Current Events in July 2012

A Washington, DC, funeral home and its owners will pay a $25,000 civil penalty to resolve charges that they violated the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Funeral Rule, which helps ensure that people have the information they need to compare prices and buy only the funeral services and goods they want. 

In May 2011, at the FTC's request, the U.S. Department of Justice charged B.K. Henry Funeral Chapel Inc., Brian K. Henry and Lisa Henry with failing to provide consumers with a casket price list, as required by law. The Funeral Rule requires funeral homes to show consumers a casket price list before they view any caskets. 

Secret shoppers 

The FTC's complaint was based on inspections by FTC staff posing as consumers seeking to make funeral arrangements. The FTC conducts undercover inspections every year to ensure that funeral homes are complying with the Funeral Rule. 

In addition to the civil penalty, the proposed settlement permanently prohibits the defendants from failing to show consumers their casket price list and from violating other Rule requirements. 

Funeral rule 

The Funeral Rule, issued in 1984, gives consumers important rights when making funeral arrangements. 

Key provisions of the Rule require funeral homes to give consumers a general price list itemizing the prices of the funeral goods and services they offer at the start of a discussion of funeral arrangements, show consumers casket and vault price lists before they view caskets or vaults, and provide price information by telephone on request.

Want to buy a Nexus 7, Google's new seven-inch tablet? Take a number. Retailers and mail order sites say they are mostly sold out.

GameStop reports on its Website the 16GB version of the tablet is backordered and the company "cannot predict the actual delivery time for this item." B&H, another online retailer, said orders will be filled in the order they are received.

Brick and mortar stores say they are running through shipments just as fast as they are received.

The Nexus 7 has been on the market for less than a month. It runs on Google's Android operating system and features a quad-core processor. But the one feature driving the demand could be the price.

The 8GB version of the tablet sells for $199, the same price as Amazon's Kindle Fire. A 16GB version is available for $249.

The entry level iPad, meanwhile, starts at $499 for the Wi-Fi version. Apple is said to be working on a smaller, cheaper version of the iPad that could be released before the holidays.

Google units pre-ordered by consumers are on their way to them. Orders placed after July 11, the company said, will ship next week.

Downeast Concepts Inc., doing business as Backyard and Beyond, of Yarmouth, ME, is recalling about 15,400 children’s folding beach chairs. The recalled chairs have exposed, sharp metal rivets, posing a laceration hazard. The company says it is aware of one injury -- a 21-month-old girl who fell on the chair's metal rivets and cut her forehead and had to have stitches. 

The recalled children's folding beach chairs, which were made in China, have white aluminum tube frames and pink, yellow, blue or purple fabric seats and chair backs with fish, palm trees or mermaid decorations. The chairs measure 13 inches wide by 18 inches high by 20 inches deep. 

They were sold at Home Goods and other stores nationwide from June 2011 through June 2012 for between $13 and $25. 

Consumers should stop using the recalled beach chairs immediately and return them to Downeast Concepts for a full refund. 

For additional information, contact Downeast Concepts at (800) 343-2424 between 8:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday and between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Friday, or visit the firm's Website.

A timeshare rental/resale telemarketing business and its owner are in hot water. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FDA) and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi have brought legal action, charging the operation allegedly deceived thousands of consumers into paying up to $2,000 based on false promises that they had buyers or renters lined up for consumers' timeshare properties -- and then failing to deliver promised refunds. 

A federal court has halted the operation and froze the defendants' assets pending further litigation. 

Unkept promises 

According to the complaint against Edward Lee Windsor and Information Management Forum Inc., also doing business as Vacation Property Marketing and Vacation Property Marketing Inc., the defendants cold-called timeshare property owners and falsely promised they had renters or buyers who would pay a specific dollar amount for the consumers' properties. 

They also promised a full refund of consumers' fees, which ranged from $500 to $2,000, if they did not rent or sell the timeshares as promised, or if consumers asked for their money back within a certain time period. 

According to the complaint, the defendants falsely told consumers they had business relations with major corporations, such as Home Depot and Pepsi that had an immediate need for the consumers' timeshare properties. 

Using a script 

A telemarketing script filed with the court stated, "What we do is market and advertise the rental and sale of resort properties to corporations who use them for conventions, training seminars, employee perks, business trips as well as their own vacation time . . . the reason that I've been calling you is because this weekend there is going to be a major event . . . We currently have over 700 corporate buyers and renters coming into town for this event." 

Consumers were allegedly told the properties could be rented for a certain amount, such as $1,800 a week, or that there were buyers willing to pay specific amounts, such as $18,500, within 90 days. Some consumers were also falsely told they would receive the proceeds from their rentals or sales before or shortly after the charges to the consumers' credit cards became due. 

Consumers who sought refunds were often strung along with more false promises to the point that they could not dispute the charges with their credit card providers, and when they were able to dispute charges, the defendants often vigorously contested their efforts to get their money back. 

