New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs announced an ongoing investigation into Whole Foods after finding the grocery store routinely overstated weights and therefore overcharged customers in the city for prepackaged food.

The overcharging ranged from 80 cents for a package of pecan panko to $14.84 for a package of coconut shrimp, the agency said in a statement. The agency’s investigation looked at the city’s eight Whole Foods stores.

“DCA tested packages of 80 different types of pre-packaged products and found all of the products had packages with mislabeled weights,” the statement said. “Additionally, 89 percent of the packages tested did not meet the federal standard for the maximum amount that an individual package can deviate from the actual weight, which is set by the U.S. Department of Commerce.”

DCA inspectors called it the “worst case of mislabeling they have seen in their careers,” DCA Commissioner Julie Menin said.

Whose Foods faced a fine in the thousands for the violations, the agency said.

In a statement, Whole Foods called the allegations “overreaching.”

“We cooperated fully with the DCA from the beginning until we disagreed with their grossly excessive monetary demands,” the company said. “Despite our requests to the DCA, they have not provided evidence to back up their demands nor have they requested any additional information from us, but instead have taken this to the media to coerce us.”

The company was accused of overcharging customers in California and fined nearly $800,000 last year.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

While the debate over whether to label foods containing GMO ingredients plays out across the country, another engineered food has long been waiting to hit grocery stores: genetically modified salmon.

Produced by Massachusetts-based biotech firm AquaBounty Technologies, the fish is an Atlantic salmon engineered to grow twice as fast as its conventional, farm-raised counterpart. But AquaBounty’s fish has been languishing in the regulatory process: The company has been trying to get the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve its salmon for sale for nearly 20 years.

One concern repeatedly raised by critics who don’t want the FDA to give the transgenic fish the green light: What would happen if these fish got out of the land-based facilities where they’re grown and escaped into the wild? Would genetically modified salmon push out their wild counterparts or permanently alter habitat? In a review paper published this month in the journal BioScience, scientists tackle that very question.

Robert H. Devlin, a scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, led a team that reviewed more than 80 studies analyzing growth, behavior and other trait differences between genetically modified and unaltered fish. The scientists used this to predict what might happen if fish with modified traits were unleashed in nature.

Genetically modified salmon contain the growth hormone gene from one fish, combined with the promoter of an antifreeze gene from another. This combination both increases and speeds up growth, so the salmon reach a larger size faster.

Altering a fish’s genes also changes other traits, the review found. Genetically modified salmon eat more food, spend more time near the surface of the water, and don’t tend to associate in groups. They develop at a dramatically faster rate, and their immune function is reduced.

But would these altered traits help genetically modified salmon outcompete wild salmon, while at the same time making them less likely to thrive in nature? It’s unclear, says Fredrik Sundström, one of the study authors and an ecologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. He stresses that we can’t assume genetically modified fish would perish quickly in nature, just because they didn’t evolve there.

It’s analogous, he says, to invasive species. “Invasive species also didn’t evolve in the environment where they are now invading, and they still are able to survive and flourish. We could argue along the same lines with the [genetically modified] fish.”

Despite obvious differences between genetically engineered and wild salmon, predicting what could happen in a real escape is challenging. According to Sundström, “it’s very difficult to predict any ecological consequences before these fish are actually in nature, when it’s kind of too late to do anything about it.”

But how likely is an escape, really?

“Virtually impossible,” says Dave Conley, director of corporate communications for AquaBounty. “We have in essence mitigated all the possible risk scenarios by combining biological and physical methods to reduce those risks to essentially zero,” he tells The Salt via email.

AquaBounty grows its salmon in tanks on land, rather than in open-ocean tanks. According to the FDA’s environmental assessment of AquaBounty’s fish, an additional combination of screens, filters and netting block access to drains and pipes that might provide means of escape.

What’s more, AquaBounty says its salmon will be all-female and sterile, so if they do escape, they will fail to reproduce.

But critics remain unswayed by such assurances. Environmentalists question just how dependable the company’s containment methods are.

As Dana Perls of the environmental group Friends of the Earth points out, “Land-based doesn’t mean not near a river.” A fish egg production facility on Prince Edward Island is located next to an estuary, while another facility in Panama, where the fish are allowed to mature, is close to a river, according to the FDA documents. She calls escapes “an unavoidable consequence” of fish farming.

There are also questions about the process used to render the fish sterile. It carries a very small rate of failure, but if a large number of fish escaped at once, a few fertile fish could introduce the transgenes into the wild population.

