Current Events in March 2012

Eating more red meat appears to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and death from cardiovascular disease and cancer, but substituting other foods including fish and poultry for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk, according to a study published Online First by Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

“We found that a higher intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of total, CVD and cancer mortality, and this association was observed for unprocessed and processed red meat, with a relatively greater risk for processed red meat,” the authors said. “Substitution of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products and whole grains for red meat was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality.”

Meat is a major source of protein and fat in many diets and previous studies suggest that eating meat is associated with increased risk for diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and certain cancers, the authors write in their study background.

An Pan, Ph.D., of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies with repeated measures of diet and up to 28 years of follow-up. Data from 37,698 men and 83,644 women were used. Researchers documented 23,926 deaths, including 5,910 from CVD and 9,464 from cancer.

The elevated risk of total mortality in the pooled analysis for a one-serving-per-day increase was 12 percent for total red meat, 13 percent for unprocessed red meat and 20 percent for processed red meat, the results indicate.

Good for the planet

In an invited commentary, Dean Ornish, M.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, writes: “In addition to their health benefits, the food choices we make each day affect other important areas as well. What is personally sustainable is globally sustainable. What is good for you is good for our planet.”

“More than 75 percent of the $2.6 trillion in annual U.S. health care costs are from chronic disease. Eating less red meat is likely to reduce morbidity from these illnesses, thereby reducing health care costs,” he comments.

Substitution analysis

In their substitution analyses, the authors estimated that replacing one serving of total red meat with one serving of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products or whole grains daily was associated with a lower risk of total mortality: 7 percent for fish, 14 percent for poultry, 19 percent for nuts, 10 percent for legumes, 10 percent for low-fat dairy products and 14 percent for whole grains.

“We estimated that 9.3 percent in men and 7.6 percent in women of total deaths during follow-up could be prevented if all the participants consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day of total red meat in these cohorts,” they comment.

It's fair to say gasoline prices have reached the “ouch” level, as far as consumers are concerned. Prices are at a record high for mid-March and are on pace to eclipse an average of $4 a gallon nationwide by Memorial day.

A new Gallup Poll shows consumers want Congress and the White House to do something – anything – to bring prices down. When asked “do you think the president and Congress should or should not take immediate action to try to control rising prices, 85 percent of adults said they should.

Interestingly, that sentiment is pretty much shared on a bipartisan basis. Ninety percent of Republicans and Republican leaners answered yes, along with 81 percent of Democrats and Democrat leaners.

Political football

Still, gasoline prices and the government's energy policy have become part of the political mix in an election year. Republicans have criticized President Obama's opposition to the Keystone pipeline, which would carry Canadian oil across the U.S. The also point out that gasoline prices were well under $2 a gallon when Obama took office in January 2009.

However, in fairness to the President, it should be noted that gas prices averaged over $4 a gallon six months earlier. They only went down because the price of oil plunged over fears the global economy was headed for a depression. They began rising again once it was clear a depression was off the table.

But getting back to the Gallup poll – what, in fact, could the government do to bring down the price of gasoline? Back in 1973, President Richard Nixon imposed price controls on gasoline in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, resulting in shortages, that in turn resulted in gas lines. The U.S. is unlikely to return to such a system.

Speculators under fire

Democrats in Congress are targeting speculators in the oil futures market, blaming them for driving up the price of oil. While Wall Street reports that it's simply a case of market forces at work, and that traders are reacting to very real fears of a future supply disruption, there can be little argument that the massive flow of money, much of it from large hedge funds, into the oil futures market bids up the price of oil futures, much as enthusiasm for Internet stocks in the late 1990s fueled the dot-com bubble.

There is a natural tendency among those who have invested in the market to want oil prices to go even higher, because they make money when they do. When oil prices plunged from $147 a barrel to below $40, it was great for consumers but many traders lost millions.

Federal commodities regulators could require larger margin holdings for oil traders to discourage speculators. Congress could pass a large tax on profits from the sale of oil futures. How either would affect the markets and the price of gasoline is a subject for debate.

Influencing the market

However, trying to influence the oil futures market might be a viable way to benefit consumers in the long run.

Traders are investing because they believe oil prices will continue to go up. Once they believe prices have a ceiling, they will be less likely to invest because the risk will be greater. So, how to raise the risk for oil traders?

Once answer might be in plain sight. In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama embraced the idea of converting part of America's transportation fleet to run on plentiful and cheap natural gas. Republicans are generally in favor of this idea as well.

How would traders react?

It would be interesting to observe how oil traders would react if the government announced a serious program of natural gas conversion, with realistic benchmarks and time tables. The message to the oil markets would be the U.S., at least, is serious about weening itself from oil.

As natural gas as a motor fuel began to come online, U.S. oil demand presumably would begin to fall. Since markets are focused on the future, the outlook for increasingly higher oil prices would be less certain, so less money might flow into the market. With less money flowing into the market, the price might fall.

Consumers expect action

Regardless whether any of these suggestions would work, the Gallup poll makes clear U.S. consumers expect their leaders to try something. The poll found that 65 percent of Americans believe there is some action that Congress and the president can take to control rising prices.

