ReportWire

Tag: Government regulation

  • MAHA lawsuit could upend FTC health claims regulation

    [ad_1]

    Don’t get Nathan Jones started on xylitol, the active ingredient in his chewing gum, nasal spray and other products. He’ll talk your ear off about its wondrous powers against tooth decay, as well as its potential to fight covid, heart disease, Alzheimer’s — you name it.

    For now, Jones, the founder of Xlear, can’t make those claims in his company’s advertising. But if the lawsuit his company brought against the Federal Trade Commission succeeds, he’ll likely be able to say anything he wants.

    As the Trump administration loosens enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, and FDA of unproven health claims, Jones and his allies in the “medical freedom” movement are pushing to permanently roll back the health regulatory state.

    For decades, the FTC has required companies to back any medical claims about their products with substantial evidence, while taking actions against hundreds of “bogus health cures,” said Jessica Rich, the FTC’s director of consumer protection from 2013 to 2017.

    If successful, the lawsuit by Jones’ company “would be a complete game changer,” said Mary Engle, associate director of the FTC’s advertising practices division from 2001 to 2020.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    The FTC — and FDA — don’t have sufficient staffing to rigorously police health claims, but Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s allies in the alternative medicine world have suggested that the agencies already go too far.

    “The pharmaceutical industry has a stranglehold and monopoly in America,” Jones told KFF Health News. “The consumer should have a choice in what they’re doing and how they’re being proactive and reactive in their health care.”

    Jones and other members of the Alliance for Natural Health USA, which includes alternative medicine practitioners, vaccine skeptics and proponents of “natural” remedies, were elated when Kennedy became Health and Human Services secretary in February. One called it a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

    Kennedy had warned shortly before Trump’s reelection that the FDA would face a reckoning for its “aggressive suppression” of vitamins, peptides, nutraceuticals and other products from a supplement industry that has sought more freedom to make claims about its products.

    Losing regulatory bite?

    For decades, the FDA has had the power to recall dangerous products and check health claims, although it has nowhere near the workforce it would need to police the vast $70 billion supplement industry.

    The FTC has traditionally had more teeth, successfully suing companies that make unsubstantiated claims. For example, the agency won a judgment last year against a company that advertised a supplement as “clinically shown” to improve memory.

    The FTC under Trump has not announced any new enforcement actions against supplement makers (it did send consumers the proceeds of previous fraud settlements), and the administration has reversed several covid-related FTC actions. In March, the FTC dropped a lawsuit filed in 2021 against Jones and Xlear over the marketing of its “drug-free” sinus rinse as a covid preventive and treatment. The Department of Justice also closed a case brought on behalf of the FTC and the FDA against a company that claimed its Earth Tea could cure covid.

    In June, Jones, who says he spent $3 million fighting the FTC suit before it was dropped, sued back. The company asked a judge to forbid the FTC from requiring that health product marketers back their claims with convincing evidence, such as clinical trials — a position the FTC has maintained since 1984.

    Xlear hopes the suit will be considered under last year’s Supreme Court ruling known as Loper Bright, said Xlear attorney Rob Housman. That ruling gave courts more power to second-guess federal agencies’ interpretation of the laws that govern their activities.

    The Alliance for Natural Health joined Xlear in a separate petition in May demanding that the FTC drop its requirement for companies to provide substantial evidence backing health claims, and to withdraw 2022 guidelines that generally require companies to run a randomized clinical trial to prove their claims.

    The petition was filed by Jonathan Emord, a lawyer who has successfully fought FDA and FTC regulation of supplements and unsuccessfully ran for governor of Virginia as a Republican in the 2024 primary.

    Emord’s petition seeks to flip the burden of proof. Instead of requiring the makers of supplements and cosmetic creams, pills, sprays and herbals to prove their products do what they claim to do, the government would have to prove that they don’t.

    “If an advertiser throws caution to the wind and makes a health-related product claim without resort to any supporting evidence, the FTC is powerless” to stop it, Emord wrote in the petition. “Rather, the claim will be tested in the idea and information market free of government constraint.”

