Current Events in October 2007

The message to Congress from the food industry is clear, if perhaps surprising regulation is not a dirty word.

In fact, many food company executives say the government needs to exert more influence to protect the nations food supply, at least when it comes to imports.

U.S. food import safety officials and the food industry appear to be on the same page, proposing to ramp up federal regulation of imported food and ingredients to address the risk that unsafe products could enter the United States.

U.S. agencies charged with overseeing food import safety are expected to forward to President Bush in November recommended actions that food producers, distributors, importers and regulators should take to strengthen food safety.

The recommendations will focus on developing more scientific and analytic tools to allow better identification of potential risks, to monitor the effectiveness of prevention measures and to increase use of information technology for inspection and surveillance.

The recommendations also will aim to reduce the time between detecting and containing a food-borne illness, David Acheson, assistant commissioner for food protection at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), told a House Appropriations subcommittee in September.

Grocers respond

The food industry's largest trade group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), has unveiled its own proposal for more regulation.

It reflects awareness among industry leaders that U.S. companies, as imports rise, face increasing challenges to ensure the quality and safety of food sold to U.S. consumers.

The GMA proposal would require all U.S. food importers to adopt a foreign supplier quality assurance program and verify that imported products meet FDA food safety requirements.

GMA President Cal Dooley said industry wants to work with government to strengthen and modernize the U.S. system of regulating the safety of food imports. Working in partnership with government, "industry can apply its vast knowledge and practical experience along the entire supply chain to prevent problems before they arise," he said.

Thats an Ohio pet owners reaction to a ConsumerAffairs.com story that revealed what a forensic toxicologist called elevated levels of lead, chromium, and cadmium in two Chinese-made pet toys sold at Wal-Mart.

A couple of weeks ago, I bought one of those toys for my two dogs, pet owner Karen N. told us. Now Im really afraid because (the forensic toxicologist) in the article said the toy could shorten my dogs lives. This makes me sick.

Our story also convinced the Middlefield, Ohio, woman that:

• National standards are needed for safe and acceptable levels of lead and other heavy metals in toys for dogs and cats. Many in the pet industry have called for such standards in the wake of our report;

• The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or some other governmental body should regulate pet toys. Currently, no federal agency regulates these products even though adults and young children handle them;

• Pet product manufacturers should make dog and cat toys that only have ingredients from the United States. I had no idea that China made just about every pet toy thats in this country . . . I cant find any dog toys that China doesnt make.

• Pet owners should discuss this issue with their veterinarians and with their children's pediatricians.

In September, ConsumerAffairs.com hired ExperTox Analytical Laboratory to analyze four Chinese-made pet toys we bought at Wal-Mart -- two for dogs and two for cats -- for heavy metals and other toxins.

High levels of lead

One of the dog toys -- a latex one that looks like a green monster -- tested positive for what ExperToxs Forensic Toxicologist and Director, Dr. Ernest Lykissa, Ph.D., called high levels of lead and the cancer producing agent chromium.

Specifically, the lab reported the green monster toy contained 907.4 micrograms per kilogram of lead.

Thats almost one part per million, Dr. Lykissa told us. With that kind of concentration, if a dog is chewing on it or licking it, hes getting a good source of lead.

The green monster toy also had what Dr. Lykissa considered elevated levels of the cancer-producing agent chromium -- 334.9 micrograms per kilogram.

With that kind of chromium in there you have what can be an extremely toxic toy if they (animals) put it in their mouths. And dogs put things in their mouths. If a dog puts this in his mouth, he runs a big chance of getting some type of metal toxicity that may shorten his life.

The Texas-based laboratory also found other toxic metals in the green monster toy.

Theres cadmium, arsenic, and mercury in there, Dr. Lykissa said. This is not a clean toy. This is toxic. Bank on it.

ExperTox also detected worrisome levels of cadmium in a cloth catnip toy 236 micrograms per kilogram.

Thats a big number, Lykissa said. Its a good dose of cadmium.

Veterinarians disagree

But two veterinary toxicologists who reviewed ExperToxs results said the levels of toxic metals in the toys did not pose a health risk to dogs or cats.

Wal-Mart is also adamant that the chew toys are safe. Whether the toys pose a hazard to children and adults who handle them remains unclear.

The state of Illinois this week reached a settlement with a lunch bag distributor, who agreed to stop selling and distributing lunch bags containing amounts of lead in excess of the limits in Illinois law.

It is crucial that children's products containing any amount of lead be taken off the shelves and out of the hands of young children, Attorney General Lisa Madigan said.

ExperTox also analyzed two other Chinese-made pet toys a cloth hedgehog for dogs and a plastic dumbbell toy for cats. The lab detected cadmium in those toys, but said the levels were about the amount youd find in one cigarette and not considered significant.

I had just brought the toys in the house, gave them to my dogs, and then went on my computer and read a consumer alert from your Web site, Karen told us on Monday. And there was that green monster toy.

I couldnt believe it had lead in it. My dogs had already started playing with.

Whats even more concerning, Karen said, is this is the second time this year that shes purchased the green monster toys for her dogs. The Schnauzers chewed on the toys for days, she said, and eventually tore the squeakers out of them.

