Current Events in June 2008

If you're searching for the most reputable company in America, it's Google, according to a Harris poll. The Web search giant took the top spot away from Microsoft, which plunged to tenth place. The bottom-dwellers? Royal Dutch/Shell, Chevron Texaco, ExxonMobil, Citgo and Halliburton.

The top 10 companies on this year's list in order of ranking include:

1) Google;
2) Johnson & Johnson;
3) Intel Corporation;
4) General Mills;
5) Kraft Foods;
6) Berkshire-Hathaway Inc.;
7) 3M Company;
8) The Coca-Cola Company;
9) Honda Motor Co.;
10) Microsoft.

It's perhaps not surprising that Google came out on top. Its search service and most of its other consumer services are free and are presented in a modest, no-hype format. Even its fabulously successful search advertising is relatively low-key and unassuming.

But what really sent a shiver through the advertising business when Harris released its latest reputation study is Google's almost unheard-of advertising policy -- namely, none. While Google occasionally runs ads for itself on its search ad network it does not purchase traditional advertising in other media.

"Google is the perfect example showing reputation does not correlate with ad spending," said Robert Fronk, senior VP-senior consultant, reputation strategy, at Harris Interactive. "The positive perception of how you treat your employees, your corporate-social-responsibility efforts, and your products and services and the amount of media that can generate probably trumps any ad spend they would ever want to make."

But no one should think that Americans are feeling good about big business; 71% said that as far as they're concerned, the reputation of corporate America is either "not good" or "terrible."

Airlines took a beating in the survey. Positive perceptions of the airline industry fell five percentage points from the last survey, and insurance and financial services were down four percentage points. Technology ranked first in terms of an overall positive rating among consumers, followed by travel and tourism, retail, consumer products, telecom and -- perhaps surprisingly, given high gas prices -- automotive.

Honda's ninth-place ranking put it far in front of the pack. Toyota was No. 15 on the list, while Detroit's Big Three -- Chrysler (No. 51), GM (No. 52) and Ford (No. 54) -- were bringing up the rear.

A series of mysterious illness and death dogs Nutro pet food. Scores of pet owners report their animals became ill while eating Nutro products, then recovered when they were switched to another brand.

At least six dogs have died in the past two months, according to an analysis of complaints to ConsumerAffairs.com. The company discounts the reports, saying they are isolated and unconfirmed; at least one Nutro employee, sickened by the company's response, told us she resigned.

In related developments, ConsumerAffairs.com has learned:

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently investigated the April deaths of two dogs in Indiana. The FDA tested samples of the Nutro food those dogs ate, but did not find any toxins. No one, however, has tested the Nutro food the other dogs ate before they died;

• A pet nutrition specialist for Nutro confirmed she's heard complaints about the company's food making dogs and cats sick. She reported those concerns to her supervisor, but said they were ignored. She recently resigned;

• There is a shortage of some varieties of Nutro dog food. The company says this is a supply problem not a safety or quality issue;

• Some consumers have sent their pets' food to Nutro for testing. They have not received any results. Other pet owners plan to hire private labs to test their food and report their concerns to the FDA and the Animal Poison Control Center run by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).

The six dogs that recently died include two Italian Greyhounds in Indiana, a Beagle/Whippet mix in Pennsylvania, two German Shepherd puppies in North Carolina, and a Doberman Pinscher in Texas.

The dogs' owners all say their pets were in good health and they're convinced that Nutro's food is somehow connected to their animals' deaths. Those concerns are echoed by pet owners whose dogs and cats have recently become sick after eating the company's food.

Nutro, however, defends its products and says the food is 100 percent safe.

But scores of pet owners across the country -- including longtime Nutro customers -- no longer feel safe feeding this brand of food to their dogs and cats.

Max and Sophia

They're consumers like Theresa C. of Indianapolis. Her two healthy Greyhounds -- Max and Sophia -- died within days after eating Nutro's Natural Choice Small Bites Lamb and Rice food.

"We bought Nutro for the first time in April," Theresa said. "And within four or five days, both of our dogs were dead.

"These were healthy dogs that have never been sick. They were extremely housetrained, but before they died, they both were urinating everywherewe were constantly refilling their water bowl."

Sophia, their four-year-old Italian Greyhound, showed the first signs of illness.

"On Sunday, April 27, she was vomiting, acting dizzy, and she became skittish," Theresa said. "Italian Greyhounds also don't smell, but I noticed Sophia had an unusual smell before she died. It was almost a sickening smell; I've never smelled anything like it before."

Sophia's condition quickly deteriorated.

"She continued to vomit up liquid and bile into the early hours of Monday, April 28," Theresa said. "And she became dizzy and almost appeared to be drunk."

Theresa rushed Sophia to the emergency animal hospital.

"By the time I got her there she was comatose and in kidney failure. She had to be euthanized."

Max, her three-year-old Italian Greyhound, had started to experience the same problems.

"He began vomiting at 2:30 am, but was not as ill as Sophia had been," Theresa said. "When I got him to the vet she found elevated creatinine and BUN (blood urea nitrogen) levels. She administered an IV and retested later in the evening on the 28th. The levels were still rising but, she said he may pull through."

Max's condition, however, did not improve.

"By the morning of the 29th he had blood in the whites of his eyes, was vomiting again, and showing signs of distress," Theresa said. "We again had his blood checked and the levels were through the roof."

Max's kidneys were failing.

"Our vet told us there is no hope because he was in renal failurewe decide to euthanize to limit his suffering."

Losing both dogs -- in such a short period time -- was heart-wrenching for Theresa, her husband, and their six children.

"I don't know who cried more me, my husband, or my 20-year-old son. I was a mess for a week."

Despite her grief, Theresa vowed to find the cause of Max and Sophia's sudden deaths. Her vet suspected antifreeze poisoning.

"But we don't have antifreeze around our home," Theresa said. "These dogs were never alone. And we have the same neighbors we've had since Max was a puppy. I didn't see how it could antifreeze poisoning."

Theresa had autopsies done on her dogs at Purdue University. She sent samples of their kidney tissues to Michigan State University for testing.

She and her family also contacted the FDA and Nutro.

"Our 20-year-old son called Nutro after Sophia died and he asked if there was something wrong with the food. He said we've already had one dog die and another one is sick.

"The girl at Nutro said we've had complaints, but nothing that is a known issue right now."

FDA tests

The FDA immediately investigated the dogs' deaths.

"An investigator came over to my home before we had the autopsy results back," Theresa said. "He took samples of the food and had me file a complaint."

ConsumerAffairs.com confirmed that on May 7, 2008, an FDA investigator took samples of Theresa's Nutro food and had it tested for several contaminants, including melamine, aflatoxins, and ethylene glycol. That's a chemical in antifreeze.

Those tests did not find any toxins in the food.

"Findings were negative for melamine and its analog, aflatoxins, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol, and for salmonella," the lab report stated. "No significant filth or foreign material was found."

Antifreeze

Theresa is baffled by the FDA's findings.

"I wonder if there's something in the food they're not testing for," she said after reviewing the FDA's report.

Theresa is also puzzled by the autopsy results on her dogs and the tests run on their kidney tissues.

Those examinations revealed Max and Sophia had high levels of ethylene glycol in their systems, which indicated the dogs' deaths were consistent with antifreeze poisoning.

With Theresa's permission, ConsumerAffairs.com sent copies of her dogs' medical records to veterinary toxicologist, Dr. Steven Hansen. He's the senior vice-president of the ASPCA's Midwest Office, which houses the organization's Animal Poison Control Center.

