Current Events in September 2008

September 17, 2008
John Deere is recalling the Gator XUV 620i Utility Vehicle.

The fuel tank can leak from a gap in the seam at the base of the filler neck, posing a fire hazard.

Deere & Company has received seven reports of fuel tank leaks. No fires or injuries have been reported.

The recalled utility vehicle is Model 620i. The model number is painted on the side of the vehicle. The recall includes the following serial numbers. The serial number plate is on the vehicles frame in front of the passenger side rear fender.

The Gators, made in the United States, were sold by John Deere dealers nationwide from April 2008 through August 2008 for about $10,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled utility vehicles immediately and contact any John Deere dealer to schedule a free inspection and repair. Keep fuel tank below half full until the repair is made. Registered owners were sent direct mail notification of this recall.

For additional information, contact Deere & Company at (800) 537-8233 between 8 a.m. and 6p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and Saturday between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. ET, or visit the firms Web site at www.johndeere.com

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Even though oil prices have fallen below $100 a barrel, United Airlines says the cost of jet fuel is still wrecking havoc on its budget. As a result, the airline has announced it is increasing the fee for a second piece of checked luggage from $25 to $50 effective September 16, 2008.

The fee for the first piece of checked luggage remains $15, the airline said.

The new fee will apply to passengers traveling on an Economy ticket or an Economy award ticket. Passengers with first class or business class tickets will not be charged the fee. Members of United's various rewards programs, including Global Services, Mileage Plus, Premier Executive, Premier, or Premier Associate, are also exempt.

United said it will waive the increase for active duty military personnel and/or their dependants, with ID and traveling on order. The airline said passengers may be subject to additional fees if:

• you check more than two bags;

• any of your bags weigh more than 50 lbs. (23 kg);

• any of your bags exceed 62 linear inches (158 linear cm)*; and/or

• any of your checked bags are considered special items.

The voluntary recall involves such brands of dog and cat food as Pedigree, Special Kitty, Ol'Roy, and PMI Nutrition Gravy Crunches manufactured at that plant.

This the second time in recent weeks that Mars has recalled some of its products because of possible salmonella contamination.

In August, a salmonella scare forced the company to recall 100 of its 20-pound bags of Pedigree Complete Nutrition Small Crunchy Bites sold at some Albertsons in Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada.

Mars also manufactures Nutro pet food, which scores of consumers nationwide have blamed for the recent illnesses -- and even deaths -- of their dog and cats.

Nutro products, however, were not included in that recall. They are also not involved in this latest action.

Back in August, Mars said a "component" that tested positive for salmonella was inadvertently shipped to its Tracy, California, plant and used in the production of 100 bags of Pedigree pet food.

In this latest recall, Mars said it has not received any confirmed reports of illnesses caused by the contaminated pet food.

"Even though no direct link between products produced at the Everson manufacturing plant and human or pet illness has been made, we are taking this precautionary action to protect pets and their owners," Catherine Woteki, global director of scientific affairs for Mars, said in a statement issued by the company.

"We are continuing to work collaboratively with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine the nature and source of Salmonella Schwarzengrund at the Everson facility, and are committed to making sure our consumers and customers have the information they need regarding our voluntary recall," she said.

Mars said it stopped production at the Everson facility on July 29, 2008, when it learned of a possible connection between dry pet food produced at the plant and two isolated cases of people infected with salmonella.

Many of the pet food brands involved in the recall are produced at multiple facilities, the company said.

The products involved in this action have the number "17" as the first two digits of the second line.

This chart lists all the pet food involved in this recall:

FDA officials say salmonella can cause serious infections in dogs and cats -- and in humans if there is cross contamination from handling the pet food.

Salmonella is especially dangerous in children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems.

Symptoms of salmonella poisoning in humans include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. In rare cases, salmonella can cause more serious ailments, such as arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.

Consumers who have these symptoms after handling the pet food should immediately contact their doctor.

Pets with salmonella poisoning may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.

Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever, and abdominal pain, the company said. Any pets that have eaten the recalled products -- and show these symptoms -- should see a veterinarian.

The company said it is working with the FDA to determine the nature and source of the salmonella at the Everson facility. Mars will not resume production at the facility until the source of the salmonella is identified.

Mars also said it will also work with retail customers to ensure the recalled products are not on store shelves.

Consumers who have purchased products involved in this recall should return them for a full refund.

For more information about the recall, pet owners can contact the company at 1-877-568-4463 or visit its Web site: www.petcare.mars.com.

More about pets ...

It's finally happened. The risks could outweigh the rewards when it comes to individual investors investing directly in the stock market. Whether it's due to a creeping contagion of toxic debt, or what CNBC's Mad Money guru Jim Cramer calls "hedge fund managers gone wild," there are forces at work impacting stock prices that have nothing to do with a stock's fundamental value.

As Cramer explained it, hedge fund managers are in control of the stock market and they are causing all this volatility and erratic trading. He says that hedge funds wield such massive influence that many stocks are now completely disconnected from their underlying businesses.

That's why it's so hard to establish a buying price. Cramer says that until the hedge funds "finish selling or some buyers -- real corporate buyers -- come out of the woodwork, it's not going to get any easier. And it simply may not be worth your effort, your time or your sanity."

In the last ten years, the number of hedge funds increased from 600 to 13,600 with assets under management zooming from around $100 billion to an estimated $2.2 trillion. This means that hedge funds, which are not regulated by any agency, represent as much as 60 percent of all global trading.

Hedge fund managers typically are expected to come up with at least a 20 percent return for their clients. That means they need quick returns--and they'll do almost anything to satisfy their investors from spreading rumors and using leverage, as well as long, short, and derivative positions. This churns up volatility and causes the stock market to feel like Hurricane Ike.

So what should individual investors do if the stocks they hold are at all-time-lows--hold them until they come back, or get out now before short sellers drive prices to the point they're worthless? Ask anyone who still holds Lehman Brothers, the giant insurance company AIG, or Merrill Lynch then stand back as they hurl.

As for those risk-reward scenarios, there are some charts that say now is the time to buy financials. But that's not necessarily true for individual investors looking at individual stocks.

Let's take Merrill Lynch. Citigroup issued a report on Friday (September 12), calling Merrill a "buy" because as it valued the company's fundamentals at $45 a share. But Merrill actually closed out the week at $17.05, a new 52 week low. Why? Because in the mind of many hedge fund managers, Merrill is infected with the same toxic debt that destroyed Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, and there was nothing Merrill could do about it.

