Current Events in December 2010

FDA is aware of the issue and is looking into it, according to a statement the spokesman sent us. We take very seriously any potential harm to pets from products regulated under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and encourage consumers to report their concerns to the FDA. If warranted we will take appropriate action and notify the public.

ConsumerAffairs.com has received several complaints about one of the company's treats -- Real Ham Bones. Pet owners say the 8 hickory smoked pork femur bones -- sold as treats -- have splintered and caused their dogs to become violently ill or even die.

My dog ate the bone and died, said pet owner Christina N. of Collierville, Tennessee. The company denied my claim for vet bills. They said I chose to give my dog the bone. This was a very, very painful death for Buddy. Many dogs have died from this product. I had a necropsy done and still they claim it wasn't their product.

A Texas pet owner also blamed the death of her dog on the companys chew bones: I purchased the pet treat for my dog and it killed him, said Kriss L. of Richardson, Texas. Words cannot express my grief.

Not a dime

An Indiana pet owner told us her dog had to undergo surgery after chewing one of Dynamics Real Ham Bones. The dogs health problems, she said, surfaced ten minutes after it started chomping on the treat.

I noticed it had broken apart, so I took it away from her (and) a short time later she was gravely ill, trying to vomit but couldnt, said Patti S. She couldnt even drink water.

Patti rushed her dog to the vet. They took X-rays and said she had splinters of the bone in her intestines and she had to go through surgery. Thank God I have a great vet because she is the reason my dog is still alive.

Patti called Dynamic Pet Products about her dogs experience. The company referred her case to its insurance carrier, which denied Pattis claim.

They would not pay a dime, she said. They (said) they were not at fault. They said I was for not monitoring my dog closely enough.

A New Jersey pet owner also told us her dogs became sick after eating one of Dynamics chew bones: On March 2, I bought two Real Ham Bones for my two Bulldogs, said Nadine of Woodstown, New Jersey. That night, one Bulldog threw up 5 times.

Nadines vet ordered X-rays on the dog, but they did not reveal any blockage. The vet, however, blamed the chew bone for the dogs gastric problems, she said.

This is day three (and) she has not moved her bowels yet and (we) will have to have another trip to the vet.

What about Nadines other Bulldog? She is moving her bowels, but they are full of bone, she said.

Similar problems

Another pet owner told us her dog experienced similar problems after gnawing on one Dynamics chew bones.

I bought a Real Ham Bone made by Dynamic and a few hours later my dog was throwing up and yelping when he had a bowel movement, said Maureen G. of Gladstone, Missouri. I decided to Google the product and found out this has happened to a lot of pets.

This product needs to be taken off the shelf, she added. How many dogs have to die first? Luckily, my dog will be okay. I bought it for him thinking that it would be safe and unfortunately the product isn't.

ConsumerAffairs.com contacted Dynamic Pet Products today about the FDAs investigation and the complaints weve received about its chew bones. The company did not return our call.

Dynamics Web site states the Real Ham Bones are not recommended for aggressive chewers. As with all natural bones, we recommend supervision during eating, the Web site points out. The companys Web site also states that its proud of its track record and reputation.

Dynamic has not pulled any of its chew bones or treats off the market and pet owners are likely to still find them on store shelves.

The FDA said pet owners can report any health problems their dogs experience with Dynamic Pet Products chew bones or treats to the agencys Consumer Complaint Coordinator in their region.

Companies that make topical flea and tick products must immediately improve the labeling on their packages to ensure pet safety and prevent misuse of the treatments, according to changes announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency, however, said it is not banning or pulling any topical or spot on flea and tick products off the market at least not yet.

The action comes in response to the EPAs nearly year-long intensive evaluation of spot on flea and tick products. The EPA launched its probe last April amid reports of a significant increase in adverse reactions linked to the treatments, including burns, neurological problems, and even deaths.

The agency confirmed that in 2008 it received more than 44,000 reports of adverse reactions associated with these products, which are applied by squeezing the contents of a vial or tube to the skin between the animals shoulder blades or along the back. That figure represents an increase of about 53% from 2007, the EPA said.

During its 11-month evaluation, the EPA said it discovered the warning labels on many topical flea and tick products are inadequate and do not give pet owners clear information about dosages or even if the treatments should be used on dogs or cats.

We concluded that the existing warning labels are not working and do not provide adequate protection, said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the EPAs Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. We found a number of current labels have insufficient warning labels on themthe warnings were buried in the text of the label and not noticeable. They were easily overlooked.

Clearer labeling

To address these labeling flaws, the EPA said it will immediately require companies that make topical flea and tick products to take the following action:

• Make the instructions on the labels clearer to prevent possible misuse. For example, if a product is intended for a dog, the labels will now be required to say something like do not use on a cat, Owens said;

• Have more precise instructions on the labels to ensure the proper amount is applied according to the pets weight. A dogs weight clearly makes a big difference and the doses for small dogs is different than the doses for large dogs, Owens said. We found that smaller pets, cats and dogs, are more susceptible to adverse reactions (to these products). Its not an exclusive thing; we are seeing larger dogs affected, too. But there is a correlation between pets weights and the dose, and all pet owners need to be careful;

• Require clearer markings on packages to ensure consumers can tell the difference between products for dogs and cats. We found that (flea and tick) products for dogs and cats are labeled similarly, Owens said. People have applied the wrong spot on products to the wrong animal. We have to make sure the label warnings make it clear that a dog product should not be used on a cat.

• Prohibit similar brand names for dog and cat flea and tick products. Those similar names have led to product misuse, the EPA said;

• Require labels to clearly state that pet owners should not permit interaction between dogs and cats after the products are applied. Cats are sensitive to these products, Owens said. It is critical for pet owners to keep their cats and dogs apart after these products are used.

Owens said he also wants the new labels to include symptoms of possible adverse reactions to these topical flea and tick products. Asked when pet owners will see new labels on these products, Owens said, "by the end of the years."

Requiring these label changes, however, isnt the only action the EPA said its taking to ensure the safety of dogs and cats the use topical flea and tick products.

Other actions

The agency also announced it will:

• Only grant conditional, time-limited registrations when new products are registered with the EPA. The agency said this will allow for post-marketing product surveillance. If we see a problem, we can take appropriate action, Owens said, adding that action can include pulling a worrisome product off the market;

• Restrict the use of certain inert ingredients that may contribute to adverse reactions. Owens did not specify which inert ingredients if any are on the EPAs radar. If we believe an inert ingredient is causing adverse reactions, we will take action to limit or prevent its use, he said;

• Launch a consumer information campaign to raise public awareness about the new labels. We want to help consumers not make error in cases in which the labels are unclear or hard to read, Owens said.

• Require more standardized post-market surveillance reporting on adverse effects linked to these products;

• Require companies to submit more sales information to the EPA to ensure the agency does a better job of evaluating incident rates;

• Update the scientific data requirements on pre- and post-market testing to make sure they are more in line with the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) requirements.

First steps

The EPA emphasized these are only the first steps the agency is taking to address growing concerns about topical flea and tick products.

Were going to continue to monitor this situation closely, Owens said. We want to make it clear that were going to continue to gather data and if the label requirements are not working, we will take more significant action.

We will remove products from the market if we have to, he added. Were not banning any products or removing any today, but that is certainly something that we will be more than willing to do as we move forward and gather more data.

Earlier today, the EPA met with companies that make topical flea and tick products to discuss these required changes.

They realize this is serious problem they need to address, Owens said. And they understand we are serious about this. Their reaction was very positive. No one in the room said no way.

Companies that make flea and tick products, however, have routinely downplayed reports of adverse reactions and often blamed the problems on pet owners misuse of the treatments.

The EPAs new labeling requirements refute that argument, Owens said.

I dont know how you blame a victim when the label is not clear. There is not specific language on the labels about the dosage and consumers in many cases are left to guess for themselves on the appropriate amount.

The reforms were announcing today address those problems, Owens added. While there are cases of misapplications, we think the far great problem is the labels are not adequate.

Are they safe?

But are these products safe?

I think in most cases, yes, Owens said. But I want to underscore that these are poisons. These are products designed to kill fleas and ticks and they do their job. We urge pet owners and other to exercise caution and be careful when using them. And read the labels carefully.

Given those risks, pet owners whove contacted ConsumerAffairs.com wonder why the EPA still allows these products on the market.

Theyre pet owners who say theyve witnessed horrific reactions from these products in their dogs and cats, including burns and welts on their skin, drooling excessively, shaking uncontrollably, whimpering in agony, losing control of their legs, or even dying.

Theyre pet owners like Sharee F. of Tennessee, who is convinced Sergeant's Gold Flea and Tick treatment attributed to the recent death of her dog.

We applied it as directed and later that Friday night, my dog started foaming at the mouth and whining as though he was in pain, she said. Around 4 a.m. on what was now Saturday morning, my dog began seizing. His legs were flopping, his head twitching uncontrollably, he was whining and crying, and he was breathing unbelievably heavy.

Everyone in the house was asleep, but (we) were awakened by the banging of my dogs body jerking against the wall, she added.

Sharees family gave the dog some cool water and tried to comfort him until the vets office opened a few hours later.

It was not until 8 a.m. that my dog was driven to the nearest Pet Meds, she said. Unfortunately, by the time my mother and brother walked into the vet, my dog went into cardiac arrest and they couldn't revive him. I am completely heart broken. I can't go a day without tearing up, and every time I replay this traumatic moment over in my head I get nauseous.

I want these products pulled off the market.

Another pet owner in Texas told us his dog experienced a horrible reaction to Sergeants Gold Flea and Tick Squeeze On treatment.