After reviewing the reports with a pathologist in his office, Dr. Hansen said: "The kidney lesions do not fit with melamine but are consistent with ethylene glycol. Since ethylene glycol was confirmed in high concentrations in the kidneys and not in the diet the diagnosis in this case is clear. Unfortunately, the dogs did die of antifreeze poisoning."

Theresa, however, still has her doubts.

"I know these dogs didn't get near antifreezeespecially in these extreme amounts," said Theresa, who may hire a private lab to test her Nutro food. "Like I said, I wonder if there's something in the food that no one is testing for."

Blue death

Two states away, another grieving pet owner shares Theresa's concerns about Nutro's food.

Susi B. of Pittsburgh, Pa., said her healthy ten-year-old Beagle/Whippet mix died on May 30th. She suspects Nutro's Lamb and Rice food is the culprit behind the sudden death of her beloved dog, Blue.

"I bought that bag at the end of March, and when I opened it up, it looked like it had little white bugs all over it," said Susi, a longtime Nutro customer. "When I picked up the food, it was like a granular substance. But I didn't think much about it because the food wasn't part of the recall."

Blue, she said, gradually started to become sick.

"I'd come home and see where he'd thrown up. But I didn't think about the food."

When she returned from work on April 18, Susi found Blue collapsed on the floor.

"Normally, he'd run to the door and greet me, but when I walked in that day I couldn't find him right away. He was on the floor and breathing heavy."

Susi immediately took Blue to the vet.

"But the vet couldn't find anything except an elevated white count, a low red blood count (he was anemic), and he had a temperature," Susi said. "They gave him an antibiotic and vitamins."

Susi also took Blue off his Nutro food and fed him hamburger and rice.

"And he got better. So over the next couple of weeks, I slowly reintroduced the Nutro dog food to him."

Blue's condition worsened again.

"He got to the point that when I put Nutro in front of him, he refused to eat it," she said. "And he was a dog who would eat everything. He didn't want to eat anything except melted ice cream.

"His weight went from 26 pounds to 18 pounds. He was skin and bones. He was lethargic. He became so weak he could no longer walk outside to use the bathroom or stand to drink water."

That's when Susi launched her own investigation.

"I went online and Googled Nutro and found out (on ConsumerAffairs.com) about all these other dogs that had symptoms like mine."

Bare shelves

She also discovered that some of Nutro's pet foods -- including the variety she'd fed Blue -- were no longer on the shelves at her local pet store.

"There was a note in the store that said the shortage was due to some manufacturing issues."

Susi immediately called Nutro to get some answers.

"I was told the reason the food was not on the shelves was because the company that made the bags had a machine break, and the company ran out of chicken. But I was feeding lamb and rice."

What about the complaints regarding Nutro's food?

"They said they were aware of your Web site and considered it nothing but a blog," Theresa said. "They said when one person posted (a complaint) it caused a panic, and none of those dogs' owner have contacted us."

At Nutro's request, Susi sent the company four cups of Blue's food for testing.

That was several weeks ago, but she has not received any results.

"I'm trying to find an independent lab to test the food, but some say it would be a conflict of interest to test the food and others say they don't know what to test for."

Susi said she'll keep digging for answers until she finds out what caused Blue to suddenly die in his sleep on May 30th.

"I'm convinced Blue's death is tied to that food and I won't stop until I prove it," she said, adding the last test done on her dogs indicated he had a blood tumor. "If I had listened to my dog, he might be alive today."

The guilt and pain surrounding Blue's death, she said, is almost unbearable.

"It's devastating. He was my best friend for more than ten years. He followed me all over the house. And in a matter of six to eight weeks after we opened that last bag of food, he'd gotten to the point that I had to carry him outside and hold him up to go to the bathroom.

"I am 100 percent convinced there is something in that food that is affecting these animals," she added. "It's not a coincidence that all these dogs are getting sick."

Dead puppies

A grieving pet owner in North Carolina echoes those suspicions about Nutro's food.

Birgit H. of Franklinville said two of her puppies -- from the same litter of seven -- suddenly died on June 3rd.

The healthy six-week-old German Shepherds -- Anna and Anja -- had similar symptoms as the other dogs that died after eating Nutro's food.

Anna and Anja

"They were vomiting, had diarrhea, and were lethargic," Birgit said.

What's so alarming to Birgit is the speed at which the puppies' health deteriorated.

"We started feeding them Nutro puppy food on June 2 and they died on June 3," she said. "I worked in a vet's office for ten years and I've never seen anything like this before. I've never seen dogs going down so fast, then get back up, then eat again, and crash. They got so weak and died so fast."

The veterinarians who treated the puppies couldn't explain their sudden deaths.

"They were puzzled because the puppies did fine in the morning, but that afternoon, they just died," Birgit said. "One died at home and one died at the vet's office.

"Everyone is puzzled by this. The first thing you think of with puppies is Parvo (a viral illness). But there weren't symptoms of Parvo. And if one dog has Parvo, they all have it. There's no way that happened. These puppies were healthy before we put them on Nutro."

The other five puppies in the litter -- and the mother dog -- also showed signs of illness.

"All the other puppies had started throwing up," Birgit said. "Then I received a phone call from another breeder and he asked me if I had recently switched to Nutro food. He told me about all the other dogs that had gotten sick on the food.

"That night, my husband and I put the dogs back on their old food and everyone is fine again."

Her friend's call, she said, saved her dogs' lives.

"I would have killed all my dogs because I would have kept feeding them that food."

Nutro not alarmed

Birgit contacted Nutro, but said the company didn't seem alarmed by the loss of her dogs.

"I've been on the phone with Nutro three times and they're blowing me off. I told them they need to take the food off the shelf and test it. But the person I talked to said the company won't do that; they said they have quality food."

In another call to Nutro in which she waited for an hour to talk to someone -- the company "finally took a report."

"But they didn't ask me for a lot number on the bag or the date of purchase," Birgit said. "All they gave me was a customer number. That's it. They really disappointed me."

Nutro also wanted the rest of Birgit's puppy food.

"I told them 'no. I'm not sending you all my food.' They didn't like that. I'm thinking of getting it tested somewhere else." She also plans to contact the FDA and the ASPCA's Animal Poison Control Center about her puppies' deaths.

Nutro, however, did offer Birgit an explanation for the sudden deaths of her puppies and the recent illnesses in pets nationwide that have eaten the company's food.

"They said it was a coincidence."

Birgit doesn't buy that explanation.

"Maybe one or two cases could be a coincidence. But it can't be a coincidence with so many cases. And it can't be a coincidence that once you take the dogs off the food they're fine.

"I'm not one to point fingers, but as soon as I took the puppies off the Nutro food, we didn't have any more vomiting, diarrhea, or lethargy. They are now all doing great. So is their mom. Nutro needs to take this food off the shelves and test it."

Until that happens, this professional dog breeder will not recommend Nutro to her clients.

"I always thought it was a good food, but now, I wouldn't feed Nutro to my worst enemy."

McGee

Neither will a grieving pet owner in Texas.

Peter B. of Houston said his nine-year-old Doberman Pinscher, McGee, suddenly died in April.

McGee ate Nutro, too.

And his symptoms mirror those of the other dogs that have recently died after eating Nutro's food.

"He was a healthy Dobermanhe was fine before," Peter said. That all changed on April 27.