And then there was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Individual investors were still pouring money into the two government sponsored mortgage companies after being reassured a government takeover wouldn't be necessary until it was.

Most investors are aware that stock investing carries some risk and that share prices can collapse if the business fails. But these days the business can be just fine, while the stock price continues to drop.

One logical alternative solution would be for individual investors to simply put their money into mutual funds. But wait. Aren't there reports out there that say three out of four mutual fund managers underperform the stock market when you take their fees into account?

So what should individual investors do? As long as the stock market is being controlled by hedge funds, you might want to consider low cost index funds. At least that way the up and down swings will mirror whatever index you've invested in and not some company the predatory short sellers have targeted as their next victim. If you had an index fund tied to the Dow Jones Industrials, you would have been up slightly for the week.

That said, many investors have a difficult time determining when they should sell an individual stock, especially when it has lost most of its value. There's the temptation to hold on until the price comes back. But it may never come back.

Financial advisors will give you some parameters when it comes to selling stocks. For example, you shouldn't allow individual stocks to lose more than 10 percent of what you bought it for. Individual stocks are volatile and you should cut your losses quickly. Too many investors act like deer in the headlights and freeze up when their stocks prices drop. So when you buy a stock, you should write down the price you will sell at and stick with it. The bottom line is that you want to make sure you sell losing stocks before they turn into bottomless pits like Lehman and Bear Stearns.

Of course, for those high rollers out there who still feel the urge to place their bets on this roulette wheel of a market, you may be able to select a few individual stocks. Cramer, for example, recommends FedEx and Sears. Just be careful and be ready to move quickly if their prices begin to fall too far too quickly.

For those true long shot bets, you may also pick the next Google. Just keep in mind that Google is now selling for around $435 a share after going up to $747. If you bought Google at $747 you lost $300 a share in the past year.

And even Jim Cramer, who touts stocks for a living, says that unless you can devote four hours a week to study a stock's fundamentals, go the index fund route.

Dog owner Rachel G. says her healthy five-year-old Miniature Pomeranian, Foxy, suddenly died in July. "I was devastated," says the Jacksonville, North Carolina, woman. "She was in good health."

Rachel says Foxy's health problems started after she cleaned her linoleum floors with some Swiffer Sweeper Wet Cloths. She didn't initially connect her dog's illness to the floor cleaner, however.

"I cleaned the floors with the wet cloths and Foxy got sick the next morning," Rachel recalls. "She had gotten into the trash and I thought that's what made her sick. But she got better and I used the Swiffer cloths a few days later."

A short time later, Foxy became gravely ill.

"I got into the shower, came out, and Foxy was dead," Rachel says. "I had only used that product twice in my house. I used it a second time, not knowing anything was wrong, and my dog died 15 minutes later."

Rachel rushed Foxy to her veterinarian's office and learned some shocking news.

"They asked me what happened and I told them I didn't know. Then they asked me if I had a Swiffer. They said this product is sweet to animals and attracts them to lick the floors or their paws after they walk on the wet floors. They said there is a toxic ingredient in the product that can cause animals' deaths."

Rachel regrets buying the floor cleaner. "My dog, who was my baby, died for no good reason."

ConsumerAffairs.com contacted Rachel's veterinarian, Dr. Dave Altman of Jacksonville, North Carolina. He did not return our call.

We also contacted Dr. Steven Hansen, a veterinary toxicologist who runs the Animal Poison Control Center for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). "This case is highly unlikely related to a floor cleaner," he told us. "We are not aware of any such documented cases."

ConsumerAffairs.com also called Procter & Gamble, which makes the Swiffer Sweeper Wet Cloths. Spokesman Jay Benton said he'd never heard of any problems with this product. "This is actually the first time I've heard this story associated with the wet cloths."

Benton, however, said false rumors have circulated about pet illnesses and deaths linked to the Swiffer Wet Jet products. According to those rumors, those products may contain ingredients that are toxin to children and pets.

"The truth is, all Swiffer products are safe to use around children and pets when used according to directionsa fact confirmed by independent scientists, veterinarians, and the ASPCA," the company said.

ConsumerAffairs.com learned the ASPCA investigated the rumors and confirmed the allegations were unfounded.

Veterinarians with the organization said the ingredients in the Swiffer Wet Jet cleaner -- water (90-100%), propylene glycol n-propyl ether or propylene glycol n-butyl ether, and isopropyl alcohol (1-4%) -- did not pose a health risk to pets.

"These ingredients are safe to use around pets when used according to label directions and would not cause liver damage at product concentrations," ASPCA wrote shortly after the rumors surfaced a few years ago.

Nonetheless, Benton said he would forward Rachel's concerns to the company's research and development team. "Thanks for bringing this to our attention," he said.

Back in North Carolina, Rachel still wants to warn other pet owners about this potential health risk. "I don't want this to happen to anyone else," she says. "I was devastated when this happened and did not think I was doing anything wrong."

She added: "The only warning they (Swiffer) have on the label is to keep out of reach of children and pets in case of accidental ingestion, just the same as any other household product you may buy. They need to have a warning that is more effective in educating consumers."

To learn more about household products that are potentially dangerous to pets, consumers can contact the Animal Poison Control Center at (888) 426-4435 or visit its Web site at www.aspca.org/apcc.

More about pets ...

Customers of troubled mortgage lender Countrywide already have enough to worry about due to the collapse of the housing market and the lender's sale to Bank of America. Now they can add a new worry to the list--identity theft and fraud.

As many as 2 million Countrywide customers may be at risk thanks to a data breach that lasted for nearly two years, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday. A former Countrywide employee was arrested on August 1 and charged with illegally accessing the lender's records to sell sales leads to mortgage brokers.

Countrywide confirmed that the breach had taken place, but company spokesman Rick Davis said that the figure of 2 million victims was "too high." The company nevertheless promised to provide two years of free credit monitoring to affected individuals through the ConsumerInfo.com division of the Experian credit bureau.

ConsumerAffairs.com has already received multiple complaints from Countrywide customers affected by the breach. Herschel from Acworth, Georgia wrote that "Countrywide informed me today that an employee of their's sold the customer info to a third party. They sold my name, address, SS# mortgage loan number and various other loan and application information."

Michael from Sicklerville, New Jersey also received a letter. "They offered to fix the situation by providing me a two year free subscription to ConsumerInfo.com, which is one of their vendors," Michael said. "I find this to be insufficient, and wonder if I can take any legal action against them."