Within an hour she was going crazy, whining, barking, jumping up and laying down, rolling over and running and laying down and back up and running, said R.A. of Whitney, Texas.

The dog also started breathing heavily, drooling at the mouth, and throwing up, R.A. said, adding he used the product according to the labels directions. R.A. bathed the dog four times to try and relieve these problems. She is still going off her rocker, he said. This stuff is dangerous.

Dangerous to humans?

The dangers may not be restricted to dogs and cats.

I even got a little on my finger while putting it on her and I washed my hands, he said. Within a few minutes, my lips started tingling and I started having a hard time breathing myself. This stuff is a danger to (humans) health, not to mention your pet.

ConsumerAffairs.com also heard from a Florida pet owner, who said her 14-year-old dog suffered serious neurological problems from Sergeants Gold Flea & Tick treatment.

Twelve hours later she was drooling, shaking, and could hardly walk, Debra O. told us earlier this month. There were no dangerous side effects listed on the box. I called the emergency number on the box and was told (my dog) was having an adverse reaction to the meds.

I had to give her three baths with dish soap, pour water down her throat, and also give her vitamin E oil, Debra added. I am still watching her behavior closelyshe is still suffering right now.

Debra is outraged that a product linked to so many horrible reactions in pets is still on the market.

I had no idea or I would have never bought (it) and risked the life of my 14-year-old buddy, she said. This product hurts and kills animals. Someone needs to do something.

The EPA said its aware of concerns like Debras and will continue to evaluate the safety of these products.

The agency, however, pointed out that most of the reports it received about adverse reactions were minor and included skin issues and gastrointestinal problems. The EPA also confirmed it received some reports of deaths linked to these product, but said they were rare less than 2 percent of the adverse reactions reported during 2007 and 2008.

The agency said pet owners should continue to carefully follow the labels directions when using topical flea and tick products and watch for any adverse reactions in their dogs on cats after applying these treatments.

Pet owners should also talk to their veterinarians about the best methods to protect their dogs and cats from fleas and ticks, the EPA said.

A copy of the EPAs findings on topical flea and ticks products is now available on the agencys Web site.

By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com

March 10, 2010
Fear of salmonella contamination has prompted Natures Variety to expand its February recall of the companys Chicken Formula and Organic Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diets pet food products.

The Nebraska-based company this week pulled from the market all of its Chicken Formula and Organic Chicken Formula products with a Best If Used By date on or before February 5, 2011.

The company took this action after new test results revealed the companys Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diet products -- with the "Best If Used By" date of 10/29/10 and 11/9/10 -- may be tainted with salmonella.

We believe taking this action is an important and responsible step in order to reinforce your confidence and trust, Nature Varietys CEO Reed Howlett said in a statement on the companys Web site.

The products included in this expanded recall are any Chicken Formula or Organic Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diet with a "Best If Used By" date on or before 2/5/11, including:

• UPC#7 69949 60130 2 Chicken Formula 3 lb medallions;

• UPC#7 69949 60120 3 Chicken Formula 6 lb patties;

• UPC#7 69949 60121 0 Chicken Formula 2 lb single chubs;

• UPC#7 69949 50121 3 Chicken Formula 12 lb retail display case of chubs;

• UPC#7 69949 60137 1 Organic Chicken Formula 3 lb medallions;

• UPC#7 69949 60127 2 Organic Chicken Formula 6 lb patties

The "Best If Used By" date is located on the back of the package above the safe handling instructions. No other Raw Frozen Diets are involved in this expanded recall, other than chicken, and no other Natures Variety products are included in this voluntary action, the company said.

Natures Variety distributed the recalled products through retail stores and Internet sales in the United States and Canada.

To address this salmonella concern, the company said it now uses High Pressure Pasteurization on its Raw Frozen Diets to kill pathogenic bacteria. It also uses a test and hold protocol to ensure all High Pressure Pasteurized Raw Frozen Diets test negative for harmful bacteria before they are released into the marketplace.

"Nature's Variety believes replacing all raw frozen chicken products on the market with new raw frozen chicken products that use High Pressure Pasteurization is an important and responsible step in order to reinforce consumer confidence and trust, CEO Howlett said. "By recalling all raw frozen chicken products with Best If Used By' dates on or before 2/5/11, we can provide our pet parents with new raw frozen chicken products that have been processed through High Pressure Pasteurization.

Adopting High Pressure Pasteurization is an important step to ensure that our products meet the strictest quality and food safety standards, he added.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said salmonella can cause health problems in humans and pets. People who handle salmonella-tainted pet food can also become infected, especially if they dont thoroughly washed their hands or any surfaces exposed to the products

Salmonella in humans can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping, and fever. In rare cases, it can also cause arthritis, muscle pain, and other serious illnesses.

Pets with salmonella infections can become lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, or vomiting, the FDA said. Some pets, though, may only experience decreased appetite, fever, or abdominal pain. The FDA said consumers who have pets that have eaten the recalled products -- and are experiencing any of these symptoms -- should contact their veterinarians.

Pet owners with any of the recalled products can return the unopened packages to their local retailer for a full refund, the company said. Consumers with opened packages can bring their receipts or the empty containers in a sealed bag to their local retailer for a full refund, too.

For more information about the recall, pet owners can call the company at 800-374-3142.

My wife keeps telling me we have to clean up the clutter which translated means, when are you going to get rid of all those old vinyl records collecting dust next to the Blu-ray machine or all those old clothes crowding what once was a walk-in closet?

I've often thought about all the stuff I've accumulated over the years and wondered if was worth anything. I know I could donate it and take a tax credit, but what if one of those old out-of-print albums is really worth something, or that old suit which now has a vintage clothing motif could sell for what I paid for it? Besides, who couldn't use a few extra bucks right now?

Apparently, this is a great time to sell your stuff because thrift-conscious consumers are on the lookout for quality used goods. According to Caring Transitions, a company that sets up estate sales, there's an army of bargain-hungry shoppers trolling estate sales and spending from 15% to 25% more money than they did a year ago.

What's driving this train? According to the National Association of Realtors, there are more than two million baby boomers with homes on the market and most of them are trying to downsize. That's about 40% of all home sellers with years of furniture, baby clothes, books, records, board and video games and knick-knacks to get rid of.

You don't have to be selling your house to take advantage of the trend. Just put a notice in your local newspaper and a sign on your lawn that says "Estate Sale.” If you want, you can call a company that will even price and sell your items for you. But what fun is that?

Plus they take a good chunk of your earnings.

I prefer to do what the good folks at Smart Money magazine did. They asked the experts how you can make the most money selling the stuff you were going to throw away.

They broke each group of items up and then asked when you should bargain hard, take the best offer or don't even bother and just donate the suckers.

Furniture

Let's look at furniture, which could fetch the most money in this kind of sale. They say you should bargain hard if it's mid-century modern furniture from the '50s and '60s. A mid-century modern buffet that sold for $75 or $100 earlier this decade, for example could now sell for $300 to $400.

On the other hand, you should probably take the best offer for everyday furniture like couches, chairs and coffee tables, especially if the pieces are light wood, aren't chunky and less than five years old. A couch in good condition might fetch a few hundred dollars through a site like craigslist  and even more if its leather.

As for what to donate, those old clunky television sets and entertainment centers that used to take up a whole wall and now just take up half your spare bedroom. Same goes for mattresses, bedding, and dark-wood pieces like traditional dining and bedroom sets. They're just not in style right now.

With clothing, bargain hard on couture brands like Chanel and Gucci, especially vintage pieces like my old suits from the late 60s. Buyers have also been snapping up finely made vintage fur capes this season, which can go for up to $500.

Take the best offer if your clothes are just out of fashion and fail to meet the quality standards of a fashionista on a budget. Clothing in good condition from retro-hip eras like the '40s, '60s, or '80s will still sell, but just be prepared to take what you can get. Interestingly, native-American style pieces are popular right now. Go figure.

Donate any mass-produced items from large chain stores like GAP or L.L. Bean along with anything that's heavily stained as well as sweatshirts, or sweatpants.

Books & records

As for books and records, this is where it could get tricky and you sort of need to know what you've got. For example, if you have any first- or limited-edition books, or copies signed by the author, have them appraised before you put them out for sale. A limited edition, leather-bound book of Tennessee Williams plays could bring in hundreds of dollars. So could leather-bound series, such as those from Franklin Library books, a company that produced collector-edition books of the classics.

For vinyl LPs, look for things like more obscure Rolling Stones and Beatles records in their original sleeve and unscratched. Some of those have been selling for about $500. A rare bootleg of an original Bob Dylan Great White Wonder album recently sold for $300.

Take the best offer for any individual leather-bound books, especially of the classics. Same for any LPs by jazz greats or by bands from the 60s, as long as they're in good condition and in their original sleeve. Feel free to donate any paperbacks and mass-produced hardbacks, along with any LPs that are heavily scratched or aren't in their original sleeve. Toss in your old cassettes, eight-tracks and CDs as well. They've all be replaced by digital music downloads and aren't worth anything.

Collectibles

Collectibles on the other hand could be worth something. Bargain hard when it comes to porcelain dolls, tin toys made between the '20s and '40s, and many toys popular with the baby boomers. A complete Lionel train set or Mattel's Herman Munster doll could be worth something.

Vintage movie posters, coin collections, especially those that feature gold coins, and vintage cameras in good condition are all hot right now. Especially, cameras made by companies like Carl Zeiss and Leica from the turn of the century until about the 1970s.

