Current Events in July 2008

As families across the country prepare for the 4th of July celebration, veterinarians warn this is an extremely stressful holiday for pets.

The loud bang and boom of fireworks and flashes of light can terrify many of our four-legged friends.

Even unlit fireworks pose a danger to pets, veterinarians warn. So do insect repellents, alcoholic beverages, and some foods people grill during holiday picnics.

To keep your dogs and cats safe this Fourth of July, veterinarians at The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal's Poison Control Center recommend the following:

• Never use fireworks around pets. Fireworks can cause severe burns or trauma to the face and paws of curious pets. Unused fireworks also pose a danger to pets because many contain potentially toxic substances, including potassium nitrate, arsenic, and other heavy metals;

• Do not take pets to fireworks displays. It's best to keep them in a quiet, sheltered, escape-proof part of your home. Some veterinarians recommend playing soothing background music for pets. And be sure they have plenty of water;

• Do not put "glow-in-the dark" jewelry on pets. Don't let them play with any of this jewelry, either. The luminescent substance in these products is not highly toxic, but excessive drooling and gastrointestinal irritation could result if your pets ingest the liquid. Pets can also suffer from intestinal blockage if they swallow large pieces of the plastic containers;

• Keep citronella candles, insect coils, and oil products out of pets reach. The ingestion of these products can cause stomach irritation and possibly even central nervous system depression. If inhaled, the oils can cause aspiration pneumonia in pets.

• Keep matches and lighter fluid away from pets. Some matches contain chlorates, which could potentially damage blood cells and result in difficulty breathingor even kidney disease in severe cases. Lighter fluid can also irritate the skin and--if ingested--cause gastrointestinal irritation and central nervous system depression. If lighter fluid is inhaled, aspiration pneumonia and breathing problems could develop;

• Never leave alcoholic beverages where pets can reach them. These drinks have the potential to poison pets. If ingested, an animal could become intoxicated and weak, severely depressed or lapse into a coma. Death from respiratory failure is also a possibility in severe cases;

• Do not apply sunscreen or insect repellents to your pet that are not specifically made for use on animals. Ingestion of sunscreen products can result in drooling, vomiting, diarrhea, excessive thirst and lethargy. Insect repellent that contains DEET can lead to neurological problems;

• Keep your pets on their normal diet. Any change, even for one meal, can give your pet severe indigestion and diarrhea. This is especially true for older animals that have more delicate digestive systems and nutritional requirements. And keep your pets away from foods that can be potentially toxic to them, including onions, chocolate, coffee, avocado, grapes, raisins, salt, and yeast dough;

Poison control

If you suspect your pet has become poisoned, immediately contact your veterinarian. If you go to the vet's office, take the package the suspected poison came in for reference. It's also helpful to collect--in a sealable plastic bag--any material your pet may have vomited or chewed.

Pet owners can also contact the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center at (888) 426-4435. There is a $60 consultation fee for this service.

Be prepared to give the veterinarians or toxicologists the following information:

• the species, breed, age, sex, weight and number of animals involved
• the animal's symptoms
• information regarding the exposure, including the agent (if known), the amount of the agent involved and the time elapsed since the time of exposure.

Veterinarians say it's also a good idea to invest in an emergency first-aid kit for your pet. The kit should contain:

• A fresh bottle of hydrogen peroxide, 3 percent USP (to induce vomiting);

• A turkey baster, bulb syringe or large medicine syringe (to administer the hydrogen peroxide);

• Saline eye solution;

• Artificial tear gel (to lubricate eyes after flushing);

• Mild grease-cutting dishwashing liquid (for bathing an animal after skin contamination);

• Forceps (to remove stingers);

• A muzzle (to protect against fear-or excitement-induced biting);

• A can of your pet's favorite wet food;

• A pet carrier

Pet owners should consult a veterinarian for directions on how and when to use these emergency first-aid items.

More about pets ...

It sounds almost too good to be true: Get a new iPhone from AT&T without having to sign a contract.

Well, there is one very hefty string attached. In order to get the service without the contract, you have to spend an extra $400 for the iPhone.

In announcing its new policy, AT&T said the iPhones without a contract will cost $599 or $699. It didn't say when it would start its new policy, only saying it would happen "in the future," which covers a lot of territory.

