Current Events in April 2008

There's only one catch. They have to pay a big upfront fee.

"With tough economic times, the last thing consumers need is to pay for help they don't receive," said North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Cooper's office has just won a court order to stop an Arizona company from offering advance fee cards in the Tar Heel State. Premier Nationwide Corporation, Inc. and its president Eric C. Synstad of Scottsdale, Arizona, have been ordered to stop contacting or taking money from North Carolina consumers while the suit against them goes forward.

The company does business as Premier Savings and Premier Savings Consultant. Cooper is also asking the court to order Premier Savings to pay refunds to consumers and fines to the state for deceptive practices and illegal telemarketing calls.

In asking for the temporary restraining order, Cooper contended that Premier Savings deceived consumers across North Carolina with its marketing of credit cards and debt consolidation services. He said the company also violated state law by making unsolicited telemarketing calls to North Carolinians who had placed their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

As alleged in the complaint, Premier Savings contacted consumers through mailings and telemarketing calls to offer pre-approved credit cards with credit lines as high as $50,000 and debt consolidation services for an upfront fee. In reality, very few consumers were able to get credit cards through Premier Savings.

Consumers who got unsolicited telephone calls from the company were asked to provide a debit or credit card number to pay a processing fee of approximately $379.

Once people paid the fee they were told to contact a bank to get their credit card. But the bank told consumers to fill out a credit card application and in most cases the consumers' applications were denied.

According to consumers who complained to Cooper's office, Premier Savings would not provide refunds for the processing fee. People who asked for a refund because they couldn't get a credit card were usually told to obtain a denial letter from the bank and then referred to another bank where they were also denied credit.

More Scam Alerts ...

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) held its second hearing on managing Internet networks and "net neutrality" at Stanford University last week -- and this time, the ball was squarely in the court of supporters of equal access to the Internet.

While the previous hearing, held in Cambridge, Massachusetts in February, was marred by Comcast's controversial tactic of paying people off the street to fill seats and block opponents from getting in, the second hearing was marked by an absence of representatives from cable and telecom companies alike, giving freer reign to speakers like Ben Scott of media watchdog group Free Press.

"There are two competing visions for the future of the Internet -- open versus closed. Will we embrace the openness that has shaped the Internet to the present day?" Scott asked. "Or will we permit network owners to move to the closed systems of content control we have had with cable television and broadcasting? It is not hyperbole to say that few choices in the history of the FCC carry as much weight as this one does."

Several of the FCC commissioners attending were sympathetic to Scott's view.

Democratic member Michael Copps, in his testimony,, said "that wonderful, open and dynamic Internet perhaps the most liberating technology since the printing press, if not even greater than that is, in fact, under threat. Its future is not on autopilot and, indeed, powerful interests would bring it under their control for their own purposes which may not be your purposes."

Other members of the Commssion were more wary.

Republican Deborah Tate used her testimony to warn that unfettered file-sharing networks could lead to greater spreading of child pornography over the Internet.

"I want to make sure that we weigh the unintended consequences of any regulatory action we may take regarding more openness with these successful voluntary steps to use not just reasonable but extraordinary network management and technologies to fight crime rather than harbor and encourage it," she said.

Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, a longtime net neutrality advocate, testified that the economic gains reaped from the Internet were due in no small part to its openness. He encouraged the commissioners to adopt rules to ensure beneficial participation for carriers.

You have to make it so playing the games is not a good business model for them, Lessig said. If we really didnt have a reason to worry that they were playing games [with network management], then what they did inside their networks would be of less concern.

Comcast's long shadow

Although Comcast declined to appear at the hearing, its actions loomed large over the course of the discussion. It was the discovery that Comcast was blocking access to BitTorrent that reignited the net neutrality debate, leading to lawsuits against the cable giant and a promised investigation by the FCC.

In an attempt to deflect the investigation before it got underway, Comcast and BitTorrent struck an agreement that the file-sharing company would work with Comcast to develop processes to manage Internet networks without blocking access.

More recently, Comcast and Pando, another company that markets peer-to-peer (P2P) software, announced that they had collaborated to create a "P2P Bill Of Rights and Responsibilities" that would "clarify what choices and controls consumers should have when using P2P applications as well as what processes and practices ISPs should use to manage P2P applications running on their networks."

Consumer activist groups and technology experts were skeptical of Comcast's friendlier stance.

Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn called the Comcast-Pando agreement "ludicrous," adding, "This so-called agreement is simply another way for Comcast to try to evade punishment for its blocking and degrading of peer-to-peer services for its customers. As with the agreement with BitTorrent, todays announcement is long on rhetoric and short on detail."

Even with the conciliatory gestures of Comcast and other big players in the network space, the BitTorrent scandal led to renewed Congressional hearings discussing right of equal access to Internet content, and the introduction of new legislation to add net neutrality to the Communications Act of 1934 as a guiding principle, while mandating the FCC to investigate any claims of blocked access.

A worrisome health trend among dogs and cats across the country has surfaced in the past few months. Scores of pets from California to South Carolina have experienced sudden and recurring bouts of diarrhea, vomiting, and other digestive problems.

Through an examination of reports submitted by readers, ConsumerAffairs.com has uncovered a common link among these pets: They all ate the same brand of food: NUTRO pet food.

In all of the cases we've examined, the animals' conditions improved once their owners switched them to another brand of food.

"I've been feeding my chocolate Lab, Indy, NUTRO for almost four years," said Laura F. of Las Vegas, Nevada. "He's always been happy, healthy, and big. Recently I switched him to NUTRO (Natural Choice) Lite at my vet's request. Three weeks ago, he started vomiting uncontrollably."

Laura said her veterinarian initially thought Indy had pancreatitis, an inflammation of the pancreas. The vet prescribed some medication and Indy's condition gradually improved.

"Now, three weeks later, he started vomiting again," she said, adding she continued to feed her dog NUTRO. "He's now lost about 8 pounds in three weeks and is weak and lethargic.

"The vet believes -- as do I -- that it is the food," she said.

Laura switched brands of dog food and Indy's health improved. After a while, Laura tried mixing in the NUTRO with the new food. But that turned out to be a bad idea.

"The vomiting started again," Laura said. "I also noticed that he only ate about half his food and was actually dropping the NUTRO out and trying to only eat the Science Diet. I think even my dog knows there is something wrong with the NUTRO food.

"I will never feed any of my pets NUTRO again."

Similar stories

We've heard similar stories and sentiment from scores of pet owners nationwide -- many of whom are loyal NUTRO customers. We've also heard from a pet store employee, who noticed these same digestive problems with her clients' pets that ate NUTRO products.

A pet owner in South Carolina told us that she found foreign objects in her last few bags of NUTRO foods.

And a disabled woman in California said all these pets' health problems have given her a horrible sense of dj vu. Her service dog, she said, experienced these same digestive problems a few years ago after eating NUTRO food.

"I would not venture to give any pet one nugget of NUTRO food after what my dog went through," said Maggie D. of San Francisco.

NUTRO responds

NUTRO, however, defended its products.

A spokeswoman told us she is unaware of any substantiated medical problems like these linked to her company's pet food.

Many NUTRO customers also tout the food, saying it's an excellent product. Veterinarians told ConsumerAffairs.com that many factors can cause gastrointestinal problems in dogs and cats, including changes in diet, newly-developed sensitivities to pet food, or viral infections.

But scores of pet owners who've contacted us are convinced that something is now wrong with NUTRO's food.

They're pet owners like Lynn C. of Cabot, Arkansas.

"I've used NUTRO for years and never had any problems," she told us. "But my 10-year-old border collie, Boo, became sick six weeks ago. He was lethargic, lost weight, and when evaluated by a veterinarian, his liver enzymes were critical. They were elevatedoff the chart. My vet said we've got to do something.

"She put him on antibiotics and a strong amino acid, but he continued to deteriorate."

A week into Boo's treatment, a co-worker told Lynn about problems she'd read about regarding NUTRO's pet food.

"I had never dreamed it could be the food," she said. "I'm feeding all four of my dogs the food, so why all of the sudden would it affect Boo? The other three are still thriving. But they're youngerand he's the smallest dog."

Lynn did some digging and found the complaints filed by pet owners on ConsumerAffairs.com.

"I was shocked at the information that I found on NUTRO," she said. "I faxed pages and pages of this information to my veterinarian, who became alarmed and told me to stop feeding him the NUTRO."

Within days, Boo's condition improved.

"He started acting like he felt better," Lynn said. "It's amazing. He wasn't responding until I took him off the NUTRO food. Within a week, he had regained two pounds, and after two weeks, his liver enzymes were still high, but improving.