Take the best offer for your old toys that are not in perfect condition, along with complete coin collections that aren't especially rare. They still sell because of their nostalgia factor. Contemporary art is popular right now, as is local art, so a painting that features an iconic building or landmark in your community may sell well in your area.

Feel free to donate those collector plates with dates, the kind where you'd get a plate each month in the mail with a date on it -- especially if the collection is incomplete. You can also toss any velvet paintings along with 1980s pastel, floral and landscape paintings and prints.

There's also a market in family snapshots and video. Stock photography and film companies sometimes buy home movies -- 8mm, super-8mm and 16mm versions -- and photos that include an iconic event or a famous person. Believe it or not, you can sometimes make hundreds of dollars from them.

With such things as silverware and china, sterling silver flatware is extra valuable right now. However, silver-plate and stainless flatware will sell because it is an item that everyone can use.

Don't forget those items from your garage. Tools are selling well now because they're easy for buyers to carry home and tend to be pricey when purchased new.

Old bicycles are also in high demand, including those old three-speed cruisers. A good bike in decent condition could sell it for $100 or more, which may be more than you paid for it.

Not a bad way to spend a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. Ring 'em up. You haven't been on those roller skates in 40 years.

The Food Safety Modernization Act, a sweeping overhaul of federal food regulations, will become law after all, though there were plenty of times during the year that appeared doubtful.

The House of Representative gave final approval to the measure Tuesday evening and sent it to President Obama's desk for his signature. Once there, it will have completed a long a tortuous path.

Long journey

The House first passed the bill, which gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded authority and resources, in July 2009. The Senate didn't get around to taking up the measure until the next year, but by then the legislation had gathered food industry support.

In May, Sen. Diane Feinstein proposed an amendment that would have banned the use of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic food containers. At that point food industry support evaporated and the measure stalled until late November, when Feinstein withdrew the amendment.

The Senate passed the bill November 30, but it was different from the House version, so differences had to be worked out in conference. With the lame duck session calendar extremely crowded, it was by no means certain it would meet the deadline.

Final vote

However, the Senate passed the new version on Sunday and the House approved it 215 to 144 late Tuesday.

"This legislation will work to prevent food contamination before it occurs, steering away from our current focus on responding after an outbreak. It improves our ability to detect and respond to food-borne illness, increases the number of inspections the FDA must conduct, and, for the first time, requires importers of foreign food to verify that products grown and processed overseas meet U.S. safety standards," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). "With recent outbreaks of food-borne illness from common foods such as spinach, tomatoes, peanut butter, and cookie dough, the urgency of addressing this challenge could not be greater. And with the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, we will fundamentally change the way we protect public health and the safety of our food supply."

Shelley A. Hearne, managing director of the Pew Health Group, also applauded the vote, saying the new law will improve the safety of the nation's food supply and prevent foodborne illness. She noted the reform is the first major update to the law in over 70 years.

"Americans sitting at their dinner tables should have greater confidence that their food will be safe when this long-overdue law is put into place," Hearne said. "Preventable foodborne illness sickens millions and kills thousands of Americans every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Disease outbreaks from pathogens in FDA-regulated products such as eggs, produce, peanut products and many processed foods illustrate the need to update government safety oversight of both domestically-produced and imported foods."

The measure places more requirements on food companies to ensure food safety and gives the FDA more inspection power. And for the first time, the FDA will have the power to order food recalls, not simply request voluntary recalls.

And kids are apparently still sledding dangerously. According to the most recent Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)statistics, there were 74,000 sledding, snow tubing, and tobogganing-related injuries treated at hospital emergency rooms, doctors' offices and clinics in 2004.

Maybe slamming into a tree at 20 miles per hour isn't "just part of growing up" after all. But fear not -- sledding can still be a joyous childhood activity (as well as great exercise) if some simple precautions are taken.

Here are some tips from the American Academy of Pediatrics and emergency room doctors at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center:

Make sure your child wears a helmet

Recent reports show that sleds can easily reach speeds of 20-25 mph. About 15 percent of sledding injuries treated in emergency rooms are head injuries, and 43 percent of these are brain injuries.

Helmets are 85 percent effective in preventing brain injuries in children who ride bicycles; experts predict similar success rates in sleds. Hoods and hats are not as effective as a helmet would be in reducing the impact of hitting a fixed object or if thrown from the sled.

Make sure there is constant adult supervision

According to an American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons study, 71 percent of unsupervised sledding outings ended in injuries. When adults were present to monitor the types of risks taken, however, the injury rate dropped to 29 percent.

Find a safe spot

Look for holes, roots, tree stumps and fences that may be covered in snow. Avoid areas with trees.

Avoid slopes that end in a street, parking lot or pond

Sleds and cars have a hard time stopping on slippery surfaces. Frozen ponds might appear solid, but might not be strong enough to hold a child's weight. Sledding hills should have a flat run off at the end.

Make sure your children wear sensible clothing

Bright colors are easier to spot. Dress them in layers for extra warmth, and don't allow them to stay outside if their clothing becomes wet. Make sure that they are dressed with proper attire including gloves or mittens and a thick jacket or coat.

Make sure your children sit face-forward

It's easier to steer the sled.

Be especially careful with inflatable snow tubes

They move quickly, cannot be steered and, if they hit a bump, can propel children into the air.

Allow only one child down the hill at a time

When children are finished, tell them to move out of the way quickly. Do not allow the next sledder to begin until the previous one is safely off the hill.

Don't allow a child to walk up the same hill that another child is sledding down

Make sure children move out of the way of other children who are coming down the designated sledding path.

Don't use sled substitutes

Cafeteria trays, cardboard boxes and detached automobile hoods may seem like great makeshift sleds, but they are difficult to steer and stop, increasing the risk of injury.

In fact, for the safest ride, use a sled with a steering mechanism.

Use common sense

If a sled won't stop or you think you will hit something, roll off. And never ride on a sled that is being pulled by a moving vehicle.

Sixty-six vehicles have earned the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's (IIHS) Top Safety Pick award for 2011, including 40 cars, 25 SUVs, and a minivan.

Top Safety Pick recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, rollover, and rear crashes based on good ratings in Institute tests. Winners also must have available electronic stability control, a crash avoidance feature that significantly reduces crash risk.

The ratings help consumers pick vehicles that offer a higher level of protection than federal safety standards require.

Higher standards

Last year the Institute toughened criteria for Top Safety Pick by adding a requirement that all qualifiers must earn a good rating for performance in a roof strength test to assess protection in a rollover crash. The move sharply narrowed the initial field of 2010 winners.

At the beginning of the 2010 model year, only 27 vehicles qualified for the award, but the number grew to 58 as auto manufacturers reworked existing designs and introduced new models. Now another 10 vehicles join the winners' list for 2011. Two discontinued models drop off.

"In just a year, automakers have more than doubled the number of vehicles that meet the criteria for Top Safety Pick," says Adrian Lund, the Institute's president. "That gives consumers shopping for a safer new car or SUV -- from economy to luxury models -- plenty of choices to consider in most dealer showrooms. In fact, every major automaker has at least one winning model this year."

Front-runners

Hyundai/Kia and Volkswagen/Audi each have nine winners for 2011. Next in line with eight awards apiece are General Motors, Ford/Lincoln, and Toyota/Lexus/Scion. Subaru is the only manufacturer with a winner in all the vehicle classes in which it competes. Subaru earned five awards for 2011.

"Safety is a priority among this crop of winners," Lund says. "From the start these manufacturers set out to design vehicles that would earn Top Safety Pick, even though we've made it harder to win."

One of them is Ford. For 2011, the automaker is rolling out a new design for its popular Explorer midsize SUV, which until now had never earned Top Safety Pick. Ford also upgraded the roofs of 2 other midsize SUVs, the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT, along with the Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, 2 midsize cars that missed the initial round of 2010 winners because they lacked the required roof strength. The all-new Ford Fiesta rounds out Ford's winners and is the only minicar to earn Top Safety Pick this year.

General Motors' new Chevrolet Cruze broadens the number of award-winning options for consumers looking to buy a fuel-efficient small car. GM built the Cruze, which has 10 standard airbags, including ones for the knees, to outperform the government's minimum roof strength requirements and touts the achievement as a selling point.

The redesigned Volkswagen Touareg is the only large SUV to earn Top Safety Pick for 2011. The Institute doesn't normally evaluate SUVs this large, but Volkswagen requested crash tests to demonstrate the Touareg's crashworthiness.

None of the small pickups the Institute has evaluated qualified for this year's award, and large pickups haven't yet been tested.

Broader range

The Institute awarded the first Top Safety Pick to 2006 models and then raised the bar the next year by requiring good rear test results and electronic stability control as either standard or optional equipment. With last year's addition of new criteria for roof crush the Institute's crash test ratings now cover all four of most common kinds of crashes.

More than 12,000 people died in frontal crashes of passenger vehicles in 2009 in the United States, more than 6,000 died in side impacts and more than 8,000 died in rollovers -- many of which also involved a front or side impact. Rear-end crashes usually aren't fatal but result in a large proportion of injuries. Neck sprain or strain is the most commonly reported injury in two-thirds of insurance claims for injuries in all kinds of crashes.

Vehicles rated good for rollover crash protection have roofs more than twice as strong as the current federal standard requires. The Institute estimates that such roofs reduce the risk of serious and fatal injury in single-vehicle rollovers by about 50 percent compared with roofs meeting the minimum requirement.

Quick strides in occupant protection

When the first roof crush results were released in March 2009, only a third of the SUVs tested had good roofs. Since then about 113 vehicles have been tested, and the majority are rated good for roof strength.