As alleged in the complaint, consumers who were charged fees by the defendants did not obtain renters, buyers, or refunds. In limited instances, the defendants offered consumers a small portion of their money back, but most often they denied refund requests, contending they had fulfilled their agreement by placing an ad on their Website, onlinevpm.com.

Internet Service Providers (ISP) in the U.S. are doing a better job of providing advertised speeds for their broadband services, according to a new report from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The study involved actual performance tests for thousands of subscribers in over 80 percent of the residential market. The FCC said it found a marked improvement in performance between the first report, completed in August 2011, and this latest one, completed in April 2012.

"First, accurate delivery of advertised performance by ISPs has improved overall," the report said. "Five ISPs now routinely deliver nearly one hundred percent or greater of the speed advertised to the consumer even during time periods when bandwidth demand is at its peak."

Improvement since August

That's a big improvement from the August 2011 report, when only two ISPs met that level of performance. In 2011, the average ISP delivered 87 percent of advertised download speed during peak usage periods.

In 2012, that jumped to 96 percent. In other words, consumers today are experiencing performance more closely aligned with what is advertised than they experienced one year ago.

Consumers posting reviews at ConsumerAffairs still complain about speeds, however, even if complaints about billing and customer service are more numerous. Edward, of Corryton, TN, wrote recently to express is frustration with Comcast.

"I am paying every single month for 12 megabytes per second (Mbps) download and 3Mbps upload," Edward wrote. "Yet, when doing several speed tests for Comcast Xfinity, my download speed ranged from 0.40Mbps to 1.81Mbps download and 0.58Mbps to 0.76Mbps upload. When I called and asked Comcast why it was so slow, the customer service lady said I could pay another $10 a month to upgrade to 12Mbps download and 5Mbps upload. I told her I was not even getting what I was paying for now, so why would I want to pay them more money for something I'm not even getting now?"

An exception?

The FCC report authors suggest when it comes to Comcast customers, Edward may be an exception. The report found that Comcast is now providing 103 percent of its advertised speeds.

The report found that providers delivering service with fiber optics had the best record of hitting advertised download speeds. They were over-performing at a rate of 117 percent.

Room for improvement

But not all ISPs are showing improvement. Frontier and Windstream showed declines since August, with Frontier performing the worst. Clayton, of West Alexandria, Ohio, a Frontier business customer, said he finds the service very uneven.

"First, their high-speed business Internet slows down to a complete halt, and if it doesn't slow down to a halt, it is extremely slow, around.02 mbps," Clayton wrote in a ConsumerAffairs review. "This throws everything off at our business location. We can get a little over 2.5mbps when it works as it should."

The report suggests that ISPs were motivated to improve performance by the first study, when the FCC publicized which providers were hitting their numbers and which were not. And the agency says the improvements appear to be real.

"Our analysis shows that the improvements of ISPs in meeting their advertised speeds were largely driven by improvements in network performance, and not downward adjustments to the speed tiers offered," the authors wrote.

It’s almost like the “hair of the dog.” 

Giving children with egg allergies increasingly higher doses of the very food they are allergic to can eliminate or ease reactions in most of them, according to results from a federally funded study conducted at Johns Hopkins Children's Center and four other U.S. institutions. 

The findings, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, add to a growing body of evidence showing that feeding escalating doses of a food -- an approach known as oral immunotherapy -- can, over time, condition the immune system to tolerate the food with minimal or no reactions. 

Recent, smaller studies conducted at Johns Hopkins and elsewhere have shown the approach can also be useful in treating children allergic to milk and peanuts. 

Cautious optimism 

The researchers say the results are promising but caution that, at present, oral immunotherapy is still considered experimental and should not be used outside of a strictly controlled research protocol. 

In the current study, conducted as part of the NIH-funded Consortium of Food Allergy Research, 35 of 40 children treated with egg immunotherapy experienced improvement. Five of the 40 patients dropped out of the study, four of them due to allergic reactions related to treatment. 

Eleven of the 35 patients experienced complete long-term elimination of egg-related allergic reactions, the most sought-after therapeutic outcome. The rest were able to tolerate higher doses of egg with only mild or no symptoms, but lost some of their tolerance after discontinuing treatment. 

However, a higher threshold of tolerance, the researchers say, is an important therapeutic endpoint because it can protect against serious allergic reactions from accidental or incidental exposures and give patients and parents a peace of mind at restaurants, parties and other venues where food control is difficult or impossible. 

"More than a quarter of the children in our study lost their egg allergies altogether, but we also saw dramatic improvements in those who didn't, which in and of itself is an important therapeutic achievement," says Robert Wood, M.D, director of allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins Children's Center. "These children went from having serious allergic reactions after a single bite of an egg-containing cookie to consuming eggs with minimal or no symptoms." 

Increasing dosages 

In the study, 55 children, ages 5 through 18, received escalating doses of egg-white powder or a cornstarch placebo for 10 months. Thirteen of the 15 patients treated with placebo failed an oral food challenge, which requires a child to eat under medical observation 5 grams of egg protein, or the equivalent of half a large egg. Two placebo patients had dropped out before the challenge. 