AT&T says the new iPhones, which will normally cost $199 and $299 with a two-year contract, are priced higher without a contract because that's the actual cost of the phone. AT&T says it subsidized part of the cost for contract customers, getting the money back over the life of the contract.

AT&T says it's offering the no-contract option in response to customer demand. Regulators and members of Congress have also prodded cell phone companies to be more accommodating to subscribers when it comes to early termination fees.

Even though you can get an iPhone without signing an AT&T contract, you will still have to use AT&T service. The iPhone remains locked, meaning it can't be used on other networks.

Since the early termination fee for ending a contract is normally $175, it isn't immediately clear if many consumers will pay an extra $400 just to avoid a contract.

With more and more people using the Internet to shop for a new car, Kia.com has pulled into the lead.

The site ranks highest among automotive manufacturer Web sites for usefulness in the search for a new vehicle, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2008 Manufacturer Web Site Evaluation Study -- Wave 2.

The semi-annual study measures the usefulness of automotive manufacturer Web sites during the new-vehicle shopping process. New-vehicle shoppers evaluate Web sites in four key areas: appearance, speed, navigation and information/content.

Kia ranks highest with an index score of 872 on a 1,000-point scale -- marking a nine-point increase from the last wave of the study, which was released in January.

Closely following Kia in the rankings are Ford (871) and Mazda (870), with Ford performing particularly well in the appearance factor. Also performing significantly above the industry average are Honda, Jeep, Lincoln, Porsche, BMW, Cadillac and Subaru.

"Over the years, Kia has successfully satisfied shoppers with its straightforward, intuitive Web site by providing pages that load quickly and that are easy to navigate," said Arianne Walker, director of marketing/media research at J.D. Power and Associates.

"By focusing on these key aspects of the Web site experience, Kia has continually met the expectations of its customers. In fact, this marks the fourth time in 10 reporting waves that Kia has ranked highest."

On average, most manufacturer Web sites undergo a major redesign every two to three years. While redesigns can eventually lead to increased satisfaction, small updates to improve critical areas on a manufacturer Web site -- such as information and content and ease of navigation -- can also positively impact the customer experience in a more cost-effective manner.

In particular, Ford and Porsche have made frequent tweaks and updates to their sites, all leading to a steady increase in satisfaction scores during the past four years, without a major redesign.

"Ford and Porsche provide a great example of how targeted, consistent improvements to a site can really pay off," said Walker.

"With limited resources at many of the manufacturers and their advertising agencies, choosing to stick with a well-thought-out master design while consistently improving site content, framework and behind-the-scenes programming can prove not only more cost effective, but just as successful as a major site redesign in meeting the needs of shoppers."

The study also finds the following key patterns:

• Satisfaction with a manufacturer Web site tends to increase shopper visits to the dealership, as 75 percent of shoppers who give high ratings on a site are more likely to go to a dealership to test drive a vehicle.

• Overall satisfaction with manufacturer Web sites has increased to 849 -- eight points more than the previous wave of the study. In particular, satisfaction with loading speed has increased as manufacturer Web sites have employed a variety of techniques -- such as better navigation schemes, more aggressive caching, better page load order and pre-loading of content -- to offer rich content that loads quickly.

With hours to spare before the July 1 deadline to improve the nation's vehicle roof crush standard, the secretary of the Department of Transportation informed Congress last night that the new standard is being delayed until October 1.

In a letter to the heads of the Congressional committees that have jurisdiction over the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Secretary Mary Peters wrote: Because of the number of new comments we received and the additional analyses that are required, additional time is now needed to complete the final rule. We will issue a final rule by October, 2008.

Peters's letter follows months of protests by consumer advocates and some U.S. senators who felt that after 35 years without any substantial change, the new roof crush standard the agency planned to propose would not do enough to save consumers' lives.

Although rollovers comprise less than five percent of all crashes, 25 percent of all vehicle fatalities are from rollovers approximately 10,000 every year, according to the campaign website for Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who is running for president as an independent in 2008 and who has loudly protested NHTSA's new proposal.

American auto companies want a weak standard that will kill more Americans and produce more quadriplegics and paraplegics, Nader said at a protest outside the Department of Transportation in May.