The national average price of gasoline, as measured by the daily AAA Fuel Gauge survey, has exceeded $4 a gallon only once – in July 2008. It came within one and a half cents last year – peaking at $3.985 per gallon – during the first week of May 2011.

It began to fall only because of mounting evidence that a U.S. economic recovery had stalled, most likely due to rising gasoline prices. Consumers and economists are hoping history doesn't repeat itself this year, but are worried that it will.

On the other hand ...

Consumers can complain all they like but it may be time to wake up and smell the gas fumes.  Whether you're a Tea Partier who thinks government should stay out of private markets or an earnest liberal who champions a global economy, it's clear that oil and gas are commodities traded on the gobal market.  The U.S. is competing with other countries for this precious commodity.  

What's the best way to bring down the price of a commodity? That's right: buy less of it.  Consumers should self-insured by buying energy-efficient cars and modifying their lifestyles to conserve energy.

The days of cheap energy are gone. Get used to it.

Search engines remain popular — and users are more satisfied than ever with the quality of search results — but many are anxious about the collection of personal information by search engines and other websites and say they do not like the idea of personalized search results or targeted advertising.

On personalized search:

• 73% of search users supported a statement that they would not be okay with a search engine keeping track of their searches and using that information to personalize future search results because they feel it is an invasion of privacy; 23% supported a statement that they are okay with a search engine keeping track of their searches and using that information to personalize future search results, even if it means they are gathering information about users.
  
• 65% of search users supported a statement that it’s a bad thing if a search engine collected information about their searches and then used it to rank future search results, because it may limit the information they get online and what search results they see; 29% backed a statement that it is a good thing if a search engine collected information about their searches and then used it to rank future search results, because it gives results that are more relevant.

On targeted advertising:

• 68% of internet users agree with a statement that they are not okay with targeted advertising because they don’t like having their online behavior tracked and analyzed; 28% backed a statement that they are okay with targeted advertising because it means they see advertisements and get information about things they are really interested in.

These findings come from a February 2012 Pew Internet Project survey, which finds that 91% of online adults use search engines to find information on the web, including 59% of those who do so on any given day.

Search results OK

Though they generally do not support targeted search or ads, these users report very positive outcomes when it comes to the quality of information search provides, and more positive than negative experiences using search:

• 91% of search engine users say they always or most of the time find the information they are seeking when they use search engines
• 86% of search engines users learned something new or important that really helped them or increased their knowledge
• 73% of search engine users say that most or all the information they find as they use search engines is accurate and trustworthy
• 66% of search engine users say search engines are a fair and unbiased source of information
• 50% of search engines users found a really obscure fact or piece of information they thought they would not be able to find

'Generally uncomfortable'

“Search engines are increasingly important to people in their navigation of information spaces, but users are generally uncomfortable with the idea of their search histories being used to target information to them,” said Kristen Purcell, Pew Internet associate director for research and author of the report. “A clear majority of searchers say that they feel that search engines keeping track of search history is an invasion of privacy, and they also worry about their search results being limited to what’s deemed relevant to them.”

The Pew Internet survey finds that 38% of online adults say they are aware of ways to limit how much personal information websites can collect about them. Of those who are aware of ways to limit data collection, some of the popular tactics include: 81% delete their web history, 75% use the privacy settings of websites to control what’s captured about them, and 65% change their browser settings to limit the information that is collected.  

“Many people express concerns about targeted search and ads, but most internet users don’t have a sense that they can take steps to limit the amount of personal information that is captured and used by search engines and websites,” said Joanna Brenner, Pew Internet web coordinator and report co-author.

Other key findings in the report:

• Asked which search engine they use most often, 83% of search users say Google
• Half of adult search users (52%) say search results have gotten more relevant and useful over time
• 56% of searchers say they are very confident in their search abilities
• Younger search users (age 18-29) tend to view the practice of search engines collecting information about them more favorably than older search users
• Online men are significantly more likely than women to report knowing ways to limit how much personal information websites can collect about them (42% vs. 35%)

Mistakes happen. Through not fault of your own, you may discover that your credit report contains inaccurate information.

If the inaccuracy details an open debt that is closed, or was never yours in the first place, this information can be a problem. Sharon, of Greensboro, N.C., ran into just such a problem.

“The University of Phoenix sent me a bill for classes that I took for one semester and I paid the bill off,” Sharon wrote in a post at ConsumerAffairs. “They sent me a receipt saying I had paid in full, which I still have in my possession. Now I get a credit report saying that I owe the University of Phoenix again. I have called the school and they have concurred with my having paid them but still haven't taken the default off of my financial record. What else can I do to resolve this injustice?"

Fixing the problem

There are steps consumers can take to correct their credit report. Sharon's case should be relatively easy, since she possesses a paid receipt and University of Phoenix acknowledges her payment. According to personal finance experts, here's what Sharon should do:

First, she should obtain copies of her credit report from all three credit reporting bureaus – Experian, Trans Union and Equifax. To do that, she should go the completely free Annual Credit Report Request Service at www.AnnualCreditReport.com. She will not have to provide a credit card number or sign up for any kind of service. She may obtain copies of her credit report from each bureau for free once every 12 months.