Hyundai is a case in point. The Tucson and the small SUV's twin, the Kia Sportage, earned a poor rating for roof strength in 2009, with the weakest roof among all of the small SUVs evaluated that year. A redesign helped the 2011 models secure a good rating and Top Safety Pick. Hyundai also improved the roof on another SUV, the midsize Santa Fe, and redesigned the Sonata, a midsize car that had earned a marginal roof rating the first time around.

Side impact

The outlook for side-impact protection has brightened, too, Lund notes. Many cars failed the side test the Institute began conducting in 2003, but now most vehicles ace the test thanks to stronger side structures and standard side airbags that protect the head and torso.

It's an important improvement because new Institute research shows that the risk of dying in a crash is sharply lower for people in vehicles that earn good ratings in the Institute's side test.

Chrysler added torso airbags to the redesigned Jeep Grand Cherokee to improve side crash protection and earn a good side rating. The previous design relied on head curtain airbags to cushion occupants in side crashes and only rated marginal for side protection.

Not optional

Safety equipment is increasingly standard. Ninety-two percent of 2011 model cars, 94 percent of SUVs, and 56 percent of pickups have standard head and torso side airbags. Electronic stability control is standard on 92 percent of cars, 100 percent of SUVs, and 72 percent of pickups.

"Automakers deserve credit for quickly rising to meet the more-challenging criteria for Top Safety Pick," Lund says. "Several already have requested tests for new models due to ship early next year, so we expect to add even more winners to the 2011 list."

The Institute groups Top Safety Pick winners according to vehicle type and size. Lund advises consumers to keep in mind that size and weight influence crashworthiness.

Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford better occupant protection in serious crashes than smaller, lighter ones. Even with a Top Safety Pick, a small car isn't as crashworthy as a bigger one.

Evaluation process

The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures recorded on a 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test.

Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on two instrumented SID-IIs dummies representing a fifth percentile woman, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact.

In the roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against one side of a roof at a displacement rate of 0.2 inch per second. To earn a good rating for rollover protection, the roof must withstand a force of four-times the vehicle's weight before reaching five inches of crush. This is called a strength-to-weight ratio.

Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry -- the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man.

Seat/head restraints with good or acceptable geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they can't be positioned to protect many people.

All 66 winners

Large cars

• Buick LaCrosse
• Buick Regal
• BMW 5 series (except 4-wheel drive and V8)
• Cadillac CTS sedan
• Ford Taurus
• Hyundai Genesis
• Infinite M37/M56 (except M56x 4-wheel drive)
• Lincoln MKS
• Mercedes E class coupe
• Mercedes E class sedan
• Toyota Avalon
• Volvo S80
  

Midsize cars

• Audi A3
• Audi A4 sedan
• Chevrolet Malibu
• Chrysler 200 4-door
• Dodge Avenger
• Ford Fusion
• Hyundai Sonata
• Kia Optima
• Lincoln MKZ
• Mercedes C class
• Subaru Legacy
• Subaru Outback
• Volkswagen Jetta sedan
• Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen
• Volvo C30
  

Small cars

• Chevrolet Cruze
• Honda Civic 4-door models (except Si) with optional electronic stability control
• Kia Forte sedan
• Kia Soul
• Mitsubishi Lancer (except 4-wheel drive)
• Nissan Cube
• Scion tC
• Scion xB
• Subaru Impreza sedan and hatchback (except WRX)
• Volkswagen Golf 4-door
• Volkswagen GTI 4-door
  

Minicar

• Ford Fiesta sedan and hatchback built after July 2010
  

Minivan

• Toyota Sienna
  

Large SUV

• Volkswagen Touareg
  

Midsize SUVs

• Audi Q5
• Cadillac SRX
• Chevrolet Equinox
• Dodge Journey
• Ford Explorer
• Ford Flex
• GMC Terrain
• Hyundai Santa Fe
• Jeep Grand Cherokee
• Kia Sorento built after March 2010
• Lexus RX
• Lincoln MKT
• Mercedes GLK
• Subaru Tribeca
• Toyota Highlander
• Toyota Venza
• Volvo XC60
• Volvo XC90
  

Small SUVs

• Honda Element
• Hyundai Tucson
• Jeep Patriot with optional side torso airbags
• Kia Sportage
• Subaru Forester
• Volkswagen Tiguan

A. About one in ten people over 65 experience difficulty with balance. More than 40 percent of Americans will go to a doctor complaining of dizziness.

Getting older is only part of the problem. Inner-ear disturbances are the primary cause.

Losing balance when you're older is serious stuff. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, each year, more than one-third of people over 65 years suffer a fall.

Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among older adults. And, even if the fall doesn't kill you, you could fracture a hip and then a whole bunch of problems will can cascade over you -- limitations on activities, isolation, loss of independence, depression.

Not all balance problems have the same cause. Here are several major ones:

• Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). With BPPV, one of the most common causes of balance problems, you get vertigo when you change the position of your head. You may also experience BPPV when you roll over, get out of bed, or when look on a high shelf. BPPV is more likely in people over 60.

• Labyrinthitis, an infection or inflammation of the inner ear. The labyrinth is the organ in your inner ear that enables you to maintain balance.

• Meniere's disease, which also can give you intermittent hearing loss, a ringing or roaring in the ears, and a feeling of fullness in the ear.

Other causes may involve another part of the body, such as the brain or the heart. Aging, infections, head injury, certain medicines, or problems with blood circulation may also cause problems with balance.

Blood-pressure medications and some antibiotics can cause balance problems. If you are taking any drugs in these categories and feel off-balance, it's worth discussing with your doctor.

Some people may have a balance problem and not know it. Balance disorders can be difficult to diagnose because patients sometimes can't describe their symptoms well.

Balance disorders can be signs of other health problems, so it's important to have them checked out.

If you can answer any of the following positively, discuss the symptom with your doctor.

Do I feel:

• Unsteady?
• Disoriented?
• As if the room is spinning?
• As if I'm moving when I'm still?
• As if I'm falling?
• As if I might faint?

Also, do you ever lose your balance and fall? Or, do you experience blurred vision?

Persistent balance problems are not something you should pass off as a harmless part of the aging process. They should always be examined carefully.

All Rights Reserved © 2007 by Fred Cicetti

The Friedman's Inc. jewelry chain has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, citing "short-term liquidity issues." The company is being sued by Florida, Texas and Tennessee for allegedly using deceptive tactics in the way it charged customers for insurance.

The voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 were filed in Savannah, Ga., where the company is based.

The Chapter 11 filing "should provide the company with the breathing room necessary to complete financial restructuring initiatives the company embarked upon more than five months ago," a statement by Friedman's.

"The filing was prompted by limitations imposed on funding this week by the company's lenders following the lenders' decision not to agree to amended financial covenants in the Company's credit facility. As a result of the funding limitations, Friedman 's was unable to satisfy all of its cash requirements in the ordinary course of business," Friedman's said.

Late last year, Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist said some 19 states were expected to join Florida's litigation against Friedman's, which has 650 stores nationwide. Crist estimates that Friedman's allegedly sold $46.7 million of the insurance in 19 states, but failed to adequately disclose the costs to customers.

According to the Florida complaint, between 1998 and 2002 Friedman's added charges to retail contracts for life, credit disability and property insurance. Friedman's allegedly collected approximately $46,709,000 from the 19 states combined. In Florida alone, it is estimated that the company collected more than $2,265,000.

If you're a cash-strapped consumer struggling to get to the end of your holiday shopping list, these offers may sound tempting, but beware! They are payday loans, plain and simple - notorious predatory loans that victimize working men and women and members of the military.

What payday lenders don't advertise is the enormous cost of taking out their loans, characterized by annual percentage rates that often exceed 250 percent. Many payday lenders, especially those operating on the Internet, are of dubious legality. They may not be licensed and may be blatantly violating federal and state consumer protection laws.

A few years back, one prominent payday lender advertised that its loans were "better than borrowing from your mother." That brought a spirited response from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

"The reality is that these loans will take the shirt right off your back with costly fees and outrageous interest rates," Madigan said.

The difference between the amount for which the consumer writes the check and the amount the consumer is paid in cash is the lender's profit, or finance charge. Payday lenders often charge between $15 and $50 for every $90 borrowed, which only covers the few short weeks of the loan term. After that, the consumer must pay the lender back or pay the lender even more in finance charges.

Most of the time, a consumer doesn't have the funds in his or her checking account to cover the post-dated check when it is written, and may not have the funds when it comes time for the check to be cashed. When payment comes due, if consumers can't cover the check, they are often encouraged to roll the overdue loan into a new loan, incurring new fees and increasing the amount of the loan.

This loan "flipping" easily can lead to the consumer using most or all of the money borrowed to pay the lender's costly fees.

Think we're exaggerating? Consider the experience of Janet of Burnsville, NC, who wrote to ConsumerAffairs.com last August.

"I applied for a loan of 100 online like a dummy. I was desperate I had NO FOOD. I agreed to pay back $125.00 in 2 payments that would be taken out of my checking account. I only rec $75.00 but I at least was able to buy food. Yesterday I learned that $315.00 was trying to be taken out of my checking account over and over and over. It had incurred several NSF charges."

Not only are payday loans likely to result in such unforeseen headaches as overdrawn checking accounts and ruinously high payback schedules, they're also likely to lead to bankruptcy.

"Our research finds that payday loans and their interest payments may be sufficient to tip the balance into bankruptcy for a population that is already severely financially stressed," said Marta Skiba of Vanderbilt Law School who conducted a 2008 study into payday loans.

