The Wisconsin milk board removed claims that dairy consumption could aid weight loss after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism began publishing stories examining the board’s nutritional advice to consumers.

Reaction Piece to Two-Day Series

What do scientists say about the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board’s health claims about dairy? A two-day series produced in collaboration with a University of Wisconsin-Madison journalism class taught by Professor Deborah Blum.

• Sunday, Oct. 16: Marketing dairy to children
• Monday, Oct. 17: A claim that dairy aids weight loss
• Today: The milk board retreats from claims that consuming dairy products could aid weight loss

Fact-checking the milk board’s health claims

Some statements checked out. But the Center also found some claims unsupported by science, and some where most evidence came from industry-funded studies. Click the image above to view a pop-up gallery.

Table: Nature’s sports drink?

See the Center’s review of findings and funding sources from eight studies on milk as a sports beverage.

By Amy Karon
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

The Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board has retreated from claims that consuming dairy products could aid weight loss after some experts branded the statements “deceptive” and “discredited.”

The state-supervised board, which is funded by dairy farmers, removed multiple claims about dairy’s role in weight loss and weight maintenance from its website early this week after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism began publishing stories examining the board’s nutritional advice to consumers.

“Over the past few weeks we have reviewed some of the nutrition messages and have made some changes to closer align our weight control message with the healthy diet message,” Patrick Geoghegan, the board’s senior vice president for communications, wrote Tuesday night in an email interview.

The board’s weight loss claims had been on the website for at least eight months, since a University of Wisconsin-Madison journalism class began investigating the milk board in collaboration with the Center.

State law prohibits Wisconsin’s seven nonprofit agricultural marketing boards from making “false or unwarranted claims” about their products. The state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection supervises the boards, and has not filed a complaint about them with the state Department of Justice in at least 15 years, as the Center reported Monday.

In an earlier email interview, department of agriculture employee Noel Favia, who works with the boards, said the milk board had “never made claims that weren’t substantiated with scientific evidence.”

But Stephen Gardner, litigation director for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, had reviewed the board’s weight loss claims at the Center’s request, along with 17 recent studies on dairy products and body weight. Gardner concluded the claims were “deceptive under Wisconsin law.”

The Center also interviewed nutrition experts at Harvard University and the Mayo Clinic, who pointed to limitations in the studies supporting the milk board’s claims. Dr. Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, said any tie between dairy consumption and enhanced weight loss “has been totally discredited by research not funded by the National Dairy Council.”

National dairy marketing groups halted similar claims four years ago, after the Federal Trade Commission intervened.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2010 dietary guidelines state that “strong evidence in adults and moderate evidence in children and adolescents demonstrates that consumption of milk and milk products does not play a special role in weight management.”

But as of Saturday, the Wisconsin milk board, whose annual budget exceeds $30 million, still claimed on its website that “emerging research indicates consuming three servings of low-fat dairy products as part of a healthy diet and exercise plan will help with weight loss and weight maintenance.”

By Monday at 6:30 p.m., this and most similar claims were gone. One Web page still stated that low-fat dairy products “can play a role in better weight management.”

Geoghegan and Laura Wilford, a registered dietitian with the milk board, said in previous interviews that they didn’t know the board’s website included claims about dairy and weight loss.

But Geoghegan added that the board’s consumer messages were based on “sound, often peer-reviewed research that is continuously updated.”

In the email interview Tuesday, Geoghegan would not say whether the milk board planned other changes to its consumer messages, but wrote: “We constantly review all of our programs in an effort to improve them.”

Amy Karon is a reporter for the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. The nonprofit and nonpartisan Center (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio, other news media and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Some experts call claim ‘deceptive’ and ‘discredited’

Part Two of Two

What do scientists say about the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board’s health claims about dairy? A two-day series produced in collaboration with a University of Wisconsin-Madison journalism class taught by Professor Deborah Blum.

• Sunday: Marketing dairy to children
• Today: A claim that dairy aids weight loss
• Tuesday: Milk board retreats from weight loss claim

Fact-checking the milk board’s health claims

Some statements checked out. But the Center also found some claims unsupported by science, and some where most evidence came from industry-funded studies. Click the image above to view a pop-up gallery.

Table: Nature’s sports drink?

See the Center’s review of findings and funding sources from eight studies on milk as a sports beverage.

By Amy Karon
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

A major Wisconsin dairy group continues to promote dairy products for weight loss, four years after two national groups, under pressure from the Federal Trade Commission, agreed to stop.

The state-supervised, nonprofit Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board, whose annual budget exceeds $30 million, claims at least three times on its consumer website that dairy products can help people lose weight, and at least twice that the foods can aid weight management.

“Emerging research indicates consuming three servings of low-fat dairy products as part of a healthy diet and exercise plan will help with weight loss and weight maintenance,” claims a board Web page on dairy’s health benefits.

Leading nutrition experts from Harvard University and the Mayo Clinic contradict such claims. So do the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2010 dietary guidelines, which state that “strong evidence in adults and moderate evidence in children and adolescents demonstrates that consumption of milk and milk products does not play a special role in weight management.”

“There has been some back and forth on that particular issue,” said Laura Wilford, registered dietitian with the milk board. “You can’t say that any single food is a weight-loss aid, but you can say that a healthy diet that includes dairy products will help you to maintain or lose some weight.”

State law prohibits Wisconsin’s seven agricultural marketing boards from making “false or unwarranted claims” about their products. The state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection supervises the boards.

A nationally recognized consumer protection attorney told the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism that the Wisconsin milk board’s claim that dairy can enhance weight loss is “unsubstantiated” by the bulk of scientific research and therefore “deceptive under Wisconsin law.”

Stephen Gardner, litigation director for the Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, reached that conclusion after reviewing recent studies, including research cited by dairy groups.

In subsequent phone interviews, Wilford and Patrick Geoghegan, the board’s senior vice president of communications, said they weren’t aware of the board website’s claims about weight loss.

Geogeghan said the board’s consumer messages are “based on sound, often peer-review research that is continually updated.”

Controversial research

In 2007, the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board and the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board agreed to halt two national campaigns promoting dairy for weight loss after the Federal Trade Commission intervened.

The agency acted two years after the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine filed a petition arguing that most research didn’t support the weight-loss claims.

The Washington, D.C.-based physicians group promotes veganism and sponsored the recent controversial Grim Reaper billboard near Green Bay, which warned that eating cheese can be unhealthy. The group reviewed more than 30 studies on dairy and weight loss, concluding that only Michael Zemel’s work identified a link.

Zemel, a nutrition professor at the University of Tennessee and author of the book The Calcium Key: the Revolutionary Diet Discovery That Will Help You Lose Weight Faster, said his research shows consuming more calcium helps suppress a hormone that promotes fat storage. Since 1998, he has received $3.5 million in funds from the National Dairy Council, the nutrition communications arm of a national dairy marketing group called Dairy Management Inc.

A recent analysis of funding sources for 206 nutritional studies on soda, juice and milk found a significant association between funding source and results. But Zemel said the National Dairy Council hasn’t tried to influence his findings.

“I will take research money from anybody,” he said, “as long as they do not try to control the outcome or my right to publish.”

Zemel received degrees in nutritional sciences from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the 1970s and 1980s. He and Dale Schoeller, a UW-Madison nutrition and obesity expert, have co-authored studies reporting that dairy-rich diets can increase fat loss and fat burning.

Studies on whether consuming more dairy can enhance weight loss have reported mixed results, Schoeller said, adding that the strongest effect was found for people who also cut calories and whose diets were previously low in calcium.

Schoeller said he has received about $40,000 from Dairy Management Inc. since 2000, with about half that money funding research on dairy and weight loss.

“The evidence is not strong,” said Jennifer Nelson, director of clinical dietetics at the Mayo Clinic. “Studies were narrow and quite limited, so we can’t make that strong a connection between dairy products and weight management at this time.”

Dale Schoeller.

Dr. Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health,  co-authored a 2005 Harvard study of more than 12,000 adolescents that found those who consumed more than three daily servings of milk gained weight over three years, even when drinking skim or 1-percent.

In an email interview, Willett said any tie between weight loss and dairy consumption “has been totally discredited by research not funded by the National Dairy Council.”

Claim called ‘deceptive’

The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism asked Gardner to review 17 recent studies the Wisconsin Center selected that either supported or refuted a link between dairy and weight loss.

Walter Willett.

Gardner also reviewed relevant research listed on the National Dairy Council’s website. The milk board’s website links to the council’s.

“The Center for Science in the Public Interest reviewed these weight-loss claims several years ago, prior to the Federal Trade Commission’s May 3, 2007 letter, and concluded that claims of this nature were unsubstantiated and thus deceptive under both Federal Trade Commission law and state consumer protections laws in general,” Gardner responded in an email interview.

“Based on our review of Wisconsin law, it is clear that a deceptive claim about calcium (or dairy products) and weight loss is deceptive under Wisconsin law in specific.”

