In 1968, Congress passed a law requiring the Food and Drug Administration to minimize people's exposure to wireless radiation, but the agency dropped the ball, according to a new petition filed by a coalition of consumer advocates.

The group wants the FDA to evaluate the public's exposure to radio-frequency radiation emitted by things such as cellphones, laptops, tablets, routers, game consoles and smart meters.

Doug Wood, founder and national director of Americans for Responsible Technology, spearheaded the petition.

"All those things that depend on and emit RF radiation fall under the purview of FDA," Wood explained. "It's the only agency right now, that has both the authority and the responsibility to protect the public health by trying to minimize those exposures as much as possible."

Wood wants the FDA to measure and analyze the public's exposure, especially kids in modern classrooms packed with wireless technology. Then the agency could develop and publicize best practices for minimizing exposure.

The FDA has said it relies on the industry RF radiation exposure standard developed in the 1980s and adopted in 1996 by the Federal Communications Commission. The FDA considers safe any device coming in under the limit.

Wood argued the standard is outdated, considering multiple studies -- including a huge one in 2018 from the National Toxicology Program -- found RF radiation from cellphones led to cancer in rats.

"So they're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place," Wood contended. "On the one hand, they've got a trillion-dollar worldwide industry, depending on them to not say this stuff is dangerous. And they've got a law from Congress saying you are required to protect public health by minimizing that exposure as much as possible."

Ellie Marks, director of the nonprofit California Brain Tumor Association, said her husband Alan is fighting brain cancer which developed right where he held his cellphone for many years.

"Had the FDA done their jobs and properly advised consumers, my husband and family would not have suffered as we have," Marks asserted. "And I know many others quite young who are now deceased from cancers related to their cellphone use."

The FDA has 180 days to evaluate the petition. If it is rejected, advocates would have the option to file suit.

Air travelers could face fewer obstacles in securing a refund if their flight is canceled or changed under new federal rules announced Wednesday.

The moves are being praised by watchdog groups. The Department of Transportation said airlines are now required to promptly provide passengers with automatic cash refunds when they are owed one.

Teresa Murray, consumer watchdog director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said some carriers have not adhered to standards, leaving passengers in a bind.

"They would drag their feet, and they would say, 'Well, you bought your ticket from a ticket agent, so we don't know where your money is. Or, here, have a voucher,'" Murray explained.

Amid higher complaint volumes, companies will be forced to act quickly. The new rules, which are being phased in, provide clearer definitions for travel disruptions, including delays of at least three hours on a domestic flight and six hours on international flights. A key industry group responded to the announcement by touting transparency efforts among carriers.

Murray acknowledged most people are not frequent flyers, and it is hard for them to keep up on all the least practices and policies among airlines.

"The average person only flies once every 18 months," Murray pointed out. "This will just bring transparency to that process and it kind of evens the playing field."

Murray added it could come in handy for Midwestern customers when a winter storm wreaks havoc on air travel. The new rules also require refunds for baggage fees when a piece of luggage is delayed by 12 hours or more for domestic flights. And there must be upfront disclosure on fees for first and second checked bags and carry-on bags.


get more stories like this via email

Wisconsin lawmakers recently debated reforms for payday loans. Efforts to protect consumers come amid new research about financial pain associated with cash advances offered through smartphone apps. The Center for Responsible Lending is out with findings that detail how "earned wage advances" from digital platforms come with extra costs disguised as things like tips. Traditional payday lenders are often criticized for charging excessive interest rates on loans that are usually around $500.

Lucia Constantine, a researcher with the Center for Responsible Lending, said customers are usually seeking smaller amounts from the apps, but she warns they can be just as costly.

"They are trapping consumers in a cycle of borrowing that is similar to that of a payday loan, " she said.

The report said after using these financial products, customers are seeing overdrafts on their checking accounts increase by 56% on average. Industry leaders deny they're barraging consumers with hidden fees, stressing that features such as suggested tips are optional. More broadly, a bipartisan payday loan reform bill in the Wisconsin Legislature failed to advance this month.

Constantine said like longstanding payday lenders, these cash advance apps can be hard to regulate. Meanwhile, she urged those in a bind to explore other options.

"[They should] try talking to their friends and family as a first source. The other option which I would recommend is reaching out to their credit union or banking institution to see if they can get some sort of small-dollar loan," she said.

She noted places such as credit unions typically provide more transparency on loan costs. According to the report, three-quarters of consumers took out at least one advance on the same day or day after a re-payment was posted.


get more stories like this via email

Food prices remain high, in Montana and across the country.

A new report by the Federal Trade Commission says the country's largest grocery companies are gouging consumers, by keeping prices artificially high.

Many grocers, retailers and wholesalers have consolidated to cut costs. Grocers continue to blame supply chain problems, even though regulators have said most of those issues have been resolved.

President of the advocacy group Farm Action, Angela Huffman, said retailers were doing more than making up for lost revenue during the pandemic-era supply chain disruptions - and the FTC report says they continue to do so.

"In 2021, the retailer revenues, they rose to more than 6% higher than their total costs, and that those profits are still going up," said Huffman. "So, in the first nine months of 2023, the profits increased to 7%."

At nearly 6.5%, Montana had the nation's ninth-highest grocery price increase in 2023.

The FTC data show Amazon, Kroger and WalMart each gained market share during and after the pandemic - while profits continued to rise.

Other large retailers and wholesalers have consolidated, which they say gives them more buying power and the ability to pass those savings on to customers.

Huffman said that isn't what's happening, and calls on regulators to fine the grocers, or more.

"This would be kind of the farthest extent of what they could do, but go so far as breaking them up," said Huffman. "In years past, they broke up the telephone companies and the railroads and, you know, that would be the ideal outcome for us, is to take away their excessive power."

Huffman also points to a 150% increase in egg prices in 2023, which producers blamed on the avian flu. The FTC says the disease did not justify the drastic price hike.