Precaution & Risk

Media: If You Wear Headphones while Walking, You’re as Good as Dead

by Marc Scribner on January 17, 2012 · 0 comments

in Features, Mobility, Precaution & Risk, Zeitgeist

Post image for Media: If You Wear Headphones while Walking, You’re as Good as Dead

Various media outlets are trying to scare the bejesus out of us by reporting on a new study published in this month’s issue of Injury Prevention, a leading peer-reviewed journal focused on — you guessed it — research related to reducing injuries. “Deaths of Headphone-Wearing Pedestrians Increase, Study Finds,” was the title of Bloomberg’s article on the research paper. This is one of the more accurate headlines I’ve seen on the study, although even this one is likely being misinterpreted by many, as I’ll explain in a moment. An example of an inaccurate, sloppy, scaremongering title comes from the Toronto Sun, “Wearing headphones while walking can be deadly: Study.” Please. Wearing headphones while walking will almost certainly not kill you.

Many in the media have been conflating what the researchers found, that more pedestrians involved in vehicle collisions have been reported to have been wearing headphones, with “headphone-wearing increases pedestrian-vehicle crash risk.” While the authors note that there is most likely a link between increased risk of pedestrian-vehicle collision and the pedestrian wearing headphones, they specifically point out in their conclusion: “Also, since this is a retrospective case series, neither causation nor correlation can be established between headphone use and pedestrian risk” [emphasis added]. This is because the methodology used by researchers to determine the number of collisions in recent years relied heavily on searches of news databases, such as LexisNexis and Google News, which is not the most scientifically robust way to tabulate incidents given media biases.

It is also worth noting, as the researchers themselves note in their paper, that while these headphone-wearing-pedestrian collisions more than tripled over the six years studied, MP3 player ownership quadrupled over the same period. Simply because more pedestrian-vehicle collisions involving headphone-wearing pedestrians while ownership of headphone-dependent devices increased at a greater rate does not prove headphones necessarily increase pedestrian-vehicle collision risk by much. If a greater proportion of pedestrians are wearing headphones, you would expect that more vehicle-pedestrian collisions would involve pedestrians wearing headphones.

[click to continue…]

WaPo Columnist Calls for Cordray’s Consumer Bureau to be “Big Brother”

by John Berlau on January 15, 2012 · 1 comment

in Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

“Big Brother.” When commentators use that phrase to describe a government agency, it is most often not meant as a compliment.

Rather, it is wielded as the ultimate criticism of the government’s overreach. The pejorative use of this phrase, after all, dates back more than 60 years to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” in which “Big Brother” was the symbol of a totalitarian collectivist dictatorship.

Whenever a government agency is called “Big Brother” — whether by liberals regarding the NSA, by conservatives regarding the EPA, and regarding the TSA by just about everyone who doesn’t work there — most defenders of the entity push back against the use of the phrase. They angrily deny that the entity’s action can be described as anything close to that of “Big Brother.”

Yet amazingly, Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post‘s nationally syndicated personal finance columnist, has embraced the phrase in describing her desires for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Watchdog Should Act Like a Big Brother,” reads the headline of her latest column in the Post.

After interviewing Richard Cordray, whom President Obama installed as director of the bureau in an unprecedented “recess” appointment when the Senate was not actually in recess, Singletary argues that the bureau has a mandate to be a “big brother” to American consumers. “The agency, under his lead, is supposed to be the big brother (or sister) consumers need to enforce federal consumer financial protection laws and, if necessary, create rules that will head off unfair, deceptive or abusive financial practices and products,” she writes.

[click to continue…]

Holiday Travel Travails

by Ryan Young on December 22, 2011

in Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Just in time for the holiday travel season,Vanity Fair’s Charles C. Mann took a trip through airport security with security expert Bruce Schneier. Mann used a fake boarding pass that he printed at home with a little bit of Photoshopping and some coaching from Schneier; it worked.

In fact, there are only three security measures that are effective, and they’re all already in place. They are “locking and reinforcing the cockpit doors, so terrorists can’t break in, positive baggage matching” — ensuring that people can’t put luggage on planes, and then not board them — “and teaching the passengers to fight back. The rest is security theater.”