Next, she should locate the erroneous information on all three reports. It's possible that the inaccurate entry shows up on only one or two of the bureaus' reports. If so, she only has to dispute it with those bureaus.

Filing a dispute

To dispute the entry, Sharon may call the credit bureau, send a certified letter, or even do it at the credit bureau's website. She'll have to provide her personal identification and a description of what is wrong, and what the correct information is. This is where her paid receipt comes in handy. She can provide a copy to bolster her case.

After she files her dispute, the bureau has 30 days to investigate the matter, and a dispute notation will show up on her credit report. The University of Phoenix will have this time to verify the information, and if it can’t prove it’s accurate, the bureau will stop reporting it.

Updated report

When the credit bureau completes the process, it will Sharon a written report covering what it found, and an updated copy of her credit report if it resulted in any change.

It's a good idea to check your credit reports once a year, looking for inaccurate information that could lower your credit score. Just make sure, when you obtain your reports, you use the official, truly free site, www.AnnualCreditReport.com.

Japanese heavyweight Honda, as well as the emerging South Korean Hyundai company and Porsche, the ever-popular German maker of high-end specialty cars, took top marks in TrueCar's February rankings.  

TrueCar gave its top brand marks to Hyundai and its sister company Kia, and Toyota’s Scion brand.

TrueCar gets its data directly from a network of dealers, and the monthly  Performance Scorecard looks at how manufacturers and makes of vehicles are doing in terms of pricing incentives, as well as customer loyalty and other criteria.

Other companies didn’t fare so well: Volvo, Suzuki and Saab got the lowest manufacturer scores, with the Suzuki, Smart and Saab brands at the bottom of the list. Saab, for its part, has hugged the bottom for many consecutive quarters, and in a December story, we reported on the final demise of the quirky Swedish car maker.

Volvo and Suzuki both got rather low marks on customer loyalty without winning any accolades for concessions on overall average pricing.

Another thing that the TrueCar report shows is who is moving ahead, and who’s dropping back. In February’s report, Honda moved from an A- to a solid A, and Jaguar/Land Rover, newly acquired by Indian Tata Motor Company, moved from a B+ to an A-. Subaru and Nissan each moved up incrementally, to B+ and C+ respectively, while Toyota and Chrysler each moved from a C+ to a B-.

In other news, Daimler fell a solid letter grade (from A to B) while Mitsubishi slid from a B- to a C- and Mazda slipped from a B- to a C+.

In terms of Daimler’s lower marks, the full text of the TrueCar report shows that the auto maker got its lowest scores on discounts from MSRP and overall pricing, while ConsumerAffairs has also gotten quite a few complaints about customer service related issues, some having to do with Daimler's Global Electric Motorcar or GEM.

Meanwhile, Mitsubishi scored zeros on both customer loyalty and inventory management, while Mazda took a hit on pricing.

Some consumers who bought Florida timeshares when times were good are now desperate to unload them. So desperate that they fall for timeshare resale scams, which promise they have a buyer but first demand an upfront fee.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi says she teamed with the Delray Beach Police Department to arrest two people she accuses of running just such a scheme. Bondi has sued William Clarke, P.A., and its owner, Gerald W. Clarke; and Provident Choice, LLC, and its owner, Nicholas Paul. Bondi says both individuals have been arrested.

The suit charges that G. William Clarke, P.A., Provident Choice, LLC, Gerald W. Clarke, and Nicholas Paul were operating  as  unlicensed telemarketers,  targeting  consumers who were previous victims of timeshare resale  fraud. Bondi says the defendants collected up-front fees ranging from $400 to$4,000  and  promised  to  assist  consumers  with obtaining refunds from a non-existent state restitution fund. Additionally, the companies claimed to be  working  with  various state agencies, including the Attorney General’s Office.

Second suit

In a second case, Bondi has filed suit against TS Luxury Group, Inc., another timeshare resale company, and its owner, Mary Filocomo. According to the lawsuit, the company also promised timeshare owners they would sell their property in exchange for an upfront fee.

The Attorney General’s Office is seeking more than $550,000 in restitution for consumers, and ultimately a permanent injunction prohibiting TS Luxury and Filocomo from engaging in similar business practices.

Bondi says an investigation determined that TS Luxury Group, Inc. allegedly marketed its services by making false and fraudulent misrepresentations. Specifically, the company contacted consumers and falsely claimed that it had procured interested or actual buyers for the consumers’ timeshares.

The company also required an up-front fee for its services and often provided written contracts to consumers which contained language that was completely different from the oral representations made earlier by company representatives.

Unresolved issues

This isn't the first time the company has had a scrape with the state of Florida. In August, 2010, TS Luxury and its owner entered into a binding settlement agreement with the Office of the Attorney General. TS Luxury and its owner, Mary Filocomo, were required to resolve and/or to pay more than $110,000 in initial consumer claims and to thereafter to pay any new claims against the company which arose within a certain time frame. Neither the company nor its owner resolved and/or paid the consumer claims as required, Bondi says.