Long-term effects

Karen is now worried about lead building up her dogs bodies and the long-term effects that could have on their health.

I wish to God (your forensic toxicologist, Dr. Lykissa) was wrong about all this because if hes not my dogs will inevitably suffer, which will cause me to suffer deeply in the long run.

Karen said her dogs -- who are 10 months and 4 1/2 years old -- are in good health and have not shown any signs of illness from playing with the green monster toys.

But after reading our story, she immediately took the imported chew toys away from her dogs and returned them to Wal-Mart.

The customer service lady said oh, this is one of the recalled toys. But these toys are still on the shelf. Like I said, I just bought them a couple weeks ago.

Still being sold?

ConsumerAffairs.com purchased the four Chinese-made pet toys at a Wal-Mart in Kansas City, Missouri. We checked the store last week and found a green monster toy that looked identical to the one we tested except it wasnt in a plastic bag like the one we purchased and the UPC number was one digit off.

We also couldnt find the catnip toys on the stores shelves.

Wal-Mart, however, never indicated it planned to remove the toys from its stores. Instead, the companys hired public relations person, who did not cite any scientific credentials, attacked ExperTox and said Dr. Lykissa severely misinterpreted the results.

After reviewing these test results provided to usthe results of these tests actually prove the products are VERY safe, Melissa OBrien, who identified herself as representing Wal-Marts corporate communication, wrote us in an e-mail. Other news organizations said O'Brien told them she worked for a public relations firm called Edelman.

If these measurements are in fact the results, as you have reported, they have been severely misinterpreted by the director of ExperToxs lab, if he is reporting these levels to be high or dangerous.

OBrien pointed out that CPSC has a limit of 600 parts per million for the total lead in surface coating.

By comparison, the highest concentration of lead found in any of the ExperTox tests is a very low 907.4 parts per million -- more than 600 times less than the CPSC limit for surface coatings.

The conclusions drawn in this article appear to have been based on incorrect interpretations of the data, and based on the opinions of a person (who is) not an expert in consumer product testing, OBrien said.

Hatchet job

"The only conclusions drawn in our articles have been that experts disagree and that safety standards are needed to protect pets and the humans who come in contact with them and their toys," said ConsumerAffairs.com President and Editor in Chief James R. Hood. "Everyone agrees with that -- except Wal-Mart, which has contributed absolutely nothing to this dialogue."

"Edelman practices the slash-and-burn tactics now common in politics -- tactics that are totally inappropriate in the public health field," Hood said. "Wal-Mart's customers deserve better."

ConsumerAffairs.com also interviewed two veterinary toxicologists, who said the levels of lead, chromium, and cadmium in the green monster and catnip toys did not pose a health risk to pets, though they did not cite any long-term studies to back up their opinions.

I dont see any of those numbers being a toxicity concern for dogs or cats, Dr. Mike Murphy of the University of Minnesotas College of Veterinary Medicine told us. Latex paint can contain one-half to one percent of lead, which is 10,000 parts per million. What he (Dr. Lykissa) is saying is that one part per million is a risk. But latex paint is 10,000 times higher than that and we dont recognize latex paint as a toxicity risk to dogs and cats.

I disagree with the interpretation thats being made (by Lykissa), added Dr. Murphy, who holds a Ph.D. in toxicology. I consider these to be extremely low numbers and they are not a toxicological concern for pet owners.

Dr. Fred Oehme at Kansas State Universitys College of Veterinary Medicine said the risks to dogs and cats from these toys depends on how much of the heavy metals are absorbed in their bodies.

Could they be harmful? The poisoning depends on how much is taken into their systems. Most animals require 30 parts per million of their total daily diet before you get into a problem with lead. Cadmium is more than that.

Im more concerned about the lead than the other two (heavy metals), he added. Lead accumulates and if it gets into the body, it builds up.

Not swayed

ExperTox, however, isnt swayed by its critics. It stands by its findings and calls them rock solid. Lab Manager Donna Coneley also said Dr. Lykissa is an expert at testing consumer products.

ExperTox, she said, has the most advanced and sensitive equipment for conducting heavy metal tests specifically its ICP-MS or Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry.

Thats the machine ExperTox used to test the four pet toys we purchased at Wal-Mart.

These (toxic) materials came off the toys freely, like with the lick of the tongue from a dog or cat, Dr. Lykissa told us. They were readily liberated from these toys. We didnt take a sledge hammer and pound on them. I just did what a dog or cat would do by licking it. Thats why this is so serious.

Toxicologists at the lab cut off a small piece from each of the toys, weighed the samples, and put them in acidic water.

We left the samples for a while and then heated them up to body temperature, Dr. Lykissa said. Then we put them in (theICP-MS) and that machine told us this is lead and this is chromium . . .

We didnt dissolve the toys, he added. These materials were leeching off the toys. Whatever leeched off the toys is what Im reporting to you. The material came right off. Somebodys saliva or the sweat in their hands would freely pick up these materials. And thats absorbing it. If you ate the materials, like a dog might, it would be worse.

Expertox, however, doesnt look at CPSC limits during its testing procedures, Coneley said.

We simply pour out our results as we receive them. We dont look at the limits on products.