"I came home around 6pm and was outside watering my lawn," Peter said. "I noticed McGee was on the ground and had thrown up. He was also shaking."

As the night progressed, McGee's condition took a turn for the worse. He threw up again.

"And it looked like more food that I'd given him," Peter said. "He was also thirsty. He just wasn't himself."

Later that evening, Peter noticed McGee had started breathing heavily.

"And he kept getting water. He then started shaking againhe just wasn't right.

"McGee went back outside at 2 am," Peter continued. "When he came back in, he got some water and then he was sitting in the hallway."

A short time later, McGee came back into Peter's bedroom.

"He flopped down and he was breathing heavily, he was shaking, and crying."

Peter rushed to get McGee immediate medical attention.

"We tried to get him in our SUV and all of the sudden, he collapsed. I put him in the back and probably did 100 mph going to the vet."

But McGee died on the way.

"He was gone when we got there. They tried CPR, but he was gone."

The veterinarian wasn't sure what caused McGee's sudden death. "He was pretty generic," Peter said. "But he said it might have been some type of heart arrhythmia.

"In hindsight, I wish I would have gotten an autopsy, but it was such a shocker."

Peter, however, started researching possible causes for McGee's sudden death.

"I put in some of the symptoms he had and Googled them," he said. "And Nutro kept showing up. I thought that was scary because that's what I've always fed him. But I noticed that these problems seemed to be a lot more recentthey were new problems."

Peter contacted Nutro about McGee's death.

"I've sent them three e-mails, but they haven't responded. I tried the 800-number, but it kept ringing and ringing."

No Nutro

Peter also stopped by the local pet store where he bought McGee's food.

"The shelves that contained Nutro Natural Choice were almost bare. That never has happened."

He asked a Nutro representative -- who was working in the same aisle -- about the shortage.

"He stated that no recall was in effect, and Nutro just happened to shut down a few plants producing what he termed 'not as tasty food,' and the 'quality' was not up to par."

That explanation didn't make sense to Peter.

"Seeing that a dog can't talk, I asked him how the company would know if the food was not 'tasty.' It seemed far more plausible that a company whose main product is dog food would not shut down a plant -- and have no product -- unless some very extreme situations were coming to light."

Peter then told the Nutro representative about McGee's sudden death.

The representative called it a "coincidence."

But Peter is certain something is wrong with Nutro's food. He plans to hire a private lab to test the food and prove his theory.

"I'm doing this because something has truly happened. I don't have any evidence now, but based on my dog's symptoms and all the complaints I've read, the logical deduction is the food probably got some dogs sick, and in my case, caused my dog's death.

He added: "I will not let this be swept under the rug and hopefully will get the confirmation I am looking for by testing the pet food I still have."

Scores sickened

During our investigation, we found that scores of pets -- primarily dogs -- continue to become seriously ill after eating Nutro's food.

Consider what happened to a healthy, three-year-old Chocolate Lab named Choco.

His owner, Sharon A., of Cheektowaga, New York, has fed him Nutro Max for the past five months.

He never had any problems eating the food until April.

"That's when he suddenly got sick," she said. "He started vomiting, had loose bowel movements (diarrhea) and was very lethargic. It really worried me so I took him to the vet.

"He even threw up at the vet's office."

The veterinarian diagnosed Choco with pancreatitis (an inflammation of the pancreas).

"They put him on IV's, gave him some antibiotics and Pepcid, and kept him hospitalized for three days," Sharon said. "When I brought him home, he was much better almost back to normal."

The vet also switched Choco to a prescription dog food.

"They told me when he was done with that food he could go back to Nutro. But when I put him back on Nutro, he got sick again with the same symptoms."

Her vet ran additional tests on Choco.

"This time, they said he did not have pancreatitis, but they gave him antibiotics anyway."

Choco's condition, however, did not improve.

"He got sick again and I took him to the vet for a third time," Sharon said. "They said his levels were elevated again for pancreatitis. They put him on IV's and other medications."

Like other pet owners, Sharon started to investigate her dog's symptoms. Her search led her to ConsumerAffairs.com.

"I couldn't believe all those people on your Web site whose dogs had the same symptoms as mine," Sharon said. "After I read all those, I stopped feeding Choco the Nutro food. And he's now gotten better."

Does she think it's a coincidence that so many pets have become sick after eating Nutro's food?

No way.

"They get sick when they're eating Nutro they have vomiting, diarrhea, and they're lethargic," said Sharon. "And they get better when they stop eating the food. I don't think that's a coincidence."

Overseas complaints

Our investigation also found that some dogs overseas are now experiencing similar health problems after eating Nutro's food.

We learned that two healthy Italian Greyhounds, who live on a U.S. military base in Italy, recently became sick.

Their owner, Michelle M., purchased their Nutro food at the base's commissary.

"I thought the yard started to smell funny after they had been on Nutro for a couple of weeks," she said. "I noticed that they threw up regularly, particularly the nine-month old."

His condition worsened last week.

"He woke up and started to whine for no reason," she said. "He was clearly in pain, if he stood up his back legs shook, then he would go lie down. He has been lethargic all day and has passed four bloody/mucus-filled stools."

Michelle desperately searched for answers.

She ran an online search of Nutro and was shocked to learn that scores of other dogs -- eating the same brand of food -- had experienced similar problems.

"I am detached from all of the press stateside and am very upset that no effort has been made to alert military families overseas of a possible problem (with the food.)"

Michelle stopped feeding her dogs Nutro and is now cooking chicken and rice for them.

"I'm hoping there will not be any long-term health consequences for my boys. They are both members of my family and my children and I love them immensely."

She added: "I'm glad we caught this in time, unlike some of the others who have reported very serious illnesses or even death associated with this brand of dog food. If the FDA is examining Nutro, they need to move quickly -- it is hard to tell how many people at overseas military bases are feeding this (food) to their dogs and possibly killing them."

Ex-Nutro employee

Michelle's complaint -- and the scores of others we received about Nutro food -- don't surprise a former pet nutrition specialist for the company.

"I would say that about 20 people in the last six months came up to me and said their pets were having similar problems with Nutro's food," the former employee told us. "They said their dogs and cats were vomiting, they were lethargic, had diarrhea, and were drinking lots of water."

The former employee, who asked not to be identified, reported those complaints to her boss. But her concerns, she said, fell on deaf ears.

"Every time I brought it up the chain, my concerns were brushed off. All I kept hearing about was the wonderful quality controls Nutro has."

Frustrated by the company's lack of response and worried about the safety of pets nationwide -- the employee left Nutro and agreed to share her concerns with us.

"I do not feel comfortable promoting a product that is currently showing a very strong correlation with causing pet illness or death," said the employee, who is also a certified veterinary technician. "For 82 years Nutro had stood on its own as a leader in pet specialty. This past year, Nutro has lost consumer confidence and shaken my confidence as well. Something is wrong."

News of the recent deaths possibly linked to Nutro's food is especially troubling to this former employee.

"On my last day, one of the managers of a store I worked with came to me and reported a very recent death of a young dog. The dog's owner and its vet highly suspect it was caused by Nutro Lamb and Rice (small bites).

"I sure hope that it wasn't the Nutro food, but due to some of these sudden death incidents it makes me fearful that it is," the former employee said.

She wondered if these health problems could be related to the way Nutro's food is stored and transported on trucks.

"Are there pesticides on those trucks?" she asked. "The bags are not covered in plastics when they arrive at the stores. They're in paper bags. Could something be leaching into the bags? Is something happening during the transport? It's just a theory.