Under Wisconsin law, violating the statutes governing agricultural boards can lead to a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to nine months.

“The department (of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection) could exercise its discretion not to enforce the law in this instance, but it is insupportable for it to encourage or sanction any deceptive claims,” Gardner wrote.

Noel Favia, who serves as the department’s liaison for the agricultural boards, said in an email interview that the milk board “has never made claims that weren’t substantiated with scientific evidence.”

The department has not filed a complaint against any of the marketing boards with the state Department of Justice in at least 15 years, said former justice spokesman Bill Cosh, who now works for the state Department of Natural Resources.

Amy Karon is a reporter for the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. Catherine Martin, Jessica Gressa, Andrew Golden and Eric Skvirsky contributed to this report in a UW-Madison journalism class taught by Professor Deborah Blum, in collaboration with the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center (www.wisconsinwatch.org). The Center also collaborates with Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and other news media.

All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers promotes milk’s health benefits to kids in an advertisement sponsored by the National Dairy Council. The Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board has cited such promotions during presentations to elementary students.

Part One of Two

What do scientists say about the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board’s health claims about dairy? A two-day series produced in collaboration with a University of Wisconsin-Madison journalism class taught by Professor Deborah Blum.

• Today: Marketing dairy to children
• Monday: A claim that dairy aids weight loss
• Tuesday: Milk board retreats from weight loss claim

Fact-checking the milk board’s health claims

Some statements checked out. But the Center also found some claims unsupported by science, and some where most evidence came from industry-funded studies. Click the image above to view a pop-up gallery.

Table: Nature’s sports drink?

See the Center’s review of findings and funding sources from eight studies on milk as a sports beverage.

Board defends its conduct, says claims are science-based

By Amy Karon, Catherine Martin and Jessica Gressa
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

LODI — “How many of you have seen the ‘Got milk?’ ads with Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings?” Angie Edge of the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board asked a roomful of elementary school students, invoking the names of two Green Bay Packers stars.

Hands shot up.

In Wisconsin — the nation’s top cheese producer, with more dairy cows per square mile than any other state — it’s hard to miss the message that milk does a body good. Especially if you’re a child.

That’s because the nonprofit milk board, funded by dairy farmers, spends about $950,000 a year on talks, concerts, posters and a website promoting dairy’s health benefits to school children. The group has challenged others’ claims, such as a recent Wisconsin billboard — sponsored by a national physicians group that promotes veganism — that featured the Grim Reaper to suggest eating cheese can be unhealthy.

But the state-supervised milk board sometimes overstates dairy’s health benefits, public records and interviews suggest.

An investigation by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism and a University of Wisconsin-Madison journalism class found that the milk board promotes chocolate milk as a sports recovery beverage for children and teenagers, although related studies have mostly focused on adult athletes.

In some materials, the milk board also recommends children consume three to four servings of dairy a day, although the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends just three servings for teenagers and children over age 9, and less for those 8 and younger. Nutrition experts from Harvard University, New York University and the Mayo Clinic said three to four servings aren’t necessary.

A milk board spokesman defended the group’s conduct.

“Dairy’s role in a healthy diet for all Americans has long been established by the science and nutrition community,” said Patrick Geoghegan, the board’s senior vice president of corporate communications. “All the dietary guidance provided to students and consumers by the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board… is based on sound, often peer-reviewed research that’s continually updated.”

A boy poses with a standup poster of Green Bay Packers player Greg Jennings holding a glass of chocolate milk. The Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board promotes the drink to children as a “natural sports beverage.” Photo: Wisconsin Dairy News

Chocolate milk: Health food or junk food?

The milk board touts chocolate milk as a natural sports drink for children and teenagers. “Muscles fueled with chocolate milk are muscles fueled with nutritious energy,” states a brochure for parents.

According to the board’s most recent annual report, during the 2009-10 school year, it sent 90 percent of Wisconsin schools promotional materials such as a stand-up poster of Jennings, the Green Bay Packers wide receiver, holding a glass of chocolate milk, and planned to give six high schools chocolate milk for the 2010 football season.

The group reinforces the messages during school visits. “Have you heard the research that chocolate milk is the ultimate sports beverage?” Edge asked students last April at Lodi Elementary School, 25 miles north of Madison.

Several small studies — mostly funded by dairy groups — have found that drinking chocolate milk can enhance recovery after exercising. But they focused on adult athletes with higher calorie needs, not children. Almost 28 percent of Wisconsin children were obese in 2007, according to the most recently available data from the National Survey of Children’s Health.

The topic of flavored milks in schools has taken central stage in recent childhood obesity debates. Last June, the Los Angeles Unified School District became the largest in the nation to ban them from school menus. And this fall, Madison schools cut chocolate milk from the breakfast menu for elementary and middle students.

Researchers haven’t tried to pinpoint flavored milk’s role in obesity, partly because few children drink it exclusively, Yale University children’s obesity expert Marlene Schwartz wrote in an email interview.

But Jennifer Nelson, director of clinical dietetics at the Mayo Clinic, said offering children too many sugary foods can foster long-term preferences for sweets.

“My preference is taking the longer view of establishing dietary patterns,” she added. “Maybe we have chocolate milk Wednesdays, but why do we need chocolate milk every day?”

Dale Schoeller, UW-Madison nutritional sciences professor.

Dale Schoeller, an obesity expert and nutritional sciences professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said there’s no way to pinpoint a single food as a culprit in the obesity epidemic.

“Milk is a highly nutritious food,” Schoeller added. “It is one of the major sources of calcium in a child’s diet and a good source of protein.”

Schoeller said he wasn’t overly concerned about the frequency of chocolate milk served in schools, especially in light of new, lower-sugar chocolate milk formulas.

This fall, Dean Foods Company, which supplies milk to about 120 of Wisconsin’s 424 public school districts, switched to a reduced-calorie chocolate milk formula that’s 1-percent or fat-free with no high-fructose corn syrup, Dean spokesman Jamaison Schuler wrote in an email interview. A cup of the fat-free version has 130 calories and 22 grams of sugar — 40 calories and 10 grams of sugar more than plain milk.

When asked the reason for the new recipe, Schuler said that over the past decade, consumers have increasingly preferred less sugar, fewer calories and no high-fructose corn syrup.

Salud Garcia of Madison wasn’t impressed with the change, adding last spring that she was “dumbstruck” when she learned her daughter’s school, Gompers Elementary, had offered chocolate milk twice daily. “I couldn’t believe the schools would be serving so much sugar to kids,” said Garcia, founder of Madison Families for Better Nutrition, a small group that promotes healthier school district menus.

Ken Syke, Madison school district spokesman, said some parents had complained about chocolate milk, but the district hadn’t recorded how many. He said the district responded by telling parents that children need the nutrients in milk, and that some research has shown they drink less when flavored milk isn’t offered.

The milk board cites a 2009 study, funded by the dairy group that runs the “Got milk?” advertising campaign, that found school children drank 35 percent less milk when flavored milk was off the menu.

Marketers need to “stop sending the message that children will only eat healthy foods that have been reformulated with added sugar,” Yale’s Schwartz responded. “Sugared cereals, highly sugared yogurts and flavored milks are all examples of otherwise healthy foods that now have ‘kids’ versions’ heavily marketed to children and their parents.”

The state Department of Public Instruction doesn’t track chocolate milk sales, but spokesman Patrick Gasper said menu analyses suggest about 75 percent of milk sold in Wisconsin schools is chocolate.

“I have 24 kids in my classroom and at snack time, 23 have chocolate milk and one has plain,” said Tricia Kuluvar, who teaches sixth grade at Waunakee Intermediate School.  “And that’s consistent every year.”

Three to four servings a day?

The milk board website states that “increased dairy consumption” leads to higher bone density later in life and a lower risk of osteoporosis, or weak, fracture-prone bones.

At Lodi, Edge told students they should drink three to four glasses of milk “every single day” for strong bones, while the board’s poster for students recommends “three-four glasses a day for a healthy and hard-working body.”

Milk board representatives gave similar presentations to 30,865 elementary students during the 2009-10 school year, and sponsored “iRock with Milk” concerts for more than 6,000 middle schoolers, according to the board’s annual report.

The milk board’s Geoghegan said dozens of groups and individuals support its recommendations, including the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the American Medical Association.

In fact, these groups mostly frame their guidance in terms of amounts of calcium to consume, not a preferred source. For example, the Osteoporosis Foundation recommends children and teenagers get 500 to 1,300 milligrams of calcium daily, depending on their age. (A cup of milk contains about 300 milligrams.)

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention makes similar recommendations for calcium consumption and notes that good sources of the mineral include dairy products, dark green leafy vegetables, almonds and calcium-fortified orange juice, soy beverages and cereal.

The USDA’s 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends adults and children ages 9 and older consume three cups per day of fat-free or low-fat “milk and milk products” — including fortified soy milk. The USDA recommends two-and-a-half cups daily for 4- to 8-year-olds and two cups daily for younger children.