Among those affected by the breach are 28,123 Connecticut customers of Countrywide. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal demanded written guarantees that Countrywide will compensate victims of the breach.

"Countrywide consumers justifiably want an explanation for a long-term security failure that enabled an employee -- undetected and uncontrolled -- to download sensitive information over an extended period of time," Blumenthal said.

Blumenthal's office previously sued Countrywide last month for allegedly pushing customers into expensive loans using deceptive marketing tactics, and charging excessive fees and penalties. California's Attorney General Edmund Brown also sued Countrywide over similar charges in June 2008.

Authorities also warned affected customers to place credit freezes on their accounts in addition to using the free credit monitoring. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia all have their own credit freeze laws, and the big three credit bureaus--Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union--recently rolled out credit freeze programs to cover customers in the remaining states.

This is not the first time Countrywide may have been involved in a potential data breach. Two years ago, ConsumerAffairs.com investigated the case of Joan Carpenter from Toms River, New Jersey, who received a letter stating that an employee of Countrywide had "disclosed documents" relating to her mortgage. Countrywide refused to comment on the incident, which remains unresolved.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) said today it has learned that some bassinets in the Simplicity recall announced last month carry the Graco logo and Winnie the Pooh motif licensed by Disney Consumer Products, as ConsumerAffairs.com reported last month.

The CPSC urged consumers to check their bassinets carefully to ensure they are not using one of the recalled models, which have been implicated in the deaths of two infants.

The Simplicity bassinets with the Graco logo were sold between 2001 and 2004. The Simplicity bassinets with the Winnie the Pooh motif were sold between 2002 and 2008.

The following retailers have voluntarily agreed to recall the product and provide a refund or store credit to consumers who return the product to the store where purchased:

CPSC learned that on August 21, 2008, a 6 1/2-month-old girl from Shawnee, Kan. was strangled when she became entrapped between the bassinets metal bars. On September 29, 2007, a 4-month-old girl from Noel, Mo. became entrapped in the metal bars of the bassinet and died.

It issued its first warning urging parents and caregivers to stop using the bassinets on August 29. That warning came eight hours after an exclusive ConsumerAffairs.com report about the dangers of the Simplicity bassinets, sold largely at Wal-Mart.

Critics said the agency had known about the dangers of the bassinets for months and could have prevented the recent death of six-month-old Kennedy Brotherton.

The Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 convertible bassinets contain metal bars that are covered by an adjustable fabric flap which is attached by velcro. The fabric is folded down when the bassinet is converted into a bed-side co-sleeping position. If the velcro is not properly re-secured when the flap is adjusted, an infant can slip through the opening and become entrapped in the metal bars and suffocate. This warning does not cover bassinets produced in recent months that have fabric permanently attached over the lower bar.

Due to the serious hazard these bassinets pose to babies, CPSC said it urges all consumers to share this safety warning with day care centers, consignment stores, family and friends to ensure that no child is placed to sleep in a Simplicity convertible bassinet covered by this warning.

Below is a listing of Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 Convertible "Close-Sleeper" model bassinets that are included in the recall. The model number can be found on a label on the underside of the bassinet.

An apparently faulty frame on the Winnie the Pooh 4-in-1 Simplicity Bassinet crushed and suffocated two babies according to family members and a police report. The Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 convertible bassinets had a removable flap of cloth that separated a side railing and the bed. Babies could slip through the space between the mattress and the railing.

The most recent death occurred last month when Kennedy Brotherton slipped between the mattress and the side railing after the mattress came loose from the frame, her aunt, Melissa Brotherton, told ConsumerAffairs.com in a phone interview.

Kennedy's body slipped through a space between the mattress and the railing until she dangled by her head on the lower bar of the railing and choked, according to Capt. Ron Copeland of the Shawnee Police Department in Kansas.

"She was laughing and smiling when her parents put her to bed," Brotherton said. "They checked on her three times within an hour period. They were in the living room less than 10 feet away. She never cried."

The first death occurred last fall when Katelynn Simon suffered a similar fate in the same bassinet. "The rail design allowed her to slip her legs through and as she kept inching out she slipped lower," Simon's grandmother, Lori Crammond, wrote in a complaint to ConsumerAffairs.com. "Finally, her lungs were unable to expand."

The product appears to be sold exclusively at Wal-Mart and on Wal-Mart's Web site. Late last month, ConsumerAffairs.com found the product at two Washington, D.C.-area Wal-Marts we visited. The bassinet comes in two different Winnie the Pooh fabrics with the product identifications 3123DOH8 and 3112DOH7 and sells for between $100 and $110.

Crammond wrote that she warned Wal-Mart of the dangerous bassinet last fall. "Wal-Mart is very aware of what happened but continues to sell it with a five star rating," she wrote.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is simply issuing a warning rather than a recall because SFCA, the company that owns the defunct Simplicity, Inc. and the products it manufactured, refused to cooperate.

"SFCA maintains that it is not responsible for products previously manufactured by Simplicity Inc.," according to a CPSC press release. Simplicity's lawyer, Rick Locker, has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

A phone call to the company's headquarters was met with a prerecorded message stating "Simplicity, Inc. is no longer in business and we no longer service Simplicity, Inc. products."

Using authority recently granted to the agency under a new law, the two standing commissioners were able to vote to release the warning. Further action may be taken against SFCA, Inc. to force it to recall the products.

An attorney for the Simons notified the CPSC a few days after Katelynn's death about the dangers of the Simplicity bassinet, but never heard back from the agency, he told the Chicago Tribune.

Agency spokeswoman Julie Vallese told the paper they are still investigating the death of Simon because there are still questions surrounding the circumstances of that baby's death."

But McDonald County, Mo. coroner B.J. Goodwin III told the Tribune there was no doubt the death was an accident. "It was clear-cut," he said. "We all felt it was the crib that caused the passing."

Both the Brotherton and Simon families said their goal is to warn as many consumers as possible."Our main concern is to get the product recalled," Brotherton said.

More than a million Simplicity cribs were recalled for the same reason from May 2005 to September 2007 in four separate recalls, after four children died and countless others were injured when they were trapped between the mattress and the railing.

The product also is under the Baby Disney product line since the bassinet is adorned in Disney's Winnie the Pooh characters. Disney responded last night but has not returned a subsequent phone call.