The researchers found that first-time applicants who received a payday loan were almost twice as likely to file for bankruptcy within two years as those denied the first time. The interest from payday and pawn loans amounted to about 11 percent of the total liquid debt interest burden at the time of the bankruptcy filing.

So what should you do if you're desperately short of money and unable to pay for essentials? The answer varies from one city to another, but a good place to start is the nearest Salvation Army office, homeless shelter or food pantry. While the staff and volunteers may not be able to loan or give you money, they can direct you to local charities who will help you rather than take advantage of your plight.

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission today adopted new Net neutrality rules, providing guidelines for both wired and wireless networks.

The policy, described by some as a compromise, passed along party-line votes, with Democrats supporting it and Republicans opposed. The rules are likely to be challenged in court in the year ahead.

Net neutrality refers to the principle that Internet content providers should have equal access to the Internet and  should suffer no restrictions on content, sites or platforms that may be attached. Network operators have generally objected to that principle, saying they have borne the cost of building and maintaining the network and should be allowed to control the amount of traffic traveling through it.

Under the new policy, crafted by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, there will be one set of rules for traditional wired networks, like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, and another for wireless providers like Verizon Wireless. The wired networks would be prohibited from blocking access to websites and applications, but the wireless providers would be able to block access to some apps.

Sen. Al Frankin (D-MN) was critical of that aspect of the policy, pointing out that Verizon Wireless would be free to block access to Google Maps, a free feature, making Verizon Wireless subscribers use the provider's maps app, which carries a fee.

The new policy would also not prohibit "paid prioritization," in which a content provider could pay a network a fee to provide faster, or more prioritized access, to its material.

Disappointment

Digital rights groups expressed some disappointment with the new policy, saying it was too weak and watered-down. Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder of the Washington-based group Public Knowledge, said the policy"fell far short" of what it could have been.

"Instead of a rule that would protect everyone, from consumers to applications developers from predatory practices of telephone and cable companies, the Commission settled for much less," Sohn said."Instead of strong, firm rules providing clear protections, the Commission created a vague and shifting landscape open to interpretation.Consumers deserved better."

But having been rebuffed in court once already over the issue of Net neutrality, Genachowski may have looked for common ground.

"These rules fulfill a promise to the future, to companies that don't yet exist, and the entrepreneurs that haven't yet started work in their dorm rooms or garages," Genachowski said.

Second attempt

He noted that, at the moment, there are no enforceable rules to protect basic Internet values. And having failed in his first attempt to implement a Net neutrality policy, Genachowski may have looked for ways to compromise.

In April, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC,ruled the FCC lacked the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers and operators of broadband networks.

The unanimous finding overturned the FCC's cease and desist order against Comcast, which had imposed measures to slow traffic to what it considered heavy users. The Court said the FCC, in issuing the order, failed to cite any specific law passed by Congress. In effect, the judges found that the federal agency could not impose restraints on Internet providers without the backing of Congress.

Caring for a pet can be costly, especially if they become ill and need special medical treatment. Medical bills are just one of the many things the pet industry doesn't really want you to know about because it could result in a reduction in the number of pets people decide to own.

Consider this. A cat with cancer can run you $20,000 and up just for the treatment.  We all love our pets but it appears that our relationship with domestic animals has become very expensive in recent years.

A friend who adopted a pug from a rescue society recently told me he spends over $1,000 a month on medication and vet visits to deal with eye inflammations, ear problems and other ailments common to the breed.

"It's crazy to spend that much money on a pet, but he is such a jolly little character that I can't imagine not providing him with the best care," said my friend, who asked not to be identified because he feared public ridicule.

A lot of the exorbitant expense is due to medical breakthroughs and innovative treatments that just didn't exist a few years ago. But now they do and decisions once not even considered are suddenly on the table.  According to a report by market-research company Packaged Facts we spent $20 billion on veterinary bills this year. That's an 8.5% increase from 2009 and more than double the amount spent 10 years ago.

The increase in medical bills for pets has helped grow a newly industry of pet health insurance. What used to be considered a joke, medical insurance for dogs and cats, has become popular as a way to ease the financial burden of a sick pet.

One of the many things the pet industry doesn't want you to know is that some breeds of pets are healthier than others. Now that's something you usually take into consideration when you're about to either save some poor animal from certain death or buy that cuddly little creature at your local pet store.

Dr. Jerold Bell is a geriatrics professor at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University. In an interview with Smart Money magazine, Dr. Bell says you if you don't do your research on a potential pet, you're risking a great deal of expenses and emotional strain.

Bell says that common problems such as hip dysplasia or cardiac conditions are breed-specific and are often detectable in the pets that breeders use to breed the pets they sell.

There aren't any regulators watching over the breeders, so it's up to you to know what diseases to which that particular pet is susceptible. You can check the Canine Health Information Center's web site for a list of disorders for which each breed of dog should be tested. Another way to increase your chances of getting a healthy purebred is by choosing breeders who use the services of the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA). That's a nonprofit foundation that tries to lower the incidence of genetic disease.

The OFA performs pre-breeding health screening services for many inherited diseases, including hip and elbow dysplasia, congenital cardiac disease, patellar luxation, autoimmune thyroid disease and others. Parents known to be free of genetic disorders are much more likely to produce healthy offspring.

Emergency care

If your pet does get sick, the temptation is to rush them to an emergency animal hospital when you could have probably waited until your regular vet's office opened. Around the clock animal clinics charge a lot for non-emergency procedures such x-rays and blood tests. So if you can wait, it pays to do so. You may even want to call your vet to get his or her opinion before rushing to the clinic.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or ASPCA, recommends giving your pet an annual physical exam to head off any medical problems that could be treated before they got out of hand.

If your pet is young and healthy, insurance is a bit of a gamble. And, as in humans, some policies don't cover the biggest procedures. As an alternative, you can set up a medical care fund in your pet's name and depositing regular sums comparable to premiums. If you don't use it, it's still yours but if you pay premiums to an insurance companies it belongs to them.

Kennel care

Leaving your pet with a kennel can come with its own set of problems. Most kennel operators are well-meaning animal lovers who have turned their passion for animals into a business. However, because the industry is largely unregulated, kennels can vary widely in their standard of care. So how can you know whether your pet will be housed in cramped, unhealthy conditions or put up in four-star luxury?

Ideally, you should pick one of the few kennels that are members of the American Boarding Kennels Association and have been accredited by the group. They have to comply with standards, including providing an area where dogs can be exercised at least three times a day. Make sure you take a tour of the kennel before booking a spot for your pet. Ask what health concerns pet supervisors are trained to detect.

Training

Then comes the expense of training, although this is something cat owners rarely have to deal with. You can drop $300 an hour for your dog's obedience lessons, only to wind up with a pet who does little more than sit and stay. Unfortunately, anyone can call themselves a dog trainer.

There is a way to avoid inept or inexperienced trainers. Look for someone who has graduated from a program, such as the one conducted by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers or is a member of the International Association of Canine Professionals. Ask how many years of experience a prospective trainer has. Training the family dog as a teenager doesn't count. And ask how many dogs he's worked with professionally and finally ask for references.

You should also consider what your pet will be taught. For example, in six lessons, you should expect your dog to be able to walk properly on a leash, stay and sit for three minutes in any environment and not just in your living room. He or she should be able to lie down for five minutes, come when called and leave the room when told. I know a few people who could use that training.

It's gotten to be a little trendy among some owners to send their dog or pet to an animal psychologist, but you may want to first attempt less expensive treatments. If the dog is suffering from separation anxiety, which is common among young pups, you could send the dog to a day care center two or three times a week. It could give your pet the physical, mental and emotional strength she's lacking.

There are pets who are removed from their mothers too soon and become overly aggressive or suffer from severe separation anxiety. In those cases, they very well could benefit from an animal shrink, provided they're certified professionals and actually know what they're doing.

A big thing the pet industry doesn't want you to know is that pet food doesn't have to be expensive to be good for your pet. Read the labels. Be especially wary of diet foods, which can be packed with added fiber to make pets feel full. Cutting back on regular food is a good way to achieve the same weight loss, as long as owners supplement it with vitamins.

As a general rule when it comes to food, look for pet foods tested and approved by members of the Association of American Feed Control Officials. That's an industry watchdog group that sets standards for animal-feed manufacturing. The most important thing is does your pet like it. If my cat Kimberly doesn't like a particular food, she'll tip over the plate and attempt to bury it. She's pretty picky too. But sliced turkey always seems to get eaten.

Twenty states and the U.S. Department of Justice have amended their suit against American Express, Visa, and MasterCard to stop them from restricting merchants from offering consumers discounts, rewards, and information about card costs.

 The states are challenging the credit card companies' rules that ultimately result in greater costs to consumers and merchants. Vermont also joined a proposed settlement with two of the companies. Although Visa and MasterCard have agreed to settle the case, American Express continues to fight the allegations.

"Vermont has been a leader in taking on the credit card industry for practices that stifle competition - first through legislation and now through litigation,” said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, in announcing his state's participation in the litigation. "In these tough economic times it's more important than ever to protect our businesses and consumers from unfair fees and costs."

 In the case of Vermont, all three credit card companies must comply with astate law that goes into effect on January 1, 2011, which eliminates restrictions on merchants that have been in place for many years.

Vermont's new credit card law

Under the new law, credit card companies must allow merchants to offer discounts and incentives based on the customer's form of payment. For example, a merchant will be able to offer a three percent discount if the customer pays in cash. The companies also must allow merchants to accept certain cards at some locations and not others, and to impose a credit card minimum of $10 if it is clearly disclosed to consumers.