    Emord and the Alliance for Natural Health did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

    The FTC would not comment on the lawsuit, the petition, or the issue of substantiation in general, spokesperson Juliana Gruenwald Henderson said.

    Shorthanded and mostly hands-off

    Meanwhile, with Kennedy’s administration chockablock with proponents of nontraditional health products, “there’s been a downtick of enforcement,” Housman said.

    Since Trump took office, the FTC has lost at least a quarter of the staff in its Division of Advertising Practices, which took the original action against Xlear, said Serena Viswanathan, who retired as FTC associate director in June. The Department of Justice has reorganized its consumer protection unit, which backed the FTC in many actions, and moved some of its lawyers to immigration and other areas.

    In one of the only actions it has taken against deceptive health practices under Trump, the FTC hosted a July 9 workshop titled “The Dangers of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors.”

    In FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson’s opening statement at that event, he excoriated the Biden administration for allowing hormonal and surgical treatments for youth experiencing gender dysphoria.

    But Ferguson justified the FTC’s new attack on these treatments by referring to the agency’s traditional practice of pursuing companies for making false and deceptive claims. Noting the agency’s past actions against “shyster snake oil salesmen” promoting fake cures, Ferguson highlighted the Biden-era FTC’s position that “health claims need to be backed up by reliable scientific evidence” and an “incredibly high standard of scientific ‘substantiation.’”

    Under that logic, Ferguson “has to defend against the Xlear lawsuit,” Rich said.

    “If anyone can just hawk health products without any basis, and customers spend money on bogus cures instead of seeking proper care, it’s really a serious issue,” she said.

    ‘Nanny state’ or not?

    Ferguson’s remarks reflect one of many contradictions in the administration’s approach to health policy. While favoring deregulation and greater personal liberty to consume unregulated supplements, Kennedy has also pushed for stricter FDA oversight of food and drugs, while advocating for behavioral change that GOP officials derided as “nanny state” tactics when Democrats like former first lady Michelle Obama promoted doing so.

    Kennedy, for example, has said he wants more randomized control trials for vaccines and drugs — a requirement rejected by medical freedom advocates like Jones.

    “I like clinical data; I think it’s great,” Housman said. “It’s not the be-all and end-all.”

    Kennedy has also announced plans to change a policy that allows food companies to add ingredients without a full safety review. But many supplement makers use the policy to get their products on the market without FDA review, and some are unhappy about the potential clampdown.

    Banking on xylitol

    The FDA approved xylitol as a food additive in 1963 and regulates it as a cosmetic ingredient. Jones, who said his company has about 110 employees and sells to 70,000 retailers, founded Xlear 25 years ago.

    Jones expresses skepticism of vaccines, believes the drug industry has a monopolistic stranglehold on health care, and is a “true believer” in xylitol, Housman said.

    In an interview with KFF Health News, Jones said that the slightly sweet, minty-flavored substance reduces gum inflammation by blocking the adhesion of tooth-rotting Streptococcus mutans bacteria to cells in the mouth.

    In Finland, where water is not fluoridated, dentists have long recommended xylitol-imbued chewing gum for children. In addition to fighting cavities and lowering periodontal disease, Jones said, xylitol could fight chronic illnesses like obesity, Alzheimer’s and heart disease, which “all have a correlation with oral hygiene.”

    But “the government bans us from going out and talking about what xylitol does,” he said. “We cannot say xylitol can help prevent tooth decay, because xylitol is not a drug, and that’s a drug claim.”

    As for its use against covid, three ear, nose and throat specialists interviewed by KFF Health News said that xylitol is good for moisturizing nasal cavities, perhaps a bit better than simple saline solution. While there’s no evidence it prevents or cures covid, xylitol, like saline nose washes, may reduce symptoms when used toward the start of any viral upper respiratory infection, said Christine Franzese, a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Missouri Medical Center and the chair of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery’s allergy, asthma, and immunology committee.