September 10, 2008    
About 78,000 Protocol Remote-Controlled Mini Helicopter Toys are being recalled. The rechargeable battery inside the helicopter can overheat. This can result in the helicopters body melting, as well as a risk of fire or burns to consumers.

There have been nine reports of incidents of the helicopter overheating, including one minor burn to a consumers fingertip.

This recall involves the Protocol remote-controlled mini helicopter toys with model number starting with 1442. The helicopter is made of foam and plastic and measures about 7 inches long. Protocol is printed on the tail and on the side of the helicopter. 1442-X can be found on the packaging. The remote-control component measures 5 1/2 inches by 4 3/4 inches.

The toys, made in China, were sold at retail stores nationwide from October 2007 through December 2007 for between $30 and $50.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from children and contact the firm for information on how to receive a replacement helicopter.

For additional information, contact Protocol at (800) 261-1193 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, or visit the companys Web site at www.protocoldesign.com.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

The debate could well intensify as the technology appears headed for the retail sales floor, as a tool to deter shoplifting. The technology reportedly performed well in a new feasibility study on its use as a potential sales-floor theft-deterrent system, conducted by researchers in the RFID Research Center at the University of Arkansas.

The researchers says the study demonstrated RFID's usefulness in several shoplifting scenarios, including many items moving through a security/reader portal at a high rate of speed and many items stuffed into a "booster bag," a traditional shopping bag lined with aluminum foil.

Bill Hardgrave, director of the research center and professor of information systems in the Sam M. Walton College of Business, announced the findings at a two-day forum on item-level RFID hosted by the research center, the Voluntary Interindustry Commerce Solutions Association and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals.

"The most interesting data came from scenarios involving the booster bag and testers running through portals with many items," Hardgrave said. "These scenarios included many multiple RFID tags, and we were able to obtain a great deal of information at the entry/exit portal."

Researchers tested two types of ultra-high frequency, generation 2 RFID tags in various baseline and shoplifting scenarios. The tests involved comparisons to two conventional systems, acousto-magnetic and low-level radio-frequency electronic article surveillance, currently used in many retail stores.

In the baseline tests, the researchers experimented with various tag locations and orientations as the tags moved through portal readers. In each test, the RFID system performed as well as or better than the conventional systems. The specific strength of RFID, as demonstrated in the baseline tests, was its ability to capture individual tags at various locations and orientations. Perhaps more importantly, the RFID technology recorded the total number of individual tags, while the other technologies simply noted the presence of any tag in the read field.

"Because RFID can uniquely identify individual tags, it can provide information on the number of stolen items within a bag or the number of items held by a shoplifter," Hardgrave said. "Conventional systems cannot uniquely identify individual tags, which means they can report only one item in a bag that may have 20 or 50 stolen items."

Business was quick to jump on the concept of millions of products that could be individually identified and tracked. Wal-Mart has led the way in using RFID tagging, investing $250 million in RFID technology and requiring their distributors to mark high-end items such as consumer electronics with RFID tags.

Prius envy has taken an ugly twist in California with violent anger and vandalism aimed at the hybrids and their owners.

Following a recent Prius fire on the streets of Los Angeles, investigators concluded that the inferno that consumed the new hybrid parked on a residential street was the result of arson.

The owner of the Los Angeles Prius told investigators that she heard an explosion early in the morning in July, followed by the sirens of fire engines. "I went outside to see what was going on and saw it was my car," she said.

An earlier investigation of violence aimed at Prius owners by police in Petaluma near San Francisco reported that at last seven Priuses were damaged by vandals during a two-week period in April.

One Petaluma Prius owner told police that she heard banging sounds in the middle of the night. She found that someone had taken a hammer to the body and windshield of her Prius.

A second Prius owner suffered car damaged from vandals twice during a two-week time frame. While the first hybrid was in a shop for repairs, a vandal threw a large rock at a Prius the owner was renting, causing substantial damage to the hybrid.

The attacks all occurred at night while the cars were parked and unoccupied. Vandals used large rocks and bricks to damage the hybrids. In one instance a Prius was rammed by another vehicle.

The Prius is not the first vehicle to serve as a target in the sea of disdain and resentment that is flooding U.S. roads as commuters jam highways and gas prices linger at historically high prices. The Web site IhateHummer.Com encourages motorists to give Hummer owners a one-finger hello. Vandals in Washington D.C. smashed a new Hummer last year and left environmental messages painted on the side of the large SUV.

A Toyota spokesman said the violence may be motivated by people angry with the environmental movement in the U.S. since the Prius is now a symbol for greens and environmentally conscience consumers. In California, many hybrid drivers can legally drive in carpool lanes without any passengers as a reward for burning less gasoline and producing fewer environmentally harmful emissions.

"For people who are sitting in traffic in an SUV, to see a Prius go by with just a driver in it , maybe there's some resentment there as well," the spokesman suggested.

One new Web site, PriusDrivers.Com, proclaims "I hate Prius drivers. 'I'm better than you are! I drive a Prius,'" underscoring the harsh highway relations polluting roads across the country.

The violence against Prius owners is now a topic of worried discussion on Internet sites like PriusChat.Com. "Unfortunately, some of the hatred directed against Prius drivers doesn't end with words. In the most brutal of a spate of violent attacks against the hybrids and their owners this year, someone torched a six-month-old Prius parked on a residential street in Los Angeles seven weeks ago," one contributor wrote.

The atmosphere of anti-Prius violence is a cause for concern among many owners of the fuel efficient hybrids. "My Prius was hit in a Costco parking lot with large parking spaces. My right rear bumper was smashed in. I was at an end spot against the curb. Of course no one saw anything and no name was left. The next time I went to Costco I was shaking as I headed out the door," wrote one Prius owner.

"Sure, there are small minded people out there that probably target Prii. They will probably be the last holdouts to drive their perfectly good trucks to the junk yard and sell them for $200 worth of scrap metal when gas goes up to 8 bucks a gallon or more," replied another Prius owner.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has filed suit against MillerCoors Brewing Company, formerly Miller, over its alcoholic energy drink, Sparks.

The product has more alcohol than regular beer and contains unapproved additives, including the stimulants caffeine and guarana, according to the lawsuit, which is asking the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to stop MillerCoors from selling the controversial drink, which is also under scrutiny from state attorneys general.

Drinkers of caffeinated alcoholic drinks are more likely to binge drink, ride with an intoxicated driver, become injured, or be taken advantage of sexually than drinkers of non-caffeinated alcoholic drinks, according to a 2007 study conducted at Wake Forest University.

