Current Events in November 2024

If you were planning to buy a puppy as a holiday present in New York, you'll have to hurry, or find a shelter pet who needs to be rescued. Selling dogs, cats and rabbits through retail pet stores will be illegal in New York State starting December 15.

The pet sale ban is intended to stop dangerous large-scale breeding operations known as “puppy mills,” where animals are often mistreated and suffer from serious health issues. Puppy mills often misrepresent the health of the animals they breed and send retail stores sick pets that then cost families thousands of dollars in veterinary care.

Retail pet stores that continue to sell pets after December 15 can face penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. New Yorkers can still adopt pets from duly incorporated humane societies, animal rescues, or licensed breeders.

“Bringing a new pet into a family should be a time of excitement and joy, but often animals from ‘puppy mills’ suffer from serious medical issues and leave families heartbroken over their sick pet and with a heavy bill to pay,” said Attorney General Letitia James. “This pet sale ban will help put an end to the dangerous puppy mill to pet store pipeline that endangers pets and costs New Yorkers thousands of dollars in veterinary care."

Shake A Paw

Earlier this year, Attorney General James secured $300,000 from a Long Island pet store, Shake A Paw, for hundreds of consumers who were illegally and unknowingly sold sick puppies.

An OAG investigation revealed that Shake A Paw falsely advertised sick pets as healthy, failed to disclose the animals’ legitimate medical conditions, misrepresented puppies’ breeds, and refused to reimburse consumers for veterinary bills they incurred because the dogs they purchased were sick.

California was the first to ban retail pet sales

New York joins several states that have banned the retail sale of certain pets, particularly dogs and cats. As of November 2024, these states have implemented such bans:

• California: In 2017, California became the first state to prohibit pet stores from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits unless they are obtained from shelters or rescue organizations.

• Maryland: Enacted a similar law in 2018, banning the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores unless sourced from animal welfare organizations.

• Maine: Passed legislation prohibiting the retail sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

• Washington: Banned sales of dogs and cats in pet stores. 

• Illinois: Enacted laws restricting the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

• Oregon: Enacted a ban on the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

• Vermont: Implemented laws prohibiting the retail sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

Cities & counties follow suit

In addition to state-level bans, numerous cities and counties across the United States have enacted local ordinances restricting or prohibiting the sale of certain pets in retail stores.

For instance, as of June 2022, over 400 cities and counties had passed such legislation.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President-elect Trump's choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has definite ideas about making changes to the U.S. food system. 

Kennedy, who abandoned his independent presidential campaign earlier this year to support Trump, has targeted ultra-processed food and some food ingredients that he says are not healthy.

Kennedy has pointed out that dyes used to color food products sold in the U.S. are not allowed in some other countries, noting that Kellogg’s Fruit Loops sold in the U.S. are different from those sold in Canada.

Kennedy has also been critical of seed oils, used by many fast food restaurants, saying they are not as healthy as oil from animal fat. 

What may be emerging, however, is a conflict between health and economics. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Alan Blinder, former vice-chair of the Federal Reserve, argues that many of the policies Trump and his appointees advocate are inflationary.

Julian Plateado, a chef and owner of Los Angeles’ Nordic Catch seafood market, says using more natural ingredients in food might raise the price, but it might not be a bad thing.

“Substituting beet juice or turmeric for neon artificial dyes is not inexpensive, and premium oils like avocado or olive oil can further raise costs,” he told ConsumerAffairs. 

“However, perhaps cutting back on bright-blue cupcakes isn't as bad for our stomachs or our wallets. In the long run, if demand increases, prices may decline. Consider it an investment in a future free of night-glow-producing munchies.”

And while some food items might cost consumers more, Plateado says food would taste better and consumers might be willing to pay more for better-tasting food with natural ingredients.

‘Petrochemical aftertaste’

“A splash of beet juice might add an earthy undertone to your frosting, and trading neutral seed oils for avocado oil could give your fries a subtle, nutty vibe,” Plateado said. “But honestly, isn’t it worth it to trade chemical tang for real flavor? Besides, when was the last time anyone said, ‘You know what I love about this cake? The petrochemical aftertaste.’"

While industries typically resist change, the trade publication Modern Retail reports some food producers are welcoming the shift. 