Credit card acceptance fees, also known as "swipe fees," cost U.S. merchants approximately $35 billion each year, Sorrell said. Merchants pay swipe fees each time a consumer uses a credit card to make a purchase.

American Express has the highest swipe fees of any credit card network, charging merchants 3 percent on some transactions. Merchants pass on these billions of dollars in fees to consumers through higher retail prices.

Vermont's existing law and the amended complaint filed yesterday seek to remedy the credit card companies' practice of suppressing competition by forbidding merchants from rewarding consumers who use less expensive credit cards or cash. Allowing merchants to do this should foster competition among credit card companies by encouraging them to lower fees.

Counterfeit Christmas lights may be posing a hazard in some homes this season. New Jersey officials conducting a sweep of urban discount stores found holiday lights, decorations and other electrical items that bear counterfeit labels of the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) testing organization.

Since the lights and cords haven't really been tested, it's possible they pose a fire hazard.

Millions of products and their components are tested to UL's safety standards and those that have been certified as safe may carry the UL seal. Manufacturers are not only misleading consumers when they fraudulently place the seal on their product, but could be putting consumers at risk.

New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs investigators purchased 179 items from 43 dollar stores in Paterson, Newark, Trenton and Camden and sent the products to UL to determine if any bear counterfeit labels. UL found seven items with the UL logo on their packaging, but counterfeit UL labels attached to the products.

"Consumers depend on the UL label as proof that a product meets UL's standards," New Jersey Attorney General Paula T. Dow said. "When that label, or the labels of other testing organizations, are falsely applied to untested products, the public is defrauded and, of greater concern, placed at unnecessary risk."

Big business

Counterfeit consumer products make up a huge black market industry. Counterfeit goods generate hundreds of billions of dollars in sales each year, making up aboutseven percent of all global trade, according to a recent report by the business news cable channel CNBC. At U.S. ports alone, counterfeit products seized in 2009 had an estimated street value of more than $260 million.

Besides knockoffs of designer shoes and handbags, counterfeiters also produce electrical devices, such as extension cords. Instead of using copper, they use cheaper wire that is prone of overheating and could catch fire.

The stores selling the items with counterfeit UL labels cooperated with New Jersey investigators, removing all such items from store shelves and providing their purchasing records to the state. The Department of Consumer Affairs said it will notify the Customs and Border Patrol within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security since these products are imported.

"We're committed to keeping counterfeit, and potentially unsafe, products away from consumers," said Thomas R. Calcagni, Acting Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs. "A counterfeit label attached to an item is a deliberate attempt to deceive consumers and to commit fraud in violation of our state law."

The stores where products with counterfeit UL labels were found and removed from shelves are as follows:

• D&D 99 Cent store, 181 Market St., Paterson;Multicolor 140 Count Musical Christmas lights and Rainbow Light 12 Foot Rope.
• 99 Cents Shop & Up,123 Main St., Paterson; 10 Light Multi Tree Top and Red Blue Green 100 Light String Lights
• Dollar Classic, 154 Bloomfield Ave, Newark; 10 Light Multi Tree Top and Multicolor 100 Count Christmas string lights
• Jersey Dollar, 1960 Olden Ave Ext., Ewing; Sunlite Baseball Night Light

According to statistics released by the Electrical Safety Foundation International (ESFI), while 71 percent of people report that they are likely to use at least one extension cord for their holiday decorations, 33 percent of people are unlikely or very unlikely to check for a certification laboratory approval mark on the extension cords, lights and decorations they own or plan to buy.

An estimated 3,300 residential fires originate from extension cords each year, killing and injuring more than 300 people, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Toyota Motor Corporation has agreed to pay an additional $32.425 million in civil penalties as the result of two separate government investigations into its handling of auto recalls.

The automaker will pay the maximum fines allowable under the law -- $16.375 million in one case and $16.050 million in the other -- in response to the Transportation Department's (DOT) assertion that it failed to comply with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for reporting safety defects to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

"Safety is our top priority and we take our responsibility to protect consumers seriously," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "I am pleased that Toyota agreed to pay the maximum possible penalty and I expect Toyota to work cooperatively in the future to ensure consumers' safety."

Accelerator probe

The first investigation resulted in a $16.375 million fine and involved Toyota's recall of nearly five million vehicles with accelerator pedals that can become entrapped by floor mats. As its initial remedy, Toyota recalled 55,000 all-weather floor mats on September 26, 2007.

In August 2009, a fatal crash in Santee, California, occurred as the result of pedal entrapment in a loaner Lexus equipped with an all-weather floor mat intended for another Lexus model. After the fatal crash, NHTSA reviewed crash evidence and other data, and found that removing floor mats was insufficient and that there was a need to redesign the accelerator pedal.

At NHTSA's urging, Toyota then conducted a recall for 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles for floor mat entrapment on October 5, 2009. The October recall was expanded on January 27, 2010, to include another 1.1 million vehicles.

In February 2010, NHTSA launched an investigation to determine when Toyota first learned of the pedal entrapment defect and whether the company notified NHTSA in a timely manner. Federal law requires all auto manufacturers to notify NHTSA within five business days of determining that a safety defect exists and to promptly conduct a recall.

NHTSA's investigation led the agency to believe that Toyota had not fulfilled its obligation to report a known safety defect within five days, as is required under the law.

The defects involving pedal entrapment by floor mats and "sticking" accelerator pedals are currently the only two known causes of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles, although NHTSA continues to explore other possible causes.

The agency has enlisted the expertise of researchers and engineers from the prestigious National Academy of Sciences and NASA for a pair of studies that seek to get to the bottom of unintended acceleration.

Steering control probe

The second investigation resulted in a $16.050 million fine. In that case, NHTSA investigated whether Toyota properly notified the agency of a safety defect in several Toyota models that could result in the loss of steering control. In 2004, Toyota conducted a recall in Japan for Hilux trucks with steering relay rods prone to fatigue cracking and breaking, causing the vehicle to lose steering control.

At that time, Toyota informed NHTSA that the safety defect was isolated to vehicles in Japan and that the company had not received similar field information within the United States. In 2005, however, Toyota informed NHTSA that the steering relay rod defect was present in several models sold in the U.S. and conducted a recall for nearly one million vehicles.

Then, in May 2010, NHTSA was alerted to additional information, including complaints from U.S. consumers, that Toyota had not disclosed when it initially notified NHTSA that a U.S. recall was unnecessary.

"Automakers are required to report any safety defects to NHTSA swiftly, and we expect them to do so," said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland. "NHTSA acknowledges Toyota's efforts to make improvements to its safety culture, and our agency will continue to hold all automakers accountable for defects to protect consumers' safety."

Payments

Toyota will pay the maximum in civil penalties for each of the two violations stemming from the pedal entrapment and steering relay rod recalls. The maximum civil penalty established under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is adjusted for inflation, and was set at $16.050 million at the time of the steering relay rod recall in 2005.

In April, Toyota agreed to pay the maximum penalty of $16.375 million in response to the Department's assertion that it failed to notify NHTSA within five days of learning of the "sticky pedal" defect. That brings the total civil penalties assessed for Toyota in 2010 to $48.8 million. The fines will be paid into the Treasury Department's General Fund.

This is something nutritionists at Brigham Young University (BYU)  are studying in the hopes of finding out exactly what about the tangy fruit makes them so good for us.

We all know the orange is known for its vitamin C and blood-protecting antioxidants, but the researchers wanted to learn why a whole orange is better for you than its components when taken separately.

The ultimate outcome of the research could be a super-supplement that captures the best health benefits of eating oranges and drinking orange juice.

Fruit vs. vitamin pills

"There's something about an orange that's better than taking a vitamin C capsule, and that's really what we're trying to figure out," said Tory Parker, BYU assistant professor of nutrition, dietetics and food science.

Parker says the researchers think it's the particular mix of antioxidants in oranges that makes them so beneficial.

The team published the best health-promoting combination of those natural antioxidants in a recent issue of the Journal of Food Science.

The paper's lead author, Brenner Freeman, was a BYU undergrad when he conducted the research. Now applying to medical schools, Brenner chose to study oranges because he was raised on a citrus orchard in Arizona.

"I spent a lot of time hunched over a lab bench in the dark doing this research," Freeman said. "But what I learned was worth it, and having this publication definitely gives me an advantage on my med school applications."

Protective properties

Parker explained that every time we eat carbs and fat, we increase the amount of free radicals in our blood. Over time, that increases our chance for hardened arteries and heart disease. But eating fruit protects us from that effect for a few hours after every meal.

"Carbs and fat increase free radicals, and fruit and internal antioxidants counteract that," Parker said.

That means fruit, like oranges, should actually be our dessert. (No, seriously.)

"Remember, before cookies, candy and other sugary snacks became so widespread, fruit was our 'sweet,'" said Parker.

Considering there are already countless amounts of health supplements on the market, one may wonder why we would need another one.

Parker noted supplement companies often mix "high concentrations of extracts from blueberry and blackberry and orange and throw them all together and hope it's good."

He wanted to avoid such assumptions by testing dozens of combinations of the antioxidants found in an orange at the same proportions they occur naturally.

Synergies

"We're looking for synergistic effects," Parker said. "Cases where the effect of two or more antioxidants together was stronger than the sum of them separately."

The researchers identified several combinations of antioxidants that were the most synergistic and found the compounds hesperidin and naringenin, in particular, appeared to contribute the most punch.

Those are the mixtures Parker will continue to research in human studies to evaluate whether their health effects mimic those of eating an orange. He and his students are also conducting similar work with blueberries and strawberries.