CSPI says Sparks contain 6 to 7 percent alcohol by volume, as opposed to regular beer, which typically has 4 or 5 percent alcohol. Also unlike beer, Sparks' appeal to young people is enhanced by its sweet citrusy taste, much like SweeTarts candy, and the bright color of orange soda. Sparks Light also contains the artificial sweetener sucralose. In October, CSPI says MillerCoors plans to release Sparks Red, which will have 8 percent alcohol by volume.

"MillerCoors is trying to hook teens and 'tweens on a dangerous drink," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "This company's behavior is reckless, predatory, and in the final analysis, likely to disgust a judge or a jury."

Sparks' juvenile web site and guerilla marketing appeal to young consumers, according to CSPI. The web site offers a recipe for a drink called a "Lunchbox," consisting of half Miller beer and half Sparks, and elsewhere, the site proposes consuming Sparks for breakfast alongside omelets.

The company also hosts give-aways of Sparks at house parties, sponsors events unrelated to beer such as art shows, and engages in other unconventional marketing practices, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

CSPI's court filing notes that private gatherings such as house parties do not have the same licensing or other safeguards as public establishments that prevent minors from accessing alcohol.

"Mix alcohol and stimulants with a young person's sense of invincibility and you have a recipe for disaster," said George A. Hacker, director of CSPI's alcohol policies project. "Sparks is a drink designed to mask feelings of drunkenness and to encourage people to keep drinking past the point at which they otherwise would have stopped. The end result is more drunk driving, more injuries, and more sexual assaults."

According to a 2006 study, the stimulants in these products do not reduce alcohol's negative effects on motor skills and reaction times but do impair people's perception of intoxication. As a result, drinkers may engage in risky behavior, such as driving, because they feel less drunk but in reality are too intoxicated to get behind wheel.

CSPI's lawsuit also contends that it is illegal to use caffeine, guarana, ginseng, and taurine in alcoholic beverages. The federal agency with primary responsibility for regulating alcoholic beverages, the Treasury Department's Tax and Trade Bureau, says alcoholic beverages may contain only ingredients considered General Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, by the Food and Drug Administration.

But the FDA has given only very narrow approval for caffeine and guarana -- with no allowance for alcoholic drinks -- and no approval for ginseng in any food or beverage. Taurine is approved only for use in chicken feed, not human food.

In February, CSPI notified Anheuser-Busch and Miller of its intent to sue both companies over caffeinated alcoholic drinks. In June, Anheuser-Busch entered into separate agreements with CSPI and 11 state attorneys general in which the brewer agreed to take caffeine and other unapproved additives out of its two alcoholic energy drinks, Bud Extra and Tilt.

Anheuser-Busch paid the 11 states $200,000 to reimburse them for the cost of the investigation and called on other brewers and distillers not to market pre-packaged caffeinated alcoholic drinks.

Five complaints in the ConsumerAffairs.com database and many more on Apple's Web site describe the frustration of losing songs, videos and movies previously purchased from Apple, when consumers upgraded to iTunes version 7.7.1, released July 30.

"Most of the music I have purchased online from Apple's iTunes Store has been deactivated," wrote Martin of Suisan, Calif. "I have purchased approximately $140 dollars worth of songs and videos from iTunes Store, which currently is worthless due to the fact that iTunes will no longer play any of them."

Consumers said files on their iPods and iPhones was also deactivated and rendered useless after they upgraded.

"I went to download a song and was prompted to upgrade to the newest version," wrote Dione of Northridge, Calif. "I did. What a huge mistake! All of a sudden my iPod was wiped clean of all my purchased music."

The problem was a result of the software not re-authorizing the purchased songs after upgrading to the latest version, Apple spokeswoman Randi Wolfson wrote in an e-mail.

"This problem could affect playing back purchased music or videos or launching applications on iPhone or iPod touch," she wrote.

To fix the problem, consumers must follow these steps:

1. Deauthorize your account, by choosing "Deauthorize Computer" from the Store menu in iTunes.

2. Select "Authorize Computer" from the Store Menu in iTunes, and re-authorize your account.

3. Try playing any one of your purchases from this account.

4. Resync any iPod or iPhone containing purchases from this account.

To apologize for the glitch, Apple is offering five free song downloads to consumers who contact iTunes customer support and complain about the problem.

Apple today announced the latest version of iTunes, iTunes 8, as part of its regular fall announcement of new products.

Despite decades-long efforts to curtail its use, tobacco remains a serious health issue. A new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports some 2.4 million cases of tobacco-related cancers were diagnosed in the United States from 1999 to 2004, with lung and bronchial cancer accounting for almost half of these diagnoses.

The study marks the first time CDC has reported on all tobacco-related cancers for more than 90 percent of the population.

"The data in this report provides additional, strong evidence of the serious harm related to tobacco," said Sherri Stewart, Ph.D., in CDC's Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, who is the lead author of the study. "We've long known tobacco was associated with lung and laryngeal cancer, but this study gives us even greater clarity. The rates for these two cancers were highest in areas with the highest prevalence of tobacco use."

Since 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General has found tobacco use causes cancers of lung and bronchial, laryngeal, oral cavity and pharyngeal, esophageal, stomach, pancreatic, kidney and renal pelvis, urinary bladder, cervical and acute myelogenous leukemia.

Though tobacco is a major cause for all the cancers presented in this report, not all cases of cancer studied could be linked directly to tobacco use, the authors said. Some of these cancers have several important risk factors such as infections or genetic factors that can operate in concert with, or independently, of tobacco. In addition, information on tobacco use was not available in these databases. Therefore, some cases of cancer included in this report may not be attributable to tobacco use.

Key Findings:

Age-adjusted rates are presented in parentheses where appropriate and are per 100,000 persons.

• The incidence of tobacco-related cancers was higher among black and non-Hispanic populations, and among men, which reflect patterns of tobacco use.

• Lung, laryngeal, and cervical cancer incidence rates were highest in the South, where the highest prevalence of smoking exists. Kentucky had the highest rates of lung cancer among men and women (133.2 and 75.5, respectively), the third highest rate of laryngeal cancers among men (9.7) and the highest rate of laryngeal cancer among women (2.6). Kentucky had the highest prevalence of current smoking (28.6 percent).

• States with the lowest smoking rates are in the West: Utah (10.4 percent), California (18.5 percent), and Montana (18.5 percent). Cancer incidence rates were consistently lowest in the West for all the cancers, with the exception of stomach cancer.