Some research supports the milk board’s recommendations. A 2003 study on 28 teenage male weight lifters found that boys who drank three servings of milk a day for 12 weeks produced more bone mass than those who drank juice.

But several leading experts said so much milk isn’t needed.

“The so-called calcium requirement in the United States is based on very short-term studies (that are) irrelevant to long-term calcium needs,” Dr. Walter Willett, who chairs the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote in an email interview about the federal government’s recommended dietary calcium levels.

Long-term studies show consuming more than one serving of dairy a day doesn’t further decrease the risk of weak bones or fractures, Willett added.

And the Mayo Clinic’s Nelson said even being vegan doesn’t increase that risk.

“We know that those individuals who avoid milk and animal products that contain calcium do just fine in terms of their growth, their development, and their bone health,” she said.

Nelson said that’s because vegan diets can be rich in other foods that are good calcium sources.

“The profile of the vegan diet also helps you conserve calcium,” she added. “The person who eats a lot of meat or a high animal-protein diet has a tendency to lose more calcium … it’s a metabolic process that’s quite complex.”

Marion Nestle, nutrition professor at New York University and author of six books on food politics, criticized the milk board’s claims.

She wrote in an email interview: “I wonder how the marketing board explains why the highest rates of osteoporosis are found in countries that drink the most milk, or how cows manage to make huge bones that support their weight while eating mostly grass?”

“It’s hard not to be sarcastic about this kind of marketing,” Nestle added. “Milk is a fine food if you like it, but it is not an essential nutrient.”

Amy Karon is a reporter for the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. Catherine Martin, Jessica Gressa, Andrew Golden and Eric Skvirsky contributed reporting in a UW-Madison journalism class taught by Professor Deborah Blum, in collaboration with the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center (www.wisconsinwatch.org). The Center also collaborates with Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and other news media.

All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Angela Minerick holds a picture of her fiance, Samuel Milons Jr., who was killed last year in a car accident. Their son, Samuel Milons III, hangs on her shoulders. Because Minerick could stack two auto insurance policies after the accident, Samuel has a trust fund that is twice what it would be without stacking. In April, lawmakers voted to allow anti-stacking language in auto insurance policies. Kate Golden/WCIJ

Companies, trial lawyers dominated insurance rollback

By Kate Golden
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Last year, a driver in Milwaukee had a seizure, crossed the median and killed Samuel Milons Jr., 38. After Milons’ death, his fiancee, Angela Minerick, couldn’t afford the rent on their Milwaukee townhouse and racked up credit card debt.

But Minerick, a funeral director, is more secure knowing that their young son, Samuel III, will likely be able to afford college. Because of a 2009 auto insurance law that allowed Minerick to “stack” her two auto insurance policies and collect $75,000 — twice what it would have been without the law — Samuel has a trust to support him when he turns 18.

Beginning Nov. 1, however, cases like Samuel’s could have very different outcomes. That’s because one of the new Republican-controlled state Legislature’s first acts was to allow companies to forbid policy stacking.

On April 6, lawmakers repealed every aspect of 2009’s so-called “Truth in Auto” law except mandatory auto insurance. In addition to allowing anti-stacking language, the new law lowered auto insurance minimums to 1982 levels.

And it once again allowed insurance companies to insert “reducing clauses” into under-insured motorist policies that can dramatically reduce how much insurance companies must pay in accidents.

The 2009 changes required drivers to have $50,000 in coverage for the injury or death of a person, $100,000 for the injury or death of more than one person, and $15,000 for property damage. The new law will restore levels to the former minimum amounts: $25,000, $50,000 and $10,000.

Both sides invoked the public good. Insurance companies argued that the 2009 changes would lead to higher premiums and more people going without insurance. They brought up examples of people whose bills had risen by hundreds of dollars a year.

Trial lawyers, on the other side, invoked catastrophic situations in which stacking or reducing clauses could make the difference in whether accident victims can pay their bills or go bankrupt.

And both sides spent heavily to influence the Legislature.

During 2009 and 2010, advocates for the two industries poured a total of at least $336,319 into the campaigns of state legislators they hoped would vote their way, according to data collected by MapLight, the California-based nonpartisan political money trackers.

In addition, the two industries spent nearly $1.1 million on lobbying in 2009 and 2010, much of it on the fight over auto insurance, an analysis by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism has found.

And while consumers’ pocketbooks were the main issue mentioned during a six-hour hearing on the bill in January, the insurers offered anecdotes — but no statistical evidence — that the 2009 law would drive drivers’ costs upward.

Citizen Action of Wisconsin, a nonprofit that opposed the new auto insurance law, last year reported that Wisconsin auto insurance rates — the cost per unit of insurance — were essentially flat from 2009 to 2010, when “Truth in Auto” took effect. The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, a trade group that favored the rollback, issued a rebuttal to the report but did not dispute the statistic.

‘A very hot political football’

In the debate over auto insurance coverage, “consumers are virtually unrepresented, except at the margins,” says Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, which advocates for affordable health care, good jobs and consumer protection.

Lobbying and legislative records show the battle was fought largely by trial lawyers against insurers. Car rental and trucking companies joined insurers in pushing for the rollback.

“It’s a very hot political football between trial lawyers and insurance companies,” says John Lehman, a former Democratic state senator from Racine who was defeated in November despite at least $28,655 that trial lawyers put into his race.

The gamble paid off for the insurance industry: Several Democrats supported by the trial lawyers lost, while some Republicans who got insurance company contributions won in November, an election in which the balance of power in the Assembly, Senate and the governor’s office tipped to the GOP.

“The way the legislative process works is, those people who have a major financial stake in the outcome of legislation have a major motivation in trying to invest money to achieve that result,” says former Rep. Spencer Black, a Democrat from Madison. “The average person … who drives a car and might get hit by a car doesn’t have that kind of leverage.”

Property and casualty insurance lobbyist Andy Franken of the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance disagrees, saying, “I don’t believe that legal contributions influence the Legislature.”

If so, there’s a whole lot of money being wasted.

Auto insurers, truckers and car rental companies donated at least $195,239 from January 2009 to December 2010, favoring Republicans nearly 3 to 1. Trial lawyers identified by the Center donated at least $141,081, nearly all to Democrats who lost, according to an analysis of MapLight data.

The money gap between the two sides widens with the addition of lobbying expenditures.

The Wisconsin Association for Justice, formerly the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers, spent $173,174 to lobby lawmakers in the last two years, lobbying records show. But the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance spent just over $1 million on lobbying in the last election cycle, six times as much.

“My experience over the years is that the insurance companies outspend all players,” says Douglas Heller, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, a national nonprofit. “That doesn’t always win the day, but it often plays a huge role in the battle.”

Bill passed quickly

Assembly Bill 4, introduced in January and signed in April, was one of the first bills to get through the Legislature this session. Leading the charge was state Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, an insurance agent who received $5,425 in donations from insurers and none from trial lawyers.

“A lot of our people made that an issue in the campaign, especially our freshmen talked about how they heard that as they went door to door,” Nygren says. “So the (Republican) caucus made it a priority.”

It was easy to pass, Republican leaders say, because it just repealed provisions passed in the 2009 biennial budget.

But opponents such as Dave Dwyer, legislative director for the motorcyclists’ group ABATE of Wisconsin, say they were shocked by the speed at which it was adopted. The group, closely aligned with a trial law firm, opposed the bill because lower minimums and reducing clauses could leave injured motorcyclists with hefty medical bills.

The Assembly bill was introduced on a Friday, and the public hearing for it and its companion bill, Senate Bill 7, was scheduled for the next Wednesday, Jan. 19. Dwyer says he scrambled to find people to testify on such short notice.

Speaking against the bill were six trial lawyers, two accident victims, two motorcyclists and Kraig. All 10 people who spoke in favor of the bill were from the insurance industry.

Mandatory insurance long a goal

Despite warnings that the insurance lobby was too powerful, Lehman introduced bills session after session to require drivers to carry insurance. He says he was motivated by “an old-timer from Racine” who was shocked to learn that the driver who hit him had no insurance — and that it was not required.

The effort failed every time. Lehman was not the first to try.

“I was in the Legislature 25 years or more ago, and used to author bills (mandating auto insurance),” says Joseph Strohl, a former Democratic Senate majority leader and now the trial lawyers’ lobbyist. “And they never passed, because of the strength of the auto insurance industry.”

By 2009, Wisconsin was one of two states that didn’t require auto insurance. Then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat heavily supported by lawyers, endorsed mandatory auto insurance and the other provisions in his budget.

Republican opponents like Nygren cried foul because they couldn’t vote on the items separately. He says the measure’s sudden appearance in the budget was a “red flag” that special interests, not the public, were behind it.

Opponents had the same suspicion about the rollback introduced by Nygren after it sailed at lightning speed through the Legislature. Nygren says it was constituents, not the insurance lobby, that pushed for the repeal.

Asked for constituent correspondence on auto insurance over the past two and a half years, Nygren released 42 emails — two-thirds of which came from people associated with the insurance industry. Most cited concerns that costs to consumers would rise.