It’s also time to allow passengers to keep their shoes on:

Taking off your shoes is next to useless. “It’s like saying, Last time the terrorists wore red shirts, so now we’re going to ban red shirts,” Schneier says. If the T.S.A. focuses on shoes, terrorists will put their explosives elsewhere. “Focusing on specific threats like shoe bombs or snow-globe bombs simply induces the bad guys to do something else. You end up spending a lot on the screening and you haven’t reduced the total threat.”

Schneier goes on to show, point-by-point, why almost every aspect of TSA’s security apparatus is spectacularly ineffective. Body scanners, behavioral detection officers, air marshals, and all the rest are the kind of big-budget production that doesn’t actually produce much in the way of increased safety. Fortunately, terrorism is rare; we are still safe.

Read the whole thing. And when you’re done, pick up a copy of Schneier’s book, Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.

2011 Brought Lots of Good News for Salt Lovers

by Greg Conko on December 21, 2011

in Features, Health and Illness, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Post image for 2011 Brought Lots of Good News for Salt Lovers

With holiday cooking on most of our minds this week, it’s worth celebrating some good news about one of the most beleaguered food ingredients: table salt. For years, consumers and food producers have been bombarded with demands to reduce sodium consumption by nanny state regulators hoping to improve public health, even though the evidence linking high sodium diets and serious health concerns has always been ambiguous at best. But this year alone, several major scientific studies have cast that link in even further doubt.

The folks over at the Salt Institute — the trade association representing salt producers and commercial users — are touting these results as “The Biggest Health & Nutrition Story of 2011.” ”In 2011, half a dozen medical studies quantified the health benefits of salt or revealed the significant risks of low-sodium diets, making it a year of vindication for this essential nutrient and the people who love it. … The latest data should raise fresh questions about the federal government’s effort to put all Americans on a low-salt diet that could do far more harm than good.”

This wasn’t surprising to us. For years, we at CEI have been pointing out that the belief that sodium consumption in the United States has reached extreme and unhealthy levels is mistaken. And, as more and more high-quality research has been conducted on this subject during the past 40 years, the link between high-sodium diets and negative health effects has become more tenuous, not more certain.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has recommended a Tolerable Upper Intake Level of just 2,300 mg of sodium per day and an Adequate Intake of just 1,500 mg per day. And regulators are concerned that average sodium intake per person in the U.S. is approximately 3,300 mg per day. Yet decades of scaremongering have had little effect on consumer behavior, as sodium consumption has remained essentially flat since the 1950s. As my colleague Dan Compton wrote nearly two years ago, U.S. sodium consumption isn’t particularly high by global standards. And efforts to reduce the salt content in foods is typically frustrated by consumers who adjust their dietary intake by seeking out foods with more salt — even when they’re not aware that the salt content of the foods they’ve been eating has been reduced.

[click to continue…]

FDA Was Right to Deny Petition to Restrict Animal Antibiotics

by Greg Conko on December 14, 2011 · 1 comment

in Agriculture, Features, Health and Illness, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

I didn’t have a chance to write about it then, but a few weeks back the Food and Drug Administration denied a citizen petition submitted by environmental activists asking the agency to forbid the “sub-therapeutic” use of certain antibiotics in food animals. The petition — initially filed in 2005, and fundamentally identical to one submitted in 1999 and rejected in 2001 — argued that using antibiotics for growth promotion, rather than to treat infected animals, contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten human health.

The issue is a complicated one, with serious implications for medical treatment and consumer well-being more broadly. We know that development by human pathogens of resistance to medically important antibiotics poses serious public health concerns. And, although a clear link between animal antibiotics use and human disease has not been proven, there are good theoretical reasons to believe, and some real world evidence suggesting, that it does — or at least could — occur.

Nevertheless, I would still argue that FDA made the right call, but for an incomplete reason. In response to both the 1999 and 2005 petitions, the agency essentially said that going through the formal legal process to revoke the approvals for a drug is intensive, time consuming, and a poor use of FDA resources. And because the agency already monitors the development of resistance and has both nominally voluntary and explicitly mandatory programs in place to restrict uses that may pose realistic threats to human health, FDA argued that beginning the revocation process isn’t worth it.

I would further argue, though, that the agency simply does not have sufficient information on which to base a decision to revoke the approvals in question, but that it should begin a less formal investigation to shed some light on the matter. The agency has never before compared the risks that arise from animal antibiotics uses to those that would arise from restricting them. But doing so should be mandatory before any bans or further restrictions are put in place.