• In 2004, lung and bronchial cancer incidence rates were highest among men in the South (97.9) and lowest in the West (66.0); Among women, rates were similar in the South, Midwest, and Northeast regions (55.3-56.4) and were lowest in the West (48.1)

• In 2004, laryngeal cancer incidence rates were highest among men in the South (8.4) region of the United States and lowest in the West (4.8). Among women, rates were similar in the South, Midwest, and Northeast (1.6-1.7) and were lowest in the West (1.1).

• The high incidence rates of both lung and laryngeal cancer in the South are consistent with smoking patterns and reflect the strong association of these cancers with tobacco use.

The report also noted other cancers associated with tobacco use (pancreas, urinary bladder, esophagus, kidney, stomach, cervix, and AML) accounted for more than 1 million cases diagnosed.

"Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease and premature death in the United States and the most prominent cause of cancer," said Matthew McKenna, M.D., M.P.H., director, CDC's Office on Smoking and Health. "The tobacco-use epidemic causes a third of the cancers in America. If proven strategies were fully implemented to decrease tobacco use, much of the suffering and death that cancer inflicts on families and communities could be prevented."

With the pull of a symbolic 7-foot-tall switch, Wilmington, North Carolina today became the first region of the country to pull the plug on analog over-the-air television signals and switch to an all-digital format. The city with a population just under 100,000 volunteered to be the first test market for the digital television (DTV) transition, scheduled to take place across the country on February 17, 2009.

Wilmington mayor Bill Saffo and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Kevin Martin flipped the switch at noon, as part of a ceremony attended by heads of the local television stations affected by the transition, as well as other officials involved in managing the switchover and watching for potential glitches.

The FCC had aggressively deployed staff and resources in Wilmington to help answer questions and provide information about the DTV transition, as well as supplementing campaigns by local television stations. The agency has been stung by criticism that it has not done enough to facilitate awareness of the change and get consumers the assistance they need.

The Wilmington test market launch came in the middle of a nationwide tour by FCC commissioners and staff to potential "trouble areas" that are largely served by over-the-air television signals, and may experience problems when the switch to digital television occurs.

Television viewers who rely on "rabbit ear" antennae for signals will require a set-top converter box for the new digital signals. Cable and satellite subscribers will be unaffected, but lack of consumer awareness and unscrupulous practices by some retailers have led consumers into buying equipment they don't need, or upgrading to expensive new television sets for no reason.

Reports have claimed that as many as 23 million households may lose television service in the DTV switchover, a disproportionate share of those being elderly, minority, or low-income families. Nielsen estimated there were more than 13 million households in the U.S. with television sets that can only receive analog broadcasts. The greater Wilmington area has about 180,000 television-ready households, approximately 8 percent of which can receive analog-only transmissions.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said that Wilmington's flat terrain, coupled with high consumer awareness and the publicity of the test, would not necessarily serve as an accurate test of potential glitches in the transition. He wanted a larger selection of volunteer markets in different regions to determine what might go wrong as the switchover occurs.

Local news reports claimed that sales of the digital television converter boxes had been brisk in the days leading up to the switch, owing to the massive publicity blitz. The government has sponsored a voucher program to subsidize the boxes, offering free $40 coupons through a Web site run by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the other government agency most responsible for overseeing the DTV transition.

The NTIA's coupon program has been criticized for offering no option to renew or replace coupons after they expire, 90 days after they are received. Congress and consumer advocates wanted the deadlines extended, while NTIA said that it would require more money from Congress to beef up the program beyond its current limits.

If you're in Wilmington

The FCC today announced that organizations in each of the five counties have volunteered to assist consumers who have had difficulty obtaining or installing a converter box. The following organizations may be contacted for help:

• Bladen County, call: Bladen County Fire Department/EMS: (910) 862-6760 OR Bladen Family Support Services: 910-647-0743

• Brunswick County, call: Brunswick Senior Resources, (910) 253-2199

• Columbus County, call: Melody Prevatte, Southeastern Community College, (910) 642-7141 ext. 294 OR Kipling Godwin Associates 1-888-514-7775

• New Hanover County, call: In the City of Wilmington: Andrea Good, Fire and Life Safety Educator, City of Wilmington (910)772-4131; The rest of the County: Union Missionary Baptist Church (910) 763-9541 OR New Hanover County Fire Department 910-798-4DTV

• Pender County, call: Donna Pridgen, Administrative Assistant, Town of Burgaw Police Department (910) 663-3463

• For more information call: 1-877-DTV-0908 or TTY: 1-866-644-0908

Small cars can deliver high repair bills because "bumpers on many cars aren't designed to handle what should be a no-damage event" in parking lots and commuter traffic, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

The Hyundai Elantra, Toyota Prius and Volkswagen Rabbit each sustained $4,000 of damage or more in low speed "fender-bender" type crash tests conducted by IIHS.

In a series of low-speed tests, IIHS assessed how well the bumpers of 20 small car models would protect the vehicles from damage in parking lot type collisions. The Elantra, Prius and Rabbit cost the most to repair, averaging $4,000 or more. The Ford Focus performed the best, with about one-third that amount of damage in its worst test.

"Small cars are supposed to be economical but there's nothing economical about 3 or 4 thousand dollars in repairs after a low-speed collision," said institute senior vice president Joe Nolan. "Ford did the best job of putting bumpers on a small car that largely do what they're supposed to do. In 3 of the 4 tests, the bumpers on the Focus protected sheet metal and most other expensive parts from damage," he said.

The Institute conducted a series of 4 crash tests in the comparison of bumper performance in low-speed impacts. There was a full front and rear crash test with a barrier plus front and rear corner impacts. The full-width impacts were conducted at 6 mph while the corner impacts were run at 3 mph.

Modern front-end styling results in bumper designs that can either slide under the bumpers of vehicles they strike or that simply don't have enough room to absorb the energy of a low-speed crash, the institute reported.

"Even if they do engage the bumper of the vehicle they crash into, the bars underneath bumper covers often aren't up to absorbing the energy. They may not be big enough to provide much protection from damage, especially if they don't extend to vehicle corners, or they may be too flimsy to absorb much energy," according to the report.

About the Ford Focus, IIHS said the front bumper is tall enough to do a reasonably good job in the full-width test. Repairs cost less than $600, according to IIHS tests.