    Xylitol is poisonous to dogs, but deemed safe to humans when used at recommended doses in sprays, candies, chewing gum, and other products, according to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, which also states that evidence is mixed on whether xylitol fights cavities effectively.

    At higher doses, xylitol can cause diarrhea and other gastrointestinal problems, and a study funded by the National Institutes of Health and published last year found that regular use of xylitol as a sweetener could exacerbate heart disease. The quantities of xylitol consumed daily by participants in that study were far higher than what’s in a few sticks of chewing gum, however.

    Whether his lawsuit succeeds or not, Jones can probably expect a rosy business future.

    On May 21, he and pediatric dentist Mark Cannon of Northwestern University were called to testify in the Utah Legislature in support of a pilot project to provide Xlear’s gum to students and prisoners in the state as a replacement for fluoridated water, which the state banned in March.

    Florida ordered fluoride removed from the state’s water starting July 1, and other states are considering bans. Kennedy wants to end fluoridation nationwide, despite widespread skepticism of his belief that it poisons the brain at common dosing levels.

    The bans are a boon to Xlear, Jones said. The company would provide gum for the Utah pilot at cost, he said, but if governments promote it and people learn more, “that’s where we see us being able to grow.”

    This article first appeared on KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden, so far, has signed fewer executive orders than Trump

    Biden, so far, has signed fewer executive orders than Trump

    [ad_1]

    North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, a Republican vice presidential contender, has made numerous comments which liken President Joe Biden’s administration to a dictatorship. 

    On June 23 on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Burgum said “this president, more like any other, has bypassed Congress.” 

    He implied there is a double standard for Biden in his use of executive orders and that of former President Donald Trump. 

    Burgum said there is “a nonstop media attack on President Trump saying that, ‘Oh, that he might use executive orders when he takes office.’” He followed by saying “the open borders and the inflation are things that (Biden’s) doing by himself alone, ignoring the other branches of government.”

    CNN’s Kaitlan Collins fact-checked Burgum during the interview, pointing out that Trump signed 220 executive orders during his four years in office, while Biden is at 139 so far in his term. 

    Biden did use executive action at a significantly higher rate than other presidents in his first few days in office, largely a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But Trump had issued more orders by this time in his presidency — with 169 from January 20, 2017, to July 1, 2020, compared with Biden’s 139, according to a PolitiFact analysis of data provided by the American Presidency Project, a nonprofit source for presidential documents hosted by the University of California, Santa Barbara.

    In the CNN interview, Burgum cited Biden’s order on student loan debt relief and federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations on baseload electricity as examples of the president circumnavigating the two other branches of government. He said that Biden “is bypassing the other two branches of government to push an ideological view, whether it’s on economics or whether it’s on climate extremism.” But these both have been through the legal system and Biden has not dismissed the Supreme Court’s rulings on his policies. 

    A Burgum spokesperson did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for evidence that Biden “bypassed Congress” more than other presidents through executive orders. 

    According to the American Presidency Project, Collins’ numbers are correct. Trump’s 220 executive orders are the most in a single term since Jimmy Carter issued 320 orders, during his presidency from 1977 to 1981.

    Presidents have multiple methods of executive action, including regulations, military orders and proclamations, Kenneth Lowande, a political science and public policy professor at the University of Michigan, said.

    Executive orders are the most common and powerful. They are not a perfect metric to see how often presidents have “bypassed Congress,” because of the executive branch’s other available powers. Experts say that executive orders do not necessarily mean a president circumvented the other branches, because these powers are granted to the executive branch in the Constitution. It is also difficult to tell which actions will have the biggest policy effects. 

    “It takes years to learn which executive actions were really important, and which were bluster, because so much depends on implementation,” Lowande said. “That’s all executive actions are, at the end of the day — orders to bureaucrats.”

    “One of the complications we warn about repeatedly is relying simply on counts of specific kinds of Presidential Documents as a summary measure of executive action,” said John Wolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project and an emeritus political science professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

    Even so, political science experts say there is no evidence to signal that Biden has bypassed the other two branches of government more than other presidents. 