Renting a car used to mean finding the nearest location of a big national rental chain and being prepared to pay big bucks. Now, a peer-to-peer service called RelayRides promises to change all that.

The way RelayRides tells it, would-be renters can just get on the Internet, input their location, and rent a nearby car from a neighbor.

RelayRides says it's the first company to offer this kind of car rental service, not just in big cities, but across the U.S., through a process that the firm calls “key-exchange” where renters just log in and sign up to rent a set of wheels owned by a local title-holder, by the hour.

“Sign up to request a car you like, or get an ‘Instant Reservation’ on the car of your dreams.” prompts the RelayRides web site in a tutorial for renters. “When it’s time for your trip, simply meet the owner to pick up the keys.”

Type in a location on the site, and you’ll be greeted with a list of offers with titles like “Dave’s 2011 Toyota Camry,” “Sharon’s Jeep,” or “Vinny’s Nissan.” Another click, and you’ll see photos and a detailed description of the ‘rental car’, along with more photos and info about the driver.

Insurance questions

The benefits of this kind of system are evident: Rather than the effort and additional cost of getting to a single point of service, renters can find cars near them for informal rental, which can be much less expensive than going the legacy route with standard contracts from rental shops.

Owners, for their part, can rent out their vehicles for a steady stream of revenue.

As for the downsides, some of those are pretty intuitive as well. Forums on new advances in this kind of car-sharing service are packed with comments on the insurance liabilities involved, with a basic question coming up again and again: Who covers these additional drivers?

The short answer, according to RelayRides, is that the P2P company does. In a telephone interview, RelayRides representatives confirmed that renting drivers are covered by a policy taken out by the company, not by the vehicle owner’s policy.

However, outside reports are more circumspect. A recent article on Bankrate urges vehicle owners contemplating these arrangements to take out additional uninsured driver coverage and pursue a “caution-yellow” approach, without specifying what liability might come back on the vehicle owner in a crash.

For its part, RelayRides cites a “$1 million insurance policy and market-leading security safeguards” meant to put all parties at ease. But for those who really understand America’s state-by-state auto insurance system, a collision scenario is just the beginning: what about state legislation on P2P car sharing? What about mechanical breakdowns, broken accessories, or even the chance that some driver will try to pass off damage as happening on someone else’s watch?

Legal challenges

A cursory look at state legislation shows that, while many states may be loosening their standards on car sharing, these arrangements have only recently been approved in states including Oregon, while car-sharing companies in states like California have faced legal challenges.

That’s not to mention other kinds of issues where a renter might not get the kind of environment they were expecting. One would assume that personal loaners aren’t sanitized the way traditional rental cars are, and that car sharing firms might find themselves in the middle of debates on anything from gum in the ashtrays to stains on the seats.

Regardless, the enthusiasm for this kind of informal rental is evident -- Zipcar and lesser-known competitors have been growing quickly. Then there's the grudge many consumers harbor for traditional car rental companies. While business travelers -- the mainstay of legacy car rental companies -- aren't like to switch to peer-to-peer, it's hard to imagine consumers won't give it a try.

For drivers who never thought fixing a car would mean debugging software code, recent news from Ford might be a bit of a wake-up call.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports that Ford is issuing owners of Explorer, Edge, Focus and Lincoln vehicles a USB flash drive meant to solve issues with some of the computerized on-board systems that have been giving drivers problems.

Many of these fixes are for Ford’s MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch touch-screen systems meant to control audio, navigation and other features. Drivers are reporting serious malfunctions of these features, including blank screens, errors in calculating mpg, and other big glitches.

But Ford is also looking at fixing the new PowerShift transmission on some of its Fiesta models and other vehicles; a New York Times report from late last year shows drivers are also experiencing problems with improper shifting.

Harsh criticism

Meanwhile, both Consumer Reports and J.D. Power and Associates have slammed Ford in recent reports, citing the infotainment and transmission issues. Both of these top consumer rating venues dropped Ford more than a few slots in the most current review of auto makers, mentioning these high-tech errors.

For its part, Consumer Reports has been reviewing the Ford touch-screen for months. A video from the site shows auto engineer Tom Mutchler pointing out some of the inherent problems with these systems early in the game. Among them: the buttons on the touch screen are small, and there are a lot of them. Using them while driving is difficult, even if everything is working smoothly. And if you’re wearing gloves, changing settings this way can be an exercise in frustration.

To be fair, there are alternatives for controlling items like the cabin temperature and audio settings, including other dashboard controls, steering wheel mounted controls and even Ford’s voice-recognition SYNC system. However, Ford is taking the criticism of its touch-screen design seriously and promising to both work out bugs and increase the size of future touch controls.

The Bloomberg report and other coverage reveals that Ford owners can use the USB drive themselves to update the technology, or less tech-savvy drivers can take the drive to a dealership for new software installation.

This kind of nuts-and-bolts administration of a car repair based solely on software programming represents part of a quick and extensive sea change in automotive technology.