Aside from three agents, no one mentioned stacking clauses. And no one talked about reducing clauses, which allow companies to cut payouts when accident victims get other compensation, such as insurance payments from drivers at fault, disability benefits or worker’s comp.

“Wisconsin has always had a very favorable insurance climate, but the recent mandates have changed that,” wrote Mark Truyman, an insurance agent from Seymour.

Nygren has been criticized for offering the bill while having a personal stake in the industry. But he says he has not sold auto insurance for years, and his statement of economic interests filed with the state lists no auto insurers.

Nygren had the ninth most donations from the bill’s supporters. The top three recipients were Rep. John Klenke, R-Green Bay, a co-sponsor of the bill, with $13,975; Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Bellevue, current chairman of the Senate insurance committee, at $8,590; and Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, D-Alma, a co-sponsor, at $7,900.

Of the 15 current legislators who got the most money from the bill’s supporters, all voted for it.

How do insurers profit? Unclear

Insurers’ main argument in favor of reducing clauses and against stacking policies is that such provisions would raise rates, pricing some drivers out of the market. Heller of Consumer Watchdog concedes that lower limits make some sense. He says if limits are too high, drivers required to buy insurance might not be able to afford it.

But Heller said he believes the real motivation is that companies profit more from lower minimums because they charge almost the same premiums but expose themselves to tens of thousands of dollars less in risk.

Kraig points to reports that insurance companies must file with state regulators showing auto insurers pay out 57 cents for every dollar of premium they take in, a calculation known as a pure loss ratio. The 43 cents they keep are for executive salaries, agent commissions, profits, marketing, reserves, litigation and other operating expenses.

“What we’d like to see is more in the 75-cent range” being paid out for every dollar, Heller says.

In 2009, the auto insurance industry wrote $2.7 billion in policies for personal and commercial vehicles in Wisconsin, and incurred $1.5 billion, or 56 percent of that, in losses, according to data from the state insurance commissioner’s office.

Franken says pure loss ratio is not an accurate picture of the profitability of auto insurance, because it doesn’t take companies’ expenses into account. The property casualty trade group says 10-year average Wisconsin profits are 8.9 percent, and the national margin is 7.5.

Trial lawyers profit from injured clients

At first, Minerick says, her son’s financial settlement “didn’t mean anything to me, to be perfectly honest.”

The loss of her fiance and the boy’s father could not be replaced with money. But now, more than a year later, she appreciates being able to “give my son a jump-start in life.”

Samuel Milons III wasn’t the only one to benefit from policy stacking. The lawyers, too, got more than they would under the new bill, which takes effect in policies written or renewed on or after Nov. 1.

Hupy and Abraham, the Milwaukee personal injury law firm that represented them, got 25 percent of the $100,000 payout to Samuel, says Minerick.

Says attorney Michael Hupy: “We only benefit to the extent our clients benefit.”

Kate Golden can be reached at kgolden@wisconsinwatch.org. Center reporter Amy Karon contributed to this report. This project was produced as part of the Center’s Money and Politics Project, a partnership with MapLight.

The nonprofit and nonpartisan Center (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication and other news media. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Organic dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger has fought with state officials over the right to sell raw milk from his farm near Loganville in Sauk County. Although regular sales of unpasteurized milk products currently are illegal, a new bill would lift that ban. Kyle McDaniel/Wisconsin State Journal

By Natasha Anderson, Steve Horn, Sarah Karon and Rory Linnane
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Carrying a cooler of raw milk, Wisconsin vegetable farmer Brian Wickert climbs the steps of the state Capitol on a sunny April day. He is a man on a mission: to lobby for legislative support for a bill to legalize sales of unpasteurized milk.

“It’s real simple,” Wickert, a member of the lobbying group Wisconsin Raw Milk Association, says in a later interview. “We want the right to choose the food we eat. Why does the government care whether I want to go and drink raw milk? Am I so stupid that I don’t know the risks?”

For Wickert, this bill is about having the freedom to live without interference from the government. But for health officials in America’s Dairyland, it’s about potentially exposing unsuspecting citizens to disease-causing bacteria. At the crux of this debate is the age-old question: How much should government protect its citizens from possible hazards?

That question took on increased urgency this month after bacteria in raw milk from an unnamed farm sickened at least 16 fourth graders and family members at a Racine County event, resulting in one hospitalization. The June 3 after-school party was designed to celebrate Wisconsin food.

“I got very, very sick,” says Melissa Werner, 40, who drank raw milk at the event with her son, Nathan, 10. Both later suffered from nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and high fever. Werner was ill for two weeks, losing 12 pounds.

“Still, even now, when I eat, I can tell things aren’t 100 percent right,” she says.

Cheryl Mazmanian, a health officer with the Western Racine County Health Department, says while the incident in Raymond illustrates the dangers of raw milk, it violated no state laws.

“It’s not illegal to drink raw milk, it’s not illegal to give it to people, but it is illegal to sell it,” Mazmanian says.

Wisconsin is one of 11 states that prohibit regular sales of raw milk, according to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, a pro-raw milk group.

Raw milk can contain disease-causing bacteria that the pasteurization process is designed to kill. Wisconsin law allows “incidental” sales of raw milk products to farm employees or visitors who buy on an ad-hoc basis. Those products include buttermilk, kefir, yogurt, cottage cheese, ice cream, butter and cheese.

To get around the law, in some cases, farmers create programs in which consumers become part owners of cows or farms to get a regular supply of raw milk. While some of those arrangements were condoned by state officials for several years, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) in 2008 warned that such arrangements were illegal and began cracking down on raw-milk operations.

In other instances, people ignore the law, creating a type of black market in which consumers and farmers keep their transactions quiet to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

One of the customers is Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, one of the co-sponsors of the bill introduced in May that would legalize raw milk sales. He says he gets milk from different farms but would not specify which ones — a common response among raw milk consumers.

“People don’t want to answer those questions because it jeopardizes your farmer. It’s a screwy system,” Wickert says. “You’ve got people’s lives and livelihoods in the balance.”

The measure co-sponsored by Grothman and Rep. Don Pridemore, R-Hartford, would allow farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers. Pridemore says he’s open to adding testing requirements to the bill, which it currently lacks.

“My main goal is to get a public hearing to present reasons to make it a better bill,” he says.

But one top official, Dr. Jim Kazmierczak, state public health veterinarian, warns that even daily testing cannot detect all contamination. Cows can shed bacteria intermittently, he says, so a negative test in the morning might not mean milk collected from the same cow in the afternoon is safe.

Last year, a similar bill with more health safeguards was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. At the time, the governor expressed concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, which some consumers drink for its perceived health benefits.

Like many of the roughly 15 farmers and consumers who came with Wickert to lobby, Grothman and Pridemore drink raw milk regularly.

“I drank it. I drank a lot of it, and I don’t consider it risky behavior,” Grothman says.

Public health officials disagree. In 2010, raw milk products caused 28 disease outbreaks in the United States that sickened 159 people, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Raw milk has caused seven disease outbreaks in Wisconsin since 1998, including the incident in Raymond, state health officials say. The outbreaks sickened at least 277 people; 28 were hospitalized. Six outbreaks were caused by campylobacter bacteria from cow manure that got into raw milk and raw cheese curds, causing illness but no death.

Many officials, including Mazmanian, are particularly concerned about the possibility of children, who are more vulnerable to infection, consuming raw milk.

“They were told there would be ‘whole farm-fresh raw milk,’ ” she says, referring to the Racine County event. “Now, did they understand it was unpasteurized? I don’t know.”

Werner was aware that the milk at the North Cape Elementary School event was unpasteurized but says she did not fully understand the health risks.

“I’m not opposed to the legalization, I just think there should be some testing and standards in place to ensure this doesn’t happen,” Werner says. “Because I do really worry about younger children not being able to handle being as sick as I was.”

A statement from Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s office says he would support legislation allowing the limited sale of raw milk in Wisconsin, provided certain safety provisions are in place.

“The bill would need to contain the appropriate safeguards to protect public health and the integrity of our state’s signature industry, while giving consumers the opportunity to purchase raw milk directly from farmers,” Walker press secretary Cullen Werwie says.

Ethan, foreground, Elly, and their mother, Becky Sell, visit the store at Vernon Hershberger's organic dairy farm near Loganville in June 2010. Hershberger is among those who believe Wisconsin should allow regular sales of raw milk products. He has defied orders by state officials to stop the sales. Kyle McDaniel/Wisconsin State Journal

The next raw milk state?

The raw milk bill introduced in May leaves out many safety regulations recommended in a 261-page report written by the Raw Milk Policy Working Group. Members include 22 Wisconsin dairy experts with a variety of opinions on raw milk, including academics, public health officials, and representatives of DATCP, dairy and cheese producers and agricultural groups.

The working group was appointed by Rod Nilsestuen, then-secretary of DATCP, to recommend safety regulations in case raw milk sales were legalized in Wisconsin. The group’s report, published Wednesday, calls for detailed regulations on storage, testing and sales of raw milk if they were legalized.