"I cannot explain why this happened all of the sudden since Boo has been eating this food for years. But I know my dog and I know it was the food."

Another pet owner in the small town of Cabot, Arkansas, who shows Westies, said her dogs experienced the same problems with NUTRO's food.

"I started using NUTRO Natural Choice for my show dogs last fall," said Judy Y., who has fed dogs NUTRO on and off for years. "With the last two bags my dogs started to lose weight and their stools were extremely soft. One litter had constant diarrhea. They were losing weight, their coats were not in the condition they should be. And after they ate, they would suck up water like they hadn't had any all day.

"The only dog I wasn't having problems with was the old dog that can only eat raw meat, no dog food at all."

Judy also noticed that one of her puppies wasn't growing.

"She was growing fine until I put her on NUTRO," Judy said. "And then it was like she just stopped growing. She looked like she had been starved and her coat looked real bad."

Judy's vet examined the dogs -- and their stools -- and didn't find any problems.

"So I said the heck with the commercial dog food and I started feeding all my dogs raw food," Judy said. "They've all bounced back. They have all gained weight and their hair is growing again."

The only exception is the puppy that had growth problems.

"My puppy is 10 months old now and her growth seems to be stunted," Judy said. "I have never had this happen in the 40 years I have been showing and breeding dogs. I'm not sure this show quality puppy will now get big enough to show or breed. It is so heart breaking to see such a good quality dog not live up to her potential because of a dog food."

Similar tales

Scores of other pet owners echo these concerns. Consider some of their pets' recent experiences with NUTRO:

• Michele T. of Northridge, California: "I've been feeding my dogs NUTRO Natural Choice Senior kibble for years. Lately, the last few months, they've both had very upset tummies and very unusual and loose stools."

• Rachel B. of Indianapolis, Indiana: "I have a three-year-old Poodle who I got from a rescue (group), and he's been on NUTRO Max since I've had him. Within the last few months, he has had quite a few digestive problems that his vet has not been able to figure out thus far. He has not been eating like he normal does and his stools have been incredible sporadic -- soft then hard, then soft then bloody. His appetite has been pretty bad. He'll wait to eat until he's starving because he doesn't want to eat the food. He's drinking water like he's been in the desert, and coughing and dry heaving a lot. He repeatedly tests negative for stomach parasites and we have been uncertain what the problem was until I received an e-mail about NUTRO foods from the shelter he came from. I know I will be weaning him off NUTRO immediately!"

• Kelly M. of Moyock, North Carolina: "I switched my dogs to NUTRO Natural Choice Large Breed chicken and rice, thinking I was improving the quality of their food. They loved it! Unfortunately, a few days after I began feeding the new food, which I converted by mixing in increasing quantities over a week long period, both of my dogs -- a Great Dane and a Dane/Blue Tick mix -- developed watery bowels and lots of digestive activity. We took the Dane to the vet, because he exhibited symptoms first, and they performed a fecal test for both parasites and Giardia. Both were negative. When the other dog began having the same symptoms, I began to suspect the food. I placed a call to NUTRO yesterday and spoke to a customer service representative. She said they had never heard of any dogs having problems like the ones I described. And then, the next day, I found your Web site and saw the numerous complaints. I am not pleased."

• Lin D. of Fresno, California: "I have three miniature pinschers and it (the NUTRO food) has affected all of them same way diarrhea, throwing up, loose stools or totally water stools. They have eaten this food for four years and never had any problems until this last bag. The thing that was interesting is when I opened the last bag and scooped out the food, it was more grainy than normal. My eight-pound girl, she's a wolf and eats everything, she kind of backed away from the food and I had to coerce her to eat. I have taken my dogs off NUTRO and they are doing fine. I also called NUTRO and spoke to a representative in consumer service. She, too, said she had not heard of any problems with the food. She is blaming the shipping and storing of the food she kind of giggled when she said it. I won't go back to that food. My dogs are much too precious to me and I am extremely fortunate I didn't lose them to a bad bag of food."

• Jacki G. of Dornsife, Pennsylvania: "I recently purchased a 40 pound bag of NUTRO Natural Lamb and Rice small bites for my Weimer. We've been very happy until this last bag (dated 10 may 2009,13:38 2 a x 4 j p). Our dogs were throwing up, diarrhea as well as the usual allergy reactions. I figured they had gotten into something they shouldn't have, so I fed them brown rice and boiled ground beef to allow their bellies to settle down. The dogs got better. I resumed feeding NUTRO, with the same results. I figured the bag was somehow tainted with corn (which the Weimer is allergic to), causing the intestinal and other reactions. I purchased another food. Symptoms immediately subsided. I was determined not to waste a 40 pound bag of dog food, so I tried to mix it 50/50 with the good food. Bad Idea! Immediate return of symptoms. I called the company to report my dismay. After a 25 minute wait I spoke to a very uninterested woman, who told be to take the food back to the store for a new bag or a refund. I was shocked there was not more alarm that their food wasn't properly manufactured. I was frustrated and dumbfounded at this lack of customer service. I then Googled to see if there was anything going on with other folks. Wow, am I surprised and a little scared that I tried so long to get my Zippo to eat this food."

• Leigh P. of Olmsted Falls, Ohio: "After years on NUTRO, both my cats started vomiting almost daily. I did plenty of research, feeling that I should switch their food. I will never feed commercial brands like this again. My cats are now on a raw BARF diet, which they were designed to eat, and they are thriving and healthy. My Persian cat, who lost fur four years ago from an illness, is now fluffy again after just 1 month on raw. Don't feed NUTRO or commercial brands. Now I feel guilty for donating this poison to my animal shelter."

Pet store employee

These problems don't surprise a pet store employee in California, who contacted us with concerns about NUTRO's products.

"Of the customers that come in with health issues occurring in their pets -- such as those described by the people reporting here (on your Web site), NUTRO is the only food with these problems," said the employee, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job.

"We've averaged 20 customers a week with this food issue for the last five months or so. I'm rather surprised it's continuing and that nothing is being done about it."

Foreign objects

ConsumerAffairs.com also heard from a South Carolina pet owner, who discovered what she calls "foreign" objects in her recent bags of NUTRO food.

"In two of the last five bags I've fed my dogs, I've found pieces of something that look like nylon," said Lori W. "I found one piece stuck out from one end and hooked through a piece of kibble. It was maybe one-half inch long. Most are a lot thinner."

Unidentified object found in Lori W.'s NUTRO pet food

After making these discoveries, Lori switched her six dogs to another brand of food.

"I don't know, maybe that's supposed to be in there," she said. "But I'm transitioning my dogs to another food. I'm not panicked, but I got concerned after reading the other comments (on ConsumerAffairs.com). I can't deny that I found something in the food that I've never noticed before."

Lori also said one of her dogs -- an eight-year-old German Shepherd-Great Dane mix -- recently became ill after eating some NUTRO food.

"But that could be totally coincidence," she said. "Rufus has had bouts of soft stools and diarrhea since we've had him. But now I wonder if he had some sensitivity to NUTROafter we opened that last bag of NUTRO, he got sick."

She added: "I loved NUTRO and would love to continue loving it, but I'm just not comfortable with the food right now."

Service dog

She -- and other pet owners -- shouldn't feel safe feeding their dogs and cats NUTRO, warned a disabled pet owner in California.

Radio talk show host Maggie D. said her service dog -- a Pit Bull-mix named Little Maggie -- became ill a few years ago after eating NUTRO food.

"I'd been feeding her NUTRO since she was a pup," said Maggie, who hosts a radio show for people with disabilities on KUSF. "Then she suddenly started having digestive problems. She had terrible diarrhea. She'd indicate that she needed to go out, but couldn't wait. She was also lethargic and she'd drink a lot of water and then quit drinking water.

"She lost a lot of weight. She had absolutely no energy and could not pull my manual wheelchair as trained."

That meant Maggie could not leave her home.

"She's my lifeline," Maggie said of her beloved service dog. "She goes everywhere with me."

Maggie knew she had to act fast. She couldn't function -- physically or emotionally -- without Little Maggie.

She immediately switched Little Maggie from NUTRO to rice and cottage cheese.

"It took about 12 to 14 days of this diet to bring her back to normal stool formation," Maggie said. "I then would slowly re-introduce the NUTRO one nugget at a time -- more each day until she was entirely off the rice/cottage cheese diet."

But Little Maggie's condition worsened again.

"Within a month, she returned to the watery frequent stools," Maggie said. "Back and forth we went between the NUTRO lamb and rice and the rice and cottage cheese until my vet told me to put her on straight boiled chicken breasts and boiled skinned diced potato.