After the initial 10-month buildup, 22 of 35 children treated with egg whites were able to consume 5 grams of egg protein -- 14 of them without symptoms. All 35 children continued to consume small doses of egg whites daily for 22 more months -- the so-called maintenance phase, during which daily exposure to small doses of the allergen is believed to build tolerance. 

Food challenge 

At the end of the 22-month maintenance phase, children underwent a food challenge with 10 grams of egg whites. Thirty out of the 35 children passed the 22-month food challenge. 

Those who passed the 10-gram food challenge then ceased all egg consumption for four to six weeks and underwent a final food challenge after the "abstinence" period. Eleven children were still able to tolerate 10 grams of egg protein -- the equivalent of a large egg -- without any symptoms and were considered completely cured of their allergy. 

Being able to consume eggs without a reaction after a period of abstinence is considered the true marker of sustained tolerance, the scientists say. During a phone follow-up one year later, all 11 reported eating eggs and egg-containing products without symptoms as frequently or as infrequently as they chose. 

The fact that most children lost some of their tolerance after only a month of abstinence underscores the importance of daily exposure to an allergen to maintain tolerance, the researchers say. 

An estimated four percent of U.S. children have food allergies and, by age 3, nearly 3 percent of children have evidence of egg allergies, the researchers say. Some children outgrow their food allergies, but for many they are life long and require complete avoidance to prevent serious or life-threatening reactions.

Between 2007 and 2011 the number of foreclosures in the U.S. skyrocketed as the air escaped from the housing bubble. Older homeowners were disproportionally represented among those foreclosures, according to a study by AARP.

The study found that more than 1.7 million seniors lost their homes during that four-year period. Seriously delinquent loans -- those in foreclosure and loans 90 or more days delinquent -- increased from 1.1 percent in 2007 to 6.0 percent as of December 2011 for people age 50 and older, a more than fivefold increase.

“The collapse of the housing market has been especially painful for older homeowners,” said Debra Whitman, AARP Executive Vice President for Policy.

Crisis not over

And for older Americans, AARP says, the housing calamity isn't over. As of December 2011 some 600,000 loans held by consumers aged 50 or above were in foreclosure. The same number were behind in their payments by 90 days or more.

Making matters worse, 16 percent of mortgages held by 50-plus consumers -- a total of 3.5 million loans -- were underwater, meaning the homeowner owed more than the property is worth. Extending beyond the housing market, AARP says this reality will have widely felt ramifications.

“Older homeowners often rely on their home equity to finance their needs in retirement -- things like health care, home maintenance and other unexpected needs. The fact that so many older Americans have no equity at all is troubling,” Whitman said.

Why seniors?

It's not clear why the housing downturn has hit older consumers especially hard. It may be that many older workers were among the first to lose their jobs in the Great Recession and have had great difficulty in finding new employment.

The good news for older homeowners is their serious delinquency rate is lower than for their younger counterparts. However, serious delinquencies went up faster for the older population over the past five years.

The news is worse for homeowners well into their retirement years. The study found that people age 75 and older have a higher foreclosure rate than those age 50 to 64 or age 65 to 74.

It seems reasonable that many older homeowners are still living in homes they purchased 10, 20 or even 30 years earlier, when prices were lower. Years of mortgage payments should have given them sizable equity. So why are they in foreclosure or underwater?

Possible answer

A likely explanation is the serial refinancing that went on during the housing boom, when homeowners took equity out because the value of their homes had risen. The homes are no longer worth what they once were, but the owners have saddled themselves with debt.

“More older Americans are carrying mortgage debt than in the past, and the amount of that debt is also increasing,” Whitman said. “Because before-tax income has decreased on average for people age 75 plus, while spending for mortgage interest, property taxes, utilities, and health care have increased, their economic situation is worsening.”

The bottom line, says AARP, is the foreclosure crisis is far from over. The housing market may be showing signs of improving, loans held by many consumers over age 50 are still in danger of falling into foreclosure.

Sunkist or orange soda? Green Giant or simply sweet corn?

When it comes to choosing between brand name and private label items, many consumers aren't sure of the true difference.

In an effort to remove some of the mystery surrounding private label items, ConsumerAffairs contacted food distribution company Private Label Sourcing Inc. based in Franklin, Tenn.

Bert Edwards, who is president of the company and has been in the private label industry for nearly 30 years, explained where private label products actually come from and how they compare to national brands.

"The majority of products come from manufacturers specializing in producing private label products," he said. "While there are some national brand companies that also produce private label products, that number is relatively small. This is significant because branded manufacturers often will not produce a true match to their own brand, while private label manufacturers work hard to match national brand quality where applicable."

Oftentimes, consumer choices will default to brand name products because of familiarity, without knowing the true difference -- if any -- in quality between brand labels and private.

