680 lb Man Fired For Being Obese

680 lb Man Fired For Being Obese:

Ronald at one point weighed 680 lbs, a fact that never interfered with his ability to do his job. He received high marks in his performance reviews. Despite this, he was fired for his weight.

The Houston Chronicle reports the man worked in a materials handling job for a military manufacturer. The job required mostly computer and desk work, along with some moving of items on shelves that were above chest level. He never asked for any special accommodations, except for a seat belt extension for the forklift he sometimes had to operate. He never received the seat belt extender.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated his claims and filed a lawsuit against the company for violating federal disability laws.

Under the disabilities act, it doesn't matter if you have one arm. As long as you can perform the job one-armed, you can't be fired for having only one arm.

The man is now down to 300 pounds thanks to surgery, diet, and exercise.

Man fired at 680 pounds says weight didn't hurt his work [Houston Chronicle] (Thanks to Justin!)

Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone

Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone:

Since '91, it's been illegal for telemarketers to use autodialers and other robot-like devices to call your cellphone. Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact your cellphone "for informational purposes."

Here is the text of the bill:

"HR 3035 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3035

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit informational calls to mobile telephone numbers, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 22, 2011

Mr. TERRY (for himself and Mr. TOWNS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit informational calls to mobile telephone numbers, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 227(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(a)) is amended--

(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

'(1) The term 'automatic telephone dialing system' means equipment which uses a random or sequential number generator to produce telephone numbers to be called and to dial such numbers.';

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) by striking 'subsection (b)(1)(C)(i)' and inserting 'paragraph (3) and subsection (b)(1)(C)(i)';

(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking '; and' and inserting a semicolon;

(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking 'paragraph (2)(G)).' and inserting 'subsection (b)(2)(G); and'; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:

'(C) this paragraph shall not apply for purposes of determining whether an established business relationship exists for purposes of prior express consent to a call that is a telephone solicitation.';

(3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively; and

(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

'(3) The term 'prior express consent' means the oral or written approval of a person--

'(A) for the initiation of a telephone call to such person by or on behalf of an entity with which such person has an established business relationship; and

'(B) that is provided when such person purchases a good or service or at any other point during such relationship.

A person who provides a telephone number as a means of contact evidences consent under this paragraph.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 227(c)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(c)(1)(D)) is amended by striking 'subsection (a)(3)' and inserting 'subsection (a)(5)'.

SEC. 3. INFORMATIONAL CALLS TO MOBILE TELEPHONE NUMBERS.

(a) In General- Section 227(b)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

'(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice--

'(i) to any emergency telephone line (including any '911' line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency);

'(ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment;

'(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service; or

'(iv) to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call, unless the call is made for a commercial purpose that does not constitute a telephone solicitation;'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 227(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)(C)) is amended by striking 'paragraph (1)(A)(iii)' and inserting 'paragraph (1)(A)(iv)'.

(c) Technical Correction- Section 227(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)) is amended by striking 'It shall' and all that follows through 'United States--' and inserting the following: 'It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States--'.

SEC. 4. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.

Section 227(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(f)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

'(1) IN GENERAL- No requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State with respect to any subject matter regulated under this section, except for telephone solicitations.'."

Here is a letter written by various banking associations supporting the bill:

"September 23, 2011

The Honorable Fred Upton

Chairman Ranking Minority Member

2125 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Henry Waxman

House Committee on Energy and Commerce House Committee on Energy and Commerce

2322A Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Minority Member Waxman:

We the undersigned write to express our strong support for H.R. 3035, the Mobile

Informational Call Act of 2011. This legislation will modernize the Telephone Consumer

Protection Act (TCPA) by enacting limited, common-sense revisions to facilitate the delivery of time-sensitive consumer information to mobile devices, while continuing to protect wireless consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls.

Businesses increasingly rely on advanced communications technologies to convey timely

and important information to consumers. These calls notify consumers about threats such as data breaches and fraud alerts, provide timely notice of flight and service appointment cancellations and drug recalls, and protect consumers against the adverse consequences of failure to make timely payments on an account.

Unfortunately, the TCPA restricts informational calls that utilize assistive technologies to mobile devices even though the law permits such calls to be made to wireline phones. As a result, the approximately 40% of American consumers who identify their mobile device as their primary or exclusive means of communication do not receive many of these calls.

This restriction imposes unwarranted costs and inconveniences on consumers, businesses, and the economy as a whole. When enacted in 1991, Congress intended this restriction to protect consumers against the then-daunting per-minute costs and privacy concerns associated with unsolicited incoming calls from telemarketers. But this restriction applies equally to informational calls. In addition, most wireless consumers are now covered by flat-rate plans, and even for those who are not, technological advances and increased competition have greatly reduced per-minute charges.

A strong consumer-protection environment depends on appropriate communication

between businesses and their customers. As consumers increasingly rely on wireless phones as their primary, or even sole, means of communication, the TCPA's outdated restriction on the use of assistive technologies in contacting wireless consumers for non-telemarketing purposes is now doing far more harm than good for the consumers such restriction was intended to protect.