"After three months of the chicken/potato diet she had a shiney coat, her hair was silky once again as is her skin," Maggie added. "She had boundless energy again. She now pulls my wheelchair and stretches herself across the bed so I can pull up to a seated position and get ready to transfer to my wheelchair."

Is Maggie surprised by the recent problems dogs and cats have experienced with NUTRO products?

"No. I think they're using something different in the food they have to add fillers," she said. "I have no confidence in them."

'Look out'

Maggie decided to contact us now -- even though her problems with NUTRO occurred two years ago -- to warn other dog and cat owners about this brand of pet food.

"My message to pet owners is -- look out. If you love your animal get them off NUTRO. I would not trust the pet food industry or commercial pet food. I will never feed my animals NUTRO again."

But many pet owners stand by NUTRO and its products. And they warn consumers not to jump to conclusions based on unsubstantiated claims posted on the Internet.

"I have used NUTRO for both of my dogs and both of my cats for over two years now and I have nothing but wonderful things to say about this product," said Jennifer A. of Spokane, Washington. "The benefits are amazing and the ingredients are quality. I was a little shocked when I read some of these postings, but it will not make me quit feeding this product. I think that people need to remember that animals are like people, just because you get sick, you would not quit eating everything that you had before."

She added: "I have called NUTRO and spoken with them on numerous occasions concerning ingredients and other aspects of their food, and they have always been very nice. I find it extremely unlikely that a business would laugh at a customer on the phone, not only from a sensitivity standpoint, but also from a liability standpoint. Overall, I think NUTRO is a great product. My feeling go out to all of the people that have lost a pet, but unless you have actual proof, it is dangerous to spread false information. Get facts."

A Maryland pet owner agreed.

"We've been feeding NUTRO for years and never had a problem," Tabitha A. of Upper Marlsboro, Maryland, told us.

She advised pet owners to consider the following before criticizing a pet food:

• If you change your dog's food quickly, it's likely to get an upset stomach;

• Things can happen to any food -- people or pets. "It can get damp or bugs or be out of date, and it isn't always the manufacturers' fault."

• Even a careful company can have occasional problems. "If you have problems and can't attribute it to anything but the dog food - contact the company," she said. "They may ask for food to test. If you don't contact them, and there is a problem, they can't fix it or do a recall. I had a friend who got food with an incorrect mix and because she was diligent and sent samples, the company did a recall. She had already stopped feeding her dogs the specific batch, but she probably saved many lives."

A woman in Winnipeg who runs a dog rescue also defended NUTRO and its products.

"You had asked for bad experiences and good, but chances are you likely will not print the good ones," wrote Sally H., who runs Hull's Haven Border Collie Rescue in Winnipeg, Canada.

"All of my own dogs are on NUTRO, as are all of our rescues. We have had excellent results placing emaciated dogs on High Energy, puppies raised on NUTRO Puppy, seniors and overweight dogs on NUTRO, and we have had nothing but good results. Not only do we use the brand ourselves, but we also ask our adopters to continue to use it, as we want the best in health for our rescues," Sally said.

'100% safe'

A spokeswoman for NUTRO told us the company's products are 100 percent safe and meet all standards set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal regulators.

"NUTRO pet foods undergo rigorous quality assurance testing beginning with raw ingredients and ending with testing all finished products," said company spokeswoman Alice Nathanson. "This includes testing to confirm that no melamine, mold toxins, or pathogenic bacteria are detected in any NUTRO pet foods."

Nathanson said her company is aware of the complaints posted on the Internet about NUTRO's food.

"Some things can get posted and they are not verified," she said. "I'm not aware of any issues with the products. My dogs eat NUTRO and they have never had any problems."

Nathanson encouraged worried pet owners to contact the company directly with their concerns.

"We absolutely want to hear from customers," she said. "The safety and quality of our products is our top priority. When a consumer does have a concern with any of our products, an in-depth review of the consumer-provided samples is performed to determine if an issue does exist."

What about the complaints we heard regarding NUTRO's customer service department?

"I'm surprised to hear those comments," Nathanson said. "We take any complaint seriously and we will conduct an in-depth review if a consumer provides us with samples."

The best way to contact NUTRO, she said, is through the company's Web site: www.nutroproducts.com. Pet owners can also call NUTRO at 800-833-5330.

Veterinarians skeptical

Veterinarians we contacted about the recent problems dogs and cats have experienced with NUTRO products told us it's not uncommon for pets to have sudden bouts of gastrointestinal problems.

They also said a number of factors could be the culprit, including pet food.

"Food can cause GI upset if sudden changes are made in the type of food you're feeding," said Dr. Robert Backus, an assistant teaching professor and director of the Nestle-Purina Endowed Small Animal Nutrition Program at the University of Missouri's College of Veterinary Medicine. "And there may be some intolerance if you wean them from a previous food to another one."

He added: "As far as pet food manufacturing goes, I'm not an authority. There are many ingredients that go into these products and there could be problems with an ingredient source. There also could be problems with the formulation. And there are occasional processing problems -- maybe the food was over-processed or under processed -- which could affect GI health and pets could end up with diarrhea."

Dr. Steven Hansen with The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) agreed.

"There could be many causes for what you're seeing," said Hansen, a veterinary toxicologist. "Changes in diet can likely make a change in what's happening to a (pets') system. A dog may have a sensitivity to whatever he's eating even if he's eaten the food for a long time. What can happen is they develop a sensitivity to one ingredient and now their systems no longer manage the food right. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with food.

"Stress could be another factor."

Hansen, however, suspects another culprit is to blame for these recent bouts of GI problems: "A viral infection seems the mostly likely cause to me."

The ASPCA's Poison Control Center, he said, has not received any cases regarding NUTRO's food in the past six months.

"We get hundreds of cases a day and I have zero cases on NUTRO products. But given the symptoms pet owners are reporting -- they're mild gastrointestinal problems -- we might not get calls. So, I'm not aware of these problems, we have no data on them, but I'd like to know more information."

Hansen, for example, wondered if any of the pet owners fed their animals' NUTRO products with the same lot and formulation numbers.

Few pet owners had that information.

"If they have the same lot numbers, it would get my attention," Hansen said. "If they have the same formulation numbers, it may suggest there may be an ingredient that's the problem."

He and Dr. Backus encouraged pet owners whose dogs and cats have experienced these recent GI problems to contact their veterinarians.

"They need to document the problems -- especially if they are serious problems," Backus said. "And bloody diarrhea is a serious problem.

"I would also recommend that if they suspect the food is the problem, they should take a freezer bag full of it -- along with the label information that has the product's name and lot numbers -- to their vet," he added. "If the vet suspects the food is the cause, the vet should then contact the company and FDA. If there's a problem, we need to document it and get supporting lab results."

Dr. Hansen also recommended that Lori S. -- who found "foreign" objects in recent bags of NUTRO -- send samples of that food directly to the company.

"NUTRO can do a microscopic examination of the food," he said. "Maybe it is something that is normal. But if it's not, NUTRO should tell her what it is. In light of the (2007) pet food recall, I would expect pet food manufacturers to be responsive and give her an explanation for what it is."

Waiting for results

Some pet owners told us they've already sent in samples of their pet's food to NUTRO. They're now waiting for the results.

Others said they've reported their concerns to the FDA.

A few pet owners told us they hope this is all just a bad coincidence or a couple bad batches of food. Most pet owners, however, are grateful they learned about others pet' experiences with NUTRO.

"I cannot believe that a company that sells their product as safe and natural is instead injuring and killing pets," said Lynn of Arkansas. "If I had not been informed about other pet owners' experiences with NUTRO Natural Choice, my dog would be dead I would have kept feeding him the food.

"It is my hope that some consumer group or authority will begin to investigate this company and its products before other pets are affected."

More about pets ...

The vitamin industry has spent millions promoting antioxidants as a way to improve health but a new review of studies found no evidence that the nutrition supplements extend life. Worse, the review authors said that some antioxidants could increase risk for death.

The reviewers call for more regulation of the nutraceuticals industry, but an antioxidant researcher with the U.S. Department of Agriculture said that call for stricter monitoring overreaches the conclusions of the review.

The researchers looked at 67 randomized studies and found that supplemental antioxidants do not reduce mortality and that some including vitamin A, beta-carotene and vitamin E could increase mortality. The review combined evidence from more than 200,000 people.

"The harmful effects of antioxidant supplements are not confined to vitamin A," said review co-author Christian Gluud, M.D. "Our analyses also demonstrate rather convincingly that beta-carotene and vitamin E lead to increased mortality compared to placebo."