For many years now, vehicles have had computerized diagnostic systems for engines, but we’re just starting to see other parts of a car move from being manual to being controlled by software (think Toyota’s "computerized throttle" and its role in the massive recalls of the past few years). Ford’s efforts to re-invent its touch-screens are a preview to a time when more of your auto repairs will get delivered in the mail, or even by email.

In its latest anti-trust crackdown, the Justice Department has officially warned Apple and five of the biggest American publishers that it plans to sue them for allegedly colluding to drive up the price of electronic books, the Wall Street Journal reports today.

Based on early reports, the Justice Department's case is similar to an anti-trust suit filed last August by by attorney Jeff Friedman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a Berkeley, Calif., law firm.

Friedman's suit claims Apple conspired with five major publishers to raise the price of e-books, dominate the market and force Amazon to stop selling at a discount. The conspiracy worked so well that e-books now cost as much or more than paperbacks, the suit alleges.

Although the Justice Department has not commented publicly, the allegations in its pending action are thought to follow the same general theory.

Reports say at least some of the potential targets of the suit -- Apple and the publishers -- have asked to open settlement talks to avoid litigation.

A little history

Friedman's suit traces the history of e-books, noting that when Amazon introduced the Kindle back in November 2007, its “electronic ink” technology was such a hit that supplies of the original Kindle sold out in less than six hours.

Besides portability and instant delivery, e-books greatly reduce the costs associated with brick-and-mortar publishing. But the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, says large publishing houses quickly realized that e-publishing also represented a huge threat to their profit margins.

Amazon was selling Kindle e-books for $9.99 or less, while hardcover editions of the same books sold for more than $20. Faced with this threat to their business model, the suit says, publishers teamed up with Apple to “fight back in an effort to restrain trade and retard innovation.”

“Given Amazon’s first-mover advantage and ever growing installed user base, publishers knew that no single publisher could slow down Amazon and unilaterally force an increase in e-book retail prices. If one publisher acted alone to try and raise prices for its titles, that publisher would risk immediately losing a substantial (and growing) volume of sales,” the suit charges.

“Not wanting to risk a significant loss of sales in the fastest growing market (e-book sales), the publishers … solved this problem through coordinating between themselves (and Apple) to force Amazon to abandon its pro-consumer pricing.”

Support from Apple

The suit says the conspiracy would not have succeeded without Apple's support.

“Apple had strong incentives to help the [publishers] restrain trade and increase the price of eBooks. If Amazon continued to solidify its dominant position in the sale of eBooks, strong network effects would make it difficult to dislodge Amazon. Moreover, Amazon’s pro-consumer pricing meant that to enter the e-books market Apple would likely be forced to sell at least some e-books near or below its wholesale costs for an extended period of time.”

Other findings

What to do

With the rise in restaurant dining and processed food, more consumers have suffered from rising blood pressure, a key risk factor for heart attack and stroke.

The reason? Both restaurants and food manufacturers go heavy on the salt, in an effort to enhance the flavor of their products. Unfortunately, salt is a major source of sodium in the diet, one of the key contributors to high blood pressure.

But another trend may be helping the situation. Renewed interest in home cooking, aided by cooking shows and celebrity chefs on cable TV, is leading to more home-cooked meals, where it is much easier to control the sodium content of food.

“As dietitians we often tell people to take things away from their diet,” said culinary dietitian Gavin Pritchard, RD, from Greenwich Hospital’s Weight Loss & Diabetes Center. “I like to tell people they don’t have to eliminate things they like, but back off on the amount you use. I prefer to emphasize adding things, in this case – herbs and spices.”

Spices are the key

If you enjoy cooking, or want to learn how to do it better, Pritchard suggests putting down the saltshaker and adding spices to improve flavor and health. Here are his 10 tips for making food better tasting and more healthy:

1. Treat yourself to fresh herbs, readily available in supermarkets, on occasion, and keep a good assortment of dried spices on hand for convenience.
2. Replace your dried herbs and spices every six months for most robust flavor. Mark spice bottles with the purchase date so you know when to replace them.
3. Be generous with herbs. It’s hard to add too many fresh herbs like parsley, dill, tarragon, basil or rosemary. However, it’s easy to overpower a dish with too many fresh spices like cloves or nutmeg.
4. Let your taste buds be your guide. When adding herbs and spices, add gradually and taste as you go. You’ll know when it’s to your liking. This prevents you from overdoing it.
5. If you’re using dried herbs, add them early in the cooking process so they reconstitute. If using fresh herbs, add a little in the beginning, and then add a big bunch toward the end of cooking to get a boost of both flavor and color.
6. Use different types of wine (including rice wine) and vinegars (including flavored vinegars.)A reduction of vinegar, wine or a combination makes a powerfully tasty sauce without the need to add salt or fat.
7. Shop for garlic powder rather than garlic salt, onion powder rather than onion salt, and read the ingredients when you buy dried spices to make sure there is no added salt in the product.
8. Make your own blends of seasoned salt, using the flavors you like the most. Add salt if you like, but not enough to dominate the ingredient list. Crush dried herbs between your palms before adding to spice mixes. This will release the oils to produce more flavor.
9. For more intense flavor, toast whole spices over high heat in a dry, heavy skillet before grinding them into a powder. This helps to release more flavor. Heat, while stirring, until you can smell the spice. Let cool before grinding.
10. If possible, buy whole spices and grind as you need them for more potent flavor. Purchase an inexpensive coffee grinder to use strictly for grinding spices, making sure to clean the grinder well after each use.