Elly Truesdell, partner at New Fare Partners, which invests in clean ingredient brands like Actual Veggies and Mid-Day Squares, told the publication that many producers have already invested in more natural ingredients and says a growing number of consumers have embraced products with natural ingredients.

There have been two eras when TV viewers were living in the best of all possible worlds.

One was the latter part of the 20th century when top-tier shows were broadcast on what is nostagically called Free TV. You know, all you needed was a pair of rabbit ears and enough patience to sit through a constant cavalcade of commercials interrupting those top-flight shows. 

The other was arguably the first decade or so of the 21st century, when HBO and similar cable channels were running top-flight programming without commercials. Yes, you had to pay a little bit per month but there were no ads.

So that brings us to yesterday. Cable has faded and is being replaced by streaming. No rabbit ears needed, instead it just takes $50 a month or so for internet service and the streaming channels that run endless movies and original shows, mostly without commercials. 

Of course, things change quickly and soon, just a few days ago in TV time, the streaming channels began charging monthly memberships -- $30 or so at the beginning. 

No rabbit ears needed, just dollars

And now, it's today. Major streaming channels like Paramount+ and Max are running pretty good shows with commercials. You still don't need the rabbit ears but instead, you need $50 a month or so for the Internet connection, then $30 or so for each of the many streaming channels, which may also charge $3 or more for a single episode or viewing of a movie.

So, in essence, consumers are paying more -- a lot more -- to watch an hour or two of TV in the evening. 

This has been happening in the periphery of human consciousness and many of us haven't noticed it yet. I became aware of it a night or two when I plopped down next to the dog and flipped over to Max/Paramount+ to watch the second episode of Landman, a pretty good soap opera set in the Texas Oil Patch.

I had watched the first one free of charge a few nights earlier. But this time around, it cost "$xx.xx" for the first episode and "$xx.xx" for subsequent viewings. (Yes, $xx.xx is correct. Someone at Paramount+ was too busy to type in the price so just left the x's there as a reminder to do it later. )

I hadn't seen a commercial crammed into a TV drama in years and it took me a minute to realize what had happened. I wasn't happy when I figured it out but soon found that it wasn't a surprise to people who keep track of this stuff.

Not only cheap but targetable

A little research produced the news that ads on streaming channels are now not only cheap but also targetable; you don't have to buy 20 million households if you're pushing a specialized product, like nipple covers.

Yep, I learned that Cakes Body, a nipple cover brand, is airing its first-ever streaming ads on more than 15 apps, including Max and Paramount+, according to Modern Retailing. 

More brands are streaming into the race and the streaming channels are rushing to accommodate them.  Paramount+ introduced ad-supported plans in 2021 while Disney+ and Netflix did the same in 2022.

In 2023, Amazon began selling ads for Thursday Night Football, and in January, it announced that Prime Video watchers would start seeing ads by default when watching content. Now, Amazon is offering more ad spots for 2025. It’s likely Amazon’s competitors will soon follow, Modern Retailing tells us.

This is great news for advertisers, since the streamers are offering lower ad rates as they "supply more inventory" (adspeak for jamming in more spots).  

For instance, Disney+ introduced its ad-supported tier in late 2022, and during the 2023 upfronts, the average cost per thousand impressions (CPM) for Disney+ ads decreased by 25%, from $38.68 to $29.04.

Of course, it's not all bad news for viewers. Some channels -- Pluto TV, Tubi and The Roku Channel -- are offering free content supported entirely by advertising. No subscription required. No per-show charges. This is fine if you're just dying to see old episodes of The Carol Burnett Show but you won't find Landman. 

Advertising "innovations"

Wherever you have ads, of course, you have the characters portrayed in Mad Men, talented but frustrated people whose lives are spent figuring out how to make ads more ubiquitous, intrusive and interactive. 

Thus, we will soon be seeing such innovations as "shoppable ads," commercials that let you buy stuff directly from the advertisements, sort of like a truncated shopping channel.

"This approach aims to create more engaging and interactive advertising experiences," one ad biz journal informs us.

Continuing in adspeak, we're told, "​These trends indicate a significant shift in the streaming industry, with advertisements becoming a common component of the viewing experience."

Those of a certain age can remember when this was a common though not necessarily beloved, component of the viewing experience. It's only fair that new generations should get to experience it.