The review appears in the latest issue of The Cochrane Library, a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical research. Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical practice after considering both the content and quality of existing medical trials on a topic.

Antioxidants are nutrients such as vitamin E, vitamin C, or beta carotene. They've been successfully marketed over the years as a way to make up for the fact that most people do eat not enough fruits and vegetables to ensure an adequate intake of vital nutrients.

Supporters see antioxidants as a way to counter the damaging effects of oxygen in the tissues. However, the researchers say it is unclear if supplementation can provide benefits akin to a healthy diet and if some antioxidants are, in fact, harmful.

The review included studies of healthy adults and adults diagnosed with specific, stable medical conditions. The authors excluded studies with children or pregnant women, or studies that evaluated supplements as treatment for acute diseases, such as malignant cancer. It also excluded studies that used supplements for replacement of nutrient deficits.

The review authors recommend greater regulation of antioxidant supplements and make a "plea for urgent political action," said Gluud, director of medical science, associate professor and department head of the Copenhagen Trial Unit at the Center for Clinical Intervention Research and Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.

"We should request that the regulatory authorities dare to regulate the industry without being financially dependent on the very same industry," Gluud said.

Going too far

However, nutrition science expert Jeffrey Blumberg, Ph.D., said the reviewers go too far in their recommendations for more stringent regulation of antioxidant supplements.

"I could find nowhere in this report any review of regulatory practices and effectiveness or the evaluation of public health policies, procedures or perspectives," Blumberg said.

Blumberg is director of the Antioxidants Research Laboratory at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging and a professor with the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. He was not involved in the review.

A supplement-industry trade group questions both the review conclusions and the study selection process for the analysis.

"Four hundred five studies which showed no deaths were excluded from the meta-analysis, which if included, clearly would have altered the outcome of the meta-analysis," said Andrew Shao, Ph.D., vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a supplement industry trade association in Washington, D.C.

Shao maintained that antioxidant supplements are safe additions to a healthy diet.

The review only includes studies in which someone died.

Gluud defended his methodology, saying it is important to include only large, randomized controlled trials to assess mortality. Most of the trials that showed no deaths were not "proper preventative trials," he said.

Blumberg raised concerns about the use of "all-cause mortality" as a yardstick for antioxidants' influence on health and life. "All-cause mortality" includes deaths resulting from everything from cancer to a train wreck.

But this isn't the first study in recent months to question the health benefits, and possible harm, from vitamin supplements. In February, a study by researchers at the University of Washington found that supplements not only did not protect against cancer, but might even increase cancer risks.

Findings of the study of 77,000 vitamin users were published in the first issue for March of the American Thoracic Society's American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Ford Motor Co. is recalling 3,331 2008 E-350 trucks with a 138-inch wheelbase because of a faulty drive shaft assembly.

The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) reported that the drive shaft may have been manufactured with a slip yoke that has cracks. The drive shaft flaw can reduce performance below design specifications, according to NHTSA.

The safety agency warned that over time the slip yoke could fracture without warning, allowing the drive shaft to separate from the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.

Ford dealers will inspect the E-350 drive shaft and replace it free of charge when the recall begins. Owners may contact Ford at 1-800-392-3673 or NHTSA at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153).

Some members of the U.S. House of Representatives want consumers to have more information about tainted food when the government issues a recall. For example where were the questionable food items sold?

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) has introduced legislation called The Food Safety Recall Information Act, which would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to list all the retail stores and school districts that have received food products that were subjected to a USDA recall. The measure has at least 10 co-sponsors.

"During the historic Westland/Hallmark recall of 143 million pounds of beef, consumers were denied important information about which stores or schools received the recalled products," DeLauro said. "Instead, consumers were forced to rely on sporadic media reports, which were not comprehensive and resulted in additional confusion.

"When a food safety recall occurs, consumers should be able to know which stores or schools received the potentially contaminated products so that they can better protect their families, and this bill would accomplish just that," DeLauro said.

DeLauro says the Bush Administration has opposed her bill, and has backed a USDA proposal that she says would make this information available only for the recalls that pose the highest risk.

"That means it would not have applied to the Westland/Hallmark recall," she said. That is inexcusable. Transparency is absolutely critical during any food safety recall."

Since March of 2006 USDA has had a proposed rule pending that would permit the agency to list retail consignees on its recall press releases. Following the historic Hallmark/Westland recall of 143 million pounds of beef, DeLauro said she repeatedly pressed USDA and the Office of Management and Budget to release the information, as well as allow the rule to move forward.

DeLauro says her bill would also eliminate the loophole that allows downer cattle to be slaughtered for the food supply.

One in every 538 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing during March, a five percent rise over the previous month and a whopping 57 percent increase over March 2007.

The real estate marketing firm RealtyTrac reports 234,685 properties nationwide were subject to foreclosure filings default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions.

"The March numbers show that overall foreclosure activity so far this year continues to run nearly 60 percent above the levels we saw last year," said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac.

Saccacio notes that while repossessions were up nearly 129 percent in March, auction notices were up only 32 percent. He says that means more defaulting homeowners are simply walking away and deeding their properties back to the foreclosing lender.

This deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure process allows the lender to take possession of a property without putting it up for public foreclosure auction.

Sunbelt Leads

Nevada, California and Florida have the highest foreclosure rates.

The report shows that one in every 139 Nevada households received a foreclosure filing during March, 3.9 times the national average and the highest state foreclosure rate for the 15th consecutive month. Foreclosure filings were reported on a total of 7,659 properties during the month, up 24 percent from the previous month and up nearly 62 percent from March 2007.

Foreclosure rates in California and Florida ranked second and third highest respectively among the states for the fourth straight month. One in every 204 California households received a foreclosure filing in March 2.6 times the national average and one in every 282 Florida households received a foreclosure filing during the month 1.9 times the national average.

Despite a nearly five percent monthly dip in foreclosure activity, Arizona posted the nation's fourth highest state foreclosure rate for the third straight month, with one in every 283 households receiving a foreclosure filing in March. Foreclosure filings were reported on 9,199 properties during the month, up nearly 106 percent from March 2007.

Colorado foreclosure activity decreased 8 percent from the previous month and 1 percent from March 2007, but the state's foreclosure rate continued to rank fifth highest among the states. Foreclosure filings were reported on 6,180 Colorado properties during the month one in every 339 total households.

Other states with foreclosure rates ranking among the top 10 were Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Massachusetts and Maryland.

Highest totals

California, Florida, Ohio reported the highest foreclosure totals.

Foreclosure filings were reported on 64,711 California properties in March, the most of any state for the 15th consecutive month. California foreclosure activity increased nearly 21 percent from the previous month and almost 106 percent from March 2007.

Florida posted the nation's second highest total, with foreclosure filings reported on 30,254 properties in March. The state's foreclosure activity decreased nearly 7 percent from the previous month but was still up almost 112 percent from March 2007.

Ohio and Georgia both registered month-to-month and year-over-year increases in foreclosure activity, and foreclosure filings were reported on more than 11,000 properties in both states. Ohio's total of 11,273 was the nation's third highest, and one in every 448 Ohio households received a foreclosure filing during the month ranking its foreclosure rate No. 7 among the states.

Georgia's total of 11,047 was the nation's fourth highest, and one in every 351 Georgia households received a foreclosure filing during the month ranking its foreclosure rate No. 6 among the states.

Foreclosure filings were reported on a total of 10,700 Texas properties in March, a nearly 13 percent decrease from the previous month and a 16 percent decrease from March 2007, and the state's total dropped to fifth highest among the states.

Other states in the top 10 for total properties with filings were Michigan, Arizona, Illinois, Nevada and Colorado.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) says he's heard reports the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) may try to meet the mandate by requiring companies that pack cargo shipments to perform the screening themselves, before the cargo ever gets to the airport. That, he says, raises real security issues.

"If cargo is screened before it reaches the airport, which appears to be a central element of TSA's plans to comply with the law, how will it be sealed to prevent tampering?" Markey asked. "It remains unclear whether a secure chain of custody can be established to make certain that bombs or other dangerous items are not inserted into cargo after screening occurs."

Markey said TSA is in the preliminary stages of testing its approach, but says if the agency's plans ultimately fall short, Congress will need to take steps to ensure that the air cargo security mandates in the 9/11 Commission law are met.

"I worked for four years to pass the law closing the air cargo loophole and requiring 100 percent screening of cargo carried in the belly of passenger planes," Markey said. "Now TSA must meet this mandate."