A new initiative by Chrysler will allow the car maker’s dealerships to sell certified pre-owned cars from competing companies. Chrysler says its Fiat dealerships will now back a used vehicle of various non-Chrysler brands. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram dealerships are expected to follow suit in 60 days.

Chrysler dealers won’t just be slapping a certification on any pre-owned car or truck; reports from CNN Money and other sources show that vehicles meeting Chrysler’s criteria will need to be late-model buys newer than the 2008 model year, with less than 48,000 miles on the odometer. After a full inspection, Chrysler will give passing vehicles a 5-year, 60,000-mile warranty.

Though hawking competitors’ wares might not make sense on its face, industry analysts suggest that the program can help Chrysler in two main ways -- first, by allowing dealers to offer more for trade-in values on Chrysler-certified models, and also by keeping more used vehicles coming back to the dealer for routine maintenance, accessories, and everything else related to typical costs of ownership for a late-model vehicle.

Also, media releases cite Eric Swanson, Head of Certified Pre-Owned Vehicles at Chrysler Group, as saying this program gives customers “another option to consider.”

Anemic sales

Reports suggest Chrysler is pursuing other avenues to help offset flagging sales for its new Fiat 500 product, though some recent months have seen growing sales numbers for this small, Euro-styled car that Chrysler/Fiat is now promoting as the new American ride.

Review of marketing strategies for this car shows that the new partnership has put a lot of effort into celebrity-driven marketing for the Fiat 500, with a heavily promoted ad campaign showing Jennifer Lopez piloting one of these mini-cars around New York City. Still, a current report from Auto News indicates Fiat 500 sales leave something to be desired, leaving execs scrambling for other ways to increase revenue.

Other recent projects include the development of a “Mopar e-Store” to promote the Chrysler-owned catalog of accessory products, and FlexTech, a makeover for dealer offices that’s meant to contribute to better branding.

Freeing dealers to sell a greater diversity of pre-owned vehicles might be one way to ramp up revenue, especially for dealers with a deliberate focus on maintenance and repair, where shops that have invested heavily in promoting their services need a longer roster of returning customers.

However, critics might point to the extra responsibility of vouching for non-house brand vehicles, and the potential for customer confusion, since traditionally, dealerships were a fortress for a particular brand, and customers looking for a wider variety of pre-owned cars scoured the lots of independent sellers.

If everything pans out the way the top brass at Chrysler are hoping, this new program could become an example for other manufacturers trying to compete in the North American market. Look for more on this program as the broader community of Chrysler dealerships add non-Chrysler vehicles to their lots during the spring.

California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced the arrests of the owners and managing attorney of a law firm that took thousands of dollars in up-front loan modification fees for services that were never performed for homeowners, many of whom ended up losing their homes. 

Gregory Flahive of El Dorado Hills, 39, Cynthia Flahive of Folsom, 41, and Mike Johnson of Elk Grove, 42, were arrested on 19 felony counts, including grand theft by false pretense, conspiracy and false advertising. They were booked at the Sacramento County Jail with bail set at $50,000 bail each. 

"Homeowners facing foreclosure are being targeted by predators, including those who use their law license to gain credibility and scam innocent Californians," Harris said. "My office's Mortgage Fraud Strike Force is dedicated full-time to cracking down on these deceptive practices and protecting homeowners from fraud like this." 

Gregory and Cynthia Flahive, ex-spouses and owners of Flahive Law Corporation, and Johnson, the firm's managing attorney, took up-front fees of up to $2,500 from homeowners in Placer, Sacramento, Butte and Yuba counties for loan modification services that were never performed, Harris said. In California, it is illegal for foreclosure consultants to collect money for services before they are performed. 

Infomercials

The Folsom-based law firm advertised their services on flyers, radio and televised infomercials, offering to provide loan modification services and help clients with bankruptcy, IRS tax relief and credit card modification. 

In a 2010 infomercial, the Flahives said that, as a law firm, they had "extra leverage" with the banks. They described one of their unique services as a "mortgage violation audit" in which they reviewed a client's loan documents to find bank violations that could be used as leverage to modify a client's home loan. 

In fact, the investigation revealed that, in some instances, the client's lender had no record of contact with the Flahive Law Corporation. 

Former clients of the Flahive Law Corporation filed complaints with the Attorney General's office, as well as with the Better Business Bureau and the State Bar of California. 

The State Bar of California launched an investigation, which was turned over to the Attorney General's Mortgage Fraud Strike Force in summer 2011. 

In one example of the firm's deceptive practices, a victim who sought to lower his mortgage payments was told by Gregory Flahive to reject his lender's offer of modification. The homeowner was told the Flahive Law Corporation could secure a better interest rate, reduce his principal, and possibly get his second mortgage eliminated. Four months later, the victim lost his home to foreclosure. 