But in our opinion, that level of lead (907.4 micrograms per kilogram) is considered elevated and there are other choices (for pet owners), Coneley said. If someone wants to give a dog a toy with those levels (of lead) thats their choice and Im not going to argue with that. My choice would be to go with a more natural treat. I would not go with one that had elevated levels of chromium, lead, or cadmium.

"Solid results"

Pet owners, she said, can trust the labs test results -- and the science behind them.

These are actual, valid numbers. Whether or not theyre toxic to a dog (or cat) is left to interpretation. All we can do is give our opinion and cooperate with the Food and Drug Administration or other governmental agency, which weve done many time.

This isnt the first time in recent weeks that test results on heavy metals in pet toys -- and the interpretation of those findings -- have pitted Dr. Lykissa against veterinary toxicologists and others in the pet industry.

In late August, an Illinois pet owner -- worried about the safety of the chew toys her Shelties played with -- hired the laboratory at the Illinois Department of Agriculture to test 24 Chinese-made dog toys for lead.

The only reason I tested these dog toys is because I have lost three Shelties in the last four years and I can only figure out why one of them died, said Nancy R. of Orland Park, Illinois.

She contacted us after reading our story about ExperToxs results on the imported Wal-Mart chew toys.

Then my 83-year-old mom noticed that my dogs toys were all made in China, Nancy said. I went to Petco and PetSmart and couldnt find any toys not made in China -- except one rope knot that was made in Mexico. I was doing this personally for the safety of my dogs and only tested for lead because thats what theyre finding in the toys from China.

The Illinois Department of Agricultures lab reported that the lead levels in all 24 dog toys Nancy tested fell within that states acceptable limits for lead paint in childrens toys.

The levels also fell far below the amount of lead paint in childrens toys thats allowed by federal law 600 parts per million.

The lab found the highest levels of lead in a PetSmart tennis ball -- 335.7 parts per million. It detected the lowest levels of lead in a Hartz Rubber Percival Platypus 0.02 parts per million.

These are all within the acceptable limits for lead content in childrens toys in Illinois, the labs director, Dr. Gene Niles, told us. The veterinarian is a Diplomate of the American Board of Veterinary Toxicology (DABVT).

There are no levels for lead content in pet toys. Are these numbers high or low? All I can tell you is that in Illinois, the state allows up to 600 parts per million for lead in kids toys and these are all within that guideline.

But the lead levels in PetSmarts tennis ball are 335 times higher than the amount of lead ExperTox found in the green monster toy.

Both safe ... or both dangerous?

Does that mean both toys are safe because the lead levels are far below 600 parts per million?

Or does it mean they both pose a health risk to pets and the children who play with them?

The answer depends on which scientists -- or public relations person -- you talk to about the findings.

PetSmart said its tennis balls are safe for dogs and the levels of lead do not pose any health risks.

To our knowledge, we are not selling any products that have compounds that have tested above levels of toxicity established by the various entities named above and are not posing any health threat to pets or humans, said Bruce Richardson, PetSmarts director of external communication.

Richardson said his company routinely tests its dog and cat toys for lead and other toxins.

The products we sell must meet a variety of safety and quality standards and protocols, he said. These are based on federal regulations and standardsas well as commonly accepted standards established by highly respected institutions such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

In addition, we have established our own stringent standards of quality and safety for areas not necessarily covered by those groups named above.

Richardson took exception with our comparison of the lead levels in the companys tennis ball to those found in the green monster toy.

He said its not fair to use ExperToxs benchmark of one part per million as a safety measure for lead or other toxins in pet toys.

The terms high and elevated are relative terms and must be used carefully and given proper context to avoid confusion and alarm, Richardson said. Its not fair to pit a (forensic) toxicologist against a veterinary toxicologist on this issue. I dont think he (Dr. Lykissa) has a leg to stand on. Hes not a veterinary toxicologist and has no point of reference when he talks about elevated levels. Elevated against what? I dont think his results bring any value to this discussion. And his comments will not change anything were doing.

ExperTox disagreed.

The labs manager said the levels of lead in PetSmarts tennis ball are elevated and ExperTox does not consider them safe.

Those are a lot higher levels than what we found in the green monster toys, and I dont see how 600 parts per million is acceptable, said the labs Donna Coneley. We dont agree that (335.7 parts per million of lead) is a safe level.

Would Coneley let her dog chew on a toy with those levels of lead?

Not from what I see here at the lab, she said. We have differing opinions on what is safe and acceptable.

Coneley also questioned the validity of using the same acceptable levels for lead and other toxins in pet toys that are used in childrens toys.

Weight matters

Weight is always a factor, she said. If youre dealing with a teacup-size dog you cant assume that whats safe for a 20-pound child is safe for a three- to ten-pound dog. Cats are light as well. Their little bodies are not able to spread out the toxins. Animals also tend to chew things off more aggressively than kids.

Everyone seems to concentrate on humans with this type of testing, but maybe more scrutiny is needed on what limits are safe for pets.

Thats the one point where nearly everyone involved in this debate is on the same page.

There clearly is an absence of regulations for pet toys, Richardson said. Maybe the guidelines ... the levels ... for human standards are not so good based on the exposure for dog (or cats). Thats a huge question that needs to be addressed.