Markey said TSA appears to be working seriously to implement a screening program to meet the new higher security standard, but he will continue to monitor their progress to make sure the plan meets the security standards set by the law.

The law was signed in August 2007, implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It requires all cargo carried on passenger planes be screened at a level of security commensurate to the security applied to airline passengers' checked bags.

Federal safety regulators are investigating one complaint of unintended acceleration in the Toyota Sienna.

The Office of Defect Investigation (ODI) at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported receiving the complaint.

The Complainant reported that he applied the accelerator pedal to accelerate the vehicle and experienced unwanted acceleration upon release, ODI reported on its Web site.

Safety regulators said that field data indicates that when a retainer pin is missing from the driver's side center stack/console trim panel, the panel can detach from the console and the accelerator pedal can become entrapped under the trim panel causing unwanted acceleration.

The trim panel was used on Toyota Sienna minvans produced from January through June of 2003, according to ODI. The new component used after June 2003 apparently does not "entrap the throttle, according to the safety agency.

ODI has launched a preliminary investigation to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety related consequences of unintended acceleration in the Sienna.

Two members of Congress have introduced legislation to protect consumers from stoves prone to tipping over and falling on children.

The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) would require that all stoves sold in the United States include the installation of anti-tipping brackets.

The two lawmakers say the measure is aimed at preventing the dozens of deaths and injuries that occur every year when stoves tip over.

"Since 1980, at least 33 people were killed and 84 were injured when free-standing stoves tipped over on them, yet at no point over the course of the past 28 years has the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) taken action to end these preventable deaths and injuries," Stupak said. "These incidents are almost always preventable if the brackets are used."

"This bill will help save lives," Fossella said. "There have been too many tragic stories of young children dying as a result of tipping stoves and other large household items. We also need to continue educating families of these dangers so they can take action to child-proof their homes."

Virtually all kitchen stoves sold in the United States come equipped with anti-tipping brackets or similar devices which, if installed, will prevent the stove from tipping over in nearly all situations.

Unfortunately, the lawmakers charge, some installers, retailers, landlords and others fail to install these brackets. As a result, there are incidents each year usually involving children in which stoves are stood on or climbed upon, causing it to tip. Oftentimes, they say, children can be crushed or burned by hot food on the stove top.

The bill would require that all stoves sold or distributed in the United States contain anti-tipping brackets or other anti-tipping devices. It also requires warning language on the product making clear that the brackets must be installed for safety.

It makes it a violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act for a retailer to install the product without using the brackets per the manufacturer's instructions. The bill also calls on the Consumer Product Safety Commission to conduct an informational campaign to educate consumers about the danger of range and oven tipping, as well as the importance of installing anti-tipping devices.

The legislation has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over consumer product safety issues in general and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Stupak and Fossella both serve on the committee.

Snail's pace

Consumer groups earlier pointed to the settlement of a class-action suit against Sears to support their argument that the CPSC moves too slowly to effectively protect consumers from injury.

Sears agreed to fix as many as 3.9 million ranges by bolting them to a floor or wall, to prevent them from tipping over. The settlement covers every range Sears has sold since 2000 and could cost the retailer as much as $526 million.

It's estimated that 15 to 20 million kitchens in the United States are equipped with a range that can tip over and crush, scald or burn whoever is standing in front of it. The problem is caused by the use of lightweight material in modern stoves, which makes them top-heavy and thus prone to tip over when the oven door is open.

None of this is new. Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG and the Consumer Federation of America have been warning for years that the tip-over hazard exists in most brands of electric and gas ranges used in households throughout the country.

20 years

According to documents obtained last year from the CPSC, manufacturers and the government have known about this danger for more than 20 years.

Since the early 1980s, manufacturers of ranges began using lighter-gauge steel to reduce costs, even though they quickly learned that this resulted in a tendency for the lighter-weight appliances to tip over when weight was applied to the oven door.

After receiving numerous reports of severe accidents caused by tipping stoves, industry-standard organizations Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) both developed national, voluntary safety standards that require electric and gas ranges manufactured after 1991 to remain stable when 250 pounds of pressure is applied on the oven door for five minutes.

The standards also require sellers to install the anti-tip brackets that manufacturers agreed to supply, but the retailers rarely install the brackets.

While the retailers are all aware of the safety hazard, the delivery people they contract with often are not equipped or trained to perform the installation service, and the sales people rarely mention the issue to the buyer. As a result, most homeowners who purchase the ranges do not know that the units are not secure and are unaware that the brackets are necessary for stability.

Sears suit

The Sears suit settlement, recently approved by an Illinois judge, requires Sears to install safety brackets in the ranges it sells over the next three years, and to fix existing ranges by bolting them to the kitchen wall.

CPSC's role

While it's true that CPSC has not ordered a recall to fix the hazard, the agency's spokesman said that CPSC has mentioned the problem several times in consumer advisories. Scott Wolfson said the agency was also concerned about furniture and other objects tipping over.

There have been several recalls of entertainment consoles in recent years.

Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said the CPSC's inaction illustrates the weakness of the legislation under which the agency operates. The House and Senate are considering bills that would strengthen the agency but acting head Nancy Nord opposes the Senate version, which provides for harsher penalties and more openness than the House version.

Children, Elderly at Risk

"There have been more than 100 reported cases of death and injury from scalding and burns due to hot foods and liquids spilling from the stove top, and from the weight crushing anyone in the path of the tipping ranges," Claybrook said. "Considering the lack of consistent reporting and the millions of homes with these ovens, we believe the numbers of those maimed or killed by ranges tipping over are much greater."

This design flaw has particularly affected children and the elderly.

CPSC accident reports include cases of a 24-pound toddler who stood on an open oven door, tipping the range so that boiling chicken soup spilled over him, causing severe burns; a 3-year old who climbed onto the range door and was killed when the stove fell over on him; and an 88-year old woman who slipped as she was cleaning her range and grabbed the oven door for support -- which caused the oven to flip over and crush her in her own kitchen with her upper body wedged into the hot oven in which she had just finished baking cookies.

When Did CPSC Know?

Sears, one of the largest retailers of gas and electric ranges, admitted in an internal memo in 1996 that the brackets were installed for only an estimated 5 percent of ranges sold -- and possibly as low as 2-3 percent.

In a 1999 letter to Sears, Underwriters Laboratories informed the retailer that it expected the ranges with the UL Listing Mark to be installed with the anti-tip safety brackets supplied by the manufacturers. Sears gave a misleading response to UL in 2000 that implied the company was in full compliance with the UL standard.

"When companies fail to take simple steps to save lives, and the CPSC fails to act on a well-known and preventable problem that leads to horrible burns and deaths, something's very wrong," said U.S. PIRG Consumer Program Director Ed Mierzwinski. "It's time to fix the stove tip-over problem that's been ignored for too long."

The CPSC was aware of the oven-tipping problem since at least 1984, and received reports detailing numerous deaths and serious injuries, mostly involving children --some as young as 12 months old -- and the elderly. It never took any steps to require notification to owners, the installation of the brackets or the redesign of the ranges in the future.

Consumer representatives objected to the CPSC consistently failing in its mission to protect American consumers.

"Retailers should notify consumers of this safety hazard immediately and take steps to comply with the voluntary standards, including retrofitting all freestanding stoves with the necessary safety bracket and installing new stoves properly," said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety and senior counsel for Consumer Federation of America.

Action Needed

To avoid any more preventable injuries, the consumer groups have called on the sellers of ranges to notify all owners of the danger of tipping stoves and the need for safety brackets, and to install the brackets for any existing owners of the stoves.

"American consumers are being killed and terribly injured by companies who are cynically refusing to make their ranges safe and by the agency established to protect them," said Claybrook. "Action to fix this preventable hazard will come far too late for the many people who have been maimed and killed, but we hope it comes in time to save countless others."

The bed has arrived.

After battling with a Florida-based furniture store for more than seven months -- and worrying that the company took our money and would never deliver the merchandise -- our son finally has his loft bed.

But we're lucky. ConsumerAffairs.com has heard from scores of consumers nationwide who never received their furniture from the company -- Kids Quarters, Inc.

Most consumers paid in advance for their furniture. Some made those purchases with cash or debit cards. They're now out thousands of dollars. And it appears unlikely that they'll get their money back -- or their furniture.

The long-delayed bed

As we reported, Kids Quarters closed its three Florida stores and its online division in early March. The company is now filing for bankruptcy.

That news outraged many Kids Quarters customers, who say the company's owners shouldn't be allowed to hide behind bankruptcy protection. Or open a new business -- under a different name.

