Current Events in April 2006

Macy's is launching a new line of Martha Stewart-branded home furnishings, called Martha Stewart Collection. It's an attempt to move upscale from the problem-plagued Martha Stewart Everday line carried by Kmart.

The new line, set for launch in the fall of 2007, will include bed and bath furnishings, casual dinnerware, flatware, glassware, cookware, garden furniture and holiday decorations.

Kmart consumers have been up in arms for years over problems with the Everyday line, most notably glass-topped patio tables that have a bad habit of shattering without warning.

At least one class action lawsuit has been filed charging that Martha Stewart's company knew of the problem but failed to warn consumers.

"The glass to my Martha Stewart Bar Harbor Patio Collection shattered for no reason last night. The glass which I thought was supposed to be safety glass is in a millon pieces all over my deck," said Leslie of Beachwood, NJ.

Others have complained about rust and excessive wear and tear.

"I bought the Victorian Dining Set with table and umbrella and 5 chairs as well as the love seat and 2 rockers and the chaise lounge. They are peeling after only two summers out and the cushions and umbrella are very faded and ripping and worst of all I cannot find replacement cushions anywhere," Marganne of Klamath Falls, OR, complained.

Macy's, a unit of Federated Department Stores, has had problems competing against discounters like Target and home-furnishings superstores like Bed, Bad & Beyond. Having its own "exclusive" brands is supposed to help Macy's differentiate itself.

This doesn't mean Martha is walking out on Kmart. Her Everyday line will continue to line Kmart's aisles through at least 2009, when the current contract expires.

The new Collection line is being called "affordable luxury" while the Everyday collection is being positioned as, well, less upscale. In other words, cheaper.

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. already has an agreement to sell housewares and other home products under the Martha Stewart Everyday brand exclusively through Kmart, a division of Sears Holdings Corp.

"This line not only covers the fundamental parts of our home-furnishings business, it also allows us to expand our seasonal and holiday offerings," said Janet Grove, a Federated vice chairwoman and head of Macy's Merchandising Group.

Federated last year acquired the rival May Department Stores Co., creating an 850-store national chain.

Martha Stewart's Martha Stewart Living Inc. said it sought to expand its reach beyond Kmart after research found that some 30 million women go to a store specifically because it carries Martha Stewart products.

"With all the new Macy's stores, virtually all our markets will be covered," said Susan Lyne, president and CEO of Martha Stewart Living.

Major supermarket chains are turning up their noses at case-ready meat and ground beef treated with carbon monoxide. The use of carbon monoxide imparts a bright red color on the meat's surface, which can hide the browning of meat normally associated with spoilage and temperature abuse.

Major national supermarket chains, including Wal-Mart, Kroger, Publix, Stop & Shop, A&P, Wegmans and Whole Foods are not selling carbon monoxide-treated meat to consumers, and some have cited potential consumer deception as a reason for their decision.

"Publix does not use carbon monoxide to disguise the color of our meat," company spokeswoman Barbara Reid told the Atlanta Constitution-Journal. "Ethically, we disagree with it."

Because the use of CO could be viewed as deceptive, Kroger executive Lynn Marmer said the company does not sell CO-treated meat.

In a letter urging the Food and Drug Administration to rescind its approval of CO-treated meat, the Consumer Federation of America and Safe Tables Our Priority, a national, non-profit, volunteer, health organization, said carbon monoxide "hides the visual clues that consumers utilize on a regular basis to determine the safety and freshness of their meat," adding that "consumers are unable to determine if the meat they are purchasing for their families is truly fresh."

"Supermarkets across the country are listening to consumer concerns about meat packaged with carbon monoxide," said Chris Waldrop, Deputy Director of the Food Policy Institute at CFA. "We applaud their decision to keep this deceptive practice out of their stores."

Chicago recently became the first municipality in the United States seeking to protect consumers by banning the use of carbon monoxide on fresh meat.

Mark Klein of Cargill Meat Solutions, the company that sells much of the carbon monoxide-treated meat in the United States, was quizzed at a Chicago City Council hearing about the consumer's right to know whether meat is treated with carbon monoxide.

A transcript of the March 23 hearing revealed this exchange:

ALDERMAN HAIRSTON: My question to you -- I want you to answer the question that I asked you previously. In other words, the consumer doesn't have a right to know?

MR. KLEIN: I don't think they really would, you know, care to know.

The practice is already banned in the European Union.