For these reasons, we strongly support H.R. 3035. This bill will modernize the TCPA by:

* Exempting informational calls from the restriction on auto-dialer and artificial/prerecorded voice calls to wireless numbers;

* Clarifying the "prior express consent" requirement to ensure that the TCPA facilitates communications between consumers and the businesses with which they choose to interact; and

* Excluding from the restriction equipment that merely stores pre-determined numbers or that has latent (but unused) capacity to generate random or sequential numbers.

In addition, H.R. 3035 will continue the prohibition against the use of assistive technologies to call wireless numbers for telemarketing purposes. We commend Representatives Terry and Towns for introducing this legislation.

Congress should act now to modernize the TCPA's treatment of informational calls to

consumers, while preserving its original intent to protect wireless consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls. We urge the Energy and Commerce Committee to appprove [sic] this legislation as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

American Bankers Association

ACA International

Air Transport Association

Consumer Bankers Association

Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations

Edison Electric Institute

Education Finance Council

Financial Services Roundtable

Housing Policy Council

Mortgage Bankers Association

National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO)

National Council of Higher Education Loan Program

Student Loan Servicing Alliance

Student Loan Servicing Alliance Private Loan Committee

The Clearing House

U.S. Chamber of Commerce"

If that's the list of supporters, you can be pretty sure it sucks for you.

FDA Warns Seattle-Based Coffee Company That Rat Poo Is Not Part Of A Seasonal Blend

FDA Warns Seattle-Based Coffee Company That Rat Poo Is Not Part Of A Seasonal Blend

:

UPDATE: Zoka has responded to Consumerist regarding the FDA letter. See response at bottom of story.

----------------

In 2008, Seattle-based Zoka Coffee, which operates four stores and also sells packaged coffee and tea, was named Roaster of the Year by Roast Magazine. In 2011, that same company is on the receiving end of a very detailed warning letter from the Food & Drug Administration after inspectors found way too many violations, including more than 1,500 bits of rodent poop.

In a warning letter dated earlier this month, the FDA writes that the following was found during an inspection in April:

Storage Area:

Two lots of whole green coffee beans contained evidence of rodent and insect infestation...

• 79 rodent excreta pellets (REPs) were observed directly on the surface of burlap bags of green coffee beans throughout a pallet of (b)(4) 132 lb. bags. Rodent nesting material was observed on the bottom layer on a pallet of stacked bags; and

• 17 REPs and one apparent insect larvae with insect webbing were observed on the surface of burlap bags of green coffee beans on a stacked pallet of (b)(4) 132lb bags...

• 55 REPs were observed on the surface of burlap bags of green coffee beans throughout a pallet of (b)(4) 132lb burlap bags. A gnaw hole approximately 1/2 inch in diameter was found on one burlap bag. Three insect larvae with webbing and two live insects were found on the outside of the burlap bags;

• 10 REPs were observed on the surface of burlap bags of green coffee beans on a pallet of (b)(4) 132 lb. burlap bags. 12 REPs were found on the cardboard slip underneath the pallet; and

• 27 REPs were observed inside the shrink-wrap surrounding (b)(4) pallets, each containing (b)(4) 132 lb. burlap bags of green coffee.

Production Room:

• At least 200 REPs and a fluorescent stain were observed on and around the bottom shelf of a shelving unit stored in the southwest area;

• At least 115 REPs were observed along the floor/wall junction and among stored boxes in the southwest area;

• At least 144 REPs were observed on the floor surrounding and throughout two stacks of empty pallets stored in the southwest corner;

• 68 REPs were observed on the floor along the south wall in the southeast corner;

• 52 REPs were observed on the floor between plastic bins containing roasted coffee and the west wall;

• A hole behind a shelving unit in the southeast corner containing at least 3 REPs;

• An approximately 20 inch wide gap approximately 4 inches above the floor/wall junction between the cement ledge and wood wall along the west wall, containing 55 REPs;



• At least 90 REPs were observed against the south wall between the (b)(4) and (b)(4) rows of pallets containing green coffee beans in burlap bags;

• At least 300 REPs and fluorescent stains were observed on the floor along the west wall south of the main stairwell; and

• 33 REPs were observed against the south wall between the two western most rows of pallets containing green coffee beans in burlap bags.

Training Room:

• 22 REPs were observed in the production room along the front floor/wall junction;

• At least 100 REPs were observed at the floor/wall juncture behind storage racks and Styrofoam packaging material along the south wall;

• 55 REPs were inside a cardboard box with loose tea; and

• Three holes were observed along the north wall, 1 inch wide containing 4 REPs, 2 1/2 inches wide, and 6 inches in width containing 6 REPs.