Under the 2011 bill, farmers would be required to post signs indicating they sell unpasteurized milk products, but they would not have to place warning labels on raw milk products or warn customers about the dangers of raw milk, as the previous bill required.

Farmers who milk fewer than 20 cows would not need to have a license or grade A dairy permit to sell raw milk. The current bill also would allow farmers to advertise their raw milk products, something the 2010 bill prohibited.

Scott Rankin, chair of the Department of Food Science at UW-Madison and member of the working group, says the latest bill is not based on science.

“This is shockingly simple,” Rankin says of the bill. “It just omits so much of all the concerns around how you handle any food, let alone raw milk.”

Grothman says he is aware the group drafted recommendations, but did not read or incorporate them into his bill. He believes the working group was biased against raw milk, but credits members for trying to be balanced.

“They did a lot of work and we’re certainly going to look at them,” Grothman says. “There’s going to be a compromise.”

Rankin says he hopes legislators will consider the recommendations and amend the bill accordingly.

“We sat for hours and hours contending with these issues and crafting policy. Ignore it at your own risk,” Rankin says. “If you decide to write this in a vacuum, that’s fine, but this is one where you need to do your homework. And the (DATCP) report was intended to be that homework.”

Passions strong on both sides of debate

There is a sharp ideological divide between those who support the legalization of raw milk and those who object. Some advocates argue the government should not limit their food choices. Public health officials, meanwhile, say the risks associated with drinking raw milk require regulation — if not an outright ban.

Vince Hundt, an organic farmer and member of the working group, says he supports the current bill without most of the working group’s suggestions.

“These are recommendations that state health officials, the dairy industry at large and professional food processors would like to see in the bill,” Hundt says. “The consumers of raw milk and producers would like to simplify it very radically and say the only stipulation is that the milk must go directly from the farmer to the consumer.”

The authors of the new bill do not believe legalizing raw milk sales poses a threat to public health.

“Most of us old timers grew up on drinking it anyway,” Pridemore says. “Natural milk tastes a lot better, first of all. Second of all, it’s fresher. The farm that I buy it from, it’s no more than two days old.”

But public health officials warn that freshness does not ensure safety. Kazmierczak says fresh milk can be infected, and the risk of contamination exists at even the cleanest dairy operations.

He says it is impossible to keep floors, milking machines and cows’ udders completely free of manure contamination. Bacteria can enter milk at several stages, including during milking, when it is piped into the bulk tank or during dispensing. Cows may also become infected by grooming one another, he says.

“I think some people … don’t have a good sense of how minute the contamination could be and still result in milk contamination and human illness,” Kazmierczak says.

A man sits at the wheel of a milk truck operated by the Providence Dairy Company, 1916. The location of the photo is unknown, but it might be Brigham, Wis. Photo credit: Wisconsin Historical Society.

Disease prompted pasteurization

Raw milk, by definition, is not pasteurized. During pasteurization, milk is heated to between 145 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit for a short period to kill rapidly growing bacteria.

Concern about unpasteurized milk dates to the late 1800s. As people moved from rural to urban areas, milk was transported longer distances and at higher temperatures. Many city dwellers, particularly children, grew sick and died from drinking contaminated milk.

Public health activists called for reform, and throughout the late 1800s and into the 1900s, state and local governments passed laws requiring pasteurization. The measures were successful. In 1938, about 25 percent of all U.S. food- or water-borne disease outbreaks were caused by contaminated milk. By 2007, that figure was less than 1 percent.

Milwaukee adopted a pasteurization ordinance in 1920, and between 1949 and 1957, the Legislature passed a series of laws requiring milk dealers to have licenses and sell only pasteurized milk, banning raw milk sales by farmers and requiring that milk sold to the public adhere to grade A standards designed to promote sanitary milk production.

The danger: bacterial contamination

Raw milk can contain multiple illness-causing bacteria, including E.coli, salmonella, listeria, brucellosis and campylobacter. One 1992 study found bacterial contamination in 25 percent of samples taken from raw milk stored in bulk tanks.

These pathogens pose infection threats particularly to the young, the elderly and pregnant women. In rare cases, bacteria can enter the bloodstream and cause paralysis, kidney failure and death.

“It’s more than just a stomachache,” Kazmierczak says. “Salmonella in immunocompromised people or children can become invasive. It can cause bloodstream infections and meningitis.”

Adds Rankin, “Healthy adults succumb to these kinds of illnesses every year. It tears your heart out.”

Kazmierczak worries children might consume raw milk without their parents’ knowledge.

“If someone gets really sick and you have a kid that’s on dialysis for six months, who’s responsible for that?” he says. “Frankly, I think that any supporters of this (bill) have to be ready to bear at least partial responsibility for any illnesses that result.”

Consumers of raw milk say it is healthier than pasteurized milk. Health officials warn untreated dairy products can contain harmful bacteria. Wisconsin is one of 11 states that outlaws regular sales of raw milk products. Kyle McDaniel/Wisconsin State Journal

New bill short on restrictions

Although the 2011 proposal requires raw milk distributors to use a sanitary container and to fill it in a sanitary manner, it does not set any standard for cleanliness. Grothman says it will be up to the consumer to find trustworthy suppliers.

“I think people who buy raw milk should familiarize themselves with the farmer,” Grothman says.

David Gumpert, author of the book, “The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America’s Emerging Battle Over Food Rights,” believes pasteurization is not as crucial as it once was.

“We understand the importance of sanitation and good animal health, not to mention that we have refrigeration and automated milking equipment, all of which reduce the chances of contamination,” he says.

Tony Schultz, board member of Family Farm Defenders, a Madison-based nonprofit that seeks to create a farmer-controlled food system, believes health concerns about raw milk are overblown.

“Every year you hear about thousands getting sick from some sort of ‘big’ food — beef, spinach, tomatoes,” Schultz says, adding he believes if consumers bought directly from farmers, there would be fewer and smaller outbreaks.

He believes the debate is really about large corporate farms’ desire to control the agricultural sector and the pushback from small farmers and consumers who want to have a closer relationship with their food.

Kazmierczak acknowledges that supporting family farms and local agriculture is “emotionally appealing.” But, he adds, “The bottom line is, the more available you make raw milk, the more people are going to drink it, and the more people are going to get sick.”

Legalization equals right to choose

For raw milk consumers, the heart of the issue is the right to choose their food.

“We want good health. We want to be able to have the choice to drink what we know is good for us,” says farmer and raw milk consumer Melody Morrell, who lives on a community-sustained farm in southwestern Wisconsin. “That makes sense to me. It’s frustrating that someone can say ‘No you can’t,’ even if it’s the healthiest thing.”

Hundt, the organic farmer, says the public should be trusted to make that choice.

“A consumer can walk to the store and buy a quart of gin or a carton of cigarettes, but you can’t buy a gallon of milk from a farmer,” Hundt says. “It’s preposterous and symptomatic of a society that doesn’t trust its citizens and abandoned the idea that people are free and should make these decisions for themselves.”

Kazmierczak responds that government regulates all kinds of risky products.

“You can’t buy your kids lead toys from China, you can’t serve them powdered milk that’s got melamine in it,” he says. “Society and government have decided that there are limits to parental autonomy, and, in my opinion, this should be one of them.”

Morrell, for one, is not worried. Her three children drink raw milk every day. She knows the farmer and the cow that produce it, and she trusts it is safe.

“I knew a lot of people growing up that drank raw milk,” says Morrell, who was raised in rural Minnesota. “And I’ve never met one person who’s been sick from raw milk ever in my life.”

Sarah Karon is a reporter for the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. Natasha Anderson, Steve Horn and Rory Linnane reported this story in a UW-Madison journalism class taught by Professor Deborah Blum, in collaboration with the nonprofit Center (www.WisconsinWatch.org). The Center also collaborates with Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication and other news media.

All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Lila Stephens wears full casts on both arms in October 2010, three weeks after she touched the glass in front of a gas fireplace at a Wisconsin Dells resort and suffered third-degree burns. She was 11 months old at the time. Courtesy of Fred Stephens.

In September, a family’s vacation in Wisconsin Dells turned tragic when an infant touched the glass front of a fireplace and suffered third-degree burns at a resort hotel.

Her father, Fred Stephens, says he had no idea the glass could get dangerously hot.

Lila Stephens, then 11 months old, was burned on the unprotected glass of the fireplace in the family’s room at the Kalahari Resort, her father says. Lila had skin grafted from her abdomen to both hands, and is making a good recovery.

Stephens, a probation officer from Little Canada, Minn., says he was “just devastated” by the accident, “and, I think, like any parent, horribly guilty that I allowed it to happen.”

Across the country, some parents of burned children, including Stephens, are going to court seeking compensation and improvements to gas fireplaces to prevent burns.

Manufacturers are being buffeted by lawsuits and the threat of federal regulation amid heightened concerns about the risk of burns from the glass fronts of the appliances, which can get hot enough to melt skin.

