Al's Morning Meeting

My old friend Boyd Huppert, who is certainly one of the finest storytellers in local TV, sent me a fun story on how restaurants in Minnesota are trying to sneak one past customers. The story has national applications.

RELATED RESOURCES

Like Al's ideas? Hear more in our broadcast and online seminars. Sign up to receive Al's Morning Meeting by e-mail: * Click here (sent Monday-Friday at 7 a.m.)

You have to understand that Minnesotans love to eat a local fish called a "walleye." It is in fact the state fish. But KARE-11 TV found that lots of restaurants are secretly substituting an imported fish and are calling it "walleye."

I have seen similar findings all over the place.

How big is this in the United States? Very big if you read a report from the National Marine Fisheries Service National Seafood Inspection Laboratory that found that up to 80 percent of all red snappers were mislabeled. That's just the beginning.

...The National Seafood Inspection Laboratory (NSIL) routinely examines seafood products for species substitution utilizing the AOAC Official Method 980.16. Over a nine-year period, fiscal years 88-97, the NSIL's samples showed that 37 percent of the fish and 13 percent of other seafoods were mislabeled. Overall 34 percent of the seafood products that the NSIL tested during this time were mislabeled. The NSIL is also conducting a market survey by collecting samples from various randomly selected vendors. At present, 80 percent of the red snappers tested have been mislabeled.

In Australia, for example, tests have shown that up to one fourth of some species are mislabeled.

As Boyd points out:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has a name for what the restaurants are doing. It's species substitution, and it's against the law. The FDA publishes a list of acceptable market names for fish sold in the United States.

The FDA even produced a photographic guide to help merchants correctly ID fish.

In almost half of the country, it is illegal for wineries to ship directly to consumers. It is against the law in 24 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,Texas, Utah, and Vermont.

In Florida,Kentucky, Tennessee, and Utah, such shipments are a felony. Some states not only prohibit purchasing wine from out of state they even bar you from buying wine in other states and shipping it to yourself at home.

Those in favor of Internet sales and direct shipping of wine believe that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution mandates free trade among the states and forbids discrimination against business from out of state. Those on the other side charge that the 21st Amendment gives states complete control over the sale, importation, and distribution of alcoholic beverages and, thus, takes precedence over the Commerce Clause.

Winemakers, particularly smaller enterprises with niche markets, are in favor of Internet sales and direct shipping. Twenty members of Congress and five states have filed briefs in favor of direct shipping. So have two Nobel Prize-winning economists from the University of California.

On the other side, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America heads the forces against direct shipping. These include the Beer Institute, along with various law enforcement and temperance groups.

The conflict comes at a time of increasing wine sales.

In 2003, wine shipments from all sources rose five percent at 627 million gallons. California accounts for 67 percent of the total market. While wine producers have increased, the number of distributors has decreased.

There are more than 25,000 wine labels in the United States but only about 500 of them are available in the larger market. Distributors fail to keep pace with new products and the ban on direct shipping prevents small wineries from benefiting from high-technology marketing. Online retail sales are growing at 10 times the rate of their "brick-and-mortar" counterparts.

...An FTC study released in July 2003 notes that e-commerce offers lower prices and more choices for consumers. State bans on direct shipping, the study found, prevent consumers from saving as much as 21 percent. The FTC study also found that states that allow direct shipping report few or no problems with shipments to minors, the major argument against direct shipping.

WCBS in New York is the first place I have seen this story. The station says thieves are robbing Lexus SUV owners blind. The thieves are after the high-end headlights on the vehicles. The station reported that from Westchester to Connecticut and every place in between cops are being flooded with reports about thieves hitting even in the daylight. The station said that the thieves can steal the lights without setting off alarms.

In some places like White Plains, police are even contacting all Lexus SUV owners and are forewarning them. You should check to see if this is happening where you are.

Last year, WABC-TV in New York reported on a wave of headlight thefts involving Nissan cars that had the high intensity lights.

In March, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on a lawsuit involving the Nissan lights. That story said that replacing Maxima headlights can cost $1,800 but can go as high as $5,000 if the thieves damage the car. Nissan produced a theft deterrent kit.

I have seen conversations on bulletin boards about other high-end cars, such as Audis, that have been hit by headlight thieves.

So far, insurance companies do not appear ready to jack up premiums based on the thefts. 

We are always looking for your great ideas. Send Al a few sentences and hot links.

Editor's Note: Al's Morning Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts, and other materials from a variety of websites, as well as original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it will be attributed, and a link will be provided, whenever possible.