PetSmart, he said, would not object to having national acceptable standards and levels for lead and other toxins in pet toys.

The president of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) told us his members -- who represent more than 900 pet product makers, importers, and livestock suppliers worldwide -- would welcome such standards.

Theyre looking for a benchmark that everyone can follow, said Bob Vetere, president of the non-profit organization. Maybe what we need is to have everyone sit down at a table and talk about what makes sense.

Its not going to be easy to find an answer, but its a process that has to start. The CPSC is certainly somebody that needs to be sitting at that table, and wed (APPMA) certainly be willing to work with them and help them on this issue, he said.

The CPSC, however, said its agency currently has no regulatory control over pet products. We only have jurisdiction over a pet-related product (that is not food), if evidence is presented that the product has put the safety of consumers at risk, said spokesman Scott Wolfson. He did not address the potential danger to children and adults exposed to the pet toys.

Dr. Niles with the Illinois Department of Agriculture joined those who favor national acceptable levels for lead and other toxins in pet toys.

We have to use human data now in the absence of pet data, he said. Work needs to be done to get standardized levels for pets. But you have to have the data. And Im fully in favor of scientific data to support those guidelines. Once we get those guidelines, we can interpret this data in relationship to animals instead of humans.

National standards

Remember worried pet owner Karen from Ohio?

She also supports the adoption of national standards for lead and other toxins in pet toys.

Dogs are living beings, she said. Theyre our companions. It shouldnt just be this attitude that oh, its a dog so we dont need any standards.

There absolutely should be standardized levels (of toxins) for pet toys.

Karen also favors federal regulation of pet toys. And I definitely think the CPSC should take that over. We all know that babies and toddlers put things in their mouths ... they could easily put these pet toys in their mouths.

Until that happens, Vetere said members of the APPMA will triple-checking their products to be sure theyre tested for lead and other toxins.

That action, he said, is the result of our story about ExperToxs findings on Wal-Marts pet toys.

Everyone (in this industry) is well aware of your story, Vetere told us. And the reaction from virtually everyone Ive talked to about the story is: Wait a minute. We didnt know about this. Hello, whats going on? And theyve called their vendors and suppliers to be sure theyre testing the products.

Its good that you got this out there so they (our members) could know, and they are pushing very hard on their vendors now to get those test results. If nothing else, everyone is now aware of this in the industry.

Made in China

Meanwhile, Karen and other dog owners told us theyll no longer buy pet toys made in China. But that might not be easy to do.

I cant find any pet toys that arent made in China, Karen said, adding she wished some company in the USA would start making toys for dogs and cats. Ive done my research and most of the pet toys are made in China. Ive also written to different pet companies and theyve told me that basically everything made in China.

Pet owner Nancy from Illinois ran into the same problems during her search for USA-made dog toys.

I was going to dump out all my old toys and buy only ones made in the USA, she said. But I couldnt find any that werent made in China. What amazes me is that all these toys are made in China.

Karen also told us shes going to discuss ExperToxs findings with her veterinarian.

And Im hoping that the veterinarians you talked to are right and that theres no harm giving these toys to my dogs.

Whether pet owners agree or disagree with ExperToxs findings, the labs manager said this debate has given them the tools to make more informed decisions about the products they give their dogs and cats.

Thats what this is all about, giving people more information that I feel will help them make a better choice. If a vet says he think our results are extremely low numbers than people can take that information and balance it against what Dr. Lykissa said to make a better decision.

This has opened a Pandoras Box and its good that people are now talking about this.

The Wall Street Journal hasn't pronounced Wal-Mart dead and gone but its lead story today declares the "Wal-Mart Era" is over.

The ever-expanding chain of drab big-box stores emerged from its dusty down-home beginnings in Arkansas in the 1970s, teaching Americans to demand ever-lower prices and instructing companies to shave their margins to the bone.

But today, the Journal reports, Wal-Mart's influence is slipping as the Internet and smaller, hipper rivals take ever bigger bites out of its market share.

A big part of the giant retailer's problem, as the Journal sees it, is that it has become politically incorrect -- paying rock-bottom wages and offering its workers the slimmest of benefits while offering down-market products at prices that no longer seem very attractive.

As in every market sector, the Internet has played a major role in eroding Wal-Mart's dominance. Consumers can now find a wider selection of products at competitive prices online, and they can do so without driving miles out of their way and fighting the crowds and check-out lines at Wal-Mart.

Customer service

The lack of satisfactory customer service is the theme that runs through most complaints filed with ConsumerAffairs.com by Wal-Mart customers.

When Amber of Lewisburg, Ky., and her husband went to Wal-Mart to buy a futon for their daughter, they found the item they wanted, marked at $99.96 but the box was so heavy they could hardly lift it.

"When we asked one of the store employees for assitance in lifting the extremely heavy box, we were greeted with blank faces," she said. "I was told to go to the lay-a-way deptartment and ask someone there."

It took 45 minutes for someone to help them move the box to the check-out counter, but then: "We got it to the counter and (SURPRISE) the item was priced incorrectly. The actual price was $199.96! When I complained, the cashier became very aggravated and said she wasn't going to sell me the futon for $99.96 just because I told her that was the price!"