[click to continue…]

The GOP Response to TSA Strip-Searches

by Ryan Young on December 12, 2011 · 2 comments

in Mobility, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

The TSA has allegedly strip-searched an elderly woman for wearing a back brace. They suspected it was a money belt; turns out it was a back brace, just as the woman said. Two points to make here:

One, how degrading for the poor woman. Life is hard enough with a bad back.

Two, this strip-search was security-unrelated. Suppose the woman was wearing a money belt. Even the crispest of $100 bills can’t bring down a plane. Currency does not pose a safety threat of any kind.

The TSA is also explicitly disallowed from searching for criminal evidence unrelated to passenger safety. And there isn’t even anything criminal about carrying hidden cash. If anything, it’s probably safer to carry it that way.

Fortunately, the GOP is stepping in with a strong response that cuts to the heart of the problem: a new bill that would remove badges from official TSA uniforms. Agents might also lose the stripe on the side of their pants.

Christmas Liquor Bans: Is Your State on the List?

by Michelle Minton on December 12, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Post image for Christmas Liquor Bans: Is Your State on the List?

If you were planning to go-a-Wassailing along this Christmas, you may want to read this post carefully so that you can plan your booze-buying accordingly this holiday season. The “blue laws,” that still exist in many states, were originally intended to enforce religious worship. While most states have done away with the anachronistic rules, many still maintain bans on sales of liquor on Sundays, election days, and certain holidays. Since this Christmas falls on a Sunday this year, about 27 states in the union have some kind of blue law or another that will severely limit its residents’ ability to get booze, regardless of whether or not they are religious or celebrate Christmas. Most of the states listed below have limitations on off-premise sales of alcohol (that is liquor shops) but some also limit or prohibit all liquor sales, including serving in bars and restaurants on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Most of the states on the list below have state-wide prohibitions, but for some states the laws governing liquor are county-by-county. Even if your state doesn’t make the list, individual stores may elect to close on Christmas Day so you should prepare head of time so you won’t be forced to take drastic measures.

Alabama only allows off-premise sales of liquor through state-run stores, all of which will be closed from 4pm on Christmas Eve until the following Tuesday.

Arkansas not only prohibits sales of take-away liquor, but also prohibits

Colorado lifted the Sunday sales ban in 2008, however, off-premise alcohol sales are banned on Christmas Day. If you’re really in need you’ll be happy to know that you’ll be able to buy 3.2 percent ABV beer at grocery stores (if they’re open) on Xmas.

Connecticut bans Sunday liquor sales *except “for alcoholic liquor that is served where food is also available…or by casino permittees at casinos.” In addition, if Christmas falls on a Sunday, off-premise sales are also prohibited on the following Monday.

The District of Columbia, oddly, bans Sunday sales of liquor unless Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday — then stores are allowed to open on December 24. Of course, since Christmas Day is on Sunday people in the district will have to get whatever alcohol they want from grocery/convenience stores (or neighboring states).

Georgia: All alcohol sales are generally prohibited on Christmas Day. However, cities with more than 400,000 residents may allow alcohol sales after 12:30pm on Christmas.

Indiana liquor stores are forced to close while restaurants and bars are banned from Christmas Day alcohol sales, but may serve alcohol by the glass on Christmas Eve.

Kansas While some counties may permit Sunday sales as of 2005, liquor stores are prohibited from selling on Christmas.

Maryland: Oh, Maryland. The state that I currently call home has a labyrinthine system of liquor laws, which means that rules vary widely from county to county. Particularly confusing is the fact that while the state itself is not a “control state” meaning that the state doesn’t own or operate liquor stores, Montgomery County is a “control county” that shuts down its liquor stores on Christmas Day (according to the Chief Operator of the Montgomery Dept. of Liquor Control). Other counties in Maryland, such as Prince George’s, will have sales on Christmas.

Massachusetts like Connecticut prohibits off-premise sales on Christmas day as well as the following Monday if Christmas falls on a Sunday.

Michigan: Last year, Michigan undid the state ban on Christmas day alcohol sales but many municipalities, such as Flint, chose to maintain the ban.

[click to continue…]

On 10th Anniversary of Enron Collapse, Time for Sarbanes-Oxley to Go

by John Berlau on December 2, 2011

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Features, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony

Post image for On 10th Anniversary of Enron Collapse, Time for Sarbanes-Oxley to Go

Ten years ago today, Enron Corp. filed for bankruptcy. Today, with all of its dealings with banks, it would probably have been deemed “too big to fail.”