"In terms of product quality, this is generally driven by the retailer these days," says Edwards. "Most larger retailers will work with their manufacturers to create the quality they (the retailer) want to offer under their own brand. Sometimes this is a direct match to the national brand; while other times a retailer may want a product they perceive to be better than the brands."

Private vs. generic

But wait a minute. When did we start referring to generic brands as private label brands? What happened?

"Generic was applicable as recently as the 1980's," Edwards explained. "When there really were not many product specifications in place and the quality more times than not was whatever a supplier could make at the lowest possible cost."

Also, "beginning in the 80's and early 90's most retailers began getting serious about the quality of their private label products. That has continually improved over the last couple of decades, with most retailers being very specific in the products they offer."

In other words, generic brands were by and large a lower-cost option. This seemed to turn many consumers off. 

"The private label industry is much different than when I started," said Edwards. "The main change has been in product quality. For years many retailers simply offered 'generic' products — they often looked for the lowest price, and quality did not really factor in. You might get a great product one time and something terrible the next."

Not just beans

Things started to change when retailers began putting their brand name on what had previously been generic products. Instead of "beans," a product became LivingFree Beans, or whatever.

Packaging also began to improve, in an effort to give a more upscale look to what would otherwise just be a can of corn. 

"Packaging became more upscale so consumers would not feel as though they were buying an inferior product. And marketing picked up as well. Finally, a sense of ownership and pride in the brand began to permeate throughout many retailers," said Edwards.

But are there certain brand names consumers shouldn't deviate from?

Edwards says it really depends on the retailer, as quality consistency may differ from store to store. If one finds a specific location that carries at least one private label brand you like, the chances are high that same retailer will have many good private label items.

However, Edwards says there's a good chance that all the private label products may not be to your liking at one store, and there shouldn't be a difference in the way you choose non-brand name items from the way you choose brand named ones.

"Just as you may like many products offered by Kraft (or any national brand company), my guess is there are some items they offer that you do not buy. It is the same with private label," said Edwards. Makes sense, right?

He also says when choosing a private label item, customers should  try to eliminate their prejudices and give the non-branded item a fair shake. Also, just because you may have been dissatisfied with one private label product, doesn't mean other retailers will carry the same level of poor quality. 

Consumers should be careful not to judge the entire private label industry just because one store owner chose low prices over everything else.

Shop around

Consumers should also remember to use the same shopping logic when looking for private labels as when looking for national brands. "Find the private label items you like and buy those. If you switch just 25 percent of your purchases to private label, your savings will be measurable," said Edwards.

In addition, shoppers should use the overall appearance and level of quality in other store areas to give a better indication on the quality of its private label items.

Meaning, if the produce looks wilted, or the bakery section has a poor selection of breads, cakes, and pies, there's a good indication all of the products in that store could be suffering from the same inadequacies.

"The bottom line is, with the quality of private label products available at many retailers, you should be buying private label products because it saves you money on products you like, not because you are settling on those products to save money," Edwards concluded. 

The attorneys general of 12 states have reached agreement on the bankruptcy liquidation plan for U.S. Fidelis – a former nationwide vehicle service contract marketer.

The agreement, which has been approved by the bankruptcy court, provides $13 million in consumer restitution as well as injunctive relief. This settlement, along with a prior settlement with the service contract underwriter Warrantech, creates a $14.1 million Consumer Restitution Fund.

"This was a complex case. We knew that if it continued to drag on among all the intertwined parties, there would be no money left for consumers," said Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine. "We worked hard to negotiate this settlement, which wraps up the case and provides relief for consumers. It also serves as a warning that businesses cannot hide in bankruptcy court. If they fail to fulfill their obligations to consumers, we will go after them," 

Many consumers had experiences like Joseph of Fairfield, Ohio, who wrote to ConsumerAffairs in March.

"I purchased bumper to bumper warranty on Dec. 2008 and tried to use it for the first time yesterday at Borcherding GMC in Mason, Ohio. Auto was leaking coolant from intake manifold and was told they would not cover it."

U.S. Fidelis misled car owners into believing it was affiliated with vehicle manufacturers and that the owners’ warranties were about to expire. U.S. Fidelis’s telemarketers then falsely claimed that the vehicle service contracts it marketed provided the same protections as new car warranties.

“U.S. Fidelis misled thousands of Texas vehicle owners by selling them unnecessary and worthless vehicle service contracts,"said Greg Abbott, the attorney general of Texas.

Not the same

While service contracts do not provide nearly the same repair coverage as new car warranties, the company led purchasers to believe they were getting the equivalent of “bumper to bumper” coverage as with new vehicles. The company failed to disclose the fact that its products did not provide the same coverage as ordinary vehicle warranties.

U.S. Fidelis also flooded the market with deceptive junk mail, made thousands of robo-calls and produced misleading TV ads.

The federal bankruptcy court in St. Louis, Mo., established an initial $14.1 million restitution fund to provide compensation to eligible customers.