Consumers we've talked to want the Florida Attorney General's Office -- or some other consumer protection agency -- to investigate Kids Quarters for possible civil or criminal violations.

We've learned Kids Quarters took money from at least one customer even after it notified other consumers it could not deliver their promised and paid for furniture.

We also learned the company's president, Antonio Sola, opened an online furniture business weeks before he closed the Kids Quarters company.

The Florida Attorney General's office, however, said it is not investigating Kids Quarters "at this time." A spokeswoman said her office has received 59 complaints about the company most of those involve delivery problems and failure to issue refunds.

She also said her office is referring consumers to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Orange County, Florida, Consumer Fraud Unit and the Better Business Bureau of Central Florida, which has received more than 140 complaints about Kids Quarters.

The Florida Attorney General's office is also referring consumers who bought their furniture online to the Internet Crime Complaint Center.

No recourse for some customers

Florida officials said Kids Quarters' consumers should contact their credit card companies and dispute the bills.

That's what my husband and I did and we received a full refund from our credit card company. But that advice doesn't help consumers like Valerie P., of Eustis, Florida.

She wrote Kids Quarters a check for $1,500 as a down payment on bedroom furniture for her seven-year-old daughter. Kids Quarters electronically withdrew the money from Valerie's account.

She wasn't expecting delivery until April 19 and never suspected anything was wrong until last Thursday.

"My husband and daughter drove by the (Altamonte Springs) store yesterday and found it closed down," Valerie told us. "I immediately called all the locations to find all numbers disconnected. Then I got on the Internet and found your stories and complaints."

Suspicious timing

What's suspicious about Valerie's case is the timing.

Kids Quarter took her money on February 23, 2008. That's two days after I received a letter from the company stating it couldn't deliver our son's bed because of financial problems.

In a letter dated February 21, 2008, Kids Quarters' General Manager Monique Sola wrote: "We are aware that you and your family have been waiting for quite some time to receive your furniture ordered from us for Berg Furniture products. Unfortunately, we are unable to fulfill your order through our normal distribution process due to our present financial situation."

We later ordered our bed directly from Berg Furniture. That company agreed to honor the terms and price quoted in Kids Quarters' contract.

Our son's bed arrived on April 3 -- three weeks after we placed the order with Berg.

But Berg isn't the manufacturer of Valerie's furniture. The bedroom set she ordered is made by a company called Maxtrix Kids Furniture. Valerie plans to call that company directly and hopes it will honor Kids Quarters' contract.

She's also contacted the Orlando-based law firm of Schlegel Caplan, which told ConsumerAffairs.com it represents Kids Quarters in the bankruptcy action.

Valerie and other consumers are furious that Kids Quarters continued to take customers' money when it knew it couldn't fulfill the orders.

"There was no indication anything was wrong," Valerie said. "There are probably a lot of people who don't know what's happened. They aren't expecting their deliveries until Mid-April, and won't know there's a problem until they don't receive their orders.

"I'm sure we're not only the only people they took orders from right up to the end," she added. "When we went back to the store (the day they placed their order) three salespeople said they had had a busy day."

We've learned that Kids Quarters' also promised another customer she'd receive her order just one day before the company closed its doors.

"We also purchased our furniture in February," said consumer Stephanie B. "I called and spoke with Mrs. Sola the day before they closed the doors to confirm my furniture was coming that week -- and she assured me it was. This is as criminal as it gets."

Other customers agree.

Lisa of Seneca, South Carolina, paid the company several hundred dollars for her daughters' bunk beds. Kids Quarters' never delivered the furniture or returned any of her calls or e-mails.

"I want these crooks to pay," she said. "I am heartbroken for my kids -- and steaming mad at being taken for a ride. Is there anyone who can help me or at least stop these crooks?"

Lisa used her credit card to pay for the furniture and thought she had added protection. But that company refused to credit her account.

"I find myself out $677.85," she told us. "My credit card company is of no assistance as the purchase was beyond its two-month deadline. My credit card company doesn't even want to look into it to protect others."

Numerous complaints

And there are many other consumers across the county who say Kids Quarters ripped them off.

Consider some of these complaints we've received about the company:

• Leisy of Windermere, Florida told us: "I ordered a bed and accessories that total $375 last July 2007. I never received my furniture. Just up to last week I was in contact with the store manager, Luis. Luis promised me that I would get credit back and it would take 21 days. Today, March 26, I called and the phone was busy. I looked it up online and realize that they (Kids Quarters) filed for bankruptcy. I am a single mother and this is just not right."

• Joann of Darnestown, Maryland, wrote us: "I ordered furniture for my daughters' room in August 2007. After numerous phone calls and promises of delivery, I hear they are in bankruptcy. I am out $1821.30. My dogs have a bed. My children have been sleeping on the floor waiting for their new bunk beds It is a huge disappointment, which is very difficult to explain to a three and five-year-old who just wanted their princess room."

• Elsie of Liverpool New York, told us: "On January 18, 2008, I ordered a complete teen bedroom set for $5689.22. I have not received it, the company has disconnected its telephone, and I learned from your Web site that they are now bankrupt, but their site is up and they are still taking ordersI have lost $5,689.22 and have no furniture to show for it."

We also heard from consumers who were worried that Kids Quarters opened a new business under a different name. Those concerns surfaced when consumers found a Web site called Kids Furnishings.com. That Web site is similar to Kids Quarters'. It sells the same furniture. And the company is based in Florida.

New business

ConsumerAffairs.com discovered Kids Quarters' president, Antonia Sola, incorporated a new business on December 4, 2007. That's just weeks before closed his Florida stores and online division.

Records with the Florida Secretary of State's office reveal Sola's new business is called Kids Furnishings.com, Inc. He filed the paperwork for that company on December 6, 2007, and he is listed as its president and secretary.

Records with the WHOIS database also revealed Sola registered the kidsfurnishings.com domain name and updated it on December 14, 2008. At the time, he was listed as the administrative contact for the Web site.

When customers called Kids Firnishings.com, though, they were told Sola had nothing to do with the company.

ConsumerAffairs.com heard that same story when we called the company as a customer. During that conversation, a man who identified himself as Robert Dalbey told us he was the owner. He also told us that he didn't know anything about Kid Quarters.

When we called Kids Furnishings.com back as a reporter, Dalbey changed his story. This time, he said he knew a great deal about Kids Quarters he managed the company's store in Tampa.

Dalbey also said he bought the Kids Furnishings.com Web site and its "intellectual property" from Sola in early March.

Records filed on March 4, 2008, with the Florida Secretary of State's office reveal a change in officers for Kids Furnishings.com. The name of the company's president switched from Antonio Sola to Robert Dalbey.

"Mr. Sola has no connection to me now," Dalbey told us. "I rent some warehouse space from him, but that ends in April."

Kids Furnishings.com, he said, will also operate much differently than Kids Quarters.

"We are only an online business. We're going to keep things on a much smaller scale. We also won't charge customers' credit cards until their furniture leaves the factory. And we'll make sure everything in stock before we place an order."

Dalbey added: "I learned a lot of how 'not-to-do things' working for Kids Quarters."

What went wrong?

What went wrong with Kids Quarters? Why couldn't the company fill customers' order? And why did it continue to take consumers' money when it couldn't fulfill their orders.

We've tried to get Antonio or Monique Sola to answer those and other questions. But they have never returned our calls or e-mail messages.

We posed the same questions to Dalbey.

He blamed the ailing economy for Kids Quarters' financial problems and its ultimate closing. "We weren't getting in the sales like we did one to three years ago. But we still had to pay vendors, make payroll, and cover rent. The rent at our Tampa store was $50,000 a month.

"This was just like any other business," Dalbey said. "Once you start spending more than you collect, you get into trouble. And he (Sola) didn't have the sales to cover his expenses."

If that's the case, why did Kids Quarters continue to take orders and customers money?

"I would think it's because they kept thinking that things were going to come aroundto turn around. That didn't happen."

Dalbey said his company will try to help Kids Quarters' customers by honoring their contracts. But he can't help customers like Lisa who paid cash or those who bought their furniture with a debit card. Dalbey said he doesn't have their money and can't afford to take the loss.

When asked why consumers should trust him -- and his new business -- Dalbey said: "We're doing thing a lot differently than Kids Quarters ever did. It's a different company - it's my company and I'm not Antonio Sola."

If there's no connection between the companies, why did the bill of lading for our son's bed indicate the order was billed to KidsFurnishings.com?

We placed our order directly with Berg furniture.

"How is that possible?" asked Almog Lieber, vice-president of marketing for Berg. We called him on Monday about the bill of lading. "Your order has nothing to do with Kids Furnishings.com. Your order is under Berg Furniture.