The new pressure stems from cases of children suffering third-degree burns from touching or stumbling into the glass panes. They are allowed by a voluntary industry standard to reach temperatures of up to 500 degrees.

As FairWarning reported in January, more than 2,000 children ages five and under suffered burn injuries from fireplace glass from 1999 to 2009, according to a federal estimate.

Among recent developments:

– The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which until now has allowed the industry to police itself, in June took an initial step that could lead to government rules. Commissioners voted 5-0 to request public comments on two petitions — one proposing mandatory screens or other safeguards to prevent contact with fireplace glass, and the other to require use of a warning device to alert parents when the glass is dangerously hot.

– A federal judge in Oakland, Calif., approved a class action settlement requiring Lennox International, a top fireplace maker, to offer to send protective screens to more than 500,000 owners of its Lennox and Superior brand gas fireplaces. The company, which did not admit liability, also agreed to pay $4.93 million in fees and expenses to three law firms that filed the case.

The industry “is very serious about making sure that this issue becomes a non-issue” by finding a way to prevent burns, says Allan Cagnoli, director of government affairs for the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, an industry trade group.

Toddler burned at Dells resort

Sometimes wracked by guilt and facing medical bills in the six figures, parents of burned children say they had no idea the glass could get dangerously hot.

Stephens says that having a “giant piece of glass at floor level (that) is allowed to get as hot as your oven on broil … is very upsetting.”

In January, the family filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court in Madison naming Kalahari and the companies that produced and installed the fireplace. All have denied responsibility.

The manufacturer was Hearth & Home Technologies, an industry leader and the only major company that boasts of providing a permanently attached mesh safety screen with all of its gas fireplaces. But for reasons that are unclear, there was no screen on the fireplace that burned Lila, Stephens says. A spokeswoman for Hearth & Home says she cannot discuss a pending case.

While the Lennox settlement resolves the biggest case against the industry, another class action is just getting started. Filed in May by the same lawyers who brought the Lennox suit, it names three companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of Valor brand gas fireplaces: BDR Thermea of the Netherlands; British subsidiary Baxi Group; and Miles Industries Ltd. of North Vancouver, British Columbia.

The suit filed in federal court in Oakland contends that owners of Valor fireplaces have suffered economic loss because they will need to install safeguards on the fireplaces to operate them safely.

The fireplaces “are designed so that their glass front, installed in homes at a height accessible even to small children and infants, can … reach temperatures well in excess of that necessary to cause third-degree burns even from momentary contact with the super-heated glass,” the lawsuit states.

The suit identifies Sean Whelan of San Francisco as class representative. His daughter suffered severe burns from a Valor gas fireplace, according to a separate personal injury claim filed last month.

Whelan, a 46-year-old real estate developer, says he purchased 14 of the Valor fireplaces to install in new housing units, including one at his own home. Last July, he says, his daughter Signe, then 11 months old, sustained third-degree burns to both hands after touching the unprotected glass.

The flame was so low that it was not noticeable, Whelan says, yet Signe “needed the help of my wife to remove her from the glass as her hands had melted onto the glass.”

Since then, Signe has had two surgeries, including skin grafts, and will probably need a third operation, Whelan says. Now 19 months old, she still wears compression gloves as part of her treatment. Changing the gloves every few days “is a pretty traumatic experience for Signe,” Whelan says. “It’s 10 minutes of her screaming and yelling.”

Martin Miles, product director for Miles Industries, says the lawsuits are a first for his company. “We’ve never had a complaint like this in our 30 years of selling gas fireplaces,” he says. “I don’t think it is meritorious.” Officials with BDR and Baxi could not be reached.

Gas fireplaces provide heat, pose danger

Though many gas fireplaces have been mainly decorative, the modern versions installed in millions of homes are designed to be energy efficient and serve as heating appliances.

Fearing a loss of aesthetic appeal, most manufacturers have declined to include protective screens as a standard feature. And because a fireplace is an expensive, discretionary purchase, the companies have been reluctant to stress the burn risk to avoid losing sales.

A working group of industry representatives is considering recommending revisions to the existing voluntary standard. Changes could include requiring screens, tougher warnings or both. The members “are committed to arriving at a solution,” says Greg Orloff, director of energy for CSA Standards, a Cleveland-based group that coordinates the standards process. “No one wants to see anyone injured on any product.”

The fireplace standard was certified in 1998 by the influential American National Standards Institute, and has been revised a few times since. Under ANSI rules, the process must be open to a diverse range of interests, including consumer representatives. But as a practical matter, few but those with a financial stake — such as fireplace makers and installers and gas utilities — have the expertise and money to participate.

In 2009, the standards committee approved an amped-up warning depicting a hand near flames and the words: “Hot Glass Will Cause Burns.” But the warning usually appears in owners manuals that few consumers read and many never see. That’s because the buyer may be a building contractor, a public establishment, or the original homeowner rather than the second owner or renter who lives there now.

The vote by the Consumer Product Safety Commission followed a letter to its chairman, Inez Tenenbaum, from Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., calling for action and quoting at length from a January report by FairWarning that appeared in a number of news outlets. Requesting comments on the two petitions is only a first step in a laborious rule-making process that could be abandoned if the commission decides that the industry is taking effective action.

One of the petitions, calling for mandatory safety screens, was filed by Carol Pollack-Nelson, a safety consultant and former member of the commission staff.

“While it is common knowledge that the interior of the fireplace gets hot,” she wrote, “the average consumer has no reason to suspect that the glass front of a gas fireplace presents an acute and severe burn hazard.”

The other petition was submitted by William S. Lerner, a New York inventor. He asked the commission to require a high temperature warning system, such as the one he has developed, that would project an alert on the front of the fireplace “that will remain visible from the time the fireplace is lit until the glass is cool enough to touch safely.”

Also contributing to this report was Laurie Udesky of FairWarning (www.FairWarning.org), a California-based nonprofit news organization that focuses upon health, safety and corporate conduct. FairWarning provided this report to Wisconsin news media through the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org).

By Kate Golden
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Westwood College Online has temporarily stopped enrolling Wisconsin students, but maintains it doesn’t need approval from the Wisconsin agency that sent it a cease-and-desist letter.

Westwood College Senior Vice President William Ojile said in his Sept. 30 response to the Wisconsin Educational Approval Board that Wisconsin has no authority over Westwood, which is owned by Denver-based Alta College Inc.

Despite Westwood’s position, the school has stopped enrolling new students anyway as “purely a good-faith precautionary measure,” Ojile wrote.

The EAB said in a Sept. 16 letter to Westwood that an article in the Wisconsin State Journal and the complaint of a Westwood student who withdrew after reading the article “make clear that the risk exposure to Wisconsin residents warrants our attention,” and ordered the school to stop enrolling Wisconsin students. The article was produced by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

With the letter, the EAB entered the national fray over for-profit higher education and became the second state to act against Westwood College Online.

Ojile wrote that a clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents the EAB from restricting Westwood’s advertising and commerce outside Wisconsin.

In September, EAB Executive Secretary David Dies acknowledged Wisconsin was unusual for going after an online school based outside Wisconsin, but said that Westwood’s competitors have sought EAB approval. He wrote in the Sept. 16 letter to Westwood that Wisconsin statute gives him authority over schools “whether located within or outside the state.”

Ojile also wrote that Westwood doesn’t consider itself to be operating in Wisconsin. The school has not advertised in Wisconsin publications or  targeted Wisconsin students in ads, doesn’t have a physical presence here, produces all its Web content outside Wisconsin and employs only one adjunct faculty member who is a Wisconsin resident.

Ojile’s letter does not say how many Wisconsin residents have enrolled or are currently attending Westwood.

A Westwood spokesman said today Westwood has about 100 students in Wisconsin.

Westwood also rebutted the complaint of Bradley Leikness, a Stoughton man who in August said he withdrew midway through his current term after learning the health care management degree he was studying for was not properly accredited and would suffice only for an entry-level job in the field. He said the school refused to give him a refund.

Ojile wrote that the Westwood catalog clearly described the program’s accreditation and the entry-level jobs for which graduates would qualify. He wrote the school had properly followed its refund policy and given Leikness a partial refund.

The Texas Workforce Commission has also ordered Westwood College Online to stop operating there, and has begun proceedings to revoke Westwood’s licenses for its campus-based operations.

Westwood College, one of the largest for-profits, has more than 15,000 students online and at its 17 campuses nationwide, according to its Web site.

Some of Westwood’s campuses are accredited by ACCSC, the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, which has placed it on probation. As a result, the Colorado Department of Higher Education has recommended to a state commission that it put Westwood’s license in that state on probation as well.

Subsidiary Westwood College Online, however, is accredited by ACICS, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, which has called Westwood’s CEO onto the carpet to answer recent allegations against the school but has not initiated sanctions.

The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with its partners – Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and the UW-Madison School of Journalism & Mass Communication — and other news media. Kate Golden can be reached at kgolden -at- wisconsinwatch.org.