BYU has applied for patents on the best antioxidant mixtures from all three fruits, and they are available for license by companies for further development.

"I'm really most interested in protecting healthy people and keeping the healthy, healthy," Parker said. "And no matter what our research finds, it's very clear that a great way to do that is to simply eat more fruit."

Would you pay $99.99 for a wagon of Smurfberries?

If your answer is "yes," you might be one of the growing numbers of adults addicted to "Smurfs' Village," an interactive game featuring the little blue gnomes popularized in the 1970s and 1980s.

Or you might be a four-year-old playing on Mom's iPad.

The game, free to download and play, involves creating a Smurf village from scratch: building houses and planting and harvesting crops. For a fee, users can speed progress along with the help of "smurfberries."

A few weeks ago, parents of kids -- some as young as four -- were finding large sums of money charges to their iTunes accounts. Turns out, their savvy little land developers were going on a "smurfberries" spree, not realizing the coveted virtual currency costs actual money.

Many kids have fallen in love with the iPad or iPod Touch and parents, wanting to foster that love of technology, are quick to put the devices into their young ones' hands.

But a combination of apps with hidden charges, a loophole in iTunes' password policy, and inattentive parents can make for a pricy game playing experience.

The "Smurf's Village" app, offers "smurfberries" by the bucket, bushel, barrel, wheelbarrow, or wagon-full to users who want the ability to speed up the growth of their village and crops.

A single bucket is just $4.99. But a whole wagon-full is almost $100.

With a couple of quick screen taps, the charges are placed on the iTunes account associated with the iPod or iPad.

Normally, iTunes requires the user's password before any purchases are made. However, once the password is entered, it's not needed again for 15 minutes; not even to complete a pricey transaction.

This loophole is one children found immediately and many parents didn't until it was too late.

Capcom Interactive, Inc., the makers of "Smurfs' Village" are now warning consumers of the real-life charges associated with the game, most notably with a pop-up warning when the game is launched.

But there are plenty other apps for the iPod Touch or iPad that are free to download but have in-game purchase options that charge real money and have no pop-up warnings.

Some parents have balked at the the 15-minute password-free period loophole, but Capcom Interactive, Inc. and other app-makers say they have no control over that.

So what's a concerned parent to do? First, be wary of free apps. Since they're not charging anything to download the software, they're going to try to make money somehow.

Reading reviews on iTunes and online can be helpful, as some of the "upgrades" available are listed with how much they cost.

And while some free apps may offer the ability to disable these pricey "upgrades", it's probably safest to assume they can't be and gamers will have to play at their own risk. Even if they're barely in kindergarten.

That's the enticing allure of the private equity market and its close cousin the private equity secondary market. It's where the big money investors play. And it's become very popular lately as news spreads that a recent auction of 165,000 private equity shares of Facebook sold for $25 a share.

You need at least $200,000 a year in reported income and a net worth of $1 million to qualify as a potential investor in this market and some firms put the bar even higher, at $5 million in investable assets, so unless you have any of those, stop drooling.

But if you do qualify, then see this article as a cautionary tale because there a few things you should know before dipping your toes, or tossing your hard-earned money, into a pool that just could be stocked with a school of hungry piranha.

Should you be among the fortunate few million Americans who actually qualify, you may have received an email recently from a private equity secondary market company.

For example, a friend of mine recently received an email from SharesPost telling her that its affiliated broker dealer has just completed a sealed bid auction of 165,000 shares of the Common Stock of Facebook for $25 a share. It said that if she was interested in participating in the next auction on January 10, 2011 as either a buyer or a seller to contact them. As expected, that auction is already over-subscribed, but not to worry, because Sharespost promises to have more throughout the year.

What's going on?

What you should worry about, however, is just what is really going on here? What are these so-called "shares" that investors are supposed to be buying? Are they actually shares of Facebook? Answer: Not always. So what are they? Answer: It depends, and it depends on a lot of things, all of which are completely out of your control and not that easy to explain, but we'll try.

First, let's look at what we do know.

Facebook CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg went on the CBS program 60 Minutes recently where he proclaimed that he prefers Facebook to remain a private company and has no plans to go public. Now one main reason to invest in private equity is to be able to recoup a substantial return when the company goes public. But if you take that possibility off the table, then what is it that you're investing in?

Greg Brogger, CEO of Sharespost, doesn't seem worried. He says all it means is that Facebook has decided to stay private a while longer simply because it can. Facebook reportedly has so much money already it doesn't really need any more. But there are other companies out there that may need the extra capital a public offering would bring. They just don't happen to be online companies or located in Silicon Valley.

In fact, Facebook and other online hot social networking firms like LinkedIn and Twitter, are fairly representative of the newer breed of online companies that have decided to remain private. This is a different world than what caused the tech bubble at the turn of the century when hundreds of high-tech IPOs flooded the market place. Last year, there were no online-company IPOs and in 2010, less than 10.

Valuation

One of the most difficult aspects of private equity investing is valuation. How do you really know how much a private equity share of a company is really worth when the value of the company is kept private?

Well-known high-tech analystHenry Blodget at Business Insider, who used to be with Merrill Lynch, thinks Facebook is now worth $56 billion. This is much higher than what SharesPost values it at, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $35 billion. Even with Sharesposts number, only two other online companies are estimated to be worth more, Google and China's search leader Baidu, but both of those are traded publicly. So then, where does Sharespost get its figure?

There is an ocean of difference between publicly traded equities and those traded in the private equity secondary market. The main difference is in regulation. The private equity market is barely regulated and shares are not listed on any exchange. Some of that could change when the Financial Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, issues its new rules in July of 2011.

But for now, it is buyer beware and be prepared to lose everything. There are some regulations and restrictions to private equities. Most are offered to individual investors under the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) Rule 506, which allows sales to what it considers accredited investors who have a net worth of $1 million or $200,000 in annual income and Rule 144 that restricts how these shares are sold.

Rule 506 assumes that accredited investors have the sophistication to evaluate private equity investments. That's one heck of an assumption. I know quite a few millionaires and people who earn north of $200,000 a year that couldn't tell the difference between commercial paper and toilet paper, let alone be able know if a share of a private equity offering is worth what it claims.

A better way to judge financial sophistication would be to give them all a test to accurately gauge their financial literacy before allowing them entry into a world of deranged derivatives, strangely structured products and pretentious private placements that often value themselves.

How can anyone expect some 19-year-old basketball player who just received a $5 million signing bonus to know how any of this works when so few within the financial services world even know?

The recent financial overhaul bill enacted in last July directs the SEC to exclude primary residences from the net worth calculation and to study the accredited investor standards. But right now neither the SEC nor state regulators review private equity firms to make sure they aren't taking advantage of wealthy investors who have no idea what they're getting in to. FINRA says complaints about private placements have jumped 35% this year, on top of a more than 50% increase in 2009.

Distinct disadvantage

Granted, most private equity offerings are not fraudulent and can be lucrative for some investors; otherwise the market for them wouldn't be so attractive. Even a casino has to have some winners or no one would place any bets. Still, the lack of information in these markets will put you at a distinct disadvantage, especially since there's not enough disclosure to even reveal the risks involved.

For example, private placement investors lost more than $1 billion in a company called Medical Capital, which offered financing to health-care providers. An oil and gas investment firm named Provident Royalties took private investors for close to half a billion, according to SEC estimates. The SEC says both firms, which are in receivership, made misrepresentations and misappropriated money.

Getting back to Facebook. It's easy to see why there's a feeding frenzy in the secondary private equity market. It has 500 million members and growing daily on a global basis. Just remember, Facebook isn't available in China yet, but Mark Zuckerberg traveled there recently hoping to change all that. So any day now, that 500 million member number could triple.

There are estimates that Facebook generates around $2 billion a year in revenue. But how can we even know that? The company is private so it doesn't have to tell anyone how much it makes except perhaps the IRS.

Recently an issue was raised about whether Facebook needs to be concerned about crossing what's known as the 499-shareholder line. That refers to an SEC rule that states once a private company has 500 shareholders, it has to disclose its financials. So if Facebook has less than 500 real shareholders, what are these other shareholders holding?

Shares in what?

To answer that we need to shed some light on the murky world of the private equity secondary market where you can buy and sell so-called shares of private companies. But what are these shares anyway? Even if they're called "common stock," legally, they're known as pre-existing investor commitments to private equity and other alternative investment funds. Sellers of private equity investments sell not only the investments in the fund but also their remaining unfunded commitments to the funds. What does that mean? What's an unfunded commitment?

There are a number of restrictions imposed on the sale of private equities by Rule 144 that say you have to hold these shares for at least two years before you can sell them and there are further restrictions on who you can sell them to.

Companies like Sharespost.com and its chief competitor, Secondmarket.com, seem to be taking advantage of an SEC rule change that relaxed some of the restrictions on selling shares of private companies.

If you look on SharesPost.com/s website and go to its Legal page you'll read that, "Though each participant in a SharesPost facilitated contract is solely responsible for making their own legal determination about the availability of an exemption from the securities laws, we believe we have constructed the SharesPost process such that Buyer and Seller can generally make use of a section exemption them from Rule 144. Supporting such an exemption is the fact that only SharesPost members with a password protected account are able to participate in postings, only accredited investors can be SharesPost Buyers, and only sellers holding their shares for at least a year can be SharesPost Sellers."

If I'm reading it correctly, SharesPost is trying to say that most investors will qualify under a safe harbor provision in Rule 144. The requirements listed seem focused on meeting the holding periods in Rule 144 and ensuring that this is not a public distribution but a re-sale to specific buyers who pass the sniff test when it comes to being a sophisticated investor.