Sundström attests that the risk of escape is, for the most part, in the future. “We are expecting very little risk at the moment, because there are very few facilities that actually hold these fish. I think what’s a worry to some people is if it becomes commercialized and you find these kind of fish in millions of hatcheries around the world.”

If that were to happen, he says, the concern is that growers might become lax about containment methods, and then it would just be a matter of time before a fish — or a few — got out.

Sundström says scientists can’t predict with absolute certainty what would happen in the event of an escape. The real world is just too complicated. “You have to accept a certain amount of risk,” he says.

And how much risk is too much? “It’s not my thing to answer.” He says that’s for regulators to decide.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Consider yourself warned: Instagram rolled out an update Tuesday, and the photo-sharing app may be about to eat up a lot more of your time.

More substantial than other recent makeovers touting new filters, this change will transform Instagram into a stream of real-time updates from around the country. Following in the footsteps of Twitter and Facebook, Instagram wants to be a source for your news.

Instagram has historically not been a good venue for news — it’s more a source for brunch envy and jealousy of your friend’s Tulum vacation. But within minutes of looking at the Explore tab of the updated app, I saw Patriots fans staked out outside of NFL offices in support of Tom Brady, tributes to James Horner and new album releases.

Instead of painstakingly searching for images of the U.S. women’s World Cup victory on Instagram after learning about the news elsewhere, Instagram will be its own source of visual news.

“This is our North Star — what we’ve been shooting for all along,” Kevin Systrom, Instagram co-founder and CEO, told Wired in an interview. “It’s a real-time visual pulse for what is happening in the world.”

The update also makes it easier to find quality content from other users. A rotating banner at the top of the explore page offers to usher me to curated collections of beautiful rock formations, extreme athletes, trending places, and even shows me a collection of NBA players to follow.

Additionally, new search features will begin to ease the headache of looking for information on Instagram. Users can now search by location, and searching for a hashtag now shows high-quality “top posts” in addition to the most recent posts, meaning the days of searching for the hashtag #nyc and finding only hundreds of spammy, unrelated posts are hopefully on their way out.

In short, the new features will draw users away from looking only at the feed of people they follow and redirect them to more easily connect with users — and advertisers — around the world.

More clicks on centralized, curated content will likely make way for more formats in which advertisers can place targeted content. Instagram announced three weeks ago that it was working to include more action-oriented formats for its advertisers. Instead of merely a pretty photo, users will be able to buy or learn more about advertised products. Using parent company Facebook’s data, Instagram also announced it will focus more on letting advertisers reach users based on demographics and interests.

Instagram’s move follows that of other social media giants. In January, Snapchat announced a publishing partnership with the likes of CNN, ESPN and Vice. Facebook caused a recent stir by announcing its Instant Articles feature, and its News Feed feature has been a longtime source of news and trends for its users. But perhaps the new Instagram features compete most directly with Twitter, the hashtag pioneer itself.

At a time when Twitter feeds have progressively filled with more photos, Instagram’s new features put the two services head to head in competition. Already, both companies have a similar number of users. Instagram announced it had 300 million users in December, while Twitter reported 302 million worldwide users this month.

As Twitter deals with a CEO change and identity crisis, it will be interesting to see how the two companies compete.

Lauren Leatherby is an intern on NPR’s Washington Desk.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

The Senate voted 60-37 today to advance President Obama’s trade agenda — setting up a big victory for the White House and a painful loss for labor unions.

This latest Senate vote clears away procedural hurdles for legislation granting Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to Obama. That power allows the president to negotiate trade pacts and then put them on a so-called fast track through Congress. With TPA in place, Congress would take a simple yes-or-no vote on any trade deal, with no room for amendments.

For decades, presidents have asked Congress for this power, saying that other countries don’t want to approve agreements with the United States unless they know any package is final. This trade-negotiation power has expired, and Obama wanted it renewed so that he could complete a deal with 11 Pacific Rim countries.

That trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is still being worked out. Its progress has been slowed by Obama’s lack of fast-track authority.

But now, Obama is on course to get that power so he can complete TPP. The Senate still needs to take a final vote on TPA, but passage now requires just a simple majority. Given today’s 60 votes in favor of clearing procedural hurdles, passage seems virtually certain when the Senate votes — probably on Wednesday.

The House has already approved fast-track authority.

So barring some amazing turnaround, Congress will send TPA legislation to Obama shortly, and he will sign it into law.