Update, Oct. 6, 2010: Westwood halts enrollments, but says it doesn’t need a Wisconsin license.

By Kate Golden
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

A for-profit college that is providing online classes without approval in Wisconsin was ordered Thursday by state regulators to immediately stop enrolling students in the state or face possible fines of up to $500 a day.

The Wisconsin Educational Approval Board, the state regulatory agency that oversees for-profit colleges, told the parent company of Westwood College Online that recent news coverage and a complaint from a Westwood student “make clear that the risk exposure to Wisconsin residents warrants our attention.”

In a complaint filed with the agency on Aug. 26, Stoughton resident Bradley Leikness said that he learned in a report published Aug. 20 in the Wisconsin State Journal that Westwood College Online wasn’t licensed in Wisconsin.

The report, produced by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, examined a lawsuit against Westwood filed by a former student and intensifying scrutiny of the fast-growing for-profit college industry.

Leikness dropped out of Westwood on Aug. 24, saying in the complaint that he’d “wasted time in pursuing a degree that is worthless to me.” Leikness said he’d been led to believe that a bachelor’s degree in health care management would allow him to get a higher paying job.

But he said he learned through the news article and his own research that the program lacked accreditation from a key industry council, as well as approval from the EAB.

Leikness said the program has cost him $5,900 in loans since he started in October 2009, and Westwood has refused to refund any money.

Westwood College Online spokeswoman Kristina Yarrington declined to comment Thursday evening on Leikness’s assertions or the state’s action.

Last month, a Westwood spokesman didn’t deny the college lacked official approval in Wisconsin but wrote in an e-mail that the “licensing of online colleges in individual states is an ongoing and developing issue across the country.”

The college notes on its website that “not all colleges offering online courses in Wisconsin are registered in the state.”

Several other large online for-profit colleges, such as Capella University and the University of Phoenix, have applied for and received EAB approval to operate in Wisconsin.

This summer, the for-profit college industry erupted into scandal when a U.S. Government Accountability Office undercover investigation discovered that recruiters were lying to potential students about the value of the programs and, in some cases, encouraging them to commit fraud to get more financial aid. The colleges, including Westwood, pledged to clean up their recruiting and programs in response; Westwood began that process in August.

The Texas Workforce Commission ordered Westwood to stop offering online courses there after a law firm filed a lawsuit in Texas over Westwood’s lack of a license to operate in that state. The law firm has filed similar suits in Wisconsin, California and Colorado.

Wisconsin’s move against Westwood came in a letter from David Dies, executive director of the Educational Approval Board, to James Turner, president of Denver-based Alta Colleges, which is the parent company of Westwood.

In an interview, Dies acknowledged that the state rarely takes such strong action against a for-profit college.

Dies said the agency doesn’t know how many Wisconsin students are enrolled in Westwood’s online programs.

What will happen to such students and to Westwood will depend on Westwood’s response. If the school defies the state, it may be subject to penalties of up to $500 a day. It could also decide to stop offering its programs to Wisconsin students. Or, Dies said, Westwood could apply for approval from his agency.

The letter could affect Westwood College Online’s national accreditation with the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, according to Anthony Bieda, external affairs director. He said ACICS now would need to open an investigation into the matter.

But Bieda also said it was an open question whether Wisconsin really has the authority to go after Westwood, since the school has no campus or offices in the state.

Before Wisconsin sent its letter, ACICS president Albert Gray had already summoned leaders of Westwood and several other for-profit colleges to his office in Washington, D.C., to answer for the alleged problems at the institutions, Bieda said.

Dies said most states don’t extend their regulatory reach to online-only schools located outside the state.

But he said that the Wisconsin statute quoted in the letter to Westwood explicitly gives EAB that power.

It says a school “whether located within or outside the state,” may not operate in the state unless it is approved or has been determined to be exempt.

Noel Radomski, executive director of the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, an educational policy research center housed in the UW-Madison School of Education, criticized the EAB for being reactive.

“It’s disappointing that this incident took place in Wisconsin, and that a state agency had to wait until there was an article — and until after the student expended $5,900 — for them to realize that they’re operating out of compliance,” he said.

“How many other complaints are we not aware of?” Radomski said.

Dies has said a small staff, a flat budget and outdated statutes have hampered the EAB’s ability to oversee this rapidly growing industry.

The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with its partners – Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and the UW-Madison School of Journalism & Mass Communication — and other news media.Kate Golden can be reached at kgolden -at- wisconsinwatch.org.

Janesville resident Melissa Willes, who is suing Westwood College for operating without state approval, says she and her husband, Eric Willes, were "heavily misled" by Westwood. They owe about $50,000 for their schooling but have no degrees to show for it. Photo by Dan Lassiter/The Janesville Gazette

By Kate Golden
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Now that she knows Westwood College was never authorized to operate in Wisconsin, Janesville resident Melissa Willes wants her $25,000 back.

“The biggest mistake of my life was attending college,” said Willes, 23, one of at least 200 Wisconsin students who have taken online classes through Westwood.

The major for-profit college, based in Denver, is coming under intensified federal scrutiny since a recent government report documented improper recruiting practices within the nation’s fast-growing for-profit college sector.

Willes said a Westwood recruiter told her the $75,000 online bachelor’s degree in interior design she was considering wasn’t approved yet in Wisconsin, but assured her it would be by the end of her three-year program.

Willes never finished the degree after maxing out her borrowing limit for federal student loans. Westwood credits generally aren’t transferable to other schools, the college acknowledges.

On July 7, Willes sued Westwood in Rock County Circuit Court, and on Aug. 6 Westwood moved the case to U.S. District Court in Madison. Willes charged that the college was operating without the required state approval, which is designed to ensure educational quality and protect students from fraud. She has asked the court to certify her suit as a class action.

In her lawsuit, Willes claimed that misleading marketing tactics by Westwood enticed her to enroll in a substandard program and take on excessive tuition debt in pursuit of a “largely useless” degree.

• DOWNLOAD PDF: Melissa Willes’s original complaint

State regulators confirm Westwood never applied for approval.

Other major for-profit online colleges, such as Capella University, are licensed in Wisconsin by the Educational Approval Board, which oversees for-profit colleges and technical schools, out-of-state nonprofits, and Wisconsin nonprofit colleges incorporated since 1992. Among those exempt from its oversight are the University of Wisconsin system and schools regulated by other agencies, such as cosmetology or real estate.

David Dies, executive secretary of the EAB, said that “technically speaking,” thousands of schools like Westwood could violate state statute by signing up Wisconsin students without board approval. However, Dies said, the board doesn’t have the means or the will to oversee them all.

In response to questions from the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Westwood spokesman Gil Rudawsky didn’t deny the college lacked official approval in Wisconsin but wrote in an e-mail that the “licensing of online colleges in individual states is an ongoing and developing issue across the country.”

The Texas Workforce Commission ordered Westwood to stop offering online courses there after the law firm representing Willes filed a similar lawsuit in Texas over Westwood’s lack of a license to operate in that state.

For-profit schools have grown dramatically across the country in recent years, and taxpayer-funded student loans are their bread and butter. The $25 billion they raked in from federal grants and loans in 2009 had doubled over 10 years, according to a U.S. Senate report.

For-profits under fire for recruiting tactics

Willes’ lawsuit came as the nationwide for-profit college industry was exposed for widespread aggressive and deceptive recruiting in a scathing U.S. Government Accountability Office report. That report prompted U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to promise a crackdown on for-profits’ recruiting practices.

David Hawkins, director of public policy and research at the National Association of College Admission Counseling, testified Aug. 4 before a U.S. Senate committee that recruiters have hidden the true cost of their programs, the quality of the courses and the transferability of credits to other colleges, and have made “false statements or misrepresentations about employment prospects and earnings potential.”

“These do not appear to be isolated incidents of bad actors or rogue officers,” Hawkins said. “This appears to be a fairly standard practice.”

Westwood has pledged to clean up its recruiting practices — paying recruiters salaries instead of commissions, increasing admissions requirements and investigating its own financial aid and recruitment processes — but stands by its schooling.

“We are proud of the work by our 40,000 students and graduates, many of whom are working at businesses throughout Wisconsin. We will continue to defend their hard work, and the opportunities we provide them through our online program,” Rudawsky wrote in response to an interview request from the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

Westwood has filed a motion to force Willes’ lawsuit out of court and into arbitration, citing an agreement she signed upon enrollment that any disputes would be resolved that way.

Westwood has 17 brick-and-mortar campuses nationwide. In Wisconsin it offers only online programs, according to court filings. The college has more than 15,000 students in 27 degree programs and is owned by Denver-based Alta College Inc.

Westwood admits recruiting problems
At the Senate hearing, the GAO showed hidden-camera videos of Westwood and other for-profit college recruiters using what appeared to be aggressive and deceptive tactics on undercover agents posing as potential students.

