy viewing of baby DVDs/videos has a deleterious effect on early language development". Another author of the paper, Dr. Christakis, was, however, less restrained. He has been widely quoted as saying, "I would rather babies watch American Idol than these videos". He may be right if you think about it.
The University of Washington sent out a press release about the study which was picked up by much of the mass media. The release quoted Dr. Zimmerman as saying, "There is no clear evidence of a benefit coming from baby DVDs and videos and there is some suggestion of harm. We don't know for sure that baby DVDs and videos are harmful but the best policy is safety first. Parents should limit their exposure as much as possible.". The press release also quoted Dr. Christakis who said, "The evidence is mounting that they are of no value and may in fact be harmful. Given what we now know, I believe that the onus is on the manufacturers to prove their claims that watching these programs can positively impact children's cognitive development.".
The Mouse came out swinging. Despite the fact that the Mouse quite deliberately covers its legal tracks with fine print stating that the line, "is not designed to make babies smarter" (see Nature 448 pp848-849, August 23,2007 -online at www.nature.com/nature if you are a subscriber) the Mouse immediately sent a demand letter to the administration of the University of Washington telling them to retract the claims made in their press release. To their credit the university backed down not one inch. The University President Mark A. Emmert fired back saying that the University stands behind its researchers and that their press release accurately described the paper's conclusions and the doctors' commentary. The Mouse persists in its attempt to silence this research as can be see on their website cited above.
Molly finds this case rather interesting. There have been multitudinous other cases where corporate entities have attempted to silence scientific research. Sometimes they succeed. sometimes they fail. Sometimes they shoot themselves in the foot big time as they promote a minor technical dispute such as the effectiveness of a certain drug as compared to others into a mass media event which destroys their brand names. This case is probably in the "fail" category as all the damage was done by the results of the study which merely reinforced the common sense proposition that these videos can do no good- a proposition tacitly admitted by the Mouse in the fine print even as they try to create the illusion that the videos are educational by attaching famous names in science and the arts to them. As an interesting aside the Mouse's royalties to the estate of Albert Einstein have helped to elevate that estate to the top four in earning for "dead celebrities" as reported by Forbes , a position usually held by dead musicians. One wonders what the ghost of old Albert, the lifelong socialist, would thing of this turn of events.
As said above this item has been picked up and repeated many times in the mass media. References to the original paper, the University of Washington press release and the reply by the Mouse are available above. For further information see the following:
*Time Magazine 'Want a Brainier baby? Loading up on tapes,games and videos may not be a smart move' http://ilabs.washington.edu/news/TIME_BrainierBaby_Jan_06.pdf
It should also be noted that the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood has an online letter writing campaign to the Mouse, the Disney Corporation, demanding that they show the proof that their products actually benefit children. Go over to that website to read more and put more pressure on the Mouse.