But probably one of the greatest catalysts for the delay is a bi-partisan letterletter written to Peters last month by Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Danielle Inouye (D-Hawaii).

We are writing to express our concerns with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) proposed rule on vehicle roof strength, the senators wrote. We also write to encourage you to extend the current deadline for issuance of the final rule and set a new date for that purpose. ... We believe that an extension is necessary to best protect the American public.

The current rule requires that a vehicle's roof withstand 1.5 times the weight of the vehicle, slowly applied to one side of the roof by a metal plate called a static crusher, without caving into the cabin more than five inches.

The new rule as it was written would have upgraded that standard to a 2.5 times strength-to-weight ratio, applied to both sides of a vehicle's roof.

But the agency never gave any clear explanation as to how it came to this new standard, according to the senators' letter.

Given the lack of data and clear explanation from the NHTSA supporting the need for this strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) standard, it is difficult to think that the selection of this number was anything more than arbitrary, the senators wrote. In addition to appearing to be an arbitrary choice, the minimal impact that such a test is estimated to have on saving lives is also of great concern to us. The NHTSAs own estimates are that a 2.5 SWR standard would only save between 13 to 44 lives a year. The NHTSA does not conduct similar estimates or analysis for other SWRs, such as 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0.

Consumer advocates and the senators also believe the proposal should utilize dynamic tests, which they say more accurately represents the violent motion of a rollover. Industry advocates argue dynamic tests are unusable because the motions are not repeatable. Many luxury foreign manufacturers such as Volvo, Mercedes-Benz and BMW put some of their vehicles through dynamic tests.

The most controversial aspect of NHTSA's proposed rulemaking was a clause that would have preempted many consumers from filing lawsuits against automakers should they end up injured in a rollover.

If this provision (preemption) is included in any final rule, this would constitute an unprecedented incursion upon the Constitutional rights of consumers, who will remain uncompensated for the needless deaths and injuries that occur due to the foreseeable negligence of manufacturers, the Senators wrote in their letter.

At a June 4 hearing, Senators warned James Ports, NHTSA's Deputy Administrator, that if the agency can't write an adequate proposal that will save lives, Congress will step in and do it.

The government has some very precise rules about what food can be labeled "organic." But there are few real rules to govern the use of "natural," and the result, food producers warn, can lead to consumer confusion.

Scientific experts tried to clarify the use of the term "natural" on products during the Institute of Food Technologists "Best of Food Thinking" Annual Meeting and Food Expo over the weekend in New Orleans.

Despite the term's widespread use, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration discourages the food industry from using "natural" on labels because of its ambiguity. As well, "natural" implies that a food product is superior, fresher, safer or more healthful than its counterparts, said the FDA's Ritu Nalubola.

However, neither FDA nor the U.S. Department of Agriculture has precise rules for "natural." And the food-and-beverage product industry, represented by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, has no consensus.

In 1991, FDA tried to define the term but by 1993 had given up. In the end, it decided to not restrict the use of "natural" on products.

"It is a very complex term," Nalubola said.

Today FDA is continuing that practice, originated in 1988. For a product to be called natural, it must be free of artificial or synthetic ingredients or additives, including color, flavor or any ingredient "not normally expected." For example, lemonade flavored with beet juice cannot be called natural. In addition, any food enhanced with caramel, paprika or color (consider bright orange cheese) cannot be called natural.

FDA will continue to judge products "on a case-by-case basis," said Nalubola.

USDA, which regulates meat, poultry and egg products, is working on a more specific policy, said Daniel Engeljohn, Ph.D., of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

Though not a food safety issue, he said that USDA's policy will be in place by the end of 2008 and address such issues as tenderizing, processing and flavor-enhancing. Until then, he said, products and their claims will be weighed "case by case."

In the grocery industry, disagreement reigns on the term's definition, according to Regina Hildwine, senior director of Food Labeling and Standards for the trade organization, Grocery Manufacturing Association.

Because such regulatory agencies as FDA and USDA haven't clarified the term, products are subject to the agencies' "best current thinking of what constitutes truthful labeling," Hildwine said.

States have authority to set rules on some labeling matters, and a state could drive a future definition, she said.

At this point, she warns, "We don't go too far or we might end up with something not everyone wants."