"I even went back to the housewares dept., got the tag, and brought it back to her. Her response was 'Sorry, I don't price things. I have to charge you what it rings up as,'" Amber complained.

Amber, who said she is a long-time Wal-Mart customer, saw the incident as typical of the change in Wal-Mart's "customer first" policy.

"If I remember correctly, Wal-Mart used to have a rule where if a customer was charged more than $3.00 than the marked price of an item, they got the item for the lower price. Apparently, Wal-Mart tends to forget their own policies and only enforces the ones which make them money!" she said.

Forgetting its roots?

While Wal-Mart's attempts to penetrate urban areas have had medicore results, many of its traditional customers say it has also forgotten its roots. The company's plan to eliminate layaway purchases is often cited as an example.

"I am throughly disgusted at their lack of care and concern for the people that made them rich. It is the ultimate betrayal!" said LaDonna of Garland, Texas.

"Wal-Mart is a terrible place, and I spend thousands -- like about 8 of them -- a year there, but no longer! All of my Christmas will be done online this year!" she vowed.

Hit the wall

Wal-Mart's supercenter recipe no longer produces the growth it needs to sustain itself and its attempts to attract and retain more affluent consumers have fallen flat, Love Goel, chairman of a private equityu firm that invests in retail businesses, told the Journal.

"They have hit the wall," Goel said.

The other luxury cars include the freshened BMW 535i, "Very Good" overall; the gasoline/electric hybrid Lexus GS 450h, "Very Good"; and the redesigned Volvo S80, "Very Good". Prices for the group range from $45,305 for the Volvo to $60,172 for the Lexus.

The diesel-powered E320 delivered excellent fuel economy, 29 mpg overall in CR's own fuel economy tests -- comparable to that of a small sedan such as the Toyota Corolla. Fuel economy for the other vehicles in the group ranged from a high of 23 mpg for the GS 450h to a low of 19 for the M35.

Consumer Reports tested the rear-wheel-drive M35 as an update to the all-wheel-drive M35X that was previously tested; the M35X was CR's 2007 Top Pick in the luxury car category. The previously-tested M35X garnered an overall score of 97 points, while the newly-tested M35 was close behind, with an overall score of 95 points.

The magazines November issue also includes tests and ratings of two $70,000-plus ultra-luxury sedans: the $76,572 Lexus LS 460L and the $90,200 Mercedes-Benz S550. The LS 460L easily outdistanced the Mercedes in that group, achieving a 99-point overall test score; the maximum score is 100. The S550 received an 86-point score, considerably lower than the Lexus but still in the "Excellent" category.

"Both versions of the Infiniti M35 are well-rounded, nimble cars that successfully blend sportiness with comfort," said David Champion, Senior Director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center in East Haddam, Connecticut. "The M35s are as capable handling a twisty road as they are cruising the highway."

Four of the vehicles are recommended by Consumer Reports -- the BMW 535i, the Infiniti M35, Lexus GS 450h and the Lexus LS 460L. The Mercedes E-Class and S-Class have subpar reliability in CR's subscriber surveys, while the Volvo S80 is too new for CR to have sufficient reliability data.

Consumer Reports recommends only those vehicles that have performed well in its tests, have at least average predicted reliability based on CR's Annual Car Reliability Survey of its own print and web subscribers, and performed at least adequately if crash-tested or included in a government rollover test.

Dieting is hard.

I assumed that going into it. But now I know. I'm on day five of the NutriSystem diet and day 28 can't come soon enough but who's counting?

The first day of the diet was shockingly easy. I think I convinced my body that if I get hungry, this whole diet thing is going to be so much harder, so let's just not get hungry. Sadly, mind tricks only exist in Star Wars.

The next morning, I woke up much earlier than expected, especially since it was a Saturday. I was starving. I rummaged through the NutriSystem box in my apartment and pulled out a blueberry muffin. Not only was it wholly inadequate calorie-wise, it also felt stale in my mouth and lacked any sort of recognizable flavor. I needed two glasses of water to wash it down.

To take my mind off the hunger, I read the newspaper. Luckily the Saturday edition has no food section.

Story continues below video

The day was not too unbearable, and knowing I was to have a long night with friends, I spread out my meals as much as possible, finally having my dinner entree at 9 p.m.

I allowed for two final snacks to finish my night a zesty Chex Mix rendition and about a dozen peanuts. The NutriSystem Zesty Herb Mix did absolutely nothing for me, forcing me to have my peanuts much earlier than I planned. Luckily, the peanuts, combined with about three glasses of water, held me over the rest of the night.

I soberly watched my friends enjoy limitless flows of beer and food. While entertaining to watch -- similar to monkeys chasing each other at the zoo -- it didn't make for a delightful evening. According to Google Maps, I walked about two miles home that night from the bar for my daily exercise.

I regretted that walk the next morning when a terrible cramp in my right leg shocked me out of bed. According to WebMD, cramps, like the one I had, are caused by dehydration (definitely not an issue), too much exercise (possible, but not likely) and a lack of nutrients (bingo).

Regardless, I felt restless the next day and wanted to check out some exhibits at the Natural History Museum and also wanted to enjoy the sun. It's almost a two-and-a-half-mile walk from my apartment to the museum, but it felt good to stretch the twinging muscle.