Of the 12 for-profits in the probe — including Westwood, the University of Phoenix and Kaplan University, all of which enroll Wisconsin students — each one used deceptive practices, GAO director of forensic audits Gregory Kutz told Congress. And recruiters at four appeared to encourage would-be students to commit fraud to get federal student loans, Kutz said.

To one agent who claimed to have a $250,000 inheritance in the bank, a recruiter in the GAO video said, “Frankly, in my opinion, they don’t need to know how much cash you have.”

GAO agents didn’t identify the college, but George Burnett, chief executive officer of Westwood, confirmed to the Denver Post that the recruiter was one of his and said he was “shaken and appalled.”

Westwood is facing three other lawsuits in California, Colorado and Texas from the same Florida consumer law firm — James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Smiljanich & Yanchunis — that is representing Willes.

In turn, Westwood has sued the “predatory” law firm for allegedly defaming Westwood, in part by creating a website called westwoodscammed.me and through “derogatory Twitter messages.”

Only some colleges seek EAB approval

Willes’ lawsuit claims Westwood should have sought approval from the state’s Educational Approval Board, which regulates educational programs ranging from certificates to teach belly dancing to doctorates in psychology. The board also helps students resolve disputes with colleges.

According to state law, the EAB’s charge is to “protect students, prevent fraud … and encourage schools to maintain courses consistent in quality, content and length with generally accepted educational standards.”

“Unapproved schools are breaking the law,” EAB’s website states.

But the website also acknowledges that “many” online schools don’t seek its approval. It recommends that potential students check with the board to see if schools are approved.

Unapproved schools face $500-per-day fines, according to the EAB’s website. But Westwood has never been cited for operating without state approval. The board’s response to unapproved online schools is not to punish them, but to try to get them to apply for approval, according to Dies.

Such a school triggers the EAB’s interest, Dies said, only if the board gets several complaints. Then the board asks how many Wisconsin students the school has enrolled. If it’s at least 10 or 12, Dies said, the EAB will prod the school to apply for approval.

The board has known about Westwood since at least 2006, when it resolved a student’s billing complaint in favor of the school. But Westwood’s status in Wisconsin apparently didn’t come up then, and Dies said one complaint wasn’t enough to concern the board.

Dies called allegations about Westwood and other for-profits’ deceptive recruiting “clearly troubling,” and the sort of problem that his board would handle. But he also said the board requires a complaint to act, and hasn’t gotten any recently from Westwood students or employers.

“We respond to situations that are brought to our attention,” he said.

Dies said the EAB isn’t fully equipped to regulate the burgeoning for-profit college industry. Its budget of about $500,000 has been nearly flat over the past decade, while the number of approved institutions has grown 46 percent, from 112 to 164.

Husband also out thousands

Willes said her husband also feels betrayed by Westwood. Eric Willes signed up for a video-game design program at Westwood while living in Illinois — but never finished after his federal loans ran out.

After that, he made the mistake of accepting Westwood’s offer of an additional loan — at a whopping interest rate of 18 percent. That loan covered three months of schooling, and accounts for half of the total $25,000 he now owes.

Now he’s making $12.50 an hour at a furniture store. Melissa Willes is making $11 an hour as an insurance agent’s assistant.

The couple cannot afford the minimum $1,200 a month to repay their student loans, so those are on hold, some accruing interest. Because of their credit problems, they needed co-signers even to rent a home. They would like to have children, but say they must wait until they have more money.

“Once they’re done milking you for all you’re worth, they drop you like a hot potato,” Melissa Willes said. “And then, to boot, to find out they’re not even registered in the state of Wisconsin? It’s a double whammy.”

The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with its partners — Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and the UW-Madison School of Journalism & Mass Communication — and other news media. Kate Golden can be reached at kgolden@wisconsinwatch.org.

Ads feature home-repair expert Bob Vila, Amish craftsmen

Jack Brennan had purchased two electric heaters hoping to save money on his heating bill. The heaters, not being used, are collecting dust because of the high cost of running them. Monday, December 7, 2009. Green Bay Press-Gazette/H. Marc Larson

By Kryssy Pease

Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Electric heaters, which have long been a bad deal for most people trying to lower their energy bills, are an even worse deal in Wisconsin this winter because of falling prices for natural gas.

But that doesn’t stop manufacturers of electric heaters from using newspaper and Internet ads — some of which feature home-repair guru Bob Vila and pictures of Amish craftsmen — to attract buyers by promising big savings.

Jack Brennan, 70, of Green Bay, bought two $350 EdenPURE electric heaters after seeing an ad that vowed to “cut your heating bill by up to 50 percent.” When his next bill came from Wisconsin Public Service, it was three times higher than normal.

“I almost died,” Brennan said. “A gal from (Wisconsin) Public Service called me and she said, ‘What are you doing? What did you buy?’ When I told her I bought two of those heaters, she said, ‘Well, you just answered the question.’ ”

Steve Kraus, media relations manager at Madison Gas and Electric, said ads promising big savings “are very deceptive,” but spokesmen from two major electric heater companies said they stand by their products.

“If you read the ad, we say ‘save up to 50 percent,’ ” said Michael Giorgio, general manager of Suarez Corp. Industries, parent company of EdenPURE, whose heaters are endorsed by Vila. “And really, we’re unique because we put so much copy in our promotions, because we believe in telling you all the features and benefits about how to use the heater in the ad. We’re a company that’s been in business for 40 years so if you don’t like it, we certainly will take it back and we’ll pay the shipping.”

Chris Pugh, multimedia communications specialist with Heat Surge, whose ads for electric fireplaces feature Amish-made wooden mantles, said in a statement that the heaters “when used in conjunction with zoned heating allows you to heat selectively and save money. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, zone heating can produce energy savings of more than 20 percent. In addition, the fireplaces use about 9 cents of electricity an hour on the standard setting. They come with a limited full-year replacement or money back warranty less shipping plus a 30-day satisfaction guarantee.”

Spokesmen from four Wisconsin utility companies and the state Focus on Energy program confirmed they often get inquires about electric heaters, with people thinking they are a way to save money.

No complaints related to the heaters have been filed with the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, according to spokesperson Donna Gilson.

The Better Business Bureau has received 281 complaints about Heat Surge LLC in the past three years. During that period, the BBB received 299 complaints about Suarez Corp. Industries. All complaints were either resolved or closed. The companies are based in Canton, Ohio.

Green Bay resident Jack Brennan says his overall home energy bills went up, not down, after he purchased electric heaters. GREEN BAY PRESS GAZETTE/H. MARC LARSON

“Some people save a great deal of money and some people don’t save a great deal of money, depending on what their heat source is,” Suarez’s Giorgio said. “If you’re an all-electric house … you’ll save on your electricity.”

Wisconsin utility officials estimate around 10 percent of residents, most of them apartment dwellers, use electricity as their sole heating source.

“Beware what is being promised,” cautioned Brian Manthey, spokesperson for We Energies. “If you think you’re going to heat your whole house with these things and save money, that’s highly unlikely.”

People who use a space heater and turn down their thermostat will likely see savings on their natural gas bill, but their electric bill could skyrocket.

And this winter, natural gas prices are down, meaning the potential for savings goes down for most residents, too. Kraus said that statewide, natural gas prices are expected to drop 15 to 20 percent compared to last year, while electricity prices are expected to increase by about 4 or 5 percent.

Jonathan Beers, residential services manager at Madison Gas and Electric, said electric heat is nearly three times as expensive as a high efficiency natural gas furnace.

“For most people, the only way you really could save what the ads claim is to let your house go cold for most of the winter and just carry your heater everywhere you go,” Beers said.

Consumer Reports has reported that to save 50 percent by using a space heater, residents would have to lower their thermostats by about 17 degrees.

Kraus said zone heating — keeping the majority of your house cold and using a space heater in a small, closed-off area — is the only way to save money with electric heaters, which is exactly what the manufacturers recommend. Kraus added that he turns on a space heater in one room of his home in the morning while leaving the rest of his house under 60 degrees.

William Acker, a Green Bay energy efficiency engineer and former president of the Wisconsin chapter of the Association of Energy Engineers, said his late father bought one heater and saw his electricity consumption increase 85 percent.

“What got me the most about this electric heater is it’s preying on our elderly people,” Acker said. “When they read ‘50 percent savings,’ they immediately believe it. My dad did.”

Beers said the expensive heaters that Brennan and Acker’s father bought produce no more heat than a $30 space heater you can find at any hardware store.

“If it sounds too good to be true, it is,” Beers said. “A space heater is a space heater is a space heater. If you’re going to use one, do it safely, and don’t expect it to do miracles for your bill.”

The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with its partners — Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and the UW-Madison School of Journalism & Mass Communication — and other news media.

To learn more

Information about zone heating

Information about electric heaters

To file a complaint

Complaints regarding any product in Wisconsin may be filed with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection by calling  800-422-7128 or filing an online complaint.

Have a story idea?

This story was written in response to a tip from a reader. To submit a tip, visit www.WisconsinWatch.org and click, “Send A Tip,” or call 608-262-3642.