Unions have been putting up a fierce fight to stop TPA, which they say leads to secretive trade deals that benefit corporations but harm workers. After the vote, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a union supporter, took to the Senate floor to say the vote was “shameful” because it would open the door to more trade deals.

In contrast, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, praised the vote, and said, “America is back in the trade business.”

Even though TPA seems a virtual certainty, there’s still a bit more drama to play out. It involves trade-related legislation that Democrats support. To win Democratic votes for TPA, Republican leaders in the House and Senate have pledged to allow votes on legislation renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), a program to help displaced workers, as well as a bill to extend trade preferences to sub-Saharan African nations. McConnell also promised to move quickly to complete legislation that would step up enforcement of trade laws.

Those bills, supported by the White House and by the great majority of Democrats, have been stalled amid procedural maneuvering to get TPA done. It now appears they will move forward.

Moving forward with a full trade agenda has been a key goal for the White House. But the battle to do so has created a lot of hurt feelings between the Obama administration and trade opponents, who include union members, environmentalists and consumer advocates.

Those opponents are now regrouping for the next fight. Once fast-track authority is in place, Obama will be able to compete negotiations for TPP. Then Congress will have to vote on it, likely this fall. Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, put out a statement saying that once “people see what is actually in the agreement, they are going to force their representatives in Washington to vote that deal down.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Taylor Swift is no stranger to positive, even fawning, press coverage. Just this month, there was the story about light-up bracelets from a Swift concert being used to flag down help after two women were trapped inside of their car after a crash. The headline from MTV read “Taylor Swift Saved Three Teens’ Lives — Literally.”

Coverage of Taylor Swift’s latest move has been just as glowing. Over the weekend, Swift took to Tumblr to criticize Apple’s decision to not compensate artists as they get their new streaming service off the ground. Apple’s going to offer free three-month trial periods for new users, and the company said it would only start paying artists once those free trial periods are over.

In her open letter posted to Tumblr, Swift wrote: “We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out.” She continued later in the letter, “Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing.”

Soon after the letter was published online, Apple changed it’s mind, and Apple’s Senior Vice President Eddy Cue even called Swift to let her know. The company says it will now compensate artists even through those free three-month trial periods.

TV Guide said of Swift’s open letter and Apple’s shift, “Taylor Swift Saves The Day!”

But, as The Future of Music Coalition reports, independent music labels deserve some of the credit for Apple’s reversal as well. “It wasn’t just Taylor Swift,” Casey Rae of the Future of Music Coalition told NPR. “There was a huge chunk of the indie label community that was simply not willing to let Apple have a free pass.”

Earlier this month, the American Association of Independent Music said, “It is surprising that Apple feels the need to give a free trial as Apple is a well-known entity, not a new entrant into the marketplace … we are struggling to understand why rights holders would authorize their content on the service before October 1.”

And Beggars Group, a collection of independent music labels said Apple’s decision to not compensate artists for three months could have ripple effects in the entire streaming industry. “…given the natural response of competing digital services to offer comparable terms, we fear that the free trial aspect, far from moving the industry away from freemium services – a model we support – is only resulting in taking the “mium” out of freemium.”

Futureofmusic.org also reports the Worldwide Independent Music Industry Network was heavily involved in helping reverse Apple’s decision.

But even if Swift is the major recipient of all the positive headlines in the aftermath of Apple’s decision, not everyone is pleased. Time reported on comments from Pandora’s former Chief Technology Officer Tom Conrad on Twitter. He pointed out a possible hypocrisy in her strategy. “Swift’s career was built on terrestrial radio play, which is a free service AND doesn’t pay recording artists a dime.”

He continued in further tweets, “Apple isn’t getting rid of its long free trial, but is now going to pay artists. This simply puts it at parity with all other players.” And those other players are continuously criticized for not compensating artists enough for their work.

Then Conrad wrote, “Swift’s letter and Apple’s response is mostly theater. Nothing here to suggest Apple treats artists more fairly than anyone else … we shouldn’t herald this move as progress. It’s status quo.”

The Verge agreed. In one of the few anti-Swift pieces on the issue, the outlet said in their headline, “Taylor Swift vs Apple: nobody wins.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

People who love to craft sparkly holiday décor and make their own milk carton citrus soaps have looked to Martha Stewart for more than 20 years. And today, the upscale DIY queen’s company is at the center of what Stewart calls “a transformational merger.”

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia says in a statement that it has agreed to be acquired by Sequential Brands Group.

“The Sequential team is smart, hardworking, and understands the power and limitless opportunity of the Martha Stewart brand and its formidable design, editorial and marketing teams. I’m looking forward to working with them,” Stewart says in the release.