Halfway through touring the exhibits, I began to run low on energy. The hunger I felt as I moseyed back to my apartment Sunday afternoon is only topped in my life by the time I went on a 36-hour fast in high school to raise money for Sudan relief.

I went out of my way to avoid streets with lots of restaurants and street vendors not out of fear that I would cave, but because the smells and sights only made my hunger worse.

Cardboard soup

To make matters worse, that night I had by far the most disgusting NutriSystem meal to date. It was the meat loaf and mashed potatoes.

Although the meat loaf was bland, it wasn't horrendous. The mashed potatoes, on the other hand, were so disgusting, I only forced myself to eat them out of necessity. It looked, felt and tasted like the remnants of a dried-out cardboard soup and I'm not a picky eater.

Yesterday and today, so far, have been much easier. Yesterday, I even skipped one of my two allowed desserts. It's hard to imagine any real transformation in my body's operations in so few days after years of uncalculated feeding, but I hope that's what's happening. I'm not sure I can handle many more hunger pangs like those I had Sunday.

Interestingly, NutriSystem called me yesterday. Apparently my first story caught their attention. Not sure how he got my cell phone number, but NutriSystem representative Curt Bauer simply called to offer any support and to inform us of a slight error in reporting: it doesn't cost more to select a NutriSystem menu, he informed me.

Many consumers have complained to us about NutriSystem swapping out meals they selected over the Internet, a service they thought they were paying more for.

The way their website is designed, it may not be immediately clear that having the company choose the meals for you is the same $371.50 per 28 days, as the user-selected menu. When I signed up, I thought it was a premium service.

The only savings occur when a consumer decides to have the food auto-shipped at the end of each month, rather than just for 28 days. The auto-ship method costs $320, a savings of more than $50.

Perhaps feeling the heat from growing consumer and Congressional discontent with burdensome contracts that can trigger early termination fees of several hundred dollars, Verizon Wireless says its changing its policy so that its customers can make changes to their service plan without extending their contracts.

Starting October 7, new and existing customers will have the option to change their voice and data calling plans -- selecting current plans with different minute allowances or text messaging and data use options -- without changing the end date of their contract.

Verizon says the new policy is part of the Verizon Wireless "Worry Free Guarantee."

Both the FCC and members of Congress have announced intentions to limit the termination fees wireless carriers charge subscribers who want out of their contracts early. In addition, FCC chairman Kevin Martin says he wants the commission to investigate similar fees for cable, Internet and landline contracts.

Last year, Verizon Wireless became the first major carrier to pro-rate its termination fees.

Two Senators have introduced a bill that would require that carriers prorate termination fees, to be reduced by 50 percent after the first year of a two-year contract.

The bill would also prevent wireless carriers from charging fees for service beyond those expressly required by local, state, or federal law, and to expressly notify customers if any service request or upgrade would trigger a contract renewal, as well as giving customers 30 days' notice to cancel the contract.

Test Drive

Verizon says the new policy is part of the company's Test Drive offer, which allows new customers to try the Verizon Wireless network for 30 days with the ability to cancel if they dont want to continue.

In touting its customer friendly marketing position, Verizon also reminded customers that it parted company with the industry by refusing to participate in a wireless directory when customers said they didn't want one. Verizon says its unwillingness to go along effectively killed that project.

Our commitment to our customers is why we lead the industry in customer loyalty and why more customers use the Verizon Wireless brand than any other, said Jack Plating, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Verizon Wireless.

Scammers who infected more than 15 million computers with destructive, intrusive spyware will give up $330,000 in ill-gotten gains from their venture to settle FTC charges that their scam violated federal law.

The settlement will bar the defendants from downloading software onto consumers computers without disclosing its function and obtaining consumers consent prior to installation, bars them from downloading software that interferes with consumers computer use, and bars false or misleading claims.

In November 2006, the FTC charged ERG Ventures, LLC and its principals with tricking consumers into downloading malevolent software by hiding the Media Motor program within seemingly innocuous free software, including screensavers and video files. Once downloaded, the Media Motor program silently activated itself and downloaded malware that was intrusive, disruptive, and made it difficult for consumers to use their computers.

The software changed consumers home pages, tracked their Internet activity, altered browser settings, degraded computer performance, and disabled anti-spyware and anti-virus software. Many of the malware programs installed by the Media Motor program were extremely difficult or impossible for consumers to remove from their computers.

The FTC charged that ERG Ventures and its principals violated the FTC Act, which bars unfair and deceptive practices. Specifically, the FTC said the defendants failed to disclose to consumers that the free software they offered was bundled with malware. The agency also charged the defendants with using a deceptive End User License Agreement, which gave consumers the option to halt the installation of all software from ERG Ventures, but secretly installed malware whether consumers accepted or rejected the terms of the agreement.

At the request of the FTC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada froze the defendants assets and ordered a halt to their spyware operation pending trial.

More Scam Alerts ...

With concerns mounting daily over the safety of the U.S. food supply, it might make sense that Congress would mandate an increase in food inspections.

But instead, a provision of the House-passed version of the 2007 Farm Bill would actually require fewer inspections for some meat.

The provision, authored by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), would require fewer federal inspections for meat that is processed by small companies and shipped to another state.

Currently, meat lacking a federal inspection stamp can only be sold in the state where it is produced. Only state inspections are required for those products.

The Chicago Tribune reports the change is intended to help small meat packing plants in the Midwest. The newspaper quotes congressional staff as saying these small companies could greatly expand their business if allowed to ship nationwide.

But in the wake of last weeks massive Topps Beef hamburger recall, many consumer advocates dont see it that way.

They, along with the federal meat inspectors union, are opposing this particular aspect of the Farm Bill, currently making its way through the Senate. These critics argue that state inspection standards are hardly consistent, and that uniform, federal standards are the only way to protect the public.

In the Topps case, the recalled hamburger patties were suspected of E. coli contamination. So far this year, the Department of Agriculture has recalled nearly 28 million pounds of ground beef.

Stan Painter, a USDA inspector and an official with the American Federation of Government Employees union, which represents federal meat inspectors, told the Tribune that small plants may apply to have a federal inspector on site, but that wouldnt necessarily help them.

I'm not sure the smaller plants are capable of meeting federal standard, Painter said.

Petersons proposal appears to be at odds with other Democrats in Congress, who have called for greater federal inspections of the food supply.

In September, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, introduced the Fresh Produce Safety Act of 2007.

It would require the FDA to develop and enforce mandatory good agricultural practices for growers and manufacturers in the US. Currently, there are only voluntary guidelines.

AT&T's new service agreement for its Internet offerings contains an unpleasant wrinkle for subscribers--the telecom giant has given itself the right to cancel customers' service for criticizing the company. But AT&T defends the policy, which it says is not new and not unique to AT&T.

In Section 5 of the company's new terms of service is a clause that empowers the company to cancel a subscriber's service if their conduct "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."

The broad sweep of the clause could conceivably be used against anyone who openly criticizes AT&T, whether through posting complaints on their own blog, Web site, or consumer news sites such as ConsumerAffairs.com.

Readers at tech news site Slashdot, where the story was broken, called the change an example of "corporate censorship." AT&T said it is anything but that.

"AT&T respects its subscribers rights to voice their opinions and concerns over any matter they wish," AT&T spokesman Brad Mays said. "However, we retain the right to disassociate ourselves from websites and messages explicitly advocating violence, or any message that poses a threat to children (e.g. child pornography or exploitation).

"We do not terminate customer service solely because a customer speaks negatively about AT&T," Mays said.

Mays said the new language resulted from recent mergers.

"We have simply incorporated language from the AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet Terms of Service into the Terms of Service for our legacy Worldnet and BellSouth customers. The language is consistent with that of previous documents for those companies, and is equally consistent with former AT&T and its legacy companies policies," he said.

Slashed by Slashdot

One Slashdot reader commented, "AT&T cooperates in wholesale spying on the American public without a warrant, then goes back to Congress and asks for immunity from lawsuits. Now they slip a "no criticize" clause in their user agreement?"

Phone companies are supposed to deliver our messages, not censor them, said Ben Scott of Free Press. If the phone company cant tell you what to say on a phone call, then they shouldnt be able to tell you what to say in a text message, an e-mail, or anywhere else."

Companies often use terms of service (TOS) or end-user license agreements (EULAs) to bind customers to terms they might not otherwise have agreed to, gambling that the average person won't understand the complex legal language, or have time to dig deep enough to cite objectionable elements of the agreement.

Verizon, for example, inserts into its terms of service the right to "change, limit, terminate, modify at any time, temporarily or permanently cease to provide the Service or any part thereof to any user or group of users, without prior notice and for any reason or no reason."

Verizon's John Czwartacki defended the language in the TOS as targeting scammers and phishers that may use the Verizon brand to deceive customers.

"For the record, this is language thats been in our Acceptable Use Policy for nearly a decade," Czwartacki said. "If you browse any public forum...its obvious that we do not disconnect the service of people who criticize us or our services."

Harsh spotlight

The debate over net neutrality has put the actions of both AT&T and Verizon under a harsh spotlight.

Supporters of net neutrality claim that without laws that mandate equal access to Internet content for all users, telecom companies could use their market power to block access to Web sites or content they did not favor, or could prioritize access to their own sites over others.

Both companies oppose codifying net neutrality principles into law, and both have claimed that they would not block Web sites or control access to content.

But AT&T came under fire for censoring Eddie Vedder, lead singer of Pearl Jam, for making remarks critical of President Bush during a live Webcast. The company claimed the incident was a one-time glitch, but other examples of political remarks being censored quickly came to light.

And Verizon was soundly criticized for blocking access to text messages sent by abortion rights group NARAL, which it deemed "controversial" and "unsavory." The company quickly reversed its policy and blamed the incident on an "incorrect interpretation" of corporate policies.

The censorship policies of AT&T and Verizon are what we can expect to see time and again with these corporations as gatekeepers, said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. "We need to put in place laws that protect our right to speak out on the Internet, on cell phones everywhere.

With the changes Wal-Mart said it now covers most commonly treated medical conditions with its $4 generic program. The discounts are offered through Wal-Mart, Sams Club and Neighborhood Market stores.

This announcement reinforces our commitment to driving costs out of the health system and saving money for our customers so they can live better, healthier lives, said Dr. John Agwunobi, Wal-Mart senior vice president and president for the professional services division.

The savings were a big deal 12 months ago and an even bigger deal today for customers struggling with spiraling healthcare costs. Everyday, they turn to our pharmacy for prescriptions to manage conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma, or even simple colds, Agwunobi said.

After phase two of the program, a total of 361 products made up of 157 medication compounds are now available at Wal-Mart pharmacies nationwide. With the changes, $4 prescriptions are available for most commonly treated medical conditions, the company said.

Wal-Mart said it has added 24 new $4 prescriptions including timolol maleate (glaucoma), terbinafine (antifungal), carvedilol (cardiac), and three $9 womens medications including generic birth control product for Ortho Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen, and a fertility product, Clomiphene.

The $4 prescription program was initially launched in Tampa, Florida on September 21, 2006 and expanded to 49 states by November 28, 2006. Today, the program is available at 4005 Wal-Mart, Sams Club and Neighborhood Market pharmacies throughout the United States.

A laptop containing personal information on 800,000 people who applied to work for The Gap retail clothing chain was stolen from a third-party vendor for the company, The Gap announced.

The missing laptop contained data on job seekers from the United States and Puerto Rico who applied between July 2006 and June 2007, such as Social Security numbers. Canadian applicants' data was also on the laptop, but Social Insurance numbers were not included.

The Gap claimed that the unidentified vendor used by the company to process job applicant data stored the information on the laptop without encrypting it, a violation of The Gap's policies, according to company CEO Glenn Murphy.

What happened here is against everything we stand for as a company," Murphy said. "Were reviewing the facts and circumstances that led to this incident closely, and will take appropriate steps to help prevent something like this from happening again.

As is typical in data breach cases, The Gap claimed there was no evidence that the stolen information was being used for identity theft or fraud. The company also promised a free year of credit monitoring and fraud resolution services for affected applicants. The Gap also claimed it used multiple vendors to manage job applicant information, ensuring that not every applicant would be affected.

Too Many Fingers In The Pie

Outsourcing of business processes such as billing, payroll, and employee data to third parties has been a primary cause of data breaches in recent years. Third-party companies that handle personal data often do not adhere to the privacy standards of the companies or government agencies they are contracted to, and simply passing data through multiple hands increases the risk that it may be lost, stolen, or misused.

Business outsourcing company ACS misplaced a compact disc containing personal information on 2.9 million Georgia residents in April 2007. The company had been hired by Georgia's state government to handle health care billing and claims for its state Medicare administration and child health care program.

Government contracting agency SAIC transmitted information on 580,000 military personnel and their families without using encryption in July 2007. The information was also stored on an unsecured server, putting the individuals at greater risk of identity theft and fraud if the information was stolen.

And Connecticut sued Accenture in September 2007 for removing state bank account and taxpayer information from the state's computer system, which was later downloaded onto a laptop that was stolen from an intern for the Ohio state government. Accenture had been hired by both Connecticut and Ohio to handle upgrading and modernizing of the states' billing and payroll systems.

The agency says the narcotic has not been approved for treatment of coughs and colds in children, though it has been cleared for other, limited uses.

Hydrocodone is one of the strongest medications available to treat pain or to suppress cough. The drug has also been an extremely popular drug of abuse and can lead to serious illness, injury, or death, if improperly used, the FDA said.

Hydrocodone overdose can result in breathing problems or cardiac arrest, and its use may impair motor skills and judgment.

The FDA said it has received reports of medication errors associated with formulation changes in unapproved hydrocodone products and reports of confusion over the similarity of the names of unapproved products to approved drug products. As part of the drug approval process, the agency considers the possibility of medication errors and name confusion.

Some hydrocodone pain-relief products, such as Vicodin, are FDA-approved. However, most of the hydrocodone formulations now marketed to suppress coughs have not been approved. The agency said it is particularly concerned about improper pediatric labeling of unapproved hydrocodone cough suppressants, also known as antitussives, and the risk of medication error involving the unapproved products.

Companies marketing these unapproved products have not demonstrated the safety and efficacy of these drugs, said Steven K. Galson, M.D., M.P.H., director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

A case in point no hydrocodone cough suppressant has been established as safe and effective for children under 6 years of age and some of these unapproved products carry labels with dosing instructions for children as young as 2 years of age, Galson said.

The action is part of FDA's broader initiative on the marketing of unapproved drugs that was announced in June 2006.

Alternatives

There are a number of alternatives for patients who might be using unapproved hydrocodone cough suppressants.

There are seven FDA-approved cough suppressant products containing hydrocodone. There also are a variety of approved antitussive products that do not contain hydrocodone. Consumers should consult a health care professional for detailed guidance on treatment options, the agency said.

Anyone marketing unapproved hydrocodone products that are currently labeled for use in children younger than 6 years of age must end further manufacturing and distribution of the products on or before October 31, 2007.

Those marketing any other unapproved hydrocodone drug products must stop manufacturing such products on or before December 31, 2007 and must cease further shipment in interstate commerce on or before March 31, 2008. Further legal action could be taken against those failing to meet these deadlines.