The company was shut down during bankruptcy proceedings and its assets were liquidated to benefit creditors. In the meantime, U.S. Fidelis partners -- brothers Darain and Cory Atkinson -- were criminally indicted in Missouri. They surrendered 100 percent of their personal assets to partially fund the consumer restitution fund.

The following states joined Ohio and Texas in the settlement: Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Consumers may obtain more information by visiting the U.S. Fidelis bankruptcy web site at www.usfbankruptcy.com. The site offers a “frequently asked questions” tab, toll-free telephone numbers for questions about the fund and a proof of claim form with instructions for consumers who wish to submit a claim to the fund. The deadline for submittals is Oct. 5, 2012.

Ford Motor Company is recalling 2013 model year Ford Escape vehicles equipped with the 1.6-liter engine built through July 11, 2012. Ford estimates that there have been approximately 11,500 of these vehicles produced and distributed for sale in North America, with most in the U.S. market.

Stop driving

Nowadays you either need to have a lot of zeros on your paycheck, or be willing to have a bunch of roommates in order to afford the rents in New York City.

The average monthly rents for one- and two-bedroom apartments in Manhattan start at around $3,000 a month, and that's on the low-end of the rent scale.

And even if you have the funds to pay that kind of rent, apartment availability in your desired neighborhood can be scarce, and the competition from other home seekers can be really intense.

In an effort to create more rental opportunities for younger residents and for those who need less space, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced plans to build a collection of tiny living spaces, or micro-units, that will have lower rents than other areas in New York.

The miniature units will only be 275 to 300 square feet, which is considerably under New York's current zoning laws, which require apartments to be at least 450 square feet. The mayor will be adjusting certain zoning laws to accommodate the new digs.

According to Bloomberg, the micro-units will be built to house New York's growing population of single residents, and those who just want to pay lower rent.

"Today there are about 1.8 million one- and two-person households in our city, but there are only about 1 million studio and one-bedroom apartments, said Bloomberg. "You notice the mismatch?"

Kips Bay

In an announcement at the American Institute of Architects' Center for Architecture, the mayor said he will be bringing his vision to life by way of a pilot program that will consist of a newly-constructed building containing 75 percent micro-units.

The pilot program, which is called adAPT NYC, will create the first building in Manhattan's Kips Bay section, at 335 East 27th Street.

According to Bloomberg, the apartments will have kitchen and bathrooms, and the units will be built in areas that provide generous amounts of light to create a feeling of open space for residents.

This is the newest affordable housing initiative by the mayor, who is trying to repair New York's reputation of being a city only for the affluent. Other city officials are also in favor of the building plan.

"Research has shown that stable, affordable housing can have a positive impact on health and well-being," said Linda I. Gibbs, Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services. "From young graduates just starting out to older adults seeking to downsize, adAPT NYC will allow us to better meet the changing housing needs of New Yorkers by piloting apartments that are affordable, efficient, and in tune with New York lifestyles."

Small apartments in New York are nothing new, as many residents have decided they would rather pay for location than space. But whether Big Apple dwellers can comfortably live in a 250-square-foot studio remains to be seen.

"It can fit a twin-size bed, maybe a small nightstand, a small dining table for two, and that's pretty much it," said Jonathan Miller, CEO of the housing consultant firm Miller Samuels. "A master bedroom of a modest ranch home equipped with a bathroom would probably be the equivalent."

Not inexpensive

As we reported previously, New York has three different areas in the city that has made the top ten lists of most expensive cities. 

A report conducted by The Center for an Urban Future, shows that New Yorkers need to make at least a $100,000 a year to live comfortably, which has made many move away seeking lower costs.

According to city officials, this new apartment initiative will be the first among many to provide residents with another option besides fleeing Manhattan because rents are too high.

Others believe the new concept of smaller apartments and cheaper rents could potentially catch on in other high rent cities, like San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington D.C.

But first, officials say they hope the housing program will quickly grow to include other areas in New York.

"adAPT NYC is a fantastic opportunity to create a model of housing that could be replicated in other locations and contexts to expand New York City's housing stock, said Mathew M. Wambua, Commissioner of New York's Housing Preservation and Development office.

"Were looking for creativity, affordability, imaginative design and responsiveness to the needs of real New Yorkers. Show us something we haven't seen before that is ingenious sustainable, replicable and practical, and we will work with you to make it a reality," he said.

If you can fit in here ...

Bloomberg says he sees this pilot program as a way to better suit not only current New York residents but those who desire to live there, but are worried they can't afford it.

"Developing housing that matches how New Yorkers live today is critical to the city's continued growth, future competitiveness and long-term economic success," said Bloomberg. "People from all over the world want to live in New York City, and we must develop a new scalable housing model that is safe, affordable and innovative to meet their needs."

There's not a definitive date as to when the first building of micro-units will be built, but the mayor says he plans to create 165,000 units of affordable housing by the end of 2014.