Agencies that assisted in serving today's search and arrest warrants include the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), the Folsom Police Department, the Rancho Cordova Police Department and the El Dorado Sheriff's Department. 

"SIGTARP and its law enforcement partners are shutting down mortgage modification fraud, and holding a degree in law will not be a sufficient defense against prosecution," said Christy Romero, Deputy Special Inspector General for SIGTARP. 

The clocks move forward one hour on March 11, as most of the U.S. goes on Daylight Savings time. In addition to arriving early at appointments if you forget to reset your clocks, you could be at greater risk for a heart attack.

“The Monday and Tuesday after moving the clocks ahead one hour in March is associated with a 10 percent increase in the risk of having a heart attack,” said Martin Young, an associate professor at the University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB). “The opposite is true when falling back in October. This risk decreases by about 10 percent.”

The Sunday morning of the time change doesn’t require an abrupt schedule change, but, Young says, heart-attack risk peaks on Monday when most people rise earlier to go to work.

A number of theories

“Exactly why this happens is not known but there are several theories,” Young says. “Sleep deprivation, the body’s circadian clock and immune responses all can come into play when considering reasons that changing the time by an hour can be detrimental to someone’s health.”

Why is losing an hour of sleep risky? Young says people who are sleep-deprived also tend to suffer more from diabetes and heart disease.

“Sleep deprivation also can alter other body processes, including inflammatory response, which can contribute to a heart attack,” Young said.

And, your reaction to sleep deprivation and the time change also depends on whether you are a morning person or night owl. Night owls have a much more difficult time with springing forward.

Circadian clock

You says every cell in the body has its own clock that allows it to anticipate when something is going to happen and prepare for it. When there is a shift in one’s environment, such as springing forward, it takes a while for the cells to readjust.

“It’s comparable to knowing that you have a meeting at 2 p.m. and having time to prepare your presentation instead of being told at the last minute and not being able to prepare,” he said. “The internal clocks in each cell can prepare it for stress or a stimulus. When time moves forward, cell clocks are anticipating another hour to sleep that they won’t get, and the negative impact of the stress worsens; it has a much more detrimental effect on the body.”

Preparation

Fortunately, there are ways to counterbalance the negative aspects of the time change. Young suggests waking up earlier on Saturday and Sunday than you need to in preparation for the early start on Monday. Eat a good-sized breakfast and get exposure to sunlight early in the day. If healthy enough to exercise, do so over the weekend.

“Doing all of this will help reset both the central, or master, clock in the brain that reacts to changes in light/dark cycles, and the peripheral clocks — the ones everywhere else including the one in the heart — that react to food intake and physical activity,” Young said. “This will enable your body to naturally synch with the change in the environment, which may lessen your chance of adverse health issues on Monday.”

If it seems like prescription drug prices are rising rapidly, it's because they are.  In fact, a survey by AARP finds that the cumulative change in retail prices for a combined set of prescription drugs widely used by Medicare beneficiaries was almost double the rate of inflation between 2005 and 2009.

For a consumer who takes a prescription drug on a chronic basis, this translates into an increase in the annual cost of therapy of more than $1,000 over the same time period.

“At a time when our country is contracting economically and inflation is really, really low, inflation in the cost of prescription drugs is going in the other direction,” said Cheryl Matheis, senior vice president for policy strategy at AARP. “The word we use is relentless because it just doesn’t seem to abate.”

AARP said the increases were attributable entirely to drug price growth among brand and specialty drugs, which more than offset substantial price decreases among generic drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry criticized the report, saying the expanded availability of generic drugs has slowed the increase in drug prices in recent years.

“AARP has released yet another misleading pricing report that ignores key facts about the marketplace for prescription medicines and paints an inaccurate picture of prescription drug spending in the U.S.,” the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade and lobbying group, said in a statement.

AARP's Rx Watchdog report series has been tracking manufacturer price changes for widely used prescription drugs since 2004. 

It's a good idea to check your credit reports once a year, to guard against identity theft.

The government even makes it easier, mandating that all consumers be allowed access to their credit reports from all three credit reporting agencies – Experian, TransUnion and Equifax – once a year.

The feds set up a special website for consumers to gain this access: www.annualcreditreport.com. That site – and only that site – provides the free access to credit reports. All others carry a fee or commitment.

Why, you might ask, didn't the feds use the ".gov" domain suffix, which woud have it made it crystal-clear that the consumer was on the right site?

Good question.  Maybe someone thought it would be "cool" to have a .com name.

Whatever the reason for the feds' foolishness, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is advising consumers to avoid companies that advertise "free" credit reports but require consumers to purchase products or services to access their annual credit report.

Just use the official site

Even though consumers can get free credit reports through the government-mandated site, Masto says many companies claim to offer free credit reports – and some actually do.

However, consumers should know that other companies may give them a report only if they buy other products or services. Still others say they are providing consumers a “free” report and then bill consumers for services such as credit monitoring, that they have to cancel, sometimes within a 7-day trial membership to avoid any fees.

Tammy, of Fox Lake, Ill., went for an offer like that.