Let's face it: Getting older is no picnic. There are the aches and pains, wrinkles, gray (or no) hair and -- in some cases - the absence of the energy upon which we all came to depend.

For these and other reasons, helping those of us getting older cope with it has become big business. In its May Issue, Consumer Reports takes a look at the various products being hawked in hopes of keeping us from becoming too despondent every time we pass a mirror.

Handling hair loss

Among the most ubiquitous are the "baldness cures." These snake-oil treatments have been around forever, and the empty promises continue to this day. A new survey by the CR National Research Center found that while late-night TV and pharmacy shelves are filled with products touted to restore hair, most of the tactics tried by thousands of balding men and women simply don't work very well. The product that worked for the most people was the prescription drug Propecia (finasteride), which was found very effective by 27 percent of men.

The Consumer Reports Health Baldness Remedies survey is one of three reports on the market for anti-aging products that promise to turn back the clock. It looked at do-it-yourself hair dyes, over-the-counter anti-wrinkle serums, and baldness treatments.

"The market for baldness remedies plays to a particularly vulnerable segment of society," said Tod Marks, the magazine's senior editor. "It's a deeply personal, devastating issue to many who desperately want to believe that there's a panacea out there. Sadly, there is no magic bullet. At the end of the day, the best remedy may actually be acceptance.

Marks says those who were surveyed said masking hair loss is one of the more effective options. But they also pointed out actual benefits of being bald: you won't get hat head; you won't waste time grooming your hair; and you'll save lots of money on shampoo, conditioner, gels, mouse, hair dryers, and other hair care products."

Of those who sought treatment for hair loss, 65 percent said they had nothing to lose from trying. CR Health notes that there are plenty of downsides to several remedies:

• Finasteride, available as Propecia and as a generic, worked for some. Patients should commit to it for at least three months and any gains it may have will be lost once the patient stops taking it. While side effects are infrequent, they can include depression and impotence. It can be used by men only.

• Minoxodil, sold under the brand name Rogaine or generically, works best on patients whose hair loss is recent. Those who were asked said it was largely ineffective. As is the case with finasteride, any benefits are lost when you stop taking it. Side effects include dry, itchy, or irritated scalp and increased facial hair. Women can use Rogaine in the two percent strength if they're willing to live with the possibility of facial hair. Men can use two or five percent solutions.

• Surgery, which typically involves a basic transplant of hair from the back of the head to the top or front of the head, costs on average $5 for each graft. The average transplant can take 2,000 grafts, bringing the total cost to approximately $10,000. In many cases, the procedure must be repeated, doubling the cost. Not everyone is a successful candidate and there's a possibility of infection, a long recovery period, scarring, or patchy hair growth. And finding a skilled surgeon can be a challenge.

The health survey found that women were especially bothered by hair loss. Fifty-five percent of women who had hair loss, compared with 24 percent of men surveyed, said they worried a lot about losing more hair in the future. Women who had lost hair were more likely than men to pay attention to other people's hair or lack of it, stare in the mirror, and feel self-conscious about their appearance.

The survey found that masking baldness might very well be the ideal option. Sixty-five percent said that they found wearing a wig or toupee was very or somewhat effective, while 46 percent of men liked shaving their head, and 46 percent said that simply dressing better was an effective technique at hiding hair loss.

Most men and some women blamed genetic makeup or age; other women said their hair loss was due to a health condition (such as thyroid disease) or stress. Those whose hair loss was related to chronic illness or chemotherapy were excluded.

Speaking of genetic caused of baldness, it's been pretty well established that these things do run in families .

Covering up the grays

If you still have your hair but are looking to cover grays, a new test of home hair dyes found that Clairol Textures and Tones, L'Oreal Paris Superior Preference, Clairol Natural Instincts, and Clairol Natural Instincts For Men work best.

Consumer Reports Health tested 13 home hair dyes consumers would use to dye gray hairs brown and rated them on how well they covered grays, how easy they were to use, and whether the color was blotchy or streaky.

The top products scored high marks across the board when tested on tresses of gray hair. The results show that for less than $13 -- well below salon prices -- consumers can easily and effectively cover their grays.

"More than ever, consumers are searching for ways to look and feel their best without breaking the bank, so we were pleased to find there are high quality, low-cost options for covering grays," said CR Health associate editor Jamie Hirsh.