"We paid for your shipping," he added. "In all my conversations with the trucking company, I told them I am paying for everything I didn't want them (Kids Quarters or Kids Furnishings.com) to touch your money at all. I am paying for everything. That way I can guarantee you get your furniture."

Lieber said there might be a mix-up in the paperwork and promised to investigate.

"This is almost personally annoying to me that this has happened," he said. "I see where we may be partially responsible for this. We didn't see these problems and catch them ahead of time. If we had, we would have saved some people a lot of aggravation."

In the meantime, consumers who still haven't received their furniture -- or their money -- aren't giving up. They've talked about hiring an attorney. They've filed complaints with the Florida Attorney General's office and other consumer protection agencies.

They've also promised to continue warning others about Kids Quarters.

"I don't know if any of us will get any money back," Valerie said, "but be assured we're ready to fight. There's power in numbers!"

U.S. Marshals, acting at the request of the Food and Drug Administration, have seized more than 14,000 dosage units of Shangai Regular, Shangai Ultra, Super Shangai, Natural Super Plus, and Lady Shangai.

Although labeled as natural supplements, the seized products were all marketed to treat impotence, and/or to provide sexual enhancement, which caused them to be drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The seized products, valued at more than $100,000, contain undeclared active ingredients found in FDA-approved prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction (ED), or similar substances. Use of these products may result in serious side effects and may interact in dangerous ways with medications that a consumer may already be taking.

The seized products, which originated in China, are packaged and distributed by Shangai Distributors, Inc. of Coamo, Puerto Rico. Although the products' labels state they are natural supplements, these products are drugs and their sale is illegal without FDA approval. Before a new drug product may be legally marketed, it must be shown to be safe and effective.

In response to a consumer complaint, the FDA conducted an inspection of Shangai Distributors Inc., in November 2007. The investigation and testing revealed that the seized products contained active drug ingredients found in FDA-approved ED prescription drugs and/or a substance with a structure similar to such drugs that may cause similar side effects and drug interactions. None of the drug ingredients are listed on the labels of any of the seized products.

The undeclared ingredients in these products may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and can lower blood pressure to dangerous levels. Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates.

ED is a common problem in men with these medical conditions. Because they may have been advised against taking ED drugs, they may seek out products like these because they are marketed as all natural" or as not containing the active ingredients in approved, prescribed ED drugs.

Additionally, because the manufacturing source of the active ingredients in these products is unknown, consumers should be aware that the safety, efficacy, and purity of these ingredients cannot be validated.

No action

Despite being advised of the findings and the potential adverse health risk posed by the seized products and that regulatory action was possible, the company did not take any action to correct the violations. The FDA issued a press release on December 28, 2007 advising consumers not to buy or use the products.

Prior to the seizure, the Puerto Rico Department of Health embargoed the seized products to protect the citizens of Puerto Rico and to support the FDA's enforcement actions.

The FDA advises consumers who have used any of these products to discontinue use and consult their health care providers if they have experienced any adverse events that they believe are related to the use of these products. Consumers and health care professionals can report adverse events to FDA's MedWatch program at 800-FDA-1088 or online at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.

FDA recommends that consumers talk to their health care provider about FDA-approved treatments for erectile dysfunction. FDA may take further regulatory actions to protect consumers from these illegal products.

--

In North Carolina, Attorney General Roy Cooper says he's concerned not enough people understand their options when they get a solicitation from a company called National Deeds Service, Inc., in Washington, DC.

Cooper says the company sent thousands of letters to North Carolina homeowners offering to provide them with a certified copy of their property deed for $59 to $89.

Consumers can usually get that document themselves from their local Register of Deeds.

"Watch out for companies that want you to pay them for something you can get for little or no money elsewhere," Cooper warned. "If you get one of these notices, remember that you don't need to pay this company for a copy of your deed."

Most homeowners receive a copy of their deed at closing, so you may already have a copy. Some counties also allow you to view deeds for free via their web site.

In many cases, consumers may not need a certified copy of their deed and can instead print a scanned copy from their county's web site for free.

More Scam Alerts ...

Q. I get a lot of gas and someone told me it would help if I stopped chewing gum all the time (ex-smoker). That sounds like bunk to me. What do you think?

A. Its not bunk. When you chew gum, you swallow more often and some of what you're swallowing is air. In addition, artificial sweeteners such as sorbitol that is found in some gums can give you gas.

But, what exactly, is gas?

Most people produce between a pint and a half-gallon of gas each day. Oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen from swallowed air make up a large part of gas or flatus. Fermenting foods in the colon produce hydrogen and methane as well as carbon dioxide and oxygen.

The unpleasant odor of some flatus is the result of trace gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, indole, and skatole, which are produced when foods decompose in the colon.

We release gas upwardly by belching and downwardly by flatulence. When we swallow air and dont release it by belching, the air will work its way down and out the rectum. About half the gas passed from the rectum comes from swallowed air.

For the record, normal people pass gas about ten times each day. Twenty times daily is still considered normal.

Some people suffer from bloating caused by gas. Most who suffer from bloating do not generate excessive gas, but they dont move swallowed air fast enough. Sometimes, gas in these people moves in the wrong direction, returning to the stomach. The gas accumulates and produces discomfort. Some feel more discomfort than others because they dont tolerate intestinal stretching well.

Another major cause of gas is partially digested food passing from the small intestines to the colon, where bacteria process the food further and produce gases.

Discomfort from gas is usually nothing to worry about. However, you should go to a doctor if you have other symptoms such as abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, weight loss, bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract and sometimes heartburn.

Here are some ways to alleviate bloating:

• Eat multiple small meals during the day instead of two or three large ones.

• Chew food thoroughly and don't gulp. Eat slowly.

• Don't eat when youre nervous or hurried.

• Don't smoke; it makes you swallow more air.

• Avoid gassy foods. Some of the usual suspects are beans, onions, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, artichokes, asparagus, pears, apples, peaches, prunes, whole-wheat bread, bran, beer, soda, ice cream.

• Cut down on fatty foods. Fat slows digestion, giving food more time to ferment.

• If you take a fiber supplement, try cutting back and then build up your intake gradually.

• Reduce consumption of dairy products. Or try using products that help digest milk sugar (lactose).

• Use over-the-counter aids. Add products such as Beano to high-fiber foods to help reduce the amount of gas they produce.

• Try using simethicone, which helps break up the bubbles in gas. Charcoal tablets also may help.

All Rights Reserved © 2008 by Fred Cicetti

Midsize cars are providing more protection for occupants in side impact crashes as automakers introduce safer designs and add side airbags as standard equipment, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

IIHS recently completed front, side, and rear tests of seven 2008 model midsize cars. They are the Chevrolet Malibu, Dodge Avenger, Infiniti G35, Kia Optima, Mitsubishi Galant, Nissan Altima, and Saturn Aura.

All the cars tested earned the highest rating of good for occupant protection in frontal crashes.

All but the Kia Optima earned the top rating of good for side crash protection. The good rating for the Malibu applies to cars built after February 2008.

"The side impact results represent a huge change from just four years ago," said Institute senior vice president David Zuby. "In 2004 we tested 10 mid-size moderately priced cars, and all 10 were rated poor in their standard configurations without side airbags."

"Side airbags were mostly optional in our first round of side impact tests of midsize cars," Zuby said. "A major change is that side airbags are standard in every one of the seven midsize cars we tested this time around. Auto manufacturers have been moving quickly to make side airbags standard, even on lower priced models."

When the Institute tested the Avenger's predecessor, the Dodge Stratus, without optional side airbags the car earned a poor rating for protecting people in side crashes.

The safety cage didn't hold up well, resulting in intrusion into the occupant compartment. The driver dummy's head was struck by the intruding barrier, and injury measures recorded on the dummy indicate that broken ribs and a fractured pelvis would be likely to occur in a real-world crash of similar severity.

Chrysler redesigned this car as an early 2008 model, renaming it the Avenger, which also is sold as the Chrysler Sebring. Front and rear head curtain air-bags and front seat-mounted torso airbags now are standard equipment.

The Avenger's performance in the side test is "dramatically improved compared with the Stratus," Zuby said.

The new model kept intrusion into the occupant compartment to a minimum. The side curtain airbag protected the driver dummy's head from being struck by the barrier.

The 2004 Optima was rated poor for occupant protection in side impacts, even with the standard combination side airbags designed to protect front-seat occupants' heads and chests.

Measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate that rib fractures and internal organ injuries would be likely to occur in a real-world crash of similar severity. The rear passenger dummy's head was struck by the windowsill and the pillar behind the rear door.