"I think that further testing needs to be done with the food."

'Hearsay'

We contacted Nutro about the complaints we've received regarding its food.

A company spokesperson, who resigned last week, directed us to Nutro's Web site.

The company posted new information after we started asking questions about Nutro's food and its possible connection to the illnesses and deaths of pets nationwide.

"All NUTRO products are 100 percent safe and conform to the standards set by the FDA, USDA, and AAFCO," the Web site states. "NUTRO pet foods undergo rigorous quality assurance testing, beginning with raw ingredients and ending with testing all finished products. This includes testing to confirm that no melamine, mold toxins, or pathogenic bacteria are detected in any NUTRO pet foods."

The company said the complaints we've received are "isolated reports of inaccurate information posted online."

"Many blogs and Internet sites can be a repository for misinformation and hearsay regarding many topics," the company wrote.

Nutro said the recent shortages of some of its foods are supply issues and have nothing to do with any safety concerns.

"Over the past several months, suppliers of key ingredients used in select products have been unable to meet Nutro's volume needs," the company stated. "We have secured additional high quality supply sources and while availability will vary by marketplace, we can now say that supply issues are being resolved."

The company said its Natural Choice Venison Meal and Brown Rice, and Natural Choice Herring Meal, Rice and Potato foods should arrive in stores later this month.

Nutro denied reports that any of its plants are closing.

Formulas changed

The company also confirmed that it recently changed some of its formulas.

"MAX Dog and MAX Cat foods have been improved with the addition of more chicken and/or salmon," the company stated. "MAX Large Breed Puppy and MAX Large Breed Adult are now being made with chicken meal rather than beef meal because preference testing has shown that dogs prefer the taste of the chicken product."

The company said it rarely receives complaints about its products, but takes all concerns seriously. Customers can contact Nutro's Consumer Service line at 1-800-833-5330.

"In the rare instance 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," the company stated.

We asked Nutro if it had recently tested its foods for possible toxins. The company did not respond to that question.

Meanwhile, some loyal Nutro customers warn pet owners not to jump to conclusions based on what they call unsubstantiated claims posted on the Internet.

Veterinarians also told us it's not uncommon for pets to have sudden bouts of vomiting, diarrhea, and other gastrointestinal problems.

They said a number of factors -- pet food, stress, or a viral infection-- could be the culprit.

But Dr. Hansen with the ASPCA agreed that additional testing and research should be done in these cases.

He encouraged pet owners to report any problems with Nutro to the FDA, his organization's Poison Control Center, the pet food maker, and their veterinarians.

Still a mystery

For now, the recent illnesses and deaths in many pets that have eaten Nutro remains a mystery.

Even to pet owners like Theresa, who still believes that Nutro played a role in the deaths of her Italian Greyhounds.

"I have a gut feeling something in that food is making dogs sick and killing others. And I truly believe it is what killed both my dogsI just wish we could prove it."

More about pets ...

California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. wants CVS Pharmacy to stop selling expired products, including baby food and over-the-counter medications, which were discovered during a recent undercover shopping investigation in Southern California.

He also asked the chain to comply with California laws requiring proper storage and disposal consumer's confidential medical and financial information.

"State investigators found that dozens of CVS pharmacies in Southern California have old and expired products, including medicines and baby food," Brown said. "CVS Pharmacy should immediately pull these expired products from its shelves and ensure that these consumer safety violations do not occur again."

During a recent undercover shopping operation, state investigators found 48 expired products on the shelves of 26 CVS Pharmacies in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties.

Some -- which included baby formula, toddler food, and over-the-counter medications -- were between four and six months old. Investigators also discovered expired food products including milk and eggs. Some of the "sell by" dates were hidden with price tags or other store stickers.

Recent investigations by the New York Attorney General have found that CVS stores in New York have engaged in similarly unlawful selling practices.

Although California law does not explicitly prohibit the sale of certain expired products, federal laws require that products contain expiration dates. The attorney general contends that placing expired items on its shelves violates false advertising and unfair business practices statues because CVS falsely implies that its products meet national quality control standards.

Brown also asked the company to disclose its formal policies regarding the collection, retention and destruction of such information to determine whether the company is complying with California law.

The attorney general said he has reason to believe CVS may not have properly safeguarded or disposed of consumers' private health and financial information, in violation of state consumer protection laws.

In February, 2008 Brown reached a settlement with The Walgreen Company after state investigators discovered that that company had failed to properly retain, safeguard and dispose of confidential customer information, in violation of California laws. Under the terms of that settlement, Walgreens agreed to revise its disposal and retention policies, implement employee training, and review those policies annually.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans a day of public hearings to look at the dangers quiet-running hybrid vehicles pose for visually impaired pedestrians and bicyclists.

Four states and the U.S. Congress are considering legislation to set minimum sound levels as a warning for pedestrians of an approaching hybrid running on electric power only.

The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2008 proposes a two-year study to determine the most practical way for hybrid and electrical vehicles to provide non-visual cues for pedestrians.

The National Federation of the Blind, with 50,000 members, will speak at the NHTSA hearing. The Federation advocates a minimum sound standard for all new vehicles sold and licensed in the U.S.

A child in Minneapolis was hit in May by a Toyota Prius that the 8-year-old bicyclist did not hear. The child was not seriously injured.

The Federation of the Blind has reported several close calls invovling blind pedestrians and hybrids.

Six blind pedestrians were killed by moving vehicles in 2007, according to NHTSA. None of the vehicles involved was a hybrid, according to the agency.

At low speeds, particularly near intersections, the gasoline-powered engine in a hybrid may shut down, eliminating most of the noise coming from the car.

Hybrid sales rising

Hybrid sales are increasing. They were up 38 percent in 2007 to 350,000 vehicles and are running ahead of that pace this year. The risk of stepping in front of a silent-running hybrid is likely to be on the rise.

A University of California study by Lawrence Rosenblum, an adviser to SAE International which is an association of automotive engineers, concludes that hybrids operating at 5 mph need to be 74 percent closer than a conventional vehicle before they make enough noise for their location to be heard.

Above 20 or 25 miles an hour, hybrid or electric car tires make enough noise for people to hear them.

A California start-up company, Enhanced Vehicle Acoustics, is developing a system called the Pedestrian Awareness Noise-Emitting Device and Application.

The system puts a small speaker near each front wheel of a hybrid and emits the sound of an internal combustion engine to warn pedestrians. The system requires no more power than a car radio and shuts off at speeds above 25 mph.

Called PANDA by its developers, the system "allows drivers, companies or municipalities to potentially establish their own external automobile sound identities, all within a recognizable and respectful soundscape," according to the company.

Now what sound should a Prius make while slowly passing a Hummer?

Month after month, the foreclosures mount. One in every 483 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing last month, the highest monthly rate since the real estate tracking firm RealtyTrac began issuing reports.

"If you look at a map, the highest rates of foreclosure are in areas where subprime lending has been the heaviest," said David Petrovich, Executive Director of the Society for the Preservation Of Continued Homeownership , a New Jersey-based non-profit group that tries to help consumers avoid foreclosure.

Petrovich formed SPOCH 10 years ago after a long career in real estate finance, where he worked in everything from appraisals to the servicing of loans.

"During that time I personally saw the devastating effect foreclosure has on a family," he said.