    “I do not see Biden’s actions as being materially different from his recent predecessors of either party,” said John Frendries, a political science professor at Loyola University Chicago. “Presidents of both parties have relied on EOs to move in certain policy areas.”

    “I would hesitate to say which president has more often used executive action because of a desire to bypass Congress,” Woolley said. “I don’t think anybody’s done the careful analysis that would be required to make such a statement.”

    In his statement on CNN, Burgum criticized Biden’s action on the border. However, during Trump’s presidential tenure he, too, used an executive order to push immigration policy.

    Biden used executive action in an attempt to secure the border, restricting the number of migrants who can seek asylum between official points of entry. Collins pointed out that Republicans including House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., urged Biden to address the border. A proposed bipartisan immigration deal in May failed to advance in the Senate, blocked by Senate Republicans. 

    Woolley pointed out that Trump had similar issues getting Congressional approval for his proposed border wall. Through executive action, he diverted $3.6 billion from the military budget to fund the wall, but that was challenged in multiple courts. After continuing legal clashes, the Supreme Court declared the case moot in October 2021 because Biden had halted border wall spending.  

    Biden’s executive order efforts to relieve $430 billion in student loan debt were rejected by the Supreme Court in 2023. But Biden has found other ways to decrease loans by expanding existing regulations within the Department of Education, including the SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education) program, which lowers monthly payments for low-income borrowers. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled July 1 to allow that plan to continue in August after a federal judge in Kansas initially blocked the decreased payments. 

    Although Frendries underscored that Biden’s original executive order on student loan debt relief involved significantly large-dollar sums, he said “these policy changes were litigated, undercutting any ‘dictatorship’ claim.”

    Several experts told PolitiFact the Supreme Court ruling July 1 — which gives presidents immunity from prosecution when carrying out “official acts” — could have future implications for presidential power.

    This could encourage future presidents to take more executive action than Biden or Trump has. 

    RELATED: In Context: Donald Trump was asked if he will be a dictator if reelected. Here’s what he said.

    RELATED: How Joe Biden’s first executive orders compare with past presidents

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Asa Hutchinson’s Mostly True claim that China is allowed to do crypto mining in the U.S.

    PolitiFact – Asa Hutchinson’s Mostly True claim that China is allowed to do crypto mining in the U.S.

    [ad_1]

    MANCHESTER, N.H. — Addressing a forum of cryptocurrency enthusiasts, Republican 2024 presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he wants the crypto industry to thrive — but with some regulation.

    “I want them to have rules that can be followed, and Congress needs to act,” Hutchinson said Dec. 11 at a candidate forum sponsored by the U.S.-based advocacy group Stand with Crypto Alliance. “It makes no sense to me: If we’re trying to prohibit communist China from buying farmland in America, why are we allowing them to do crypto mining in the United States of America?”

    All of the GOP presidential primary candidates have made China a favorite talking point and say it has outsized influence on U.S. policy and business.

    Lawmakers in 31 states introduced bills this year to block Chinese citizens, businesses and government from buying U.S. agricultural land or property near military bases, The Washington Post reported.

    But elected leaders generally haven’t taken such steps on China crypto mining, as Hutchison said. The effect of Chinese influence on crypto mining is an emerging area of concern among lawmakers and policy analysts.

    The federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is authorized to review certain transactions involving foreign investment to identify national security threats. Some states are grappling with balancing laws that encourage cryptocurrency industry growth with regulations that guard against potential security threats from foreign actors.

    Asked about his claim, Hutchinson’s team said “states have the ability” to restrict and regulate foreign crypto mining operations.

    What is crypto mining?

    Cryptocurrencies involve a decentralized network of computers around the globe that track digital currency transactions. Crypto mining is the act of generating new “coins” when computers solve complex mathematical problems. Facilities that house crypto mining computers require immense amounts of electricity as the computers operate around the clock.

    Security experts worry about the risks these energy-gobbling computers pose to the U.S. power grid. But Hutchinson’s focus goes beyond energy to national security risks.