Rear crash protection results varied more widely and the ratings for the midsize cars were not as impressive. The seat and head restraints in the Optima were the only ones IIHS tested that earned the top rating of good for occupant protection in rear crashes.

When a vehicle is struck in the rear and driven forward, its seats accelerate occupants' torsos forward. Unsupported, an occupant's head will lag behind the forward torso movement, and the differential motion causes the neck to bend and stretch. IIHS warned. The higher the torso acceleration, the more sudden the motion, the higher the forces on the neck, and the more likely a neck injury is to occur.

The key to reducing whiplash injury risk, according to the IIHS, is to keep the head and torso moving together.

"In stop and go commuter traffic, you're more likely to get in a rear-end collision than any other kind of crash," Zuby said. "It's not a major feat of engineering to design seats and head restraints that afford good protection in these common crashes."

Advocacy groups have released a report on mystery shopper testing. The report was also sent to the Internal Revenue Service as part of consumer comments filed in the IRS rulemaking on use of tax returns to market RALs.

The mystery shopper tests portray an industry that imposes high costs on vulnerable low-income filers and fails to provide high-quality tax preparation.

The report shows preparers in Philadelphia and Durham, NC, failed to tell taxpayers about free filing options, and some failed to disclose that RALs are loans.

They also made serious errors on some testers returns, which would have resulted in inflated refunds, and failed to handle education credits or investment income correctly. Many preparers did not give clear price information about RALs, other products, and tax preparation fees, leaving testers confused and unable to comparison shop.

Taxpayers put their trust, their financial health, and their liability for taxes in the hands of commercial preparers, noted Chi Chi Wu, Staff Attorney at National Consumer Law Center. Unfortunately, that trust may not always be well placed.

Mystery shoppers

Seventeen mystery shopper tests were conducted at H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax service and independent preparers by the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina (CRA-NC) in Durham and by Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (CLS) and the Philadelphia Campaign for Working Families. The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) analyzed test results for the report.

All of the testers had their taxes prepared by commercial preparers. Fifteen of these testers received RALs or a refund anticipation check (RAC). (One of these testers had to withdraw because of incompetent tax preparation, and another tester was not given a RAL or RAC).

The results showed that some preparers still do not inform taxpayers that a RAL is a loan, despite years of complaints and lawsuits on that issue. Even when testers were told that an RAL is a loan, many preparers did not give clear price information about RALs, RACs, and tax preparation fees. Only one preparer in either city informed the tester how to receive a fast, free refund by e-file and direct deposit.

A few testers were given RALs or RACs by default, while others were automatically required to pay charges for RACs for state refunds. Several preparers made serious errors that significantly affected tax liability, causing two testers to file amended returns to fix errors.

One tester withdrew after a preparer advised him to essentially engage in tax fraud, even telling test coordinators, My experience with [the independent preparer] has been a scary one. I say that mainly because the lack of confidence in the preparers ability to competently complete our return .

Results varied for independent preparers. Several, including a gift shop and a small loan company, charged multiple ancillary fees, including one preparer who charged $324 in such fees. However, another independent preparer steered both testers who went to her office away from RALs.

"We engaged in testing because we had concerns about the cost of RALs to working families," said Peter Skillern of the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina. "The surprise to us was seeing firsthand just how unreliable the preparers were in handling the tax filing needs of consumers. Preparers made a lot of mistakes."

Community Legal Services (CLS) of Philadelphia has conducted its own mystery shopper tests of commercial tax preparers for the past three years, and joined with other groups this year to expand the test.

"Year after year, our mystery shoppers' experiences reveal that some commercial tax prep companies confuse and abuse their customers with poor disclosures, high fees and costly miscalculations," said Kerry Smith, an attorney with CLS. "It's time for the IRS to take action to ban the marketing of expensive, risky refund anticipation loans."

A study published in the Journal of Clinical Dentistry suggests chewing a special mint can also dramatically reduce cavities in children. The study shows children who were administered the mint, called BasicMints, had 62 percent fewer cavities in their molars after one year compared to children in the placebo group.

The mint contains CaviStat, which is designed to mimic the cavity fighting benefits of saliva by neutralizing harmful plaque acids and simultaneously promoting the remineralization of the tooth structure.

CaviStat was developed and clinically tested by researchers in the Department of Oral Biology and Pathology at Stony Brook University School of Dental Medicine.

The technology was patented and exclusively licensed to Ortek Therapeutics, Inc., by the Research Foundation of State University of New York through its campus arm, the Office of Technology Licensing & Industry Relations. The company said it is planning to submit an Investigational New Drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration later this year.

BasicMints are not currently approved for use in the U.S. However, researchers say all of the components of CaviStat are naturally present in the human body.

"Cavities affect the quality of life for millions of children every year by causing them pain, to miss school days and cost billions of dollars to repair annually," said Israel Kleinberg, D.D.S., Ph.D., lead researcher and inventor of the CaviStat technology and Distinguished Professor and Founding Chairman of the Department of Oral Biology and Pathology at SBU School of Dental Medicine.

"This study shows for the first time that this new fluoride-free, cavity-fighting tool has the potential to significantly improve the oral health of children."

The study showed that after six months, children who took BasicMints with CaviStat twice a day had 68.3 percent fewer cavities than the placebo group. After 12 months those children had 61.7 percent fewer cavities as compared to the placebo group in all of the molars studied.

In the first permanent molars, some early erupting premolars and second molars, the children who were in the BasicMints study group had 75.6 percent fewer cavities after six months and 50.7 percent less cavities after 12 months, as compared to the placebo group.

Additionally, children in the BasicMints group had 76.2 percent less cavities in the deciduous molars after six months and 74.8 percent less cavities after 12 months, as compared to the placebo controls.

More and more of us are letting are fingers do the talking. A new survey finds that 36 percent of cell phone users are sending text messages daily.

Compiled through a survey of thousands of U.S.-based cell phone users, the Wirefly.com research confirmed the rapid growth in text messaging usage, with 36% of respondents classifying themselves as heavy users sending anywhere from one a day to hundreds per month.

An additional 29% send fewer than 25 text messages a month, and the other 35% saying they never take advantage of text messaging capabilities.

Within the top-third heavy user category, the majority of respondents said that they send more than 100 text messages a month.

Personal use

The Wirefly.com survey shows that the growth of text messaging continues to be fueled by personal and non-professional uses.

Of the 65% of customers who do send text messages, a huge majority use them only to contact friends, spouses or significant others. Just 8% of text message users report sending a text to a co-worker or for professional reasons.

According to the survey, Wirefly.com discovered that texting takes place only within a small social circle:

• 48% send messages to just 2-5 people;

• 21% expand that pool to 6-10; and,

• 20% spread their messages around to more than 10 recipients.

"It certainly appears as though our customers overwhelmingly use text messages to convey personal messages to a relatively intimate group of close friends," said Scott Ableman, Wirefly's Senior Vice President of Marketing.

"While we did find a small subset who send a tremendous number of texts to large groups of people, the typical user clearly restricts texting to a manageable group of close friends or family members."

In addition and perhaps most interesting, the Wirefly.com data seems to refute the wide-spread notion that text messaging is generally a medium for brief, choppy communication. A full 35% of those who do send text messages reported a typical message length of "several sentences." This option beat out "one word" (4%), "several words" (33%), and "one sentence" (28%).

Motives for text messaging range from simply "responding to a received message" (59%), to "as a substitute for a phone call" (49%) or "a quick hello" (48%). And nearly a fifth of all text messagers (17%) claimed to have flirted via text or for romantic purposes.

Finally, the primary reason for choosing to send a text message rather than placing a call highlights the flexibility and convenience of texting:

• 52% text instead of calling when "the situation makes talking on the phone difficult";

• 23% involved "lack of time" for a call;

• 15% simply "prefer text messaging to talking"; and,

• 10% attempting to avoid speaking with a specific person.

"The one result that did raise eyebrows involved 'breaking up with a boyfriend, girlfriend or romantic involvement via text message,'" said Ableman. "We're glad that 96% of our survey respondents report not having done so, but we were all intrigued, amused and concerned that 1 in every 25 respondents say they have."

The recently completed U.S.-based online survey was conducted from an opt-in pool of customers who had purchased new wireless phones and new service plans from Wirefly.com. The sample of 2,377 respondents was 55% female and 45% male. 36% of respondents were between the ages of 31-44, 34% were 45 and above, 17% were between the ages of 25-30, and 13% were 18-24.

The margin of error was 2 percentage points at a 95% confidence level.