Petrovich says his group works with distressed homeowners to help them avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. Since his group receives no support from banks or lenders, he says he's free to present all the options available to the homeowner.

"We bring truth to the table," he told ConsumerAffairs.com.

All the options

Homeowners, he says, don't always hear about all their options when they turn to lender-supported workout groups like HOPE NOW, which was established last year to assist homeowners in danger of foreclosure. He says HOPE NOW is not really about helping homeowners so much as it is about protecting lenders' interests.

HOPE NOW has been criticized by a number of consumer groups who say lenders should be doing more to help homeowners. Earlier this month HOPE NOW issued new guidelines that it said would make its services more helpful.

Petrovich says distressed homeowners should talk with HOPE NOW, but should understand that any help they receive will come at a cost: they'll have to waive their right to sue their lender.

"Not all loans that are in default are predatory or illegal, but many are, and in those cases homeowners need to preserve all their options, and that includes the right to take their lender to court," Petrovich said.

Petrovich has written a book, Fight Foreclosure!, which offers homeowners practical advice for keeping their homes out of foreclosure, while avoiding the many foreclosure rescue scams that prey on homeowners in trouble.

A cornerstone of that advice is to communicate directly with the lender to see what can be worked out. Another key piece of advice is to act quickly.

"Foreclosure is a time-sensitive problem. There is very little time between the first missed payment and a foreclosure filing," he said.

Perfect storm

Petrovich said he foresaw the "perfect storm" of the foreclosure crisis years ago, because of "ridiculous" loans and escalating prices that made real estate attractive to speculators. With foreclosures saturating the market with unsold houses, homeowners who need to sell can't find a buyer who will pay what they owe for the property. All too often, the unsellable house becomes another foreclosure statistic.

In years past a real estate agent might work out a "short sale," with the buyer paying less than what is owed the lender. The lender would get less than the full amount of the loan and the homeowner would avoid foreclosure, and the deal might be done in as little as 90 days, avoiding having a home sit empty for months, dragging down surrounding property values.

Petrovich says it's much harder to persuade lenders to agree to a short sale now, for a number of reasons. Many mortgages have been "securitized," meaning more parties have to agree to accept a loss. Because of lenders' huge financial losses, many people who service loans have been laid off. And the huge increase in the number of requested short sales, because of the foreclosure crisis, has led to big backlogs.

"Perhaps the most obvious obstacle is the lenders' reliance on historic comparable sale values which do not reflect current values," Petrovich said. "Lenders are fierce in their quest to maximize net recovery and seem to be willing to proceed to foreclosure auction in hopes of higher recovery, which ain't happening."

So the foreclosures continue, month after month.

Where does it end? Petrovich thinks we have a long way to go yet, with as many as three million more people losing their homes. However, he says lenders have become more proactive, seeking to help homeowners before their loans go bad. That, he says, will pay off in the future.

In the meantime, he says homeowners should educate themselves about foreclosure and their rights. Having an attorney look over your mortgage papers could be money well spent. Often legal aid services will do it at no charge, if you qualify.

And don't wait. Petrovich says time is of the essence for homeowners who want to fight foreclosure.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has filed a lawsuit against Sun West Video, Inc., doing business as Great Expectations for Singles, a dating service located in Scottsdale, alleging that the company violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Dating Referral Services Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Great Expectations used coercive sales tactics, misrepresentations and other deceptive practices to sell expensive dating service memberships to Arizona consumers, typically costing thousands of dollars. The alleged illegal practices include:

• Misrepresenting to consumers the overall number of Great Expectations' participating members, the number of participating members in certain age groups and the number of new members joining the service each month. Great Expectations also told consumers that two to three marriages occurred between members every month when it had no credible basis for such statements.

• Misrepresenting to consumers that it had conducted a criminal background check on all of its members.

• Using membership agreements that illegally extended initial memberships beyond one year and were designed to mislead consumers to believe they had no right to cancel or rescind the agreements.

• Unlawfully obtaining consumers' credit information as soon as they arrived at the Great Expectations office to meet with a representative, before they received a sales presentation or agreed to purchase a membership.

• Misrepresenting to consumers that Great Expectations staff would help them prepare their profiles and select other singles.

• Using high-pressure sales tactics during one-on-one, hours-long presentations to consumers, during which:

• Sales representatives urged consumers to contact their credit card companies to get an increased credit limit sufficient to pay for a membership.
• Sales representatives encouraged consumers who wanted time to think about purchasing a membership to put down a deposit to hold a heavily discounted "first visit incentive" price, when doing so had the effect of obligating the consumer to pay for a membership.
• Sales representatives showed potential new members written profiles and photographs of people they said were members of Great Expectations and were available for dates. In fact, many of the profiles and photographs were not of members or were of members on inactive status and unavailable for dating.

The lawsuit was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court. The Attorney General's Office is asking the Court to:

• Prohibit Great Expectations from violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Dating Referral Services Act.

• Require the defendants to return to all consumers any money or property they acquired through illegal acts.

• Impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

• Require the defendants to reimburse the Attorney General's Office for costs of the investigation and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Also named in the lawsuit are Sun West Video's President John R. Meriggi, Great Expectations' Director Michael Buhler and sales representative Geri Schencker.

More Scam Alerts ...

Public Citizen sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today for failing to act on its petition to withdraw Darvon, Darvocet and all drugs containing propoxyphene gradually from the market as is now required in the United Kingdom (U.K.).

Public Citizens complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the FDA is violating the law and putting patients at risk by not acting on Public Citizens Feb. 28, 2006, petition.

Propoxyphene is physically and psychologically addictive, is no more effective than safer alternatives and has been associated with more than 2,000 accidental deaths in America since 1981, Public Citizen told the FDA in its 2006 petition.

Despite the drugs health risks, however, it was one of the 25 most prescribed generic drugs last year, with 22 million prescriptions filled in pharmacies in 2007.

Top FDA drug officials, including Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Director Dr. Janet Woodcock and Dr. Robert Temple, are well aware that this drug has considerable human toxicity, addiction potential and abuse liability, but very limited therapeutic usefulness," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

"Given this extremely unfavorable ratio of risks to benefits, it is inexcusable that the FDA did not take propoxyphene off the market long ago. It is our hope that this lawsuit will force the agency to finally begin this desperately needed regulatory process.

The U.K. began a phased withdrawal of Darvocet from the British market in 2005, following the recommendation of the U.K. Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).

In its report, the CSM stated that it could not identify any patient group in whom the risk-benefit [ratio] may be positive. The withdrawal was completed at the end of 2007.

However, three years after the British government began its action to withdraw the drug, and two years after Public Citizen petitioned for its phasing out, the FDA still has not done anything to protect Americans from propoxyphenes dangerous side effects.

A large proportion of the deaths from propoxyphene occurred because most of the drug is converted into a metabolite that is highly toxic to the heart, lasts longer in the body than the original compound and results in cardiac depression.

Adverse cardiac events associated with propoxyphene include an interruption of heart transmission of electrical impulses, slowed heartbeats and a decreased ability of the heart to contract properly.

Propoxyphene-acetaminophen, or Darvocet, is more dangerous than acetaminophen (the ingredient in Tylenol) alone, yet a study has indicated that Darvocet is no more effective in treating post-operative pain than acetaminophen, Public Citizen said.

Reports on propoxyphene dosage suggest addiction can occur at less than the maximum recommended daily dose and unequivocally confirm addiction at just twice the recommended daily dose.