"In contrast, damage to the Elantra of nearly $5,000 in the same test is equal to almost one-third of the car's sales price," IIHS said. "The Focus shows that decent bumpers don't have to be heavy or costly," Nolan said.

"Many consumers are turning to small cars for better fuel economy but damage in our tests approached luxury car territory. Savings at the pump could be more than offset by a single low-speed collision in one of these so-called economy cars."

The front bumpers of the Rabbit and Honda Civic slipped under the barrier in the front full-width test resulting in damage to their grilles, hoods, fenders and air-conditioning condensers, according to IIHS. Similarly, the Prius sustained nearly $4,000 damage in the rear full-width test because its bumper is mounted too low to be in position to protect the vehicle's tailgate, rear body panel and taillights, according to the report.

In the front corner test of the right side of the Prius, damage was much less, about $1,200, involving the fender and headlight. Had the test been conducted on the left side, the barrier would have crushed a coolant tank which costs more than $1,000 to replace, not including labor.

Parts for low speed repairs are expensive. The plastic bumper covers that fit over the bumper bars of modern cars are one example. Among the small cars tested, the front covers on the Scions cost less than $500 to replace and refinish, but the Mitsubishi Lancer's front cover is twice as expensive.

Headlights and taillights vary widely in cost as well. A taillight costs $205 to replace on the Prius compared with just $65 on the Focus.

IIHS reported 11 of the cars in the full-front test and 18 in the front corner test required headlight replacement or repair.

As an example of how to design a more protective front bumper, IIHS said that if the reinforcement bar and foam absorber in a Prius were extended another 10 inches on the passenger side under the headlight, the headlight and fender would be undamaged in a "fender-bender" and the repair cost would drop from $1,200 to $254.

"There's plenty of room under the bumper covers of most cars to make this simple change," Nolan said.

"It wouldn't take much for automakers to reduce the cost of repairing the damage that occurs in low-speed collisions," according to IIHS pointing to three steps automakers could take to reduce repair costs.

• Make the bumper bars longer so they protect headlights and other critical and costly equipment at the corners of vehicles.

• Make bumpers taller so they engage the bumpers on higher riding SUVs and pickup trucks instead of under-riding them, even during emergency braking.

• Don't sacrifice function for style by mounting bumpers too close to the car body. This makes for a sleek look, but it doesn't leave much room for absorbing crash energy. Mount bumper bars farther out and use the available space under a bumper cover for energy absorption.

"Bumpers on most cars aren't worthy of the term," Nolan said. "Even the best bumper in this group still allowed more than a thousand dollars damage in one 3 mph crash test. Some simple changes could prevent a lot of damage to cars, and expense and headaches for consumers."

Want a good deal on a car? Then skip the new car ads and instead look for a recent vintage used car.

A new Consumer Reports study of owner costs shows that choosing a reliable three-year-old car instead of a new one can save drivers thousands of dollars over the first five years. In many cases, that's enough to pay for all the gas used during that time.

With relatively low mileage, modern safety and convenience features, and usually a much lower price than similar new vehicles, late-model used cars are in the sweet spot of auto deals.

On average, CR's findings show that consumers can save 32 percent in the first five years by buying a three-year-old car. Similarly, with a one or two-year-old car, they can save 19 and 27 percent, respectively.

According to the analysis, buying a 2005 Toyota Camry with a V6 engine, for example could save consumers about $13,000 over five years compared with buying a new 2008 version. At $4 per gallon, the driver could pay for all of his or her gas during that period, based on driving 12,000 miles per year, and still be almost $2,500 ahead.

Similarly, driving a 2005 Ford Focus can save more than $8,000 over the first five years, compared with buying the new Focus. And with demand for big SUVs plummeting and their used-car values dropping, drivers could save $25,500 over five years by buying a three-year-old Chevrolet Tahoe instead of a new one.

CR's five-year owner costs are based on:

• Depreciation --- calculated by using CR's Auto Price Service;

• Fuel costs --- $4 a gallon for regular gas and $4.20 for premium, based on driving 12,000 miles annually and CR's overall fuel economy for the vehicle;

• Insurance -- the cost of insuring an average driver based on data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety;

• Interest --- CR assumed buyers purchased cars with a 15 percent down on a five-year loan (Bankrate.com was the source for the average interest rate);

• Maintenance and repairs --- Data were taken from CR's 2007 Annual Auto Reliability Survey;

• Sales tax --- Calculated using the national average at the time of purchase.

"A reliable late-model used car can be one of the best values out there when buying a car," said Rik Paul, automotive editor, Consumer Reports. "Savvy shoppers can also get a more upscale model with more features for the same owner cost as a less expensive new car."

Why used cars are good values

The real key to used-car savings is depreciation, or how much value a car loses over time. On average, depreciation accounts for a whopping 45 percent of a new vehicle's owner costs over the first five years, with the steepest drop in value coming in the first year.

By contrast, a three-year-old vehicle has already taken its biggest hit in resale value. Its depreciation accounts for only about 25 percent of its five-year owner costs. Big depreciation for new cars means lower prices for used cars, which in turn mean lower finance charges and sales tax. When combined, that can cut owner cost dramatically.

However, CR found that some popular models such as the Mini Cooper and Toyota Prius don't depreciate much. So buying a used version of those models results in modest savings.

Many people shy away from buying a used car because they're afraid of buying someone else's problems. Yet CR's reliability data show that cars, overall, are much more reliable than they used to be. Rust and exhaust-system problems, once common in older cars, are no longer of major concern. And reliable late-model vehicles usually have few problems overall. That said, if a car hasn't been well-maintained, reliability and value are wild cards.

Bottom Line

While most used cars on the market are five years or older, it's worth looking for late-model used vehicles that are three years old or less. Drivers can often find a late-model used car with many of the latest safety features, such as electronic stability control and side and curtain air bags. It's even possible to find one with a transferable factory warranty.

Federal safety regulators have shut down their investigation of unintended acceleration in Toyota Tacoma pickup trucks that generated more than 400 consumer complaints by denying a petition by a Tacoma owner who said his truck accelerated without warning twice.

The agency reported interviewing 64 Tacoma owners during the investigation who had complained to the agency about unintended acceleration before concluding that the complaints were the result of slight engine surge.

The NHTSA decision represents a victory for Toyota. The Japanese automaker had launched a lobbying offensive in Washington to limit the scope of the investigation, complaining in a letter to NHTSA that the Tacoma was the focus of hostile media coverage as well as consumer exaggeration.