    In 2021, China banned domestic crypto mining, leading Chinese crypto miners to move their operations elsewhere, including the U.S. With support from Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Texas emerged as an attractive place for crypto miners to set up shop; the state offered a mix of tax subsidies, relatively low-cost electricity and incentives.

    How many U.S. crypto mining operations have connections to China?

    An October New York Times investigation found Chinese-owned or -operated crypto mines in Texas and at least 11 other states. Collectively, the article said, these crypto miners use as much energy as more than 1 million homes. The mines the investigation examined included a Wyoming one near a Pentagon-supported Microsoft Corp. data center and close to a U.S. Air Force base that controls intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    The Times reported that Microsoft wrote to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States that “the location could allow the Chinese to ‘pursue full-spectrum intelligence collection operations.’”

    The article also said that some of the U.S. mining operations “appear to be straightforward efforts by wealthy Chinese nationals to make money outside the purview of Chinese authorities.” But “for others the ownership is opaque, while several can be traced to the Chinese government.”

    Energy experts say these mines operate in a gray regulatory area. With concerns about Chinese government influence, some states are turning to foreign landholder laws as a possible model.

    On Dec.13, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, announced that his office was investigating more than two dozen potential crypto mining operations. The move came in response to a letter from Arkansas Agriculture Secretary Wesley Ward, who said his agency believed that two companies — including a crypto mining company — were not complying with a recent state law barring businesses controlled by a foreign entity from owning land.

    Communist Party influence in Chinese businesses

    U.S. crypto mining operations that are part of China’s private sector could pose a risk of Chinese government or Communist Party influence, experts in China policy told PolitiFact. 

    “Many Chinese companies will have direct or indirect ties to the Chinese government,” said Daniel S. Markey, a senior adviser on South Asia for the U.S. Institute of Peace. “At the end of the day the state has tremendous power to control the activities of even the most powerful Chinese businesses.”

    These include very large state-owned enterprises, which are closely connected to the government, and privately owned companies. The Communist Party has been trying to tighten its  influence on private companies. For instance, since 2018 the party has required private companies listed on stock markets to have a Communist Party unit, said Deborah Brautigam, an emerita professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

    According to Communist Party-provided figures, 73% of private companies had established party units by 2017, and among the top 500 private enterprises, the share exceeded 92%, according to research by the Centre for International Relations at Sciences Po in Paris.

    Party units within private companies historically have been tied to the recruitment and management of employees who are party members, but China’s President Xi Jinping has sought to increase the degree of party influence in private companies, experts said.

    “If they want to invest overseas or do foreign trade, they need permits and approvals from various government agencies,” said Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, an international affairs think tank. “They may not always be the government’s agent, but they will have to follow the government’s instructions and directions, or at the minimum not act against them.”

    Our ruling

    Hutchinson said China is allowed to do crypto mining in the U.S.

    A New York Times investigation found Chinese-owned or -operated crypto mines in Texas and at least 11 other states. Texas has offered tax subsidies, relatively low-cost electricity and incentives to attract the businesses.

    There are no laws that specifically allow countries like China to engage in crypto mining in the U.S. But a lack of laws prohibiting it means that it is “allowed.” There are, however, federal safeguards, and some state laws protecting against foreign government-backed business influence. Arkansas is investigating at least one crypto mining company for not complying with a state law barring businesses controlled by a foreign entity from owning land.

    The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Implements New Cryptocurrency Laws to Combat Bitcoin ATM Scams

    California Implements New Cryptocurrency Laws to Combat Bitcoin ATM Scams

    [ad_1]

    Bitcoin (BTC) ATMs have become both convenient and worrying, with scammers taking advantage of unsuspecting victims. Authorities in the US and other jurisdictions are now waging a war against crypto-ATM-based scams.

    California takes a stance on new cryptocurrency laws

    The state of California has introduced rules for cryptocurrency transactions. Senate Bill 401, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, means you can only make $1,000 worth of cryptocurrency transactions at ATMs each day, and starting in 2025, the maximum they can charge you is $5, or 15% of the transaction. Whichever is higher.