For maximum success with at-home hair coloring, the magazine advises first performing a spot test for allergic reactions, then testing the dye on a single piece of hair to determine how the color will turn out and how long to leave the dye in your hair. Refer to the more detailed color charts on the sides or back of the box rather than the picture on the front to see how a color will work with your hair.

And it's best to determine how much gray coverage you need before you select a product. Some products aren't made for hair that is more than 50 percent gray.

Although Revlon's products were not mentioned in the survey, a complaint received by ConsumerAffairs.com might prompt you to give extra consideration to whatever hair-coloring product you might use.

Lisa of Boise, ID, tells of an allergic reaction she had to Revlon Colorsilk hair color. "I broke out in a horrible rash along the base of my neck and ears swelled up twice their size and seeped clear fluid. I went to the doctor and was put on Predisone and got a cream. He said it was an allergic reaction and it had entered my blood stream."

Lisa says the problem returned after she finished the Predisone. "I got a rash then over my entire body, looking like chicken pox. The rash on the back of my neck is worse now than ever." She says when she contacted Revlon, the company expressed shock, claiming it had never heard of such a problem before.

Skin treatments

When it comes to your skin, the May issue of Consumer Reports found you might be better off spending money on sunscreen or moisturizer, than anti-wrinkle facial The magazine put nine face serums to the test and found only minor and inconsistent improvements among test subjects.

Almost all of the serums claimed to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles within six weeks or less, but the effectiveness of even the best products was limited and varied from subject to subject, CR found. Every serum tested produced a visual change in wrinkle length or depth for at least some test subjects, and did nothing for others. And when there were any wrinkle reductions, they were at best slight, and fell short of the miracles implied on the product labels.

"Consumers should focus on getting back to the basics like moisturizing and shielding skin from the sun," said Jamie Hirsh, CR Health associate editor. "Beyond that, if you want to try an over-the-counter anti-wrinkle product, realize that the results may be minimal if any. For more dramatic improvements, talk to a dermatologist about using a prescription retinoid like Renova, Retin-A, or their equivalent generics." Prescription retinoids, which contain a potent derivative of vitamin A, remain the only topical products proven in large, rigorous studies to reverse the collagen loss that causes wrinkles.

Two serums were rated as slightly more effective than the others: DermaSilk 5 Minute Face Lift ($40 per ounce) and Neutrogena Ageless Intensives Deep Wrinkle ($20 per oz). Interestingly, these two serums with the best results received fewer positive comments from the testers than the others.

The survey also found that the one serum with all-natural ingredients (no parabens or phthalates), Burt's Bees Naturally Ageless Intensive Repairing, was the least effective at reducing wrinkles, despite its steep price at $56 per ounce.

Testing included 79 people, 67 of them women, between the ages of 40 and 65. Testers used one serum on each side of their face for six weeks, longer than the time their manufacturers claim it takes for the products to visibly reduce wrinkles. Trained sensory panelists then analyzed high-resolution images of the testers' faces before using the serums, 20 minutes after the first applications, and after six weeks of use.

Serums, which were tested for the first time by Consumer Reports Health, are thinner and more fluid than creams and usually soak into the skin quickly. Those tested range from $20 to $65 and are available at drugstores, department stores, and specialty beauty stores such as Sephora or online.

It's important to remember that no matter what kind of anti-aging product you purchase, the chances of finding a fountain of youth in a jar are highly unlikely.

A new scam has victimized consumers in recent weeks. In each of the reported cases, the scammer has claimed to be the victim's family member, in some sort of trouble, and in immediate need of money.

"This scam plays on the fears and emotions of the victim by using the name of a loved one," said New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid. "As one victim said in her report, when you have a loved one in trouble, you will do whatever is asked of you as quickly as possible so you can help them. You don't think about the possibility that you could be the victim of a scam. This is one of the most egregious scams I have seen."

Two victims of the scam, a grandmother from Albuquerque and another from Los Alamos, lost $5,000 and $4,000, respectively. They both report receiving calls from a person who claimed to be their grandson.

In each case, the caller told his "grandmother" that he and some friends had been arrested for drinking and driving in Canada and were in need of money to post bail and for a plane ticket home. Both victims reported that the scammer called them, pleading to have money wired to a Canadian address. The victims did as they were told and wired money to the addresses they were given.

Later, the victims' suspicions were raised and called their real grandsons, only to discover that neither grandson had made a trip to Canada nor beene arrested. By the time the victims realized what had happened, they called the money transfer services only to be told the money had already been claimed in Canada.