In addition, propoxyphene has been deemed inappropriate for the elderly because of its adverse effects on the central nervous system - such as sedation and confusion - that have been found to increase the likelihood of falls and fall-related fractures.

Yet studies have shown that propoxyphene use is widespread in emergency rooms, institutionalized populations and retirement communities.

Public Citizen is asking the court to find that the FDAs delay in ruling on the 2006 petition is unlawful and to order the FDA to issue a decision on the petition.

U.S. Marshals have today seized various pet products stored under what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called "unsanitary conditions" at PETCO's Animal Supplies Distribution Center in Joliet, Illinois.

That distribution facility provides pet food products and supplies to PETCO retail stores in 16 states throughout the Midwest.

Acting under a warrant issued by the Federal District Court in Chicago, U.S. marshals seized all FDA-regulated animal food susceptible to rodent and pest contamination, the FDA announced.

The action comes on the heels of an FDA inspection in April that uncovered widespread and active rodent and bird infestation at the distribution center.

The FDA inspected the facility again in May and found continuing infestation.

"We simply will not allow a company to store foods under filthy and unsanitary conditions that occur as a direct result of the company's failure to adequately control and prevent pests in its facility," said the FDA's Margaret O'K. Glavin, associate commissioner for regulatory affairs.

"Consumers expect that such safeguards will be in place not only for human food, but for pet food as well," she said.

The products seized violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because they were held under unsanitary conditions, according a case filed by the United States Attorney.

The FDA said it had no reports of pet illnesses or deaths associated with food from PETCO's facility. It also said it has no evidence that the food is unsafe for animals.

The products seized, however, were in permeable packages and held under conditions that could affect the food's integrity and quality, FDA officials warned.

As a precaution, the FDA recommends that consumers who handled any PETCO products from the distribution center thoroughly wash their hands with hot water and soap.

FDA officials also said any surfaces that came in contact with packages from the PETCO facility should be washed, too.

Consumers are further advised to thoroughly wash products sold in cans and glass containers from PETCO stores in the 16 affected states, which include Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

ConsumerAffairs.com contacted PETCO on Thursday. The company has not returned our call.

Pet owners should contact their veterinarian and report any illnesses to the FDA if their dogs or cats become sick after eating food from PETCO's distribution center

More about pets ...

The new rule "prohibits the removal of numbers from the Registry unless the consumer cancels the registration or the number has been disconnected and reassigned or is otherwise invalid," the agency said in a statement.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin said that "The order we adopt ensures that consumers registered with the National Do Not Call Registry maintain the privacy they expect and deserve."

Previously, registration with the "Do Not Call" list only lasted for five years, forcing them to re-register or risk a renewed onslaught of unwanted calls from telemarketers or solicitors.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the agency charged with directly overseeing the registry, had initially said it would require consumers to re-register when their initial registrations expired, but later backtracked and committed to keeping registrations permanent. The FTC also regularly "scrubs" the list of invalid or disconnected numbers.

Congress passed the "Do Not Call Improvement Act of 2007" earlier this year, which barred removal of any number from the registry unless it was invalid or disconnected, or the number's owner specifically requested such. Legislation was passed that also empowered the FTC to collect fees from telemarketers to continue the "Do Not Call" program.

Since the registry was created, the FTC has initiated 27 cases of alleged DNC violations, resulting in a total of $8.8 million in civil penalties and $8.6 million in consumer redress payments. Perhaps most notably, DirecTV was fined over $5 million by the FTC in 2005 for multiple violations of the registry and its rules governing telemarketing sales.

To sign up for the "Do Not Call" registry, visit the registry Web site.

NPD's National Eating Trends report found that the percentage of adults on a diet has decreased by 10 percentage points since 1990, while the number of Americans eating healthier has increased.

NPD found that at least once in a two-week period, more than 70% of Americans are consuming reduced-fat foods, and over half of them are eating reduced-calorie, whole-grain or fortified foods. In addition to these foods, other better-for-you items consumed include diet, light, reduced-cholesterol, reduced-sodium, caffeine-free, sugar-free, fortified, organic and low-carb foods.

Awareness of these nutritional food elements continues to grow. For example, in 2005, 36 percent of consumers surveyed said they were trying to get more omega-3 fatty acids in their diets, and the most recent NPD Dieting Monitor shows that number increasing to 46 percent.

The average American, according to National Eating Trends, has at least two better-for-you products a day.

Healthy eating to consumers today tends to boil down to basic mathematics, says NPD vice president Harry Balzer, who has been tracking consumers food consumption behavior for 30 years.

A generation ago it was about subtracting bad things from your diet, but today healthy eating is more a matter of addition and subtraction, he says.

The ongoing concern about health appears to be paying off, according to Balzer. Recent U.S. government studies confirm obesity leveling off, and most recently, childhood obesity stabilizing.

Even with concerns about the economic downturn, eating healthy still remains top-of-mind with consumers. According to a recent NPD Fast Check Survey on economic conditions, adults who identify themselves as financially worse-off compared to last year, said that eating healthy still had the greatest impact on the food and beverages their household selects. Saving money ranked a close second.

While dieting for both women and men remain huge markets, they are not growing markets, said Harry Balzer, vice president, the NPD Group, in a statement. The desire to lose weight really was a 90s trend. Today consumers appear to be making healthier food choices.

Most car-rental companies offer consumers the opportunity to buy a full tank in advance, then return the car with the same amount of fuel as when the vehicles was rented. Consumers can also choose to have the agency refill with gas priced at a premium over the market rate.

When the car come comes back to the rental company on empty, the gasoline bill can sometimes be be a shock, depending on the rental agency.

AAA found one rental company near Philadelphia International Airport charging $13.50 a gallon for refueling.

Budget Rent-A-Car has charged as much as $9 a gallon for a refill and Hertz has charged as much as $7.99. One consumer reported Rent-A-Wreck charged $7 a gallon plus $10 if the car came back on empty.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler negotiated an agreement with car rental companies in his state to reduce refueling charges following a six-month investigation of gasoline prices charged consumers by the rental agencies.

"Marylanders are already hurting at the gas pump, and paying $8.00 per gallon is just salt in the wound," Gansler said. "We have made it easier to visit and do business in Maryland, and these agreements can be a national model for states that want fair pricing."

The Maryland investigation included rental charges at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport and disclosed that some rental car companies had increased refueling charges far in excess of gas prices found in the Baltimore/Washington/Philadelphia area.

Prior to the agreement, consumers would have paid an $8.00 per gallon refueling fee. Now the cost is a $5.85 per gallon refueling fee or 140 percent of the prevailing price of full service fuel.

AAA said car-rental companies across the country should cut refueling charges.

"It is ludicrous for a car-rental company to charge more than twice the price of a gallon of gas, especially when motorists are already paying a lot for gas," AAA spokeswoman Catherine Rossi said.

Toyota is recalling 196,222 Sienna vans from the 2004 through 2006 model years to repair the struts which hold up the power-assisted liftgate. Those struts can fail, causing the gate to power its way shut, injuring anyone hit by the closing door.

Image conscious Toyota, with the approval of the National highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is describing the recall as a "Safety Improvement Campaign" in a public relations effort by the Japanese automaker not to further sully a deteriorating reputation for quality control.

The gas struts used to lift and support the the rear power liftgate "could wear out sooner than expected," according to the "Safety Improvement Campaign" notice published by NHTSA.

"As the gas struts deteriorate, the performance of the liftgate will begin to degrade and the power rear liftgate will operate more slowly than when the gas struts were new," according to NHTSA.