    Initially, some Bitcoin ATMs allowed up to $50,000 in transactions with fees ranging between 12% and 25% above the value of the digital asset. These changes are intended to protect people from scams and high fees, explained Sen. Monique Lemon, one of the co-authors.

    Scammers taking advantage of the convenience of Bitcoin ATMs have been a growing concern, with the Federal Trade Commission reporting that more than 46,000 people have lost more than $1 billion to cryptocurrency scams since 2021. New transaction limits give victims more time to spot scams before loss of money. But Charles Bell of the Blockchain Advocacy Coalition worries that these rules could hurt the cryptocurrency industry and small businesses.



    You may also like:

    Explore Australia’s rapid rise in the global cryptocurrency ATM scene

    FBI Alerts About Bitcoin ATM and QR Code Scams

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has raised the alarm about fraudulent schemes exploiting ATMs for cryptocurrencies and quick response (QR) codes for payments. These schemes take various forms, including online impersonation, romance scams, and lottery fraud, all using cryptocurrency ATMs and QR codes as tools.

    QR codes, which smartphone cameras can scan, simplify cryptocurrency payments. However, criminals are now using it to trick victims into paying money. Victims are often asked to withdraw money from their accounts and use a QR code provided by scammers to complete transactions at physical cryptocurrency ATMs.

    Once the victim makes the payment, the cryptocurrency is transferred to the scammer’s wallet, making recovery nearly impossible due to the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies. The FBI offers several tips to protect against these schemes, focusing on caution, verification, and avoiding cryptocurrency ATM transactions that promise anonymity using only a phone number or email.



    You may also like:

    Bitbuy is partnering with Canada’s largest Bitcoin ATM provider

    Cryptocurrency regulation efforts in California

    The passage of Senate Bill 401 in California is part of a broader effort to regulate the cryptocurrency industry while protecting consumers. Another law, scheduled to take effect in July 2025, will require digital financial asset companies to obtain licenses from the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. This represents a clear shift towards tightening government regulation and oversight in the world of digital finance.

    Gavin Newsom’s decision to sign these bills into law demonstrates California’s commitment to strengthening the cryptocurrency industry and protecting its citizens. Balancing innovation and security remains a challenge, especially in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

    Bitcoin Depot’s historic debut on the NASDAQ

    In July, Bitcoin Depot, a leading bitcoin ATM operator, went public on the Nasdaq. This milestone comes after Bitcoin Depot merged with GSR II Meteora, a blank check company.

    The move to go public demonstrates the growing legitimacy and acceptance of cryptocurrencies in major financial markets.

    Authorities vs. illegal crypto ATMs

    The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is taking a strong stance against illegal cryptocurrency ATM operators. Using its power under money laundering regulations, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has carried out raids on cryptocurrency ATMs suspected of illegal activities across England.

    The measures, which follow previous operations in east London and Leeds, are part of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) efforts to crack down on unregulated cryptocurrency operations. This highlights global pressure for stronger cryptocurrency regulation, mirroring steps taken in California. The balance between innovation and security remains a fundamental concern for regulatory bodies around the world.



    Read more:

    McLennan County Bitcoin ATM Lawsuit Resolved

    [ad_2]

    Editorial Team

    Source link

  • EXPLAINER: Bikes, batteries and blazes spark concern in NYC

    EXPLAINER: Bikes, batteries and blazes spark concern in NYC

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A weekend fire that injured over three dozen people — and forced firefighters to use ropes to pluck people from a 20th-story window — is drawing attention to a rising concern in New York City: battery fires that can arise in the electric bikes and scooters that have proliferated here.

    City officials are considering new laws after the fire department counted nearly 200 blazes and six fire deaths this year tied to problems with lithium-ion batteries in such “micromobility” devices.

    WHAT ARE THESE BATTERIES? ARE THEY THE SAME TECH USED IN PHONES AND CARS?

    Lithium-ion batteries are a Nobel Prize-winning innovation that entered the market in the early 1990s. Hailed as rechargeable, lightweight, powerful, durable and safe, the batteries have been envisioned as a key to greening the world’s energy supply by storing energy, including from the sun, wind and other renewable sources.