Madrid urges consumers who receive calls like this to first get more information from the person calling.

"As desperate as the person calling may sound, remain calm and try to get as much information as possible. If the person calling claims to be a family member, ask them personal questions that only your family will know, such as your middle name or where he was born," said Madrid.

"Also, if you receive a call claiming to report an emergency involving a loved one, be extremely cautious. One mother from Los Lunas received such a call and wound up losing more than $1,000 to a scammer," said Madrid.

The Los Lunas mother received a call from a person claiming to be a dispatcher from the Arizona Highway Patrol who said her name was Kathy Richardson. "Kathy" asked the mother if she had a son by the name of Andy. "Kathy" said there had been a bad accident and that Andy was unconscious, had lost a lot of blood and needed to be airlifted to "Tucson Memorial Hospital."

"Kathy" also put a "Lieutenant Johnson" on the phone, who confirmed the accident. "Lt. Johnson" informed the mother that an 18-wheel truck had sideswiped Andy's car and that the driver of the truck was drunk.

"Kathy" told the mother that Andy's emergency contact information was found in his wallet and that he had insurance. "Kathy" then said insurance could not pay for the airlift, since it was a Saturday and the insurance company's office was closed. She informed the mother she would have to immediately wire $950 via Western Union to pay for the airlift.

"Kathy" said the insurance company would reimburse the $950, plus the cost of the wire transfer on Monday. "Kathy" told the mother she was to wire the money to a 2737 Gilmore Road in Westland, Michigan, because this was the quickest way to pay for the airlift.

An Internet search of 2737 Gilmore Road in Westland, Michigan by the Attorney General's Office returned no results.

The mother reported that "Kathy" kept repeating how much blood Andy had lost and how time-critical it was for the mother to wire the money. "Kathy" even gave the mother the address of the nearest Western Union outlet in Los Lunas.

Once the mother reached the Western Union office, "Kathy" called the mother's cell phone, which the mother had said to call. "Kathy" asked the code numbers for the wire transfer. Once the transaction was made, "Kathy" told the mother to stay off her phone and keep the line open so that a "Dr. Kim" from Tucson Memorial Hospital could update her on Andy's condition.

Extremely worried, the mother told her husband about the call, who then called another son and told him about the accident. The husband and son tried to look up the address of Tucson Memorial Hospital on the Internet, only to discover that there was no such facility. They tried contacting the Arizona Highway Department to ask about the accident, only to be told that there was no such report. The Arizona Highway Department also said they had no dispatcher named Kathy Richardson, nor a Lt. Johnson.

The mother called Western Union and asked about the status of the wire transfer, which totaled $1,028.00 ($950 plus a $78.00 wire transfer fee.) The money had been picked up at 3:54 that afternoon.

Attorney General Madrid said, "In an emergency situation, you will never be required to pay for emergency services before they are given. If a caller claims to be reporting an emergency, ask their name, title and what agency they are with. Do not call a number given to you by the caller, because they could be lying or have an accomplice waiting for a callback."

"Call information to confirm that the agency actually exists, then try contacting them yourself. Do not reveal your bank account numbers, credit card information or other personal information over the phone in response to an unsolicited call," Madrid advised. "As difficult as it may seem, when you get a call like this, you should remain calm and remain vigilant. The scammer expects you to panic and that's where the scam succeeds."

It's perfectly legal, since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lets food manufacturers claim zero grams of trans fat as long as the product has less than half a gram per serving. Eat a few servings of these and other ostensibly trans-free products each day and, without even knowing it, you might end up consuming considerably more trans fat than you should, according to CSPI.

The products tested by CSPI and their trans fat totals were:

"Food companies should be weaning themselves off of partially hydrogenated oil altogether, and not sneaking it into vegetable oil spreads advertised as trans-fat-free," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "In the meantime, consumers should seek out products that don't make use of this discredited ingredient, particularly if they're concerned about reducing their risk of heart disease."

All of the trans-free claims that CSPI analyzed would be illegal in Canada. Canada prohibits companies from making those claims on products that have more than 0.2 grams of trans fat. While 0.2 is still not zero, it would be more protective of consumers' hearts and arteries, according to CSPI.

The CSPI study provides the first publicly available information on just how much trans fat is present in foods that list 0g, but that contain partially hydrogenated oil. The amounts might have been as little as 0.01 or 0.05 grams, truly trivial amounts, but the foods analyzed contained much more.

The federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommends that Americans consume less than 1 percent of their calories from trans fat. For someone on a typical 2,000-calorie diet, that works out to about 2 grams of trans, or about as much as the average consumer would get from the trans fat that occurs naturally in milk and meat.

"Getting trans fat on Nutrition Facts labels was a major advance for consumers' health, but zero grams should really mean zero, or at least something a lot closer to zero," said Dr. Carlos A. Camargo, Associate Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Harvard Medical School, and member of the 2004 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. "These amounts of trans fat may seem small, but they can quickly add up to more than what people should consume in a day."

A $5 billion struggle over the safety of Teflon-coated cookware kicks off in a Des Moines courtroom later this month, as a team of lawyers representing more than 72 clients fires the opening shots in a complex class-action case that's likely to drag on for years.

The initial lawsuits were filed on behalf of 72 consumers from Florida, Massachusetts, California and elsewhere. The plaintiffs don't claim actual injury. Rather, they want the courts to order Teflon manufacturer DuPont to pay for the medical monitoring they say they need because of their exposure to Teflon cookware.

The suits also seek reimbursement for the purchase price of the cookware and punitive damages for DuPont's alleged failure to warn consumers of the supposed dangers posed by Teflon, which has been on the market since 1946.

The suits allege that DuPont withheld information about a chemical used to make Teflon. They allege that toxic gases are emitted when the pans are heated to 464 degrees or higher. Documents allege that the chemicals have been known to cause cancer in laboratory animals, and that fumes have killed pet birds kept in unventilated kitchens.

"The claim we're bringing is really a consumer class action related to the failure to warn," Alan Kluger, a Miami attorney expected to lead the battle against DuPont, told the Des Moines Register. "The basic concept is that when corporate America has information, the public has a right to know."

Kluger said the lawsuits could lead to "millions and millions of people getting hundreds of dollars, as opposed to tens of thousands of dollars."

In 2004, DuPont agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by about 50,000 people who lived near its West Virginia plant. The residents claimed the company contaminated local water supplies with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and alleged the chemical was linked to birth defects and other health hazards. DuPont paid $50 million to the residents and agreed to spend $10 million on special water treatment facilities.

However, DuPont did not accept liability and has since maintained that PFOA is not a danger to the public and that Teflon-coated cookware is safe.

Studies have found that PFOA is in the bloodstreams of nearly everyone in the U.S., and now a new study suggests the potential carcinogen is present in many people at birth. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medical Center say the chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA, was found in nearly every blood sample taken from umbilical cords. Of 300 cords tested, 298 tested positive for PFOA, according to the study.

The Environmental Protection Agency says DuPont has agreed to virtually eliminate any new emissions from its plants making the non-stick surface by 2010 because of growing concerns about PFOA in the environment.

Most medical researchers see the presence of PFOA in the environment as the primary potential health threat, not the presence of Teflon in cookware.

A number of major studios, including Warner Brothers, Fox, Universal, and Paramount, will be selling new movie releases through the Movielink Web site. Sony, in addition to participating in the Movielink project, is also partnering with Lions Gate Films to sell movies for download at CinemaNow.

Prices for the Movielink catalog start at $10 for classic movies, while ranging between $20 and $30 for new films. CinemaNow offers rentals for new films starting at $3.99, and older films for $2.99, while purchasing movies permanently will cost buyers between $9.95 and $19.95.

Film lovers are already howling at the prices, which are quite a bit more than the cost of purchasing a regular DVD both from stores and online retailers such as Amazon.com, particularly given that the downloaded films won't include any extras, such as deleted scenes or "Making of" features.

But the prices aren't the only concern. The movies from both offerings will have heavy Digital Rights Management (DRM) software embedded into them to prevent piracy.

The downloaded movies can't be copied to blank DVD's for future use, nor can they be transferred to portable devices such as the iPod. Films from Movielink and CinemaNow will only be playable on special DVD players or the computers they were downloaded to, due to the copy restrictions.

Movielink allows a copy of its downloads to be moved to two other PCs, and users can view them on their televisions if -- and only if -- they have a Windows Media Center PC that's hooked up to the TV set.

Not only that, but both Web sites require the usage of Windows XP and Internet Explorer to download and use the files, making them nearly inaccessible to Apple users, or fans of alternative Web browsers such as Firefox and Opera.