But luckily, this was before Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner occupied the Treasury Department. Enron was allowed to fail, and its executives were punished for fraud under decades-old securities laws.

While there was certainly damage to employees and, temporarily, to surrounding businesses in Houston, the bankruptcy barely caused a blip to the larger economy. The economy, already reeling because of the 9/11 attacks three months earlier, soon had a remarkable recovery.

Rather, the most damaging action of the Enron affair occurred in the aftermath of post-Enron reform. This would be the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Ten years later, even the Obama administration agrees that Sarbox’s crushing burden of accounting mandates is holding back economic growth.

And Sarbox has little to show in results for investors, having failed to stop Lehman Brothers, Countrywide and now MF Global, which was run into the ground by a former politician who had championed the 2002 law. Jon Corzine’s bio on the website BigThink.com states glowingly, “As a member of the United States Senate, Corzine co-authored the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a piece of legislation designed to crack down on corporate malfeasance crafted in the wake of accounting scandals surrounding Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and other major corporations.”

Yes, it turns out Corzine may have been more of an expert than we thought on alleged “corporate malfeasance.”  And as noted  in the October report of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness,  Sarbox has crushed the dreams of thousands of honest entrepreneurs for every scandal it may have stopped (and I don’t know that it has stopped any.)

[click to continue…]

Regulation of the Day 200: Flying Food

by Ryan Young on November 23, 2011

in Features, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation of the Day

Post image for Regulation of the Day 200: Flying Food

Millions of Americans are taking to the skies to spend time with their families over Thanksgiving. Many of them will be carrying leftovers on their return trips. Fortunately, the TSA is fully prepared to defend the airways against terrorist turkeys and rogue desserts. Here is a list of food and other holiday-themed items that run afoul of the TSA’s 3-1-1 rule:

Cranberry sauce, creamy dips and spreads (cheeses, peanut butter, etc.), gift baskets with food items (salsa, jams and salad dressings), gravy, jams, jellies, maple syrup, oils and vinegars, salad dressing, salsa, sauces, soups, wine, liquor and beer.

That means you’ll have to put them in checked baggage if you have a decent amount. They are far too dangerous to bring on the plane in a carry-on.

There are also specific guidelines for pies and cakes:

Note: You can bring pies and cakes through the security checkpoint, but please be advised that they are subject to additional screening.

I feel safer already.

Sen. Hagan Bill Would Expand Accelerated Drug Approval

by Greg Conko on November 17, 2011

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

According to Bloomberg News, North Carolina Democratic Senator Kay Hagan is set to introduce a bill that would create new “progressive” and “exceptional” approval processes for new drugs to treat unmet needs. These would be similar to the FDA’s existing “accelerated approval” process, open primarily to AIDS and cancer drugs, which permits the agency to grant a conditional approval once intermediate clinical trials demonstrate improvement in a so-called “surrogate end-point” such as tumor shrinkage. Once granted accelerated approval, these drugs must still complete more rigorous Phase III clinical trials to demonstrate improvement in the ultimate clinical end-point of patient survival, or the agency may revoke the conditional approval.

Details of the bill are not yet available, but I understand that “progressive approval” would function essentially like accelerated approval does now, but that the pathway would be open to any drug that would be the first approved treatment for a given disease or condition, or for an identifiable sub-population with the disease or condition. “Exceptional approval” would be available in cases where standard controlled clinical trials would be unfeasible to conduct, such as when the patient population is so small that enrolling a large clinical trial of thousands of patients would be nearly impossible. It would also be open to cases in which it would be unethical to conduct a standard placebo-controlled trials because that entails some patients getting no active treatment.

The accelerated approval process has been somewhat controversial, inasmuch as it can result in the withdrawal of an approved drug that has benefited some, but not all, patients taking it. That’s what happened with the breast cancer indication for the drug Avastin, which I wrote about earlier this year. It also becomes difficult for manufacturers to enroll clinical trials once a product may be legally sold to any patient whose doctor prescribes it. There’s a critical discussion of accelerated approval here.

The process is by no means perfect. But to the extent that it helps get needed drugs to market sooner, accelerated approval has been a tremendous boon for patient health. So, I look forward to seeing Sen. Hagan’s bill, and I applaud her efforts to help expedite the availability of new treatment options.

← Previous Entries