The safety agency warns that worn struts may not be able to support the weight of the liftgate when it is open and the door could fall "about 10 inches after it reaches the fully opened position at which point the power motor will engage and power the liftgate to the fully closed position," perhaps injuring anyone struck by the closing door.

Toyota dealers will replace the gas struts during the "Safety Improvement Campaign" with struts the automaker said will have a longer service life.

Toyota has not announced when it will contact Sienna owners about the liftgate recall but owners may contact Toyota at 1-888-270-9371.

NHTSA reported on its Web site that "this action is deemed a safety improvement campaign and is not being conducted under the safety act. However, Toyota has informed NHTSA that it will provide the modifications described free of charge."

JK Harris airs a national TV ad campaign promising consumers it can settle consumers' debt with the IRS for "pennies on the dollar." Eighteen states sued, claiming the ads are deceptive.

In a settlement J.K. Harris has agreed to stop misleading consumers about its services and to pay $1.5 million in restitution.

"This company took advantage of people who paid for tax assistance and, in some instances, profited by taking their money and not giving them any help at all," said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. "This agreement will ensure that this firm is honest with its clients and provides refunds if they are unable to assist them."

The 18 state attorneys general entered into a consent judgment with JK Harris and Company, L.L.C of Charleston, South Carolina, and its president, John K. Harris. According to the complaint, JK Harris did not help consumers with their tax problems as advertised and refused to give refunds when consumers complained that promised services were never completed.

The complaint alleges that JK Harris regularly advertised that it could help people who owed back taxes to the IRS by filing an Offer in Compromise (OIC) on their behalf and consumers would only have to pay a small percentage of what they owed. An OIC is a program implemented by the IRS to assist consumers who owed back taxes as a legitimate alternative to declaring a case not collectible.

JK Harris charged money upfront for this service without actually determining if consumers qualified for an OIC or while knowing that consumers in fact didn't qualify. The IRS accepts only a small number of these kinds of cases. In many cases, JK Harris did not even apply to the IRS to assist consumers as promised, but still refused to give those consumers their money back, the complaint alleged.

The complaint detailed other issues; it said JK Harris regularly advertised that it had more than 450 offices nationwide. Typically, however, the person handling a consumer's OIC was actually located at the JK Harris home office in Charleston, South Carolina. If a consumer wanted to meet with a JK Harris representative about their file they had to physically travel to Charleston.

The other offices were reportedly staffed by sales representatives who could not assist consumers with their tax problems.

JK Harris also claimed that consumers' files would be handled by "tax experts" or "ex-IRS agents" when in fact, the states charged, the individuals handling the cases did not fit those descriptions and did not have tax expertise. JK Harris case managers changed frequently, and consumers complained that they often had to provide the same information to the company several times.

Under the terms of the consent judgment, JK Harris must make clearer disclosures to consumers and refund them if the company is not able to work out a compromise with the IRS. The company must tell consumers under what circumstances they might qualify to reach a compromise with the IRS on back taxes and provide an accurate percentage of how many OIC offers the IRS accepts. The company must also refund consumers' money if the IRS does not accept their case.

The national average price for gasoline continued to push higher setting a record of $4.080 with 28 states and the District of Colombia now above the $4 mark.

Diesel also moved higher to $4.797, according to the AAA Fuel Gauge Report.

Mid-grade gasoline averages $4.333 and premium $4.488 a gallon.

One year ago regular self-serve gasoline sold for an average price of $3.008.

Gasoline prices have surpassed $4 a gallon for more than a week following a year of $3-plus gasoline prices.

The average pump price for regular has increase more than 35 percent in the last 12 months.

Gas is most expensive in California, according to AAA, averaging $4.600 a gallon. Missouri has the lowest average price at $3.834 a gallon.

$5 this year?

Most analysts don't expect gas to hit a statewide average price of $5 in California or elsewhere in the contiguous 48 states, but some aren't so sure. But that doesn't mean it won't happen next year.

"Maybe not by the end of the year, but certainly within a year we'll get there," said Rod Diridon, head of the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The latest Gallup poll finds that many Americans blame President Bush for not doing enough to deal with rising prices. Only 17% say President Bush is doing enough to solve the country's energy problems, a significant decline from already low figures in 2006.

Of the seven government and business institutions tested in the poll, the Bush administration ranks second on the blame list, behind U.S. oil companies (60%). Oil companies have topped the list each time Gallup has asked the question, and -- like Bush -- are blamed more now than they were in 2006.

In California, drivers have been doing their part, driving less and switching to hybrids in greater numbers than elsehwere. Gasoline sales in the nation's largest state have been falling for more than two years, although they appeared to jump almost 7 percent in February, according to the State Board of Equalization. The board, which tracks gas sales through tax receipts, blamed the apparent increase on an accounting fluke and the addition of an extra day in February for leap year.

Ed McMahon is not alone. One in every 483 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing last month, the highest monthly rate since the real estate tracking firm RealtyTrac began issuing reports.

The company said foreclosure filings default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions were reported on 261,255 properties during the month, a seven percent increase from the previous month and a 48 percent increase from May 2007.

"May was the third straight month where we've seen a month-to-month increase in foreclosure activity and the 29th straight month we've seen a year-over-year increase," said James J. Saccacio, RealtyTrac's CEO.

But there may be a hint of good news in the grim numbers.

Saccacio says the rate of filings may be at its highest level, but at least the rate of increase is slowing down. Default notices were up just one percent from the previous month and auction notices were actually down three percent from the previous month.

However, bank repossessions continued to surge in May posting a double-digit percentage increase from the previous month and more than twice the number reported in May 2007 which pushed the total inventory of bank-owned REOs in our database to more than 700,000.

Nevada has highest rate

With one in every 118 households receiving a foreclosure filing in May, Nevada posted the highest state foreclosure rate for the 17th consecutive month. Foreclosure filings were reported on a total of 9,009 Nevada properties, an increase of nearly 24 percent from the previous month and a 72 percent increase from May 2007.

California foreclosure activity in May increased 11 percent from the previous month and 81 percent from May 2007, helping the state continue to register the nation's second highest state foreclosure rate. One in every 183 California households received a foreclosure filing during the month, a rate that was 2.6 times the national average.

Arizona's May foreclosure rate one in every 201 households received a foreclosure filing during the month ranked third highest among the states for the second month in a row. Arizona foreclosure activity increased nearly 12 percent from the previous month and almost 119 percent from May 2007.

One in every 228 Florida households received a foreclosure filing in May, giving it the fourth highest foreclosure rate among the states. Michigan foreclosure activity in May increased nearly 25 percent from the previous month, helping the state's foreclosure rate to jump to fifth highest among the states after ranking No. 9 the previous month. One in every 353 Michigan households received a foreclosure filing in May.

Other states with foreclosure rates ranking among the top 10 were Georgia, Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio and New Jersey.

California has highest total

Foreclosure filings were reported on 71,930 California properties, 37,364 Florida properties and 12,959 Arizona properties, the three highest state totals in May. Michigan was not far behind Arizona, with 12,792 properties receiving foreclosure filings during the month.

Foreclosure filings were reported on 12,295 Ohio properties in May, the fifth highest state total despite a nearly 7 percent decrease from May 2007. With one in every 410 households receiving a foreclosure filing, Ohio's foreclosure rate ranked No. 9 among the states and was above the national average.