The high pricing and content restrictions were met with derision from observers after the April 3 announcement.

One commenter on the Engadget technology blog said "At $20 to $30 a pop, no copy capability and limitations from hell, this thing is DOA! That's until the hackers find the work around, publish it on the Web and the studios shut it down all together."

The Content Wars

The major movie studios have been targeting piracy with greater fervor in recent years, ever since the Motion Picture Association of America announced it would file lawsuits against people who download movies from file-sharing services in 2004.

It stood to reason that the motion picture industry would start offering downloadable movies for purchase from their own ventures as a reasonable alternative.

Movies have been available for rental via download from Movielink for several years, but the service didn't attract much attention, as its offerings were already available at video stores and for sale for months prior.

Movie studios have also been engaged in tense negotiations with Apple over pricing and rights for movies, particularly since the company has been pushing for its own subscription-based movie service to complement the movie-compatible video iPod it plans to launch later this year.

Where Apple CEO Steve Jobs has insisted on prices for movie downloads to be in range with the cost of downloading songs for the iTunes music player -- starting at 99 cents a pop -- the movie industry is considerably more enamored of a plan that enables them to make larger profits with minimal cost.

Many studio executives are even admitting openly that the Movielink and CinemaNow services are "trial balloons," testing consumer demand to see if they will support the price models for downloadable movie purchases.

Curt Marvis, CinemaNow's CEO, told the Los Angeles Times that the new plan was a "first step" for studios into the realm of digital downloads. Many movie companies are taking a "wait and see" approach to offering for-pay downloads that can be copied onto blank DVD's, especially with the brewing battle between the new Hi-Definition (HD) DVD and Blu-Ray DVD formats.

More cynical observers think that the MovieLink and CinemaNow offerings are so restrictive in order to scare consumers away from the idea of buying movies via download altogether.

Said one commenter at the Ars Technica Web site, "Maybe the industry is trying to gather "evidence" that online distribution doesn't work by launching services no customer in their right mind would use, then presenting the fact that no customers are using them as a lack of demand in general."

There's no question that movie studios, like recording labels, should have the right to earn profit off the sales of content they own. Movie lovers are also willing to accept content restrictions on their films, as long as they aren't damaging to their machines or excessively costly.

But when the Web sales model is not only inferior to other forms of content delivery, such as file-sharing, but costs as much or more than buying a physical DVD, one has to wonder if the movie studios involved with MovieLink and CinemaNow are setting themselves up for a deliberate fall.

Otherwise, if consumer distaste for the plans are any indication, downloadable movie sales from Movielink and CinemaNow will make the grosses for Sharon Stone's recent mega-flop "Basic Instinct 2" look like a box office blockbuster.

A story that never really goes away is DirecTV's odd habit of billing customers for "adult" movies they insist they did not order or watch. The latest outbreak of bogus bills occurred in Philadelphia, where it was exposed by WPVI-TV's consumer reporter, Nydia Han.

Han reported receiving complaints from more than a dozen consumers hit with collection notices. Oddly, many of the consumers were teachers at a charter school in Chester, a Philadelphia suburb. They compared notes and found they shared a similar experience.

Their complaints are similar to those ConsumerAffairs.com has received for years -- like Elaine of Jackson, Ga., who in 2001 was charged for almost $500 of pornographic movies. "They were charged for times we were not home, or watching regular tv news. I have researched several complaint sites and have found many customers with the same problem, always porn movies. We did not order these movies," Elaine insisted.

What's interesting about the Chester complaints is that only one of the teachers is a DirecTV subscriber. All the rest are being charged for watching adult movies without even having a DirecTV subscription.

It turns out that the Philadelphia address for some of the fraudulent accounts doesn't even exist. A former independent DirecTV dealer activated the account and apparently at least 10 other bogus contracts, Han reported. At Village Charter School, the initial bills were sent to addresses in Fayetteville, North Carolina. And the majority of the addresses Han checked there were also non-existent.

The consumers say Direct TV kept referring them back to the collection agencies, leaving them guessing how they got scammed and whether they're still vulnerable.

One theory is that rogue employees at some DirecTV subcontractors are setting up bogus accounts for the commission. Consumer advocates say DirecTV needs to secure its signup system.

"Their absolute responsibility is to go back and check all the orders from the area where the fraud occurred and confirm them," ConsumerAffairs.com president Jim Hood said in Han's broadcast report.