Official rents for the units also have yet to be established, but  Bloomberg says it will be a far cry from what New Yorkers are paying at the moment.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has followed California's lead and banned baby bottles and sippy cups made with the plastics chemical bisphenol-A, BPA, but some environmental and consumer advocates say the action doesn't go far enough.

"The FDA’s action, while a positive step, will have little impact on children’s health," the Environmental Working Group said in a statement. "A consumer revolt and state-level legislation have already driven BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups."

However, EWG said the epoxy coating that lines infant formula cans and most other aluminum food cans sold in the U.S. does contain BPA and said the  chemical leaches readily into liquids it touches. In 2007, researchers found that four of the world’s leading formula makers were using BPA as an ingredient in their formula cans.

“Once again, the FDA has come so late to the party that the public and the marketplace have already left,” said Jason Rano, Director of Government Affairs for Environmental Working Group. “If the agency truly wants to prevent people from being exposed to this toxic chemical associated with a variety of serious and chronic conditions it should ban its use in cans of infant formula, food and beverages.”

Industry drops objection

After the California statute was passed last October, the chemical industry  dropped its years’ long objection to banning BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups and urged FDA to remove it. Public health and environmental groups called the industry’s acquiescence a cynical attempt to quell calls for a wholesale ban of the substance from food cans, beverage containers and infant formula.

Earlier this year, Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) petitioned the FDA to remove BPA from packaging for baby food and food and beverage packaging and also reusable food and beverage containers.

“It’s our hope the FDA will do exactly what Rep. Markey has asked of the agency on behalf of the American people and ban BPA in infant formula,” added Rano. “No chemical with strong ties to cancer, diabetes, obesity and many other health problems should be an ingredient in infant formula containers.”

Gills Onions, LLC of Oxnard, CA is recalling a single day’s production of diced and slivered red and yellow onions and diced celery and onion mix because they may be contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported and no other Gills Onions products are affected by this recall. 

The recall was initiated when the company was notified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that a random sample of diced yellow onions taken at retail tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes. 

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. 

The recalled products, which are packaged under the brand "Gill's Onions," were shipped between July 2-4, 2012, directly from Gills Onions to retailers in California, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington and Canada. 

Gills Onions is notifying all customers who received the recalled product directly from the company and requesting that they remove it from commerce. The company is also asking its direct customers to notify their customers of this recall. 

Anyone who has the recalled product should not consume it and should destroy or discard it. Consumers with questions may contact Gills Onions at 1-800-348-2255, M-F 8am-5pm PDT. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Florida Attorney General have won a big one in the case of a phony alcoholism "cure" program. 

A federal court in Florida has ordered the program’s marketers to pay more than $700,000 for having tricked consumers into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to participate in the program. 

The court's order follows its September 2011 ruling upholding the FTC's and Florida AG's charges that the defendants prescribed ineffective concoctions of dietary supplements as a supposed cure for alcoholism -- and then threatened to make public the consumers' alcoholism when they tried to cancel their memberships. 

Deceptive marketing 

The complaint, filed in March 2010, named Jacksonville, Florida-based Alcoholism Cure Corporation and its owner, Robert Douglas Krotzer.  It charged the defendants, who also did business under the names Alcoholism Cure Foundation, Enjoy A Few, and Guilt Free Drinking, with deceptively peddling their program, ultimately taking in at least $732,480 from about 450 consumers. 

Online ads referred to defendant Krotzer -- who is not a doctor -- as “Dr. Doug,” and boasted that the company’s “team of doctors” would create customized, low-cost, and permanent alcoholism cures.  The court upheld the complaint allegations, ruling that the defendants made false and unsupported claims that their program “cures alcoholism while allowing alcoholics to drink socially.”  

The defendants also deceptively claimed that the program had the “best technology to end alcohol abuse permanently,” and was “scientifically proven to cure alcoholism.”

The court also found the company and Krotzer falsely claimed that their program cost about $350 and consumers could cancel anytime, that consumers would be monitored by trained professionals and that the defendants would keep consumer information private.  

Going public 

When consumers tried to cancel their memberships, the defendants “routinely used disclosure of personal and health information as a threat to extract payment” and made “impossible demands” that consumers submit so-called “proofs of continued drinking,” including expensive lab test results and hair samples.  

The defendants also charged consumers’ financial accounts for fees they supposedly owed -- ranging from $9,000 to $20,000 -- without authorization.  After threatening to disclose consumers’ alcohol dependence, the defendants actually did so in some cases:  by telling PayPal, credit card companies and the Better Business Bureau; by filing the information publicly in Florida small claims court; and by exposing the entire database of consumer information to the debt collectors they hired to pursue the fees. 

Out of business 

The court’s final order permanently bans the defendants from marketing or selling any treatment or cure for alcoholism, drug addiction or any other human health-related problem.  It also prohibits the defendants from using trade names such as “alcoholism cure” or “permanent cure,” from unauthorized billing, and from taking any further collections actions against their victims.  