Georgia foreclosure activity increased 11 percent from the previous month and 23 percent from May 2007, giving the state 10,241 properties with foreclosure filing in May the nation's sixth highest total. And with one in every 378 Georgia households receiving a foreclosure filing during the month, the state's foreclosure rate also ranked No. 6 among the states.

Other states in the top 10 for total properties with filings were Texas, Illinois, Nevada and New Jersey.

Top metros

For the second month in a row, California and Florida cities accounted for nine out of the top 10 metropolitan foreclosure rates among the 230 metropolitan areas tracked in the report.

Seven California cities were in the top 10, led by Stockton in the top spot. One in every 75 Stockton area households received a foreclosure filing in May more than six times the national average. Other California cities in the top 10 were Merced at No. 3, Modesto at No. 4, Riverside-San Bernardino at No. 5, Vallejo-Fairfield at No. 7, Bakersfield at No. 8, and Sacramento at No. 9.

The Cape Coral-Fort Myers metro area in Florida registered the second highest metro foreclosure rate in May, with one in every 79 households receiving a foreclosure filing during the month. The other Florida metro area in the top 10 was Port Lucie-Fort Pierce at No. 10.

Las Vegas was the only city outside of California and Florida with a foreclosure rate ranking among the top 10. One in every 96 Las Vegas households received a foreclosure filing in May, more than five times the national average and No. 6 among the metro areas.

Metro areas with foreclosure rates among the top 20 included Phoenix at No. 12, Detroit at No. 14, San Diego at No. 17 and Miami at No. 19.

Grappling with another high profile food contamination, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is coming in for more criticism, this time from Congressional investigators.

The General Accountability Office told the House Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday the agency has done little to implement its own revised food safety plan. The charges echo similar complaints from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Plum, Roma and round tomatoes are filling trash bins behind restaurants and grocery shelves as 167 people have been reported ill from eating salmonella-tainted tomatoes. The outbreak has been documented in at least 17 states so far, according to the Centers for Disease Control, which is still getting reports of people falling ill.

Since FDA's plan was first released in November 2007, FDA has added few details on the resources and strategies required to implement the plan, investigators report. FDA plans to spend about $90 million over fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to implement several key actions, such as identifying food vulnerabilities and risk. But to date, few steps have been taken.

From the information GAO said it has obtained on the Food Protection Plan, however, it is unclear what FDA's overall resource need is for implementing the plan, which could be significant.

For example, based on FDA estimates, if FDA were to inspect each of the approximately 65,500 domestic food firms regulated by FDA once, the total cost would be approximately $524 million.

In addition, GAO said, timelines for implementing the various strategies in the plan are unclear, although a senior level FDA official estimated that the overall plan will take five years to complete. GAO also said it is concerned that the FDA hasn't provided much information about its plan. FDA officials reportedly told GAO that they had prepared a draft report on progress made in implementing the Food Protection Plan, but as of June 4, 2008, FDA told GAO that the Department of Health and Human Services had not cleared the report for release.

"Concerns about food safety oversight are not new," said Lisa Shames, GAO Director Natural Resources and Environment, in testimony before the subcommittee. "GAO and others have consistently reported on a lack of adequate oversight of food safety by FDA, and have provided many recommendations for better leveraging FDA's limited resources and suggestions for additional authorities that would allow FDA to better fulfill its responsibilities.

"In 1998, we reported that limitations in FDA's authority and its need to more effectively target limited resources could adversely affect its ability to ensure food safety. A decade later, the story remains the same and has only taken on a greater sense of urgency due to changing demographics and consumption patterns."

In fact, Shames noted that FDA has implemented few of the GAO's past recommendations to leverage its resources and improve food safety oversight. Since 2004, GAO said it has made a total of 34 food safety related recommendations to FDA, and as of May 2008, FDA has implemented 7 of these recommendations.

For the remaining recommendations, GAO said the FDA has not fully implemented them, but in some cases has taken some steps. GAO said planned activities in the Food Protection Plan could help address several of the recommendations that FDA has not implemented, but the agency has yet to act.

CSPI's charges

The GAO's findings follow complaints from consumer groups that FDA moves too slowly to effectively ensure the safety of food products.

"Since 2006, CSPI has been urging FDA to require all farms that feed the American public to have written food safety plans, but the FDA has not done that," Klein said. "Instead, the agency and the Bush Administration rely on voluntary, and obviously ineffective, industry programs.

The result is yet another produce outbreak sickening consumers and dealing another setback to another important industry, which includes many growers who have implemented food safety measures, Klein said.

"Consumers can't afford to risk their health by eating tainted produce, and they can't afford the blow to their wallets when FDA tells them to throw out what may actually be safe food because the agency can't figure out the precise source of the contamination," she said.

Some published reports say that Florida and the eastern shore of Virginia have been the target of an ongoing FDA "tomato safety initiative."

FDA says the source of the contaminated tomatoes may be limited to a single grower or packer or tomatoes from a specific geographic area. The agency also notes that there are many tomato crops across the country and in foreign countries that are just becoming ready for harvest or will become ready in the coming months.

Klein said trying to track down contamination after the fact isn't getting the job done.

"Without food safety plans, on-farm inspections, and effective traceback systems, all consumers can do is cross their fingers and hope that the food they eat is safe," she said. "Even now, with 145 people in 16 states sick, FDA can't tell consumers whether the contaminated tomatoes were domestically produced or imported. The agency needs to overhaul its food safety system, and it needs to do it now."

Klein said that since 1990, more than 3,000 Americans have gotten sick from tomatoes contaminated in 24 known outbreaks. And she said those numbers don't take into account what must be countless unidentified tomato-related outbreaks.

"How many more consumers have to get sick before FDA gets serious about produce safety?" Klein asked.

Who ever heard of a golf cart crash?

Apparently there are enough of them that they have become a concern. In fact, golf carts are becoming a popular means of transportation away from golf courses, and new research from the University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Injury Sciences says injuries associated with their use may be under-appreciated, suggesting the need for the implementation of new safety measures.

In findings published in the June issue of the Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection and Critical Care, UAB researchers found that there were more than 48,255 golf-cart related injuries between 2002 and 2005, with the highest injury rates observed in males 10-19 years old and those over 80.

"Golf carts are becoming a popular way to get around in some neighborhoods, particularly for adolescents and teenagers who cannot yet drive a car," said Gerald McGwin, Ph.D., associate director for research at the Center for Injury Sciences and professor of epidemiology. "A lot of people perceive golf carts as little more than toys, but our findings suggest they can be quite dangerous, especially when used on public roads."

McGwin says fractures and head trauma are among the most common injuries associated with golf cart-related accidents.

"Some communities encourage golf cart use as a primary means of transportation because of their low emissions, quiet operation and presumed safety," McGwin said. "There is little federal regulation and most states do not require operators to be of a certain age, use any sort of safety equipment, or obtain an operators license."

McGwin suggests that safety standards are needed that manufacturers and sellers of golf carts should be required to include safety education materials at the time of sale.

Due to the high risk of rollover and ejection, the use of helmets and seatbelts is recommended, particularly if the golf cart is driven on public roads. And McGwin suggests that developers should reevaluate the design of golf cart paths, addressing gradient, sharpness of curves and proximity to other hazards.

"Golf carts are an attractive transportation solution due to their low emissions and cost effectiveness when compared to traditional motor vehicles," McGwin said. "But more stringent safety standards should be applied to the design and use of golf carts, particularly those operated on public roads."