Presently, to open a new account, the customer must provide an address, phone number, social security number, and credit card number. The card doesn't have to be yours. DirecTV checks your credit report but apparently does not make sure the address on it matches the service and billing address.

DirecTV says it is "evaluating" new identity verification tools, Han reported. In the case of the Philadelphia consumers, DirecTV says it has removed the charges from its system and is trying to help the consumers repair their credit.

But the Philadelphia incidents are not isolated examples Nydia Han's report aired on WPVI-TV on March 23. The very next day, we heard from Kevin of Newark, Delaware, who had seen the WPVI-TV report.

"I'm a victim of a similar situation -- back in 2003 I purchased DirectTV and everything was fine til I got my second bill. I opened up the bill and the bill stated I owed $708. I immediately contacted customer service about this bill and they informed me that I was ordering pornography movies," said Kevin, who was later told he owed a total of $1,008. He is still trying to repair the damage to his credit.

Nor are they the latest examples. On April 1, we heard from Kelly of Thousand Oaks, California.

"We have been charged more than $500 for movies we did not order. ... I also got the same response from customer service: 'You must not know what is going on in your home.'"

A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.

Vegetarian populations tend to be slimmer than meat-eaters, and they experience lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other life-threatening conditions linked to overweight and obesity. The new review, compiling data from 87 previous studies, shows the weight-loss effect does not depend on exercise or calorie-counting, and it occurs at a rate of approximately 1 pound per week.

Rates of obesity in the general population are skyrocketing, while in vegetarians, obesity prevalence ranges from 0 percent to 6 percent, note study authors Susan E. Berkow, Ph.D., C.N.S., and Neal D. Barnard, M.D., of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

The authors found that the body weight of both male and female vegetarians is, on average, 3 percent to 20 percent lower than that of meat-eaters. Vegetarian and vegan diets have also been put to the test in clinical studies, as the review notes.

The best of these clinical studies isolated the effects of diet by keeping exercise constant. The researchers found that a low-fat vegan diet leads to weight loss of about 1 pound per week, even without additional exercise or limits on portion sizes, calories, or carbohydrates.

"Our research reveals that people can enjoy unlimited portions of high-fiber foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to achieve or maintain a healthy body weight without feeling hungry," said Dr. Berkow, the lead author.

"There is evidence that a vegan diet causes an increased calorie burn after meals, meaning plant-based foods are being used more efficiently as fuel for the body, as opposed to being stored as fat," said Dr. Barnard. Insulin sensitivity is increased by a vegan diet, allowing nutrients to more rapidly enter the cells of the body to be converted to heat rather than to fat.

A team of researchers led by Tim Key of Oxford University has found that meat-eaters who switched to a plant-based diet gained less weight over a period of five years. Papers reviewed by Drs. Berkow and Barnard include several published by Dr. Key and his colleagues, as well as a recent study of more than 55,000 Swedish women showing that meat-eaters are more likely to be overweight than vegetarians and vegans.

According to study estimates, a total of 283,305 children one to six years of age in the United States would have a difficult, if not impossible, time fitting safely and appropriately into a child safety seat because of their age and weight. The vast majority of these children are three years of age and weigh more than 40 lb (182,661 children). For these children, there are currently only four child safety seat types available, each of which costs between $240 and $270.

"While we await reductions in the childhood obesity epidemic, it is essential to develop child safety seats that can protect children of all shapes and sizes," said Lara Trifiletti, the lead researcher for the study.

"Motor vehicle crashes pose the single greatest risk to children, accounting for 23% of injury deaths among infants and 30% among preschool-aged children. Options for maximizing the protection of obese children in automobiles must be identified," she said.

The types of appropriate child safety seats were assessed by using National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2005 Child Safety Seat Ease of Use Ratings. Estimates of the numbers of children weighing above the maximal weight for those child safety seats were calculated by using the tabulations of growth curves based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999 to 2000 data that were assembled by the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census for the year 2000.

Obesity is generally considered a health problem with long-term consequences. However, there is an immediate need for child safety seats that have been designed, tested and approved for use at higher weights.

"Debate regarding what to do to reduce and to prevent childhood obesity is just beginning," Trifiletti said. "We do know, however, that childhood obesity is increasing, and we can expect even more children to face the prospect of limited child safety seats available to protect them."

The research was supported by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Healths Center for Injury Research and Policy in Baltimore and conducted in collaboration with its researchers.