The defendants also may not misrepresent the cost or terms of any offer they make, the professional qualifications of Krotzer or any employee, or that the company is a charity.  Finally, the order requires the defendants to pay $732,480, to be used for consumer refunds, if practical.

The residential real estate market suffered a setback in June as sales of previously-owned homes fell 5.4 percent from May, interrupting a series of mostly positive reports from the housing front.

But the National Association of Realtors (NAR) suggests the news is not is bad as it might seem. NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun points out that June's sales were up 4.5 percent over June 2011. And he suggests that sales declined last month because there just weren't enough homes for sale.

"Despite the frictions related to obtaining mortgages, buyer interest remains solid," Yun said. But inventory continues to shrink and that is limiting buying opportunities."

And with a smaller supply of homes for sale, Yun says that is pushing up home prices in many markets.

"The price improvement also results from fewer distressed homes in the sales mix," he said.

Prices rise 7.9 percent

The national median existing-home price for all housing types was $189,400 in June, up 7.9 percent from a year ago. This marks four back-to-back monthly price increases from a year earlier, which last occurred in February to May of 2006, at the height of the housing bubble. June's gain was the strongest since February 2006 when the median price rose 8.7 percent from a year prior.

Another positive sign, says Yun, is distressed homes -- foreclosures and short sales sold at deep discounts -- accounted for 25 percent of June sales, unchanged from May but down from 30 percent in June 2011. Foreclosures sold for an average discount of 18 percent below market value in June, while short sales were discounted 15 percent.

"The distressed portion of the market will further diminish because the number of seriously delinquent mortgages has been falling," said Yun.

Despite record low mortgage rates, all-cash sales accounted for 29 percent of all sales in June, rising slightly from May. Investors, who account for most of the all-cash sales, were more active buyers in June, purchasing 19 percent of the homes -- up two percent from May.

Yun once again blamed tight lending standards for keeping many first-time buyers on the sidelines.

Aleksandr Suvorov, of Estonia, has been sentenced to seven years in prison for his role in two separate hacking schemes involving a total of more than 240,000 stolen credit card numbers. 

Suvorov, 28, an accomplice to Albert Gonzalez, one of the most prolific identity thieves ever prosecuted by the U.S. government, pleaded guilty in May 2009 to a wire fraud conspiracy charge for hacking into the national restaurant chain Dave & Buster’s and stealing more than 80,000 credit card numbers.  

In addition, he pleaded guilty in November 2011 to a trafficking in unauthorized access devices charge related to the sale of more than 160,000 stolen credit card numbers to an undercover agent with the U.S. Secret Service.  In addition to his prison term, Suvorov was ordered to pay $675,000 in restitution and to satisfy a $300,000 asset forfeiture judgment. 

“Suvorov participated in a scheme to sell thousands of credit card numbers stolen from unsuspecting consumers,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer.  “Computer hackers like Mr. Suvorov victimize businesses and individuals, posing a serious threat to their financial security.” The sentence, he added, “sends a clear message that cyber criminals operating abroad will suffer severe consequences for their crimes.” 

The schemes

According to court documents, Albert Gonzalez and a third co-conspirator devised a scheme to gain unauthorized access into the computer systems of Dave & Buster’s for the purposes of installing malicious software and extracting credit card information of the Dave & Buster’s patrons.  

Gonzalez, who was in Miami, sent the software, known as a “packet sniffer,” to a co-conspirator in Ukraine.  A packet sniffer is malicious software designed, in this case, to collect credit card information.  The co-conspirator in Ukraine then provided the packet sniffer to Suvorov in Estonia.  

Suvorov, working with another individual, gained unauthorized access to 11 Dave & Buster’s restaurants throughout the United States, one of which was in Islandia, N.Y., and installed the packet sniffer.  Suvorov and his co-conspirators ultimately obtained data from 81,005 credit cards. 

Gonzalez was sentenced in March 2010 to 20 years in prison for his role in the Dave & Buster’s hack, as well as hacks into a major payment processor and several retail networks. The other co-conspirator was arrested in Turkey on related identity theft charges, and was sentenced there to 30 years in prison.  

In a California case, Suvorov and an accomplice conspired to sell more than 160,000 stolen credit card numbers to a buyer in San Diego who was an undercover agent with the U.S. Secret Service.  Suvorov provided the stolen credit card numbers to an accomplice, who in turn sold them to the undercover agent.

Marijuana use has rapidly increased among young people and health researchers in Australia suggest there could be serious consequences. For women and their children, especially.

The study at the University of Adelaide found that women who use marijuana can more than double the risk of giving birth to a baby prematurely. The use does not have to be while they are pregnant, but can be in the months before they became pregnant.

Premature birth is defined as at least three weeks before a baby's due date and can result in serious and life-threatening health problems for the baby, and an increased risk of health problems in later life, such as heart disease and diabetes.