"Toyota believes that it is likely that many of the consumer complaints about the general issue of unwanted acceleration as well as many of the complaints about this subject that have been received by Toyota were inspired by publicity," the automaker wrote NHTSA.

More than 400 consumers complained to the federal safety agency about unintended and sudden acceleration in the Tacoma pickup. Reports to the agency documented 51 crashes and 12 injuries alleged to be caused by unintended acceleration.

Toyota claimed the engine surge was the result of minor engine speed changes.

A ConsumerAffairs.Com reader and Toyota Tacoma owner in Weaver, Alabama reported a different story. "It was jumping forward toward my house at every engine turn. I pushed in the clutch and took out the key," he reported.

Announcing the decision to end the investigation of unintended acceleration in the Tacoma, NHTSA reported on its Web site that in "those vehicles where the throttle control system did not perform as the owner believes it should have, the information suggesting a possible defect related to motor vehicle safety is quite limited."

"Additional investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists," according to the agency.

Acceleration is controlled in the Tacoma by a drive-by-wire system with a computer replacing the traditional linkage between the accelerator pedal and the engine throttle-body which injects the fuel required for acceleration.

Toyota claimed the Tacoma computer can capture an error report if accelerator pedal and throttle are not working properly and the automaker said no error codes have turned up in vehicles inspected Toyota inspectors.

The investigation involved 775,000 Tacoma pickups sold between 2004 and 2008.

As portion sizes have increased, Americans' waistlines have expanded. And as a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research suggests, consumers may be tricked into drinking more soft drinks when retailers eliminate small drink sizes.

No matter what the volume of the soft drink, customers tend to avoid the largest and smallest options, according to authors Kathryn M. Sharpe, Richard Staelin, and Joel Huber, all Duke University. "Our basic premise is that consumer purchases are altered by the portfolio of drink sizes made available," the authors said.

Fast-food restaurants, in an attempt to boost profit margins, have eliminated smaller drink sizes and added even larger sizes. The authors believe these policies have led to a 15 percent increase in the consumption of these high-calorie drinks.

"Consumers who purchased a 16-ounce drink when a 12-ounce drink was available later chose a 21-ounce drink when the 12-ounce drink option was removed, since now the 16-ounce soda is the smallest option," they write. "This effect also occurred at the large end of the spectrum; people who purchased a 21-ounce drink when the 32-ounce drink was the largest size available moved up to the 32-ounce drink when a 44-ounce drink was added to the range of drink sizes available.

By adding the 44-ounce option, the restaurant is able to shift the demand curve upward, even though the authors believe customers still want 12-ounce drinks.

The researchers go on to simulate policy directions for slimming America's waistlines. Their models show that for flat taxation of soft drinks to reduce consumption by 10 percent, it would need to be 28 cents per drink and would reduce corporate profits by at least 7 percent.

A consumer group says a new commercial sweetner, said to be 200 times sweeter than sugar, may cause health problems and needs more study. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are planning to introduce new drinks made with the sweetner, rebiana, an extract of stevia leaves.

In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says the agency should require additional tests, including a key animal study, before accepting rebiana as Generally Regarded as Safe, or GRAS.

The letter cites a new 26-page report by toxicologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, several, though not all, laboratory tests show that the sweetener causes mutations and DNA damage, which raises the prospect that it causes cancer.

"A safe, natural, high-potency sweetener would be a welcome addition to the food supply," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But the FDA needs to be as sure as possible that rebiana is safe before allowing it into foods that would be consumed by tens of millions of people. It would be tragic if the sweetener turned out to cause cancer or other problems."

One key animal study has not been conducted, according to the UCLA experts and CSPI. The FDA's guidelines advise testing prospective major new food additives on two rodent species, usually rats and mice. The new sweetener has only been tested on rats, but not mice.

The toxicologists' report said that because several studies found mutations and DNA damage, a lifetime mouse study designed to evaluate the risk of carcinogenicity and other health problems was particularly important.

The UCLA toxicologists emphasized the need for more genotoxicity tests, because of the evidence that derivatives of stevia that are closely related to rebiana damage DNA and chromosomes.

Their report noted that much of the recent research on rebiana was sponsored by Cargill and urged the FDA to obtain independently conducted tests to ensure that corporate biases don't influence the design, conduct, or results of the tests.

Rebiana is shorthand for rebaudioside A, a component of stevia. It is obtained from the leaves of a shrub native to Brazil and Paraguay. Coke, Pepsi, and other companies are excited about rebiana, because it supposedly tastes better than crude stevia, which is sold as a dietary supplement in health-food stores.

After all the controversies pertaining to saccharin, aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners, the food industry expects many calorie-conscious consumers to eagerly opt for this natural sweetener.

Two companies -- Cargill and Merisant -- have told the FDA that rebiana should be considered GRAS, a category given less scrutiny by the FDA than ordinary food additives. A third company, Wisdom Natural Brands, has declared that its stevia-based sweetener is GRAS and will market it without giving evidence to, or even notifying, the FDA. That company gave CSPI only a heavily redacted report prepared by scientists it hired to declare its stevia derivative, which is of unknown purity, is safe.

Stevia is legal in foods in Japan and several other countries, but the United States, Canada, and the European Union bar stevia in foods because of older tests that suggested it might interfere with reproduction. New tests sponsored by Cargill did not find such problems.

"I am not saying that rebiana is harmful, but it should not be marketed until new studies establish that it is safe," Jacobson said.

Cargill's version of rebiana is called Truvia and would be used by Coca-Cola. Pepsi's version is called PureVia and is produced by Merisant's Whole Earth Sweetener division. Merisant is best known for marketing the Equal brand of aspartame.

CSPI has not questioned the safety of two artificial sweeteners, sucralose (Splenda) and neotame, but says that suggestive evidence indicates that saccharin, aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), and acesulfame-K pose small risks of cancer.

"The whole issue of what gets GRAS status needs to be reviewed by Congress," Jacobson said. "It's crazy that companies can just hire a few consultants to bless their new ingredients and rush them to market without any opportunity for the FDA and the public to review all the safety evidence."

Two of the most harmful ingredients in the food supply are considered GRAS: salt, which raises blood pressure and causes thousands of unnecessary heart attacks and strokes every year, and partially hydrogenated oil, which is the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat. CSPI has long campaigned to get partially hydrogenated oil out of the food supply and to reduce salt to safe levels.