Current Events in November 2013

The FDA wants to do away with trans fat in processed foods, hoping to prevent heart attacks and other heart disease.

The agency today issued a finding that partially hydrogenated oils, the primary dietary source of artificial trans fat in processed foods, are not “generally recognized as safe” for use in food. The FDA’s preliminary determination is based on available scientific evidence and the findings of expert scientific panels. 

“While consumption of potentially harmful artificial trans fat has declined over the last two decades in the United States, current intake remains a significant public health concern,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. “The FDA’s action today is an important step toward protecting more Americans from the potential dangers oftrans fat. Further reduction in the amount of trans fat in the American diet could prevent an additional 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year – a critical step in the protection of Americans’ health.”

Consumption of trans fat raises low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or “bad” cholesterol, increasing the risk of coronary heart disease. The independent Institute of Medicine (IOM) has concluded that trans fat provides no known health benefit and that there is no safe level of consumption of artificial trans fat. Additionally, the IOM recommends that consumption of trans fat should be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet. 

Powerful promoter of heart disease

"Artificial trans fat is a uniquely powerful promoter of heart disease, and today's announcement will hasten its eventual disappearance from the food supply," said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Not only is artificial trans fat not safe, it's not remotely necessary. Many companies, large and small, have switched to healthier oils over the past decade. I hope that those restaurants and food manufacturers that still use this harmful ingredient see the writing on the wall and promptly replace it."

In recent years, many food manufacturers and retailers have voluntarily decreased trans fat levels in many foods and products they sell. Trans fat can be found in some processed foods, such as certain desserts, microwave popcorn products, frozen pizzas, margarines and coffee creamers. Numerous retailers and manufacturers have already demonstrated that many of these products can be made without trans fat.  

Though small amounts of trans fat occur in meat fat and milk fat, most of the trans fat in the food supply has come from industrially produced partially hydrogenated oils. Like saturated fat, trans fat raises one's LDL, or "bad" cholesterol, which promotes heart disease.

But unlike saturated fat, trans fat lowers one's HDL, or the "good" kind of cholesterol that protects against heart disease. Trans fat may also promote heart disease in other ways, such as by damaging the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. 

>“One of the FDA’s core regulatory functions is ensuring that food, including all substances added to food, is safe,” said Michael Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. “Food manufacturers have voluntarily decreased trans fat levels in many foods in recent years, but a substantial number of products still contain partially hydrogenated oils, which are the major source of trans fat in processed food.”

If the FDA finalizes its preliminary determination, PHOs would be considered “food additives” and could not be used in food unless authorized by regulation.

On one hand the younger generation – those under age 35 – have a new appreciation of financial reality. They have come of age during a time of economic hardship, with high unemployment and pay raises that are the exception, not the rule.

They've seen their parents' struggles at close hand and in many ways have altered their spending habits to avoid debt and live within their means. On the other hand, they – like every other generation – often feels the need to “keep up with the Joneses.”

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) and the Ad Council commissioned a survey of millennial spending habits and found a strong tendency to mimic their peers' financial habits. That might be fine if their friends spend responsibly. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case.

Peer pressure

The poll found that 78% of young adults model their financial habits after their friends'. The majority – 66% – admitted they want to keep pace with their peers on the neighborhoods in which they live; 64 percent say the same thing about what they wear. Nearly two-thirds admitted to feeling pressure to keep up with the types of places they eat and the gadgets they carry.

The problem is, some of these friends can afford all these things, but others cannot. The survey found that in the past year nearly half the young people surveyed said they had to use a credit card to pay for necessities like food or utilities. More than 25% said they missed a bill payment or were contacted by a bill collector. Sixty-one percent still get financial help from their family.

“As the old saying goes: Be careful about the company you keep,” said Ernie Almonte, CPA, chair of the AICPA’s National Financial Literacy Commission. “Many young adults are building financial foundations with the wrong blueprints. They need to make sure they’re modeling the best behavior for their long-term financial stability.”

Suze Orman's advice

Personal finance guru Suze Orman has spent considerable time and effort advising young people on getting and keeping control of their money. Among her advice for keeping a handle on expenses is to live in a group house, not alone; eat most of your meals at home; do your clothes shopping at secondhand stores; use a credit union instead of a bank; and dedicate yourself to your job so that you can earn raises and promotions. 

AICPA and the Ad Council have teamed up to produce a television campaign promoting financial literacy among young people.

The spots – part of the “Feed The Pig” campaign -- are designed to remind young consumers that they need to forge their own path to financial security and not blindly follow the actions of their friends. The spots feature scenes of over-the-top spending contrasted by financial achievement.

For example, in one ad a college graduate celebrates paying off her student debt while a friend, lounging in a formal dress, surrounded by designer shoes and feeding a pet horse, complains that she can never save enough money to get ahead. Earlier this summer, the campaign released print, outdoor, radio and digital PSAs, urging viewers, “When it comes to financial stability, don’t get left behind.”

Some millennials on the right track

Despite these concerns there is other evidence that at least some millennials are on the road to financial security. A recent Wells Fargo retirement survey found that nearly half of millennials are already saving for retirement. Sixty-one percent described themselves as savers.

A recent survey by McGraw Hill Federal Credit Union showed only one in 20 of this age group uses a credit card. For nearly 60%, cash is a primary payment method, followed by debit cards at 36%. The survey found that instead of shopping for the newest designer labels, young people are frequenting thrift stores. Getting a bargain is now cool.

“Teens today are learning from the mistakes of adults,” said Shawn Gilfedder, President and CEO of McGraw Hill Federal Credit Union. “Five years out from the recession, the job market does not look that hopeful for them, even with a college degree. They're recognizing that responsibility first resides with themselves.”

Expect to notice a change in the content (if not quality) of future commercials advertising EpiPens—at least if you live in Oregon.

State Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has reached a settlement with pharmaceutical company Mylan Specialty L.P. for “misleading EpiPen advertisements.” Henceforth, before airing commercials for EpiPen and EpiPen Jr., Mylan must submit the commercials to the Food and Drug Administration; the company must also pay $250,000 to the state of Oregon. Mylan, for its part, denies any wrongdoing.

EpiPens, which cost around $400 for a set of two, are carried by people with severe life-threatening allergies. In the event of an allergy attack, allergy sufferers use the “pens” to inject themselves with a dose of epinephrine, which can offset such potentially fatal allergic reactions as anaphylactic shock and throat passages swelling badly enough to prevent breathing.

A little overboard

But, according to AG Rosenblum’s office, Mylan went a little overboard in its national TV commercials for Epi products, telling parents that with EpiPens, they need not worry about their children being exposed to potentially deadly allergens.

“Severe food allergies are a potentially fatal health risk. Epinephrine injections can save lives in emergencies, but Mylan was extremely irresponsