Current Events in February 2008

A ban on smoking in public places in Italy has sent the number of heart attacks and other acute coronary events spiraling lower according to a report in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.

Researchers in Rome compared acute coronary events in the city for five years preceding a public smoking ban with those occurring one year after the ban. They found an 11.2 percent reduction in people 35 to 64 years old and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74.

Smoking bans in all public and workplaces result in an important reduction of acute coronary events, said Francesco Forastiere, M.D., Ph.D., co-author of the study and head of the Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology, Rome E. Health Authority, Italy. The smoking ban in Italy is working and having a real protective effect on population health.

The study was the first in Europe to show long-term health benefits of smoking bans in public places. It also was the first to consider in detail other factors such as temperature, air pollution, flu epidemics and time trends that affect acute coronary events such as heart attack.

The January 2005 comprehensive smoking ban in Italy included strong sanctions for smokers, businesses and workplace owners and managers. The prohibition included all indoor public places such as offices, retail shops, restaurants, pubs and discos.

Researchers compared the rate of acute coronary events from 2000 to 2004 with those occurring in 2005 after the ban was enforced.

They identified acute coronary events from hospital discharge reports with a diagnosis of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and from the regional register of causes of deaths with diagnosis of out-of-hospital coronary deaths.

The analysis was divided into three age groups: 3564, 6574 and 7584 years. Researchers collected daily data on particulate matter in 40 public places and from four fixed monitors in residential areas together with temperature readings.

They found that the indoor concentration of fine particles decreased one year after the ban.

During the period of the study there were changes in smoking habits such as:

• Frequency of smoking decreased from 34.9 percent to 30.5 percent in men and from 20.6 percent to 20.4 percent in women.

• Cigarette sales decreased 5.5 percent.

While the ban resulted in a significant reduction in acute coronary events in the two younger age groups, the older group (aged 75-84 years) showed no reduction.

When the researchers adjusted for time trends and all-cause hospitalization, the results remained statistically significant in the youngest group and in the 6574 age group. This effect was only slightly reduced when the researchers compared the post-smoking ban data of 2005 with that from 2004.

The older age group spends more time at home than in the workplace or public businesses, said Giulia Cesaroni, M.Sc., senior researcher at the Department of Epidemiology, Rome, Italy. The smoking ban has a greater effect on those of working age and those who spend a lot of their time in public places.

Young people living in low socioeconomic areas seemed to have the greatest reduction in acute coronary events after the smoking ban, researchers reported. Those living in lower socioeconomic areas have worse health conditions with more risk factors for heart attack such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes and a higher rate of active smoking.

This implies that a disadvantaged person has a higher probability of being surrounded by smokers at work and in public places unless a smoking ban is in place, Cesaroni said.

The researchers said the health benefits seen in this study probably result from a significant reduction in exposure to passive smoking. In addition, a smoking-free environment makes it easier for smokers to stop smoking.

Since coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in Italy, the reduction observed had enormous public health implications, Forastiere said. It will be interesting to see if the effect of the ban is stable over time and if similar positive health effects can be detected in other places.

What do presidents have to do with mattresses? Whatever the answer, each year consumers are bombarded with President's Day weekend mattress sales.

Those who heed the call often find themselves subjected to confusing, high-pressure, fast-close sales techniques seldom seen outside the used car lot.

While larger department and furniture stores sometimes take a sedate, hands-off approach to mattress sales, mattress discount chains -- like Mattress Discounters, Mattress Warehouse, Sleepy's and others -- are more likely to tout their "sales blowouts" with insistent commercials and overwrought print ads.

In the Mid-Atlantic region, Mattress Warehouse has a knack for generating consumer grousing, accounting for about 10 percent of all mattress-related complaints to ConsumerAffairs.com. The complaints cover the gamut, including bait-and-switch tactics, disputed charges, poor service, delivery delays and deceptive sales tactics.

Consumers complain that while store salesmen and saleswomen will do nearly anything for a sale, they're nowhere to be found when things go awry with the delivery or the quality of the mattress.

Jim of Mifflinville, Pa. tried to file a warranty claim after his second Mattress Warehouse mattress sunk in after six weeks.

I called the home office five days in a row five weeks ago and left messages at four different extensions, Jim wrote. I have had no call backs.

More than 25 consumers say the company delivered the wrong mattress and tried to use bait-and-switch tactics upon the day of delivery.

On the day I purchased the mattress set both sets were on sale, Laura of Pasadena, Md. wrote. The plush set for $599 and the pillowtop set for $499. I paid for the plush set and received the pillowtop set. I have called the store and talked to the same salesman numerous times and all he says is 'I have to check with the warehouse.'

Some consumers say fraudulent charges appear on their statements.

While I was reviewing the receipt in the store I noticed a charge for a bed cover/protector for $90, wrote Melissa of Fairfax, Va. I asked the manager what that was for and he stated that it is a separate item. I informed him that I never ordered the item nor did I ever receive the item. I asked him to issue a refund since I did not want the bed cover and he refused. He said he did not know why the sales person added the cover. He then said, and I quote, 'The sales person probably added this item so he could get an additional $10 in commission.'

Delivery woes

More than half of the complaints include statements about late or incomplete deliveries.

I ordered two mattresses and paid in full before receiving the products, but (they) were never delivered, wrote Jennifer of Harrisburg, Pa. "In fact, on their copy of the receipt, it says 'delivery unsuccessful,' but no one tried delivering the mattresses to my home. After about six weeks of excuses I decided to ask for a refund. They made a clerical error I guess and only reimbursed part of what I paid them.

While the list of complaints goes on, the other commonly found gripe is that the salespeople, who appear to work on commissions, fail to live up to the Honest Abe image projected in the Presidents Day sale circulars. They will stretch the truth to make a sale, customers charge.

We arrived and tested the 'Whitewater Falls' mattress by Simmons ... in the Warrenton, Va. store, Annette of Woodbridge, Va. wrote. Price listed was $2,999 and Jerry (the store manager) said he was in a sales contest and could give us the mattress set for $2,200. We thought that was a great deal and agreed.

Of course, he wanted us to pay for it right away, but we only agreed to put down $20 to hold the price for a few days, she continued. On looking over the sales receipt the following day, we notice the name of the mattress listed was 'Whitehaven.' So I called another Mattress Warehouse and asked the price of the Whitehaven and, wouldn't you know, it was $2199.

Mattress lawyer

Mattress Warehouse attorney Keith Rosa said he doesn't believe there are any serious customer service issues and said he believes many of the 150 complaints filed with ConsumerAffairs.com are the work of competitors.

Maybe 20 of them are true, he said. Rosa said it was suspicious that there were, by his count, only seven complaints published on ConsumerAffairs.com regarding Mattress Discounters, one of the company's largest competitors. In fact, more than 20 complaints currently appear on the site. As of this writing, there are 24 Mattress Discounter complaints in the database compared to 150 for Mattress Warehouse.

Not all complaints sent to ConsumerAffairs.com are published but all are retained in the database, ConsumerAffairs.com President James R. Hood said. Different complaints may appear at different times, as editors try to keep the site fresh and reduce repetition, he said.

"Our purpose in publishing complaints is to show what can happen -- not to chronicle every single transaction," he said.

Hood said various methods are used to spot phony complaints but said he could not discuss them publicly.

"The claim that competitors file phony complaints is one we hear all the time but we have never found a single instance of this occurring," he said.

Complaints verified

In response to Rosa's claims, ConsumerAffairs.com called close to 70 consumers who have filed complaints about the mattress chain. Most consumers were out the first time we called, though many had answering machine messages that matched the identity information on the complaints.

Of the 20 consumers who picked up the phone, six said they received some sort of resolution from the company, usually a refund or new mattress. The rest said they are either still fighting with the company for a resolution or have given up.

All the consumers we spoke with over the phone said they would never recommend the company to anyone and all said their dealings with the company were among the worst consumer practices they've ever experienced.

Rosa suggested that ConsumerAffairs.com should research the "glowing record" Mattress Warehouse has with the Better Business Bureau. So we did. In fact, Mattress Warehouse has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to unanswered complaint(s), according to the BBB's reliability report.

The BBB has received 278 complaints in the past 36 months, 150 of which the company has resolved.

Mattress Warehouse has also been at the center of 173 court cases in Maryland, according to the state's Web site. Most of the cases are small claims from consumers who believe they were ripped off.

Mattress Warehouse holds its customers in the highest regard, according to a company statement provided by Rosa. Each and every consumer concern is important to us, and can serve to make us stronger and more efficient for all our customers. We take pride in our effective and immediate responses to all customer concerns, questions, and inquiries.

We encourage all of our consumers to contact us directly with any issues or problems they may have, the statement continued, providing the following contact information:

Mattress Warehouse Customer Service
Melissa Jones, Customer Service Manager
301-682-8504 x237
staff@sleephappens.com

ConsumerAffairs.com tried that number and extension three times and every time it landed us in a generic customer service voicemail box.

Lengthy process

The six consumers who said they received some sort of reasonable solution to their complaints said it took as long as six months to get a refund or replacement and all of them were persistent. One went to small claims court, one went to the police, one went to her state attorney general and another got restitution after her complaint appeared on ConsumerAffairs.com.

Patricia Morris of Alexandria, Va., got a replacement mattress after she hounded them with phone calls, e-mails and faxes for five months.

Lynn Freedman, of Elkridge, Md., who says a salesman put her initials next to items she didn't ask for on an order form, said she considers herself lucky that after weeks of persistent haggling, she was able to get her money back.

Judy Tankersley, director of operations at the BBB of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania, suggested consumers shop around at as many stores as possible and to closely examine the warranty and refund policy before purchasing.

It pays to do comparison shopping, she said. Check our Furniture section for more consumer reviews of mattress and bedding stores.

Consumers should also look out for a tag on the mattress that identifies it as being used or manufactured with used products, Tankersley said. Retailers are required to label any of their used mattresses.

Rosa insisted that Mattress Warehouse never sells used mattresses.

Unlike some of our competitors, we are not in the business of selling used bedding, and therefore adhere to a no-refunds policy, clearly stated in all our store locations, according to the company statement.

However, some Mattress Warehouse consumers say the company delivered them a used mattress.

I purchased a new full-size bed for my little girl, wrote Sarah of Ashburn, Va. It has the most disgustingly foul smell to it. I called the store and was told I would be contacted right away. It is now a week later, and I still have yet to receive a call. ... I think I smell a mouse! I am sure the offensive odor is rodent.

To ensure your new mattress is actually new and for other mattress buying advice, read ConsumerAffairs.com's "Mattress Mafia" buying guide.

On the other hand, the Presidents Day mattress hoopla has become so ingrained that it has been satirized by The Onion, perhaps making it an essential rite of passage.

More Scam Alerts ...

Dubrow, her husband and two small children flew from Seattle to San Diego in December, renting a car and two child safety seats from Advantage Rent A Car. The seats, she says, had obvious problems.

"Some seats were obviously missing parts. Some were obviously very old," she told ConsumerAffairs.com. "We installed two of the better looking seats thinking that they were okay only to find that they were not working.

"One was missing the top part of the harness that would secure the child in a crash, the other had a seatbelt that wouldn't tighten enough to secure our child. It took us quite some time to find working seats to install," she said. "The seats were also filthy, with huge black marks on some and dirt or crumbs on others."

Dubrow says that when she complained to the rental car manager, he offered to refund the money for the seats, but otherwise offered no help. It wasn't just a matter of poor customer service, she says, it was a violation of the law.

"In California, there are clear laws regarding child safety seat rental. These old, non-working seats were not only unsafe, they were also against the law," Dubrow said.

Media attention

Dubrow didn't take the experience sitting down. She blogged about it, gaining the attention of a TV station in San Diego, which reported on her experience.

As a result, she says, Advantage performed a company-wide inspection of their car seats, destroying any that did not meet the legal guidelines. The company has also instituted a company-wide Child Safety Seat policy to ensure that they rent only safe, clean car seats in the future.

"The problems were really obvious," Dubrow said. "I don't have any knowledge about car seats beyond what a well-informed parent would have after purchasing their own seats and using them daily. In my opinion, it is something that Advantage employees should have recognized."

The take-away lesson for parents, she says, is to never assume that a car seat is safe, simply because a company is renting it.

"If you see a company putting people at risk, take action to make it better," Dubrow said.

What to do

Dubrow says parents need to know how to check a rental for safety. Here's what to look for:

• Inspect each seat thoroughly for any evidence of cracking, twisting, worn harness webbing or broken buckles.

• Verify that seatbelts are threaded through the proper channels.

• Once you have latched the buckles, pull hard to make sure that they do not detach.

• Find the "birth date" label on the side or back of the seat, and don't use a seat more than 5 years old.

• Get a copy of the car seat manual

"I was shocked at how many parents responded saying 'I've seen that before.' I'm hopeful that my story will inspire others to take action," Dubrow said.

Despite the claims of cable-channel infomercials and assorted scam artists, there aren't a lot of "secrets" to living a long and healthy life. Recent research confirms widely-accepted principles.

Living a healthy lifestyle during the early elderly years -- watching your weight, getting regular exercise and not smoking -- may be associated with a greater probability of living to age 90 in men, not to mention enjoying good health and physical function along the way.

An article in the February 11 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine finds that although some individuals survive to 100 years or beyond by avoiding chronic diseases, other centenarians live with such conditions for many years without becoming disabled.

Studies of twins have found that about one-fourth of the variation in human life span can be attributed to genetics. That leaves about 75 percent that could be attributed to modifiable risk factors.

Laurel B. Yates, M.D., M.P.H., of Brigham & Womens Hospital, Boston, led researchers who studied a group of 2,357 men who were participants in the Physicians Health Study.

At the beginning of the study, in 1981 to 1984, the men (average age 72) provided information about demographic and health variables, including height, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels and how often they exercised.

Twice during the first year and then once each following year through 2006, they completed a questionnaire asking about changes in habits, health status or ability to do daily tasks.

90+

Forty-one percent of them lived to be 90 or older.

Several modifiable biological and behavioral factors were associated with survival to this exceptional age. Smoking, diabetes, obesity and hypertension significantly reduced the likelihood of a 90-year life span, while regular vigorous exercise substantially improved it, the authors write.

Furthermore, men with a life span of 90 or more years also had better physical function, mental well-being, and self-perceived health in late life compared with men who died at a younger age. Adverse factors associated with reduced longevity -- smoking, obesity and sedentary lifestyle -- also were significantly associated with poorer functional status in elderly years.

The researchers estimate that a 70-year-old man who did not smoke and had normal blood pressure and weight, no diabetes and exercised two to four times per week had a 54 percent probability of living to age 90.

However, if he had adverse factors, his probability of living to age 90 was reduced to the following amount:

• Sedentary lifestyle, 44 percent
• Hypertension (high blood pressure), 36 percent
• Obesity, 26 percent
• Smoking, 22 percent
• Three factors, such as sedentary lifestyle, obesity and diabetes, 14 percent
• Five factors, 4 percent

Although the impact of certain midlife mortality [death] risks in elderly years is controversial, our study suggests that many remain important, at least among men, the authors conclude. Thus, our results suggest that healthy lifestyle and risk management should be continued in elderly years to reduce mortality and disability.

97+

In another study, researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, and colleagues studied 523 women and 216 men age 97 or older.

These centenarians completed questionnaires about their health history and functional ability by mail or telephone. They were split into groups based on sex and the age at which they developed diseases typically associated with aging: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, osteoporosis, Parkinsons disease and stroke.

Those who developed these conditions at age 85 or older were classified as delayers, whereas those who developed them at a younger age were termed survivors.

Of the participants, 32 percent were survivors and 68 percent were delayers -- thus, morbidity [illness] was not compressed toward the end of these exceptionally long life spans, the authors write.

Yet, centenarians who had developed heart disease and/or hypertension before age 85 years and still survived to 100 years demonstrated similar levels of function (independent in the case of men and requires minimal assistance in the case of women) as those who delayed morbidity until after age 85 years.

Though fewer men than women survive to extremely old age, the male centenarians in this study appeared to have better mental and physical function than their female counterparts.

One explanation for this may be that men must be in excellent health and/or functionally independent to achieve such extreme old age, the authors write. Women on the other hand may be better physically and socially adept at living with chronic and often disabling health conditions.

The results regarding the timing of illness in centenarians may shed additional light on the various ways in which people can survive to extreme old age, the authors conclude. Determining the mechanisms that facilitate the delay or escape of disability in the face of clinically evident age- and mortality-associated morbidities merits further investigation.

A study appearing in the February issue of Behavioral Neuroscience cites laboratory evidence that the widespread use of no-calorie sweeteners may actually make it harder for people to control their intake and body weight.

Psychologists at Purdue Universitys Ingestive Behavior Research Center reported that compared with rats that ate yogurt sweetened with sugar, those given yogurt sweetened with zero-calorie saccharin later consumed more calories, gained more weight, put on more body fat, and didnt make up for it by cutting back later.

Authors Susan Swithers, PhD, and Terry Davidson, PhD, theorize that by breaking the connection between a sweet sensation and high-calorie food, the use of saccharin changes the bodys ability to regulate intake. That change depends on experience.

Problems with self-regulation might explain in part why obesity has risen in parallel with the use of artificial sweeteners. It also might explain why, says Swithers, scientific consensus on human use of artificial sweeteners is inconclusive, with various studies finding evidence of weight loss, weight gain or little effect.

Because people may have different experiences with artificial and natural sweeteners, human studies that dont take into account prior consumption may produce a variety of outcomes.

Three different experiments explored whether saccharin changed lab animals ability to regulate their intake, using different assessments -- the most obvious being caloric intake, weight gain, and compensating by cutting back.

Body temperature

The experimenters also measured changes in core body temperature, a physiological assessment.

Normally when we prepare to eat, the metabolic engine revs up. However, rats that had been trained to respond using saccharin (which broke the link between sweetness and calories), relative to rats trained on glucose, showed a smaller rise in core body temperate after eating a novel, sweet-tasting, high-calorie meal. The authors think this blunted response both led to overeating and made it harder to burn off sweet-tasting calories.

The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity (fat) than would consuming the same food sweetened with a higher-calorie sugar, the authors wrote.

The authors acknowledge that this outcome may seem counterintuitive and might not come as welcome news to human clinical researchers and health-care practitioners, who have long recommended low- or no-calorie sweeteners. Whats more, the data come from rats, not humans.

However, they noted that their findings match emerging evidence that people who drink more diet drinks are at higher risk for obesity and metabolic syndrome, a collection of medical problems such as abdominal fat, high blood pressure and insulin resistance that put people at risk for heart disease and diabetes.

But why?

Why would a sugar substitute backfire?

Swithers and Davidson wrote that sweet foods provide a salient orosensory stimulus that strongly predicts someone is about to take in a lot of calories. Ingestive and digestive reflexes gear up for that intake but when false sweetness isnt followed by lots of calories, the system gets confused. Thus, people may eat more or expend less energy than they otherwise would.

The good news, Swithers says, is that people can still count calories to regulate intake and body weight. However, she sympathizes with the dieters lament that counting calories requires more conscious effort than consuming low-calorie foods.

Swithers adds that based on the labs hypothesis, other artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, sucralose and acesulfame K, which also taste sweet but do not predict the delivery of calories, could have similar effects.

Finally, although the results are consistent with the idea that humans would show similar effects, human study is required for further demonstration.

With a recession looming and millions of baby boomers about to retire, the feds are worried about cobbling together enough tax revenue to keep the wheels turning. One congressman thinks the answer lies in a tax on Internet gambling.

A new tax revenue analysis announced by Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA) estimates that regulating Internet gambling would generate between $8.7 billion to $42.8 billion in federal revenues over its first ten years.

The analysis, prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, were released by McDermott earlier this week.

"Before us is a tremendous opportunity to protect consumers and recoup billions of dollars that should be collected by the Internal Revenue Service," said Representative McDermott. "These are revenues that are desperately needed, given that we are at war and face difficulty financing the nation's priorities."

Rep. McDermott introduced the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act (H.R. 2607), which would tax regulated Internet gambling.

"To be clear, these are not mostly new taxes -- the bulk of the revenues generated would come from taxes required under existing law," said McDermott. "This is simply a framework to collect taxes on existing activity that is currently unregulated, unsupervised, and underground."

The current approach, prohibiting Internet gambling through the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), has proved to be a failure. Notwithstanding the UIGEA prohibition, millions of Americans are still able to gamble online.

In addition, proposed rules by the Treasury Department to implement the current prohibitions have been severely criticized by many parties, including the American Bankers Association, Credit Union National Association, Financial Services Roundtable, and other leading financial services companies and groups.

"Instead of this ineffective attempt to prevent adults from gambling over the Internet, we need a more sensible approach to protect consumers and ensure that revenues that now flow offshore stay here in the U.S. and are therefore subject to taxation," added McDermott. "A new, safer, more sensible approach is needed to regulate Internet gambling and protect consumers."

McDermott's legislation functions as a companion bill to the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), legislation introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) which would establish a licensing and enforcement framework for regulated Internet gambling in the U.S.

The legislation would allow states to retain full control over the regulation of Internet gambling within their borders, applying additional taxes, protections and limitations as determined necessary and appropriate.

"By prohibiting a popular, recreational activity that many millions enjoy in the comfort of their own homes, the U.S. is forfeiting billions of dollars in revenue needed for critical government programs," said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative.

"It is time for Congress to regulate and tax Internet gambling to ensure security controls are in place to protect consumers and capture billions in revenue."

The full PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis is available online.

This could get ugly.

The company that produces America's most popular quick-fix for facial wrinkles is now a target of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA announced late Friday it was conducting a safety review of Allergan Inc.'s Botox and a similar product, Myobloc, after receiving reports of deaths and breathing problems in some patients who were injected with Botox syringes.

According to the FDA, Botox is being injected at an alarming rate among children, especially those who are being treated for cerebral palsy-associated limb spasticity. Neither product is approved for such use in the U.S. and there have been deaths associated with the usage of the two treatments among children.

However, as bizarre it may sound, the FDA says there were no reports of deaths in adults, and some of the adverse reactions may have been related to an overdose of the products.

Russell Katz, director of the FDA's division of neurology products, said no deaths have been seen with cosmetic use of Botox as a wrinkle treatment, although there was one hospitalization in a patient who reported receiving a Botox injection for frown lines. Katz said it isn't clear if Botox played a role.

Katz said the agency didn't yet have a firm count on the number of deaths or serious side effects but said they were a "relative handful." He explained that the FDA is still reviewing its adverse-event reporting system and data submitted by Allergan and Solstice Neurosciences Inc., a private firm in Malvern, Pa., that makes Myobloc.

Caroline Van Hove, an Allergan spokeswoman, said the company supported FDA's safety review. She said Botox is approved in many countries outside the U.S. to treat limb spasticity in children with cerebral palsy and the typical dose of active ingredient in the injection is significantly larger than a dosage for cosmetic use. She said Allergan is aware that doctors use Botox in children with cerebral palsy but the company doesn't promote the product for such use.

In a statement, Solstice Neurosciences also said it supported the FDA's safety review and said it would provide the agency with any additional information needed.

Botox and Myobloc are designed to block nerve impulses to certain muscles, causing them to relax. Both products are approved to treat cervical dystonia, or uncontrolled muscle contractions of the neck and shoulder muscles. Botox is also approved for cosmetic use to treat wrinkles between the eyebrows and to help control excessive underarm sweating.

In some cases, the toxic, active ingredient in Botox and Myobloc can affect respiratory muscles and cause difficulty swallowing, a condition known as dysphagia. Both products warn doctors and consumers of that side effect.

The FDA's Katz said what is new is that it appears the active ingredient in Botox can spread from distant parts of the body -- such as children's leg muscles -- to muscles that affect breathing rather than being just a local event as previously believed.

Last month, the consumer group Public Citizen said it found 16 deaths reported with usage of Botox or Myobloc from November 1997 through 2006. The group filed a petition with the FDA seeking the agency's strictest black-box warning discussing difficulty swallowing, pneumonia as a result of food getting into the lungs and, in rare instances, death from pneumonia.

Katz said the current FDA review isn't related to Public Citizen's petition, but said the agency is reviewing the petition "and trying to see how this fits together."

To read the full statement issued by the FDA, click here. --

Pet food makers last year recalled more than 150 brands of dog and cat food contaminated with melamine, a chemical that is not approved for use in human or animal food.

Thousands of dogs and cats nationwide suffered kidney disease or died after eating the adulterated food.

"When I first read about these (indictments), I was crying because I was so happy," said pet owner Carol V. of Rhode Island, whose two cats became gravely ill last February after eating melamine-tainted pet food.

"It was one year ago yesterday that my nightmare started. It made me feel really good that something was being done. I was shocked because I had not idea that these criminal investigations were going on. I thought they had fizzled," she said.

But Carol and other pet owners are adamant that the investigation into last year's pet food recall -- the largest in U.S. history -- must continue.

They say more companies should be held accountable for their roles in the deaths and illnesses of pets nationwide.

"I don't think the American company that imported the wheat gluten should be alone in this investigation," Carol said.

Indictments announced

On Wednesday, United States Attorney John Wood announced federal grand jury indictments against:

• Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co., LTD. (XAC), a Chinese processor of plant proteins that exports products to the United States;

• Mao Linzhun, a Chinese national who was the owner and manager of XAC;

• Suzhou Textiles, Silk, Light Industrial Products, Arts and Crafts I/E Co., LTD. (SSC), a Chinese broker used by XAC to export products to the United States;

• Chen Zhen Hao, 58, a Chinese national who was president of SSC.

The 26-count indictments specifically charged the companies and individuals with intent to defraud and mislead U.S. manufacturers -- and introducing misbranded food into interstate commerce.

In a separate but related case, Wood also announced federal indictments against:

• ChemNutra, Inc., of Las Vegas, Nevada, which buys food and food components in China and imports them into the U.S. to sell to companies in the food industry;

• Sally Qing Miller, 41, a Chinese national, who is president and controlling officer of ChemNutra, Inc,;

• Stephen S. Miller, 55, ChemNutra's owner and chief executive officer. He is married to Sally Miller.

The indictments alleged that the Millers and ChemNutra delivered melamine-tainted and misbranded food into interstate commerce.

Wire fraud conspiracy

The indictments further charged the Millers and ChemNutra with participating in a wire fraud conspiracy.

"In today's global economy, crimes that occur halfway around the world can seriously impact our lives," Wood said, adding the cases were filed in Kansas City, Missouri, because it was the port of entry for the melamine-tainted wheat gluten.

"Millions of pet owners remember the anxiety of last year's pet food recall. These indictments are the product of an investigation that began in the wake of that recall. We take seriously our responsibility to uphold the health and safety standards that protect America's food supply. Vigorous enforcement is an essential part of that effort," Wood said.

The indictments unraveled a web of fraud and deception that stretched from Nevada and China and ultimately across the country and into the homes of thousands of unsuspecting pet owners and their dogs and cats.

According to court records, more than 800 metric tons of wheat gluten was exported to the United States -- in at least 13 separate shipments -- between November 6, 2006 and February 21, 2007. Invoices reveal those shipments totaled nearly $850,000.

The indictments stated those shipments of wheat gluten were tainted with melamine and falsely labeled to avoid inspection in China.

Court records revealed that ChemNutra and the Millers received the melamine-tainted wheat gluten at a port of entry in Kansas City, Missouri, and then sold the products to their customers.

Those customers used the contaminated wheat gluten to make several brands of pet food, the indictments stated. Pet food makers use wheat gluten -- a natural protein derived from wheat or wheat flour -- as a binding agent to thicken the "gravy."

Wheat gluten

Wednesday's indictments stated that ChemNutra contracted with SSC to purchase the wheat gluten.

Under the terms of that contract, SSC agreed to provide ChemNutra with food grade wheat gluten that had a minimum protein content of 75 percent.

According to the indictments, SSC then entered into a separate contract with XAC to supply the wheat gluten needed to fulfill its contract with ChemNutra.

The indictments alleged that XAC added melamine to the wheat gluten to falsely inflate the protein content -- and meet the amounts specified in ChemNutra's contract.

It was cheaper for XAC to add melamine to the wheat gluten than to increase its actual protein content, the indictments stated.

But why didn't Chinese officials inspect the tainted wheat gluten before it left the country?

According to the indictments, SSC mislabeled the wheat gluten with a code used for products that are not subject to mandatory inspection by the country's General Administration of Quality supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ).

The Chinese government stated that XAC did not declare the tainted wheat gluten as a raw material for feed or as food. Instead, it falsely identified the wheat gluten as another product one that was not subject to inspection.

Wednesday's indictments further alleged that SCC provided ChemNutra and the Millers with documents that used the inaccurate product code. This is where the wire fraud conspiracy charge comes into play.

Citing e-mail messages, the indictments alleged that Sally Miller -- because of her background and training -- knew the wheat gluten would not be subject to inspections in China because the shipments were mislabeled with that product code.

Federal authorities said Sally Miller holds an engineering degree in food chemistry from Hangzhou University in China and has more than 10 years of work experience in China primarily as a purchasing manager for United States companies.

The indictments call for fines and jail time for executives at the Chinese companies -- and for Millers.

Wrongdoing denied

The Millers on Wednesday denied any wrongdoing.

"(They) deny the allegations by the Justice Department in the strongest of terms and look forward to the opportunity to prove their innocence at trial," a spokesman for ChemNutra told reporters. "Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Miller had any intent to defraud or knowledge of any wrongdoing."

In a written statement, the company also said that federal authorities did not accuse the Millers of knowing the wheat gluten was tainted with melamine.

"Although Mr. and Mrs. Miller strongly deny any intent to defraud or knowledge of wrongdoing, the government does not allege that Mr. and Mrs. Miller knew of the presence of melamine or any other substance that would cause death or injury to animals," the statement read. "The Millers unequivocally support the government pursuing those with knowledge of the dangerous contaminants."

The company, however, said the Millers were "deeply bothered by the government's failure to make these important distinctions in its press release related to their indictments."

A manager at Suzhou Textiles told The New York Times the company's owner was on vacation. He also said the company no longer ships food to the United States.

During a press conference on Wednesday, Wood acknowledged that it might be difficult to bring the Chinese defendants to the United States for trail.

The U.S. does not have an extradition treaty with China.

Wood, however, said his office will send arrest warrants for the Chinese defendants to international authorities action that makes it possible for the men to be detained if they travel to a country with a U.S. extradition treaty.

Wood also told reporters that Wednesday's indictments are accusations and not evidence of guilt.

The charges, he added, come on the heels of a long investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Pet owners respond

Meanwhile, pet owners hope additional charges will be filed in connection with the pet food nightmare.

"I think this is the tip of the iceberg and more indictments will come against other companies," said pet owner Doris B. of Georgia. "I think Menu Foods should face federal charges, too."

Menu Foods is the Canadian-based company at the heart of last year's pet food recall.

On March 16, 2007, Menu pulled more than 60 million containers of melamine-tainted dog and cat food off store shelves nationwide.

But weeks earlier, the company conducted routine feeding trials on pet food made with the tainted wheat gluten ChemNutra imported from China.

Menu Foods acknowledged that nine animals died during those trials.

The company, however, didn't report those deaths -- or five others that it learned about -- to the FDA until March 15, 2007.

"Think how many animals would have been saved if Menu Foods would have come out sooner -- and said they had a problem -- that animals were becoming sick and dying after eating their food," said pet owner Carol V. of Rhode Island. "Those feeding trials were between February 20-26 and these animals were dying, yet Menu Foods said nothing until March 15."

Canadian author Ann Martin, who has researched the pet food industry for years, agreed that U.S. authorities should investigate and perhaps charge -- Menu Foods and other pet food companies in connection with last year's recall.

"Menu Foods should have been part of this indictment as they, along with every other pet food company, neglect to test the raw ingredients that are being used in the foods they produce," Martin told ConsumerAffairs.com. "Menu knew weeks before the recall that there was a problem, yet chose to blame pet owner's for the illnesses and carried on with their shipping of the toxic pet food."

Do Wednesday's indictments represent justice for the pets that died after eating the tainted food?

Not at all, Martin said.

"These indictments are no justice for the thousands of dogs and cats that suffered and died because of this contamination," said the author of "Foods Pet Die For," and "Protect Your Pets."

"The only justice would be to put an end to the unethical practices that are perpetrated within this industry."

More about pets ...

The Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit Washington, D.C. investigative organization, says it has access to explosive government research, hitherto unknown, that more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen Great Lakes states including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants.

The group cites a 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, which was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries.

The center claims that for more than seven months, the nation's top public health agency blocked the publication of the exhaustive federal study, reportedly because it contains such potentially "alarming information" as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates.

The study was originally scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

Increased mortality

In many of the geographic areas studied, researchers are said to have found low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer.

Since 2004, dozens of experts have reviewed various drafts of the study, including senior scientists at the CDC, Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies, as well as scientists from universities and state governments, according to sources familiar with the history of the project.

"It raises very important questions," Dr. Peter Orris, a professor at the University of Illinois School of Public Health in Chicago and one of three experts who reviewed the study for ATSDR, told the Center.

While Orris acknowledged that the study does not determine cause and effect -- a point the study itself emphasizes -- its release, he said, is crucial to pointing the way for further research.

"Communities could demand that those questions be answered in a more systematic way," he said. "Not to release it is putting your head under the sand."

In a December 2007 letter to ATSDR in which he called for the release of the study, Orris wrote: "This report, which has taken years in production, was subjected to independent expert review by the IJC's Health Professionals Task Force and other boards, over 20 EPA scientists, state agency scientists from New York and Minnesota, three academics (including myself), and multiple reviews within ATSDR. As such, this is perhaps the most extensively critiqued report, internally and externally, that I have heard of."

Last July, several days before the study was to be released, ATSDR suddenly withdrew it, saying that it needed further review.

In a letter to Christopher De Rosa, then the director of the agency's division of toxicology and environmental medicine, Dr. Howard Frumkin, ATSDR's chief, wrote that the quality of the study was "well below expectations." When the Center contacted Frumkin's office, a spokesman said that he was not available for comment and that the study was "still under review."

'Appearance of censorship'

De Rosa, who oversaw the study and has pressed for its release, referred the Center's requests for an interview to ATSDR's public affairs office, which, over a period of two weeks, has declined to make him available for comment.

In an e-mail obtained by the Center, De Rosa wrote to Frumkin that the delay in publishing the study has had "the appearance of censorship of science and distribution of factual information regarding the health status of vulnerable communities."

Some members of Congress seem to agree.

In a February 6, 2008, letter to CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding, who's also administrator of ATSDR, a trio of powerful congressional Democrats -- including Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology -- complained about the delay in releasing the report.

The Center for Public Integrity obtained a copy of the letter to Gerberding, which notes that the full committee is reviewing "disturbing allegations about interference with the work of government scientists" at ATSDR.

"You and Dr. Frumkin were made aware of the Committee's concerns on this matter last December," the letter adds, "but we have still not heard any explanation for the decision to cancel the release of the report."

Canadian biologist Michael Gilbertson, a former IJC staffer and another of the three peer reviewers, told the Center that the study has been suppressed because it suggests that vulnerable populations have been harmed by industrial pollutants.

"It's not good because it's inconvenient," Gilbertson said. "The whole problem with all this kind of work is wrapped up in that word 'injury.' If you have injury, that implies liability. Liability, of course, implies damages, legal processes, and costs of remedial action. The governments, frankly, in both countries are so heavily aligned with, particularly, the chemical industry, that the word amongst the bureaucracies is that they really do not want any evidence of effect or injury to be allowed out there."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has ordered the closing of the Hallmark Meat Packing Co. plant in Chino, California, where animal rights activists said they videotaped "downer" cows being prepared for slaughter.

Cows that cannot stand up are banned from the food supply because it is a primary characteristic of an animal with Mad Cow disease. The Humane Society of the U.S. says it obtained video evidence that workers at the plant repeatedly attempted to force "downed" animals onto their feet and into the human food chain.

Undersecretary of Agriculture for Food Safety, Dr. Richard Raymond, says the Food Safety and Inspection Service has suspended inspections at the plant "based on the establishment's clear violation of Federal regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act."

The plant had been closed voluntarily since the video first surfaced and USDA launched an investigation. Raymond said suspension is a regulatory course of action available when FSIS finds egregious violations of humane handling regulations.

He said the suspension will remain in effect and the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company will not be allowed to operate until written corrective actions are submitted and verified by FSIS to ensure that animals are humanely handled.

"An important point needs the public's attention," Raymond said. "On Jan. 30, USDA placed an administrative hold on all Westland Meat Packing Company products because of potential violations of regulatory requirements and contractual terms as a supplier of products to the Federal food and nutrition programs."

School lunch program

According to a Humane Society release, Hallmark's Chino slaughter plant supplies the Westland Meat Co., which processes the carcasses.

The facility is the second-largest supplier of beef to USDA's Commodity Procurement Branch, which distributes the beef to needy families, the elderly and also to schools through the National School Lunch Program.

In the video, workers are seen kicking cows, ramming them with the blades of a forklift, jabbing them in the eyes, and applying painful electrical shocks in attempts to force sick or injured animals to walk to slaughter.

School districts coast to coast and some franchise restaurants went on alert after the revelations.

"We're in contact with our suppliers, and they're in contact with their suppliers. It's a huge chain of activity," Joanne Tucker, a food services marketing coordinator for the San Diego Unified School District, told the Los Angeles Times.

Westland was named a USDA "supplier of the year" for 2004-2005 and has delivered beef to schools in 36 states. More than 100,000 schools and child-care facilities nationwide receive meat through the lunch program, according to HSUS.

--

The toxic fish were harvested in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, near the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, which is located in federal waters south of the Texas-Louisiana coastline.

FDA had considered CFP from fish in this geographical area extremely rare until recently, when several outbreaks were confirmed in Washington, D.C., and St. Louis, Mo. The agency said the illnesses were linked to fish caught near the marine sanctuary.

FDA said it now considers CFP to be a food safety hazard that is reasonably likely to occur in grouper, snapper, and hogfish captured within 10 miles of the marine sanctuary and amberjack, barracuda and other wide-ranging species captured within 50 miles of the sanctuary.

FDA's warning urges seafood processors who purchase reef fish and other potentially ciguatoxic fish directly from fishermen to reassess their current hazard analyses and update their Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans as necessary.

Ciguatera poisoning is caused by the consumption of tropical reef fish that have assimilated ciguatoxins through the marine food chain from toxic microscopic algae. The toxins that cause ciguatera cannot be destroyed by cooking or freezing, and toxic fish do not look or taste differently from nontoxic fish. The only way to detect CFP is through laboratory testing.

Symptoms of ciguatera poisoning include nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness and tingling of the mouth, hands or feet; joint pain; muscle pain; headache; reversal of hot and cold sensation (such that cold objects feel hot and vice versa); sensitivity to temperature changes; vertigo, and muscular weakness.

There also can be cardiovascular problems, including irregular heartbeat and reduced blood pressure.

Symptoms usually appear within hours after eating a toxic fish and go away within a few weeks. However, in some cases, neurological symptoms can last for months to years. There is no antidote for CFP; symptoms can be treated most effectively if diagnosed by a doctor within 72 hours. CFP is rarely fatal.

Kids may be more likely to be victimized while using instant messenger and visiting chat rooms than while using social networking sites, according to new research.

The study, conducted by child health researchers Michele Ybarra of Internet Solutions for Kids and Kimberly Mitchell of the University of New Hampshire, set out to look at the places online where youth are most likely to experience sexual solicitation and harassment.

The study, published in Pediatrics, found that among the almost 1600 children and adolescents 10-15 years-old surveyed nationally, 4% reported experiencing an unwanted sexual solicitation and 9% reported being harassed while on a social networking site.

Solicitations were reported 59% more often in instant messaging however, and 19% more often in chat rooms than social networking sites.

More surprising, harassments were reported 96% more often in instant messaging than in social networking sites.

"Are victimizations happening in social networking sites? Yes," Ybarra explains, "but they're happening with greater frequency in instant messaging and chat rooms."

Warning to parents

The authors say the results serve as a warning for parents not to focus exclusively on social networking sites.

"Internet safety is not just about whether your child is on MySpace or not. You should know what your children are doing on MySpace and Facebook. But you also need to know what your children are doing in school, after school, at parties, at the mall, online -- basically all environments in which they engage. You can't just focus on one place and assume that your job is done," they said.

An estimated 15% of children and adolescents are targeted by unwanted sexual solicitation each year, including being asked to talk about sex, provide personal sexual information, or engage in sexual behavior online when they do not want to.

Depending on the type of harassment and the age of the children surveyed, 9 to 30% of youth are harassed yearly. Current events have raised public awareness and concern about the risks young people face when they are in social networking sites.

Most recent was the case of Megan Meier, a teenager who committed suicide after her online 'boyfriend', an adult pretending to be her age, broke up with her. In an effort to protect the safety of children and adolescents, various laws have been proposed such as requiring social networking sites to introduce software capable of age verification.

Good news

The latest study is good news for parents, said Ybarra. The majority of young people using the Internet are never harassed and never experience unwanted sexual solicitation. This includes social networking sites.

Adults also need to understand that for many youth, their online world is an extension of their offline world.

"Young people experiencing problems online are often experiencing problems offline as well, Ybarra said. We need to make sure that we are giving them the support and tools to healthfully navigate across all environments, both online and offline."

While on a business visit to the office of ConsumerAffairs.com's health adviser, Dr. Henry Fishman last summer, I spied a blood pressure cuff on a nearby table.

I had battled high blood pressure for years, but nothing I did resulted in acceptable readings. I had lost weight, started exercising, but wasn't yet on any medication.

"Hey, would you take my blood pressure?" I asked.

He applied the cuff to my left arm and squeezed the bulb, forcing air into it. As the air slowly escaped, he looked me in the eye and spoke, both as a doctor and a longtime friend.

"Do you have a will?" he asked.

I must have looked startled because he added, "look, you can do something about this or you can die of a heart attack in five years, it's up to you."

Lethal level

My blood pressure, he told me, was 160/101 a level he called "lethal." I took his advice and saw my doctor, who agreed I needed to do something and prescribed 40 minutes of exercise four days a week and put me on an ACE inhibitor.

He explained that my blood pressure should be no more than 130/80. Preferably, he said, it should be a lot less.

The higher number in a blood pressure reading is called the "systolic" pressure, and measures the pressure of the blood flowing through the veins when the heart beats. The lower number is called the "diastolic" number, and measures the pressure when the heart is at rest.

When the pressure is too great, it can cause the heart muscle to grow and enlarge, causing all kinds of problems, including heart failure. It also places strain on blood vessels, increasing the risk one of them could rupture, leading to a stroke.

I began taking the ACE inhibitor a drug that increases flexibility in blood vessels - and worked out four days a week. I also attempted to lose a few more pounds and began monitoring my blood pressure on a daily basis.

My blood pressure came down, but not enough. A typical reading, taken early in the morning, was around 146/89. During the day, especially after a meal, it would spike even higher into the red zone.

Sodium sensitivity

Then in early January, while researching a story for ConsumerAffairs.com, I came across some medical research that suggested some people have a hyper-sensitivity to sodium. Even normal levels of sodium consumption cause high blood pressure readings. It's unclear whether it's a genetic thing, or is triggered in other ways.

In these people, the body doesn't metabolize sodium very well, resulting in excess water in the blood stream, making the heart work harder. Removing the sodium seems to solve the problem, the research said.

Sodium. Salt. Sure, I'd heard that too much sodium could raise your blood pressure, but how much is too much and how much do you really need?

Unfortunately, there's conflicting information on the subject. The USDA minimum recommended daily amount is 2400 mg, but other sources suggest that could be excessive.

"Since the minimum physiological requirement for sodium is only 500 mg daily, Americans well exceed their sodium intake," say health experts at Northwestern University. The average adult can easily consume 3,000 milligrams or more a day if they aren't paying attention. There can be over 1,700 milligrams in one large dill pickle.

Maybe for most people, 2400 mg of sodium a day is just fine. But for me and perhaps many others it's way too much. I was about to reach that conclusion, and end the long, frustrating search for the cause of my high blood pressure.

A new year

On January 4, 2008 I cut as much sodium out of my diet as possible, trying to keep levels down to 500 mg or less. On the morning I started my regimen my blood pressure was 142/87. The next morning I was stunned to see it had fallen to 127/80, and 120/77 the following day.

The following week I was getting readings of 115/72. The only thing I was doing differently was drastically reducing sodium.

To do that I tried to avoid eating anything out of a box, a bag or a can. Breakfast now consists of oatmeal with raisins, walnuts and a banana. For lunch I have a salad or a baked potato. Dinner is grilled chicken or fish and steamed vegetables. I read labels, looking for products with the lowest amount of sodium.

If I go off my sodium-restricted diet for a day, usually by accident, my blood pressure spikes up again. As long as I keep sodium consumption to below 500 mg a day, I have the blood pressure of an 18-year-old.

Not for everyone

It bears repeating that my limited sodium intake may be too little for most people. But if you have a sodium sensitivity, very little sodium performs the tasks in your body that more sodium is required to perform in others. However, you shouldn't drastically alter your diet without first talking to your doctor.

Still, a sharply lower sodium intake may provide hope for many people who, like me, couldn't figure out why their blood pressure was off the chart. And more and more research emphasizes the sodium-blood pressure link.

In 2000, a study by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute established a direct connection between lowering sodium intake and lowering blood pressure. In the study, the lowest sodium level tested, which produced the lowest blood pressure, was well below the currently recommended intake of 2,400 milligrams a day.

Why not eliminate sodium altogether from your diet? Because your body needs it.

Without sodium, nerves and muscles would cease to function, the absorption of major nutrients would be impaired, and the body would not be able to maintain adequate water and mineral balance.

High blood pressure can be a difficult disease to tame because there are so many factors that can influence it. But for millions of people who haven't been able to figure out what's causing it, curtailing sodium intake may provide results.

If you're pregnant and you've been a little forgetful lately, here's why:

A study conducted by Australian scientists has confirmed what many mothers have suspected: Carrying a baby can make you more forgetful.

Research has found that a woman's memory can be impaired for at least a year after giving birth, although the effects are minor and mainly concern unfamiliar or demanding tasks.

"The memory deficits many women experience during and after pregnancy are pretty much like the modest deficits you'd find when comparing healthy 20-year-olds with healthy 60-year-olds," researcher Julie Henry said.

The Australian study analysed the results of 14 different studies from around the world which tested the memory performances of more than 1,000 pregnant women, mothers and non-pregnant women.

It found that pregnant women performed significantly worse on some, but not all aspects of the test.

The hardest tests for the pregnant women were those which involved new or difficult tasks.

"Regular, well-practiced memory tasks - such as remembering phone numbers of friends and family members - are unlikely to be affected," said the Australian Catholic University's Associate Professor Peter Rendell, who conducted the study with Henry.

"It's a different story, though, when you have to remember new phone numbers, people's names or hold in mind several different pieces of information, such as when multi-tasking."

This study was published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology.

The full text is available online.

February 4, 2008
School districts coast to coast and some franchise restaurants are on full alert this week for suspect beef from a California slaughter house, where the Humane Society of the U.S. videotaped what appeared to be the slaughter of so-called "downer" cows.

"We're in contact with our suppliers, and they're in contact with their suppliers. It's a huge chain of activity," Joanne Tucker, a food services marketing coordinator for the San Diego Unified School District, told the Los Angeles Times.

Cows that cannot stand up are banned from the food supply because it is a primary characteristic of an animal with Mad Cow disease.

The Humane Society says it obtained video evidence that workers at the Hallmark Meat Packing Co. of Chino, California, repeatedly attempted to force "downed" animals onto their feet and into the human food chain.

In the video, workers are seen kicking cows, ramming them with the blades of a forklift, jabbing them in the eyes, and applying painful electrical shocks in attempts to force sick or injured animals to walk to slaughter.

"To see the extreme cruelties shown in The HSUS video challenges comprehension," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. "Our government simply must act quickly both to guarantee the most basic level of humane treatment for farm animals and to protect America's most vulnerable people, our children, needy families and the elderly from potentially dangerous food."

According to a HSUS release, Hallmark's Chino slaughter plant supplies the Westland Meat Co., which processes the carcasses. The facility is the second-largest supplier of beef to USDA's Commodity Procurement Branch, which distributes the beef to needy families, the elderly and also to schools through the National School Lunch Program.

Westland was named a USDA "supplier of the year" for 2004-2005 and has delivered beef to schools in 36 states. More than 100,000 schools and child-care facilities nationwide receive meat through the lunch program, according to HSUS.

"I have called on the Office of the Inspector General to work with FSIS and the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to conduct an investigation into this matter," said Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer. "As a result of the investigation, any violations of food safety or humane handling laws will be immediately acted upon."

USDA has indefinitely suspended Westland Meat Company as a supplier to federal food and nutrition programs, pending the outcome of the investigation. Schafer said Westland Meat Company will not be permitted to produce or deliver any products currently under contract.

Under the suspension, no further contracts will be awarded to Westland Meat Company. The suspension will remain in effect until all investigations are complete and appropriate action is taken by the department. An administrative hold has been placed on all Westland Meat Products that are in, or destined for federal food and nutrition programs.

Everyone has their horror story when it comes to their homeowners association. In fact, many people -- tired of being reminded to mow their lawn and paint their shutters -- choose to live in communities where no such associations exist.

Now Virginia is about to write the next chapter in the HOA saga.

Virginia's General Assembly is said to be considering legislation that would make it harder for just about anybody to get into the business of running an HOA. The Washington Post reports that the Assembly may create a regulatory board to license professional management companies, just like Realtors and other occupations.

Employees who work for such companies would also be required to be certified by the state and be prepared to open their books to independent auditors each year.

This latest move comes in the wake allegations that a Fairfax, Va.-based firm, Koger Management Group, allegedly siphoned at least $2 million from some HOAs it managed last year.

No criminal charges have been filed, though the State's Real Estate Board and the Department of Professioal Regulations (DPOR) are said to be investigating the alleged disappearance of the funds. Koger has since filed for bankruptcy, the Post reported, and now operates under a new name, Tri-State Management, and the same officers run the new company.

The legislation would require mangement companies to buy fidelity bonds or insurance that will cover in the event of any theft or dishonesty by HOA officers or employees. Bond requirements for board members would be increased too.

State Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington), who introduced the measure on behalf of the Virginia Housing Commission, said the lawmakers were very concerned with what happened in the Koger incident. She told the Post that the legislation would try to establish an ombudsman system for handling complaints and would also require HOAs to implement a system for handling issues and complaints.

While neighboring Maryland is also considering moving forward with similar legislation in the wake of the Koger scandal, the District of Columbia has always required community managers be Realtors or real estate brokers.

Beyond legal strictures, many homeowners feel that HOAs should also be held accountable on other matters, such as offering friendly customer service, returning calls from irate residents, and offering full and accurate information to residents, which may allow for a larger number of issues to be sorted out before they are escalated and end up being litigated in small claims court.

"HOAs think they are God," said David Koresh, a member of the River Falls Homeowners Association in Woodbridge, Va. "They are just so combative and all they do is find faults with residents on the smallest lapses, such as forgetting to store away your trash can one time. It's riduclous."

Area brokers, however, expressed concern about how this would help when such a measure is enacted.

"Many HOAs can't even agree on what kind of decks are acceptable in a community, how can they try to do their day-to-day jobs if they have to be held to such standards," said a local Re/Max Broker in suburban D.C. who did not wish to be quoted by name.

Many local real estate agents feel that the state wants to regulate HOAs because that would add a segment of their profession that is actually still in business and is able to retain their licenses and pay their association dues.

"Most realtors can't make their ends meet in this market and are looking for other sources of employment but HOAs are pretty much in business and now the state can go after them [as a source of revenue]," said Muhammad Khurran, a realtor with Fairfax, Va.-based Ikon Realty.

Others feel that residents who live in smaller clusters and have tiny HOAs may no longer be able to afford the services of a management company because of added financial burdens imposed by the state.

"Who wants to serve on a HOA these days," concluded Khurram. "Every lane has a foreclosure sign where the grass has not been cut and the newspapers have not been picked up from driverways of vacant homes. It's a major headache business and a home is no longer the prized investment as it was two years ago."

Whether the state ever passes such measures, one thing rings close to home: If you've ever had a beef with your HOA, and we all do, than this may be the time to start paying closer attention to how your HOA does business. Get in line.

One of the leading causes of oral cancer in men could be the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer in women, according to a new study published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The virus that causes cervical cancer in women, termed the HPV virus, now causes as many cancers of the upper throat as tobacco and alcohol, probably due both to an increase in oral sex and the decline in smoking, researchers say.

"We need to start having a discussion about those cancers other than cervical cancer that may be affected in a positive way by the vaccine," said study co-author Dr Maura Gillison of Johns Hopkins University.

The only available vaccine against HPV, made by Merck & Co Inc, is currently given only to girls and young women. But Merck plans this year to ask government permission to offer the shot to boys.

Experts say a primary reason for male vaccinations would be to prevent men from spreading the virus and help reduce the nearly 12,000 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in US women each year. But the new study should add to the argument that there may be a direct benefit for men, too.

HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer in women. It also can cause genital warts, penile and anal cancer - risks for males that generally don't get the same attention as cervical cancer.

Previous research by Gillison and others established HPV as a primary cause of the estimated 5,600 cancers that occur each year in the tonsils, lower tongue and upper throat.

The new study looked at more than 30 years of National Cancer Institute data on oral cancers. Researchers categorized about 46,000 cases, using a formula to divide them into those caused by HPV and those not connected to the virus.

They concluded the incidence rates for HPV-related oral cancers rose steadily in men from 1973 to 2004, becoming about as common as those from tobacco and alcohol.

To learn more about this study, contact Journal of Clinical Oncology at jco.ascopubs.org/..