Break Room:

• At least 40 REPs were observed at the floor/wall junction along the north wall;

• At least 120 REPs were observed on the surface of two tables along the east wall, and at least 175 REPs were observed beneath the same two tables; and

• Two holes, were observed, one hole, 2 1/4 inches wide, in the northeast corner, and one hole, 2 1/2 inches wide, along the south wall, containing at least 4 REPs.

Tea Repackaging Area:

• REPs were observed on the floor and on shelving units.

One live rodent, approximately 4 inches long, was observed in an open doorway leading from the main stairwell toward the tea re-packing area.

The FDA acknowledges that Zoka responded to the inspector's concerns in May, but that the response was inadequate.

"Your response did not specifically address what, if any, corrective actions you have taken to clean the rodent excreta pellets that were observed in your facility and to sanitize the areas where the pellets were found," writes the FDA. "Nor did you provide documentation of other corrective actions."

The FDA also stated the Zoka's responses regarding concerns about employee sanitation, food storage, and other issues was inadequate.

The agency has given Zoka 15 days to respond in detail, including "each step taken or that will be taken to correct the violations and prevent recurrence. You should include in your response any documentation or other useful information that would assist us in evaluating your corrections. If you cannot complete all corrections before you respond, you should explain the reason for your delay and state when you will correct any remaining violations."

UPDATE: We have spoken to a rep for Zoka, who says the company has been working with the Washington State Dept. of Agriculture and that it quickly got the conditions at its facilities back up to snuff following the FDA inspection. Zoka points out that the FDA has not yet done a re-inspection of the building. The company says it has photos and documentation to demonstrate that it is now in compliance and will be sending them to Consumerist soon.

WARNING LETTER [FDA.gov]

Thanks to Camille for the tip!

Wall Street Journal Changes Privacy Policy To Track Users' Browsing Data Without Consent

Wall Street Journal Changes Privacy Policy To Track Users' Browsing Data Without Consent:

Because News Corp. has apparently given up any pretensions to respecting the privacy of others, it recently updated the privacy policy for the Wall Street Journal website to allow the company to connect personally identifiable information with Web browsing data without user consent.

Before the change, which was made on Tuesday, the WSJ.com privacy policy stated it would obtain "express affirmative consent" to combine personal data with "click stream information."

And it's not just WSJ.com. The change is being made to all member sites in the Journal's Digital Network, including Marketwatch.com, AllthingD.com, Barrons.com and SmartMoney.com.

Additionally, the privacy policy now states that the sites collects mobile browser ID information.

Why the change?

The network's general manager says that by combining the identifying info with the browsing history, it will "allow us to provide customized Wall Street Journal service information to our users."

She adds that the change "is not being applied retrospectively and only applies going forward to new registered users and subscribers."

If this is truly a benefit to users of the Wall Street Journal sites, News Corp. should make it opt-in only and be compelled to make its case to its readers, rather than making a quiet, behind-the-scenes change in its long-winded privacy policy.

Wall Street Journal Revises Its Privacy Policy [WSJ.com]

FDA Scolds Big Corn For "Corn Sugar" Ads & Websites

FDA Scolds Big Corn For "Corn Sugar" Ads & Websites:

For more than a year, the folks at the Corn Refiners Association have been making a very public push to rebrand the controversial but widely used high fructose corn syrup as "corn sugar," telling consumers that "sugar is sugar." But newly uncovered correspondence between the Food and Drug Administration and Big Corn show that regulators aren't exactly thrilled about the new name.

The Associated Press has seen a letter sent from an FDA director to the Corn Refiners Association in July. In which the agency writes, "We request that you re-examine your websites and modify statements that use the term 'corn sugar' as a synonym for (high fructose corn syrup)."

But that was July, and yet CornSugar.com still operates because the FDA can't stop an ad campaign that only seeks to promote an entire industry. However, if someone were to change HFCS to "corn sugar" on an ingredients list before the FDA has signed off on the name change, then the agency has the authority to intervene.

A rep for the Refiners defends the campaign to the AP by saying, "We do not believe that anyone could be confused or believe that the statements regarding 'corn sugar' on the websites refer to anything other than high fructose corn syrup."

Except... the FDA already has something it calls "corn sugar." You might know it as dextrose.

Big Corn had previously attempted to rebrand HFCS as "corn syrup," even though it's not the stuff you buy in the Karo bottle in the baking aisle.

Regarding the "corn syrup" change, which was subsequently dropped in favor of the change to "corn sugar," an FDA deputy commissioner reportedly wrote, "It would be affirmatively misleading to change the name of the ingredient after all this time, especially in light of the controversy surrounding it... If we allow it, we will rightly be mocked both on the substance of the outcome and the process through which it was achieved."

Earlier this year, a group of non-corn sugar companies filed a lawsuit against the Corn Refiners, ADM, Cargill and others over the "corn sugar" ad campaign, calling it "false advertising, pure and simple."

AP Exclusive: Officials slams corn industry attempt to rebrand high fructose corn syrup [AP]