“Well, we needed a credit report to move so I thought I would just use the trial and end membership last September 2011,” Tammy wrote in a post at ConsumerAffairs. “I called spoke with someone they said they would take care of it for me and send me an email. Well, I did not think of it much after until today when I started going through my bank statements. so I called them they said I never cancelled my husband's account. I did, but they are telling me I did not. I asked for a refund they gave me one month back but charged me since September.”

Asking for a credit card is red flag

Tammy would not have incurred that expense had she gone to the official site, which is completely free and requires no commitments of any kind. The tip-off for consumers is when a supposedly free service asks for a credit card number. Once you supply billing information, you can expect to get a bill.

“A cautious consumer is a smart consumer,” said Masto.

A federal law requires commercial websites that advertise that they offer free credit reports to include a box letting consumers know they can get a free credit report at www.AnnualCreditReport.com or by calling 877-322-8228. This notice is designed to protect consumers from deceptive and misleading “free” credit report ads.

Official site provides all three reports

By visiting the official website, consumers can ensure the reports they receive are free. Consumers have the option to request all three reports at once or to order one report at a time.

Federal and state laws provide consumers with a variety of tools to help protect themselves against identity theft. Consumers who have a reasonable suspicion that they are or are about to become victims of identity theft can place free fraud alerts on their credit reports by contacting one of the three major credit reporting agencies.

Three health plans in Community Catalyst's Prescription Access Litigation coalition have filed class action lawsuits in four federal courts against major drug manufacturers.

They claim the companies are illegally subsidizing co-payments for expensive brand-name prescription drugs such as Lipitor and Nexium through the promotion of co-pay coupons.

The lawsuit alleges that the payments by eight drug makers -- Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer -- are illegal under a federal statute that prohibits commercial bribery because the undisclosed payments to patients and pharmacies are made through a ‘shadow claims system' designed to keep information about the presence or amount of these payments from health plans.

Not really savings, suit claims

Community Catalyst, a national consumer advocacy organization, warns that while prescription drug coupons appear to save consumers money by reducing or eliminating co-payments, in reality they dramatically increase the cost of health care by driving up health insurance premiums and potentially causing consumers to hit benefit caps or lose coverage altogether.

"Pharmaceutical corporations are duping consumers with misleading coupons that are more about increasing corporate profits than actually reducing the cost of drugs for consumers" said Wells Wilkinson, director of the Prescription Access Litigation project at Community Catalyst. "If not stopped, the use of these deceptive coupons will increase costs for consumers' health plans by billions of dollars, contributing to higher premiums and the increasing loss of coverage and benefits for Americans."

Steering consumers to higher priced drugs

The suit contends that the drug companies are combining direct-to-consumer marketing and supermarket coupon clipping to steer consumers toward higher-priced name brand drugs. By subsidizing all or the majority of a consumer's co-payment, drug companies are alleged to promote the sale of these expensive products over less expensive, equally effective generics.

Community Catatyst says federal government health plans like Medicare consider these coupons kickbacks and have banned them. It says they are also banned in Massachusetts under an anti-kickback law.

The lawsuits were filed in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Newark by the AFSCME District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Sergeants Benevolent Association, the New England Carpenters, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Health and Welfare Fund.  

Dubbing it "resolutionary," Apple today unveiled its latest iPad, featuring a 9.7-inch screen with more pixels than traditional high-definition televisons, producing an ultra-sharp image.

Not just sharper, the new iPad has a faster chip and runs on high-speed LTE wireless networks, including AT&T and Verizon's 4G networks. The device will cost $399 to $829.

What it doesn't have is Siri, so if you want someone to talk to you, you'll need to find a human, if any are available.

What it also doesn't have is a new name.  It's still just the iPad, not the iPad3, the iPadHD or any of the other names that had been floating around.

Apple is taking pre-orders today and it will arrive in stores on March 16 in the U.S., Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Switzerland, UK and the US Virgin Islands.

Giants struggle

It's the latest entry in the intensifying struggle for dominance among Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Samsung and other players, each hoping that sales of their devices will tie customers to their online storehouses of movies, music, books, games and other software.

“The new iPad redefines the category Apple created less than two years ago, delivering the most amazing experience people have ever had with technology,” said Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing. “The new iPad now has the highest resolution display ever seen on a mobile device with 3.1 million pixels, delivering razor sharp text and unbelievable detail in photos and videos.”

The new iPad’s Retina display delivers four times the number of pixels of iPad 2, so dense that the human eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels when held at a normal distance, making web pages, text, images and video look incredibly sharp and realistic, the company said.

The 3.1 million pixels in the Retina display are more than one million more pixels than an HD TV, and with 44 percent increased color saturation the new iPad displays colors that are richer, deeper and more vivid. Movies are now capable of playing at full 1080p HD-resolution.

The new iPad also supports dictation. Instead of typing, tap the microphone icon on the keyboard, then say what you want to say and the new iPad listens. Tap done, and iPad converts your words into text. You can use dictation to write messages, take notes, search the web and more. Dictation also works with third-party apps, so you can update your Facebook status, tweet, or write Instagram captions, Apple said.