A study of more than 3000 pregnant women in Adelaide, Australia, and Auckland, New Zealand, has detailed a number of the most common risk factors for preterm birth. The greatest factor was a strong family history of low birth weight babies. Marijuana use by the mother was second on the list.

The results were published online in the journal PLoS ONE.

Widely used

An estimated 20.4 million people in the U.S. use some kind of illicit drug and marijuana is the most common among them. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) estimates there are nearly 15 million marijuana users in the U.S.

Marijuana has been illegal in the U.S. since the early 20th century but in recent years efforts to make it at least partially legal have gained ground. A number of states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use, requiring users to obtain a doctor's prescription.

Law enforcement officials in Michigan, meanwhile, have recently tightened enforcement of the law, claiming drug dealers have abused it to legally sell the drug.

Marijuana is used to treat nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome, unintentional weight loss, insomnia and lack of appetite. It is also used to treat pain, movement disorders and glaucoma.

Samuel Lawrence Furniture, of High Point, NC, is expanding its June recall of full- and twin-size Bordeaux Collection bed frames.

An additional 2,400 beds in the United States and 100 in Canada are being recalled. In June, the firm recalled about 18,400 King- and Queen-size beds in the United States and 1,250 in Canada.

The beds are being recalled because the hardware holding the headboard and footboard can loosen or detach, posing a fall hazard.

The firm has received more than 100 reports of headboards or footboards detaching, including one report of a Florida man who injured his foot when a footboard detached.

This recall includes Bordeaux Collection full- and twin-size sleigh beds with wooden headboards and footboards in a cherry finish. Each bed also has two matching wooden side rails.

“Bordeaux” and a model number are printed on a white label on the back of the headboard and footboard. Model numbers for the recalled beds are 8070-242 and 8070-243 for the full-size and 8070-232 and 8070-233 for the twin-size.

The beds, manufactured in Malaysia by Poh Huat Furniture Ind., were sold in furniture stores nationwide from August 2009 to April 2012 for between $300 and $400.

Consumers should stop using the recalled beds immediately and contact Samuel Lawrence Furniture to obtain a free repair kit.

Contact Samuel Lawrence Furniture toll-free at (888) 572-9889 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company’s Website.

The payday loan industry is big business. Just how big? The Pew Charitable Trusts' Safe Small-Dollar Loans Research Project reports an estimated 12 million U.S. consumers take out payday loans each year, paying an average $520 in fees for a $375 loan.

The survey found 5.5 percent of the adult population have used a payday loan in the past five years, with three-quarters of borrowers using storefront lenders and almost one-quarter borrowing online. Data from various state regulators show that borrowers take out eight payday loans a year.

Payday lenders don't assess an interest rate for the loan, but rather a fee. The survey found $15 per $100 borrowed in typical. But because the loans are only for two week periods, that translates into a triple-digit interest rate. 

Payday loan customers generally reflect U.S. demographics. Most are white, female, and are 25 to 44 years old. But behind those numbers another pattern emerges.

Who uses payday loans?

After controlling for other characteristics, the survey shows there are five groups that have higher odds of having used a payday loan:

• People without a four-year college degree
• People who rent their home
• African Americans
• People earning less than $40,000 a year
• People who are separated or divorced

"It is notable that, while lower income is associated with a higher likelihood of payday loan usage, other factors can be more predictive of payday borrowing than income," the authors of the report write. "For example, low-income homeowners are less prone to usage than higher-income renters: eight percent of renters earning $40,000 to $100,000 have used payday loans, compared with six percent of homeowners earning $15,000 up to $40,000."

How consumers use payday loans

The survey also looked at how consumers use payday loans. The industry markets these small, short-term loans as an emergency advance, to help the consumer deal with an unexpected expense like car repair.

But according to the Pew survey, most borrowers use payday loans to cover ordinary living expenses over the course of several months. The average borrower, the survey finds, is in debt about five months of the year.

The survey found that 69 percent of borrowers used the money to cover a recurring expense, such as utilities, credit card bills, rent or mortgage payments or food. Sixteen percent said the money went to cover an unexpected expense, such as a car repair or emergency medical expense.

Under fire

Critics of the industry says this disconnect between the perception and reality of payday loans makes them dangerous to consumers, who end up in a cycle of loans, using one to pay off the next. In comments filed in April with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Center for Responsible Lending said regulators need to tighten rules that govern payday loans.

“The product’s structure -- lack of underwriting, high fees, short-term due date, single balloon payment, and having access to a borrower’s checking account as collateral -- results in most borrowers having no choice but to take out more loans to pay off the initial loan," the group said.

The industry counters that it is providing a needed service for a large portion of the population that has no other access to credit in the event of an emergency. Take away payday loans, the industry says, and you get more consumer distress.

The Pew survey specifically asked consumers who have used payday loans what they would do if payday loans didn't exist. Eighty-one percent said they would cut back on expenses. Other responses included delay paying some bills, rely on friends and family or sell personal possessions.