NPR’s Yuki Noguchi reports that Sequential Brands will pay $353 million in cash and stock to add Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia to its portfolio. Stewart will remain the Chief Creative Officer in the deal.

The deal, which is still subject to shareholder approval, is expected to close sometime in the second half of the year, according to The Associated Press:

“Sequential Brands Group Inc., which owns and licenses a number of consumer brands including Ellen Tracy, Jessica Simpson and Linens ‘n Things, will pay $6.15 per share. That is below the company’s Friday closing price of $6.98. Shares tumbled 14 percent in early trading.”

Sequential is known for has become a big consolidator of other well-known brands in recent years, like Justin Timberlake’s denim brand, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Yuki says Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia was worth about $2 billion when it went public in 1999. But it has been struggling against online competition.

“Ms. Stewart served a breakfast of scones, croissants and fresh-squeezed orange juice in a tent outside the New York Stock Exchange that day,” wrote the Journal.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

When Betsy Freeman moved to Damascus, Md., 30 years ago, the first thing she looked for was a local community newspaper.

Along with meeting her new neighbors, Freeman met the Gazette.

“The Gazette papers were the thing that really welcomed you into the community,” she says.

She’s now mourning the loss of the Montgomery and Prince George’s county Gazettes, which closed their doors last week after more than 55 years.

But what is it like to live in a community when your favorite paper shuts down?

“You lose that individual feel that our town matters,” Freeman says. “There are activities in our town that nobody can really convey to each other anymore when you lose that vehicle for getting the news out.”

The Gazette papers were owned by Post Community Media, part of the Washington Post Co., which sold off several publications in the Washington, D.C., suburbs of Virginia and Maryland. The two Maryland Gazettes are the only papers among the group that are closing. Post Community Media said the Gazettes’ close proximity to “strong major metro papers” was a critical factor in the suburban papers’ demise. Some major metro papers near the Gazettes include the Baltimore Sun, and of course, The Washington Post.

“You’ve got an awful lot of people in Maryland who relied on those papers,” Nicholas Benton says. He is the owner and editor in chief of the Falls Church News-Press, a weekly newspaper in Northern Virginia. “The Post basically deserted them.”

The Gazette papers were causalities in an ongoing struggle to figure out how to keep print media viable. The shutdown means the loss of 69 jobs but it will also affect the readers who got the paper delivered every week.

Without these papers, readers go through a massive withdrawal, says Tonda Rush, chief executive officer of the National Newspaper Association. Not just in Maryland, but all around the country.

The association aims to protect community newspapers, and has been doing so for 130 years. The majority of the papers involved are family owned, and Rush says that local papers run into trouble when they get purchased by a larger company, like the Gazette was in 1993. Even when demand for the paper is high, it can still be shut down.

“People who have learned to count on that newspaper find themselves frustrated and worried about if they’re involved in civic life, or if their community will be held together,” Rush says.

The loss of the printed local paper doesn’t necessarily signify the death of local news, says Jesse Holcomb, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center. In a recent study of three cities, Pew found that residents most often turn to their local television station instead of their local newspaper.

“Into the near future, as long as the television business model remains stable, it will continue to be an important source of local news,” Holcomb says.

Digital-only outlets are also pursuing local news. Last year, Pew counted nearly 500 digital news startups that launched within the past decade, many of which are local outlets. But these aren’t exempt from the difficult news climates that have killed local papers.

“Many of these are fragile operations,” Holcomb says. Patch.com, for example, is a hyper local-focused digital journalism experiment that has made so many cuts that more than half of the people it employed have lost their jobs.

And sometimes, instead of a newsroom full of reporters working at computers, local news can be as simple as just one person creating a Facebook page. That’s what Betsy Freeman did a couple of years ago when the Gazette slowed coverage of Damascus.

The group — Damascus, Maryland — is where she started sharing news and information about the goings-on of her community. She calls the page a “town center,” where more than 3,000 members share information about school sporting events, town parades, or what plumbers they like. Sometimes there are posts about traffic accidents, and people check so often that they use the information to take a different way home, Freeman says.

But it’s not the Gazette, she says. Losing the paper is an incredibly emotional loss, Freeman adds; people won’t have a copy of their graduation announcement or their wedding announcements that they can save or send to relatives.

“The Gazette always made you feel like you were sort of tied together,” Freeman says. Now she and her community are left to search for a common thread.

Paige Pfleger is an intern with NPR Digital News.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.