What's at stake?

So what's at stake here for a company like Facebook? First, re-sales of private equity in the company can threaten to bring the number of shareholders to over 500, triggering full-fledged registration requirements under the SEC. Second, issuers seem to be worried about potential insider trading problems, which prompted Facebook to ban its employees from selling shares on SharesPost.com except during certain windows.

Facebook employees reportedly had sold some of their private Facebook stock to Digital Sky Technologies (DST). It was rumored that after the sale Facebook assigned its rights of first refusal over future secondary sales to DST as well to restrict the number of future shareholders.

You should know that by their nature, most private equities are illiquid. That means, they're not made to be traded but rather held as a long-term investment. For the vast majority of private equity investments, there is no market. There is however, a growing and robust secondary market for sellers of private equity assets.

Now here's a question. Why would any smart private equity investor sell his or her share of Facebook? Answer: chances are they probably wouldn't.

So where are all these so-called "shares" coming from? Since there is no one regulating these things they can come from a number of sources. They could be employees selling their shares or it could involve the sale of private equity fund interests, or portfolios of direct investments in privately held companies through the purchase of these investments from existing institutional investors seeking to diversify their portfolio.

Investments in the secondary private equity market are often made through a third party fund vehicle. Here's where it gets real tricky. These funds are structured like a fund of funds which means they really are investing in another fund that in turns invests in the private company. They are, in a sense, derivatives.

Besides Sharespost, there are a number of secondary market providers including the previously mentioned SecondMarket, which bills itself as "the largest secondary market for illiquid assets." SecondMarket started selling private startup stock in 2008 when one Facebook private equity shareholder asked if SecondMarket could find him a buyer. To say this is a relatively young market is to state the obvious.

SecondMarket says it began facilitating private company stock sales on a regular basis in April of 2009. It claims to have completed $150 to $200 million in private company transactions since then. SecondMarket currently has over $280 million of private company stock listed for sale. For the right buyers, it has over $1 billion worth of private company stock "available" for sale.

The distinction between "listed" and "available" arises out of the fact that while every shareholder has a price, not every shareholder wants to publicly disclose that price. So SecondMarket tries to find out those prices and keep an eye out for potential buyers.

'Sure bets'

Buying shares in hot companies like Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter would seem like sure bets, until they're not. Let's say you own 1% of a company that gets bought for $100. How much of the purchase price is yours? In the case of today's widely publicized tech startups, the answer might be "none."

You've probably never heard the term "liquidation preferences." That ignorance could be expensive if you're thinking about buying shares in companies like Facebook and Twitter on the secondary market.

A liquidation preference is a right given to a startup's early investors, who are typically venture capitalists. If the company is acquired, investors with those preferred shares get the first slice of the proceeds. Common shareholders are in the back of the line and they collect what's left after all liquidation preferences are paid off. That means they could get nothing if a company sells for less than was invested in it.

That's what happened with software maker AmberPoint in February, when Oracle bought it for a reported $50 million. Common private equity shareholders didn't make a cent. For them it was as bad as if there had been a bankruptcy.

Since private companies have no reporting obligations, it's a challenge for potential investors to figure out the liquidity preferences involved in these stocks. There are an estimated 150 pre-IPO companies listed on SharesPost.

But Larry Albukerk, who advises SharesPost customers about social media stocks, says the reports vary in their reliability about liquidation preferences. For example, in a report on SharesPost for Zynga, the social gaming company, the title of a chapter involving liquidation preferences admits that it's "just a total guess."

All this means that investors on secondary markets looking to get in early on the next YouTube, which was bought by Google for $1.6 billion, may be taking on more risk than they realize.

Scott Sandell, general partner with the venture capital firm of New Enterprise Associates, says he's often shocked at the prices being paid on secondary markets for some of the startups that he's invested in as a venture capitalist. He says some people are paying valuations that are completely absurd.

So where does this leave us? There is a secondary market for private equity in companies like Facebook, but it is extremely risky and nearly unregulated. Sharespost.com is not registered with the SEC or FINRA and therefore answers to no regulator body.

You are then enticed to invest in a private equity fund, that in turn, could invest in another private equity fund or some kind of equity arrangement, but any valuation such as suggested share price is pure speculation. It's a guess, based on, well, nothing.

Betting on hype

Sharespost has auctions of these shares that seem like great bets but what are you really betting on? You're betting on all the hype surrounding companies like Facebook. They talk about future IPOs but no one can even predict if there will even be an IPO. In the case of Facebook, even the CEO says there won't.

Still, you enter an auction and bid on some shares and you think you own a percentage of something. But how much is your percentage actually worth? Even with a company like Facebook with an estimated $35 billion dollar valuation, your percentage could amount to zero when you try to cash it out.

As for SharesPost, this is a free membership service that has created stock purchase agreements for most variations of private company stock transactions. It claims to have designed its forms to be straightforward and balanced between Buyer and Seller.

When a member wants to buy or sell his or her private equity shares they have to answer a series of questions such as whether their shares are subject to a stockholders' agreement, right of first refusal, co-sale right or other transfer restriction. If they are, the seller uploads the documents containing the transfer restrictions so that prospective buyers can understand the restrictions that will be applicable to any transaction.

Once the member has reviewed their post, they click "Confirm" and their post goes live on the website. When a member clicks the "Agree to Buy" or "Agree to Sell" link next to a post, the SharesPost system asks them the same questions about their standing under the securities laws.

When a Seller posts a contract to sell, the following process occurs. Her or she:

• Inputs their desired terms such as price and number of shares

• Answers questions relevant to the securities laws

• Indicates which restrictions, if any, are applicable to their shares

• Uploads documents containing any restrictions

• Reviews and confirms post.

Then any prospective buyer reviews the post and transfer restrictions and if the buyer clicks "Agree to Buy" next to seller's post, he or she must:

• Answer questions relevant to the securities laws and suggest a contract for transaction

• Review and electronically sign contract

• Email link to page where they reviewed and counter-signed contract

Now binding agreement is emailed to U.S. Bank for processing of transaction

When a Buyer posts a contract to buy, the following process occurs:

• Buyer answers questions relevant to the securities laws

• Buyer reviews and confirms post

• Prospective sellers review post

• Seller clicks "Agree to Sell" next to buyer's post

• Seller answers questions relevant to the securities laws

• Seller indicates which transfer restrictions, if any, are applicable to their shares

• Seller uploads documents containing any restrictions

• SharesPost suggests a contract for transaction

• Seller reviews and electronically signs contract

• Buyer emails link to page where they review and counter-sign contract

• Now binding agreement is emailed to U.S. Bank for processing of transaction

• Buyer inputs their desired terms such as price and number of shares.

Not so simple is it? Investing in the public markets is tricky enough but to play in the land of private equity you should probably have an advanced MBA. That, or be a really good card counter, although I don't think that skill will help you much in this casino

There are a lot of gullible rich people out there looking to make a killing and when they hear about getting in on the ground floor of a hot company or being able to invest in Facebook, well, what can I say. It's a little like cattle being led blindly down the chute to slaughter.

On the other hand, you could just hit the jackpot. So step and place your bets. The wheel is spinning. And where it stops, nobody knows.

It's hard to beat the combination of pizza and football, particularly with the college bowls cranking up and the NFL playoffs just weeks away.

Frozen versus pizzeria

After buying and baking more than 100 cheese pies, Consumer Reports found that, yes -- frozen pizza can satisfy. Amy's Cornmeal Crust 3 Cheese, Home Run Inn Classic and DiGiorno Rising Crust Four Cheese all garnered a CR Best Buy -- leading the ratings.

The best frozen pizzas, a trio of very different but very good pies, included the artisanal Amy's Cornmeal Crust 3 Cheese, the priciest pie tested at $7.99. Amy's won points for its combination of fresh-tasting vegetables, herbs, and dollops of goat cheese over a flavorful cornmeal crust.

The Chicago-style Home Run Inn Classic Cheese, $7.42, features a generous blanket of tasty cheese and abundant sauce over a pastry-style crust. The Italian-style DiGiorno Rising Crust Four Cheese, $6.47, has lots of cheese and sauce over a thick, chewy crust.

Could be better

But Consumer Reports found room for improvement, since no pies were excellent. Shoppers shouldn't buy by brand, CR says, noting that its Best Buy DiGiorno pie scored higher than the other DiGiorno pies tested. The same was true of the Red Baron pizzas tested.

"Frozen pizzas are convenient and more cost effective than a pizzeria and according to our tests, they can also offer quality," said a Consumer Reports expert."Shoppers should take into account more than just price when purchasing, ingredients and nutritional components factor into the overall experience."

Testing the pies

In Consumer Reports' frozen pizza taste test, cheese pies were the focus.They are one of the most popular types, according to the National Frozen Pizza Institute, a trade organization. Seven trained CR sensory panelists tasted each brand three times in an order designed to eliminate bias. They didn't know which pizza they tasted and all samples were coded with three-digit numbers. Testers graded crust, cheese, and sauce separately then also gave an overall impression of each pie.

The frozen pizzas were also rated based on nutrition. All brands scored adequately, but Consumer Reports discovered quite a range in calories (260 to 380), fat (9 to 18 grams), saturated fat (3.5 to 9 grams), and sodium (570 to 870 milligrams) per serving.

Top-rated Amy's stood out as the lowest in saturated fat and among the lowest in sodium, while Red Baron Fire Baked scored Fair because it was among the highest in calories, total fat, and saturated fat. Consumer Reports ratings are based on manufacturer's suggested serving size.