    The technology has woven its way into many people’s everyday lives, powering phones, laptop computers, vehicles and more.

    WHY CAN THEY CATCH FIRE?

    The batteries’ electrolyte — a solution that lets electrical current flow — is flammable, explains Massachusetts Institute of Technology materials chemistry professor Dr. Donald Sadoway. The substance was chosen for its ability to handle the voltage involved, but fires can happen if the batteries are overcharged, overheated, defective or damaged, for instance.

    Over the years, problems have periodically triggered fires involving laptops, cellphones, hoverboards, electric vehicles, airplanes and battery power storage installations. A U.N. aviation agency said in 2016 that lithium-ion batteries shouldn’t be shipped on passenger planes.

    Battery industry group leader James Greenberger notes that other energy sources aren’t trouble-free, and he says there’s nothing inherently unsafe about the batteries. But he said the industry is concerned about the fires lately in New York and worries that they could scare off consumers.

    “This shouldn’t be happening and we need to figure out what’s going on,” said Greenberger, the executive director of NAATBatt — the North American trade association for advanced battery technology developers, manufacturers and users.

    WHY ARE E-BIKES AND SCOOTERS GETTING SCRUTINY IN NEW YORK?

    The city has seen “an exponential increase” in fires related to faulty lithium-ion batteries in recent years, Chief Fire Marshal Daniel Flynn said. He said there have been more deaths and injuries already this year than in the past three years combined.

    “It’s a big issue,” he said at a news conference Monday, describing fires that occur without warning, grow rapidly and are tough to extinguish.

    The batteries “fail almost in an explosive way — it’s like a blowtorch,” he said.

    Saturday’s fire in a Manhattan apartment was sparked by a malfunctioning e-bike battery that residents were attempting to charge and left unattended while they fell asleep, he said. They were trapped when the battery, plugged in by the front door, caught fire, Flynn said.

    Electric bikes and scooters have become popular, non-gasoline-burning ways to make deliveries, commute and zip around a city that has promoted cycling in recent decades. For the “deliveristas” who carry restaurant takeout orders, the bikes are crucial tools of the trade.

    “What these workers have learned over the years, and they know it well, is that, like any equipment, it requires the maintenance required,” said Hildalyn Colón Hernández, a spokesperson for worker advocacy group Los Deliveristas Unidos. She said many workers have used their batteries for years without a hitch.

    WHAT’S CAUSING THE PROBLEM?

    There are different opinions. Greenberger, the industry group director, suggests there’s too little quality control on some of the largely imported batteries. Sadoway, the scientist, believes “we don’t have the appropriate protective measures” on e-bikes and scooters themselves to monitor the batteries for problems.

    Colón Hernández, the delivery worker advocate, thinks there need to be tougher standards around the batteries, such as regulations for businesses that sell or service them.

    WHAT IS NEW YORK CITY DOING ABOUT THIS?

    The Fire Department has repeatedly issued warnings and safety tips over the past year. Fire Commissioner Laura Kavanagh asked the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission in August to consider new regulations. Mayor Eric Adams pointed again to the CPSC on Monday.

    “The responsibility of navigating safe and unsafe batteries on the market should not fall to hard-working New Yorkers,” the mayor, a Democrat, said in a statement.

    Some city lawmakers want to take their own steps.

    A City Council committee has set a Nov. 14 hearing on various proposals. Some would require public education campaigns or safety reports. Another would prohibit the sale of some secondhand lithium-ion batteries, or e-bike or scooter batteries without certain seals of approval.

    Meanwhile, fire officials continue to urge everyone not to leave batteries to charge unattended, to check that they’re not damaged or near a heat source, and to make sure the batteries, chargers, cords and devices are all from the same manufacturer and used as instructed.

    “We understand the benefits that these batteries pose to our communities, and we want to encourage use of them, but safe use,” Flynn said. “So understand that it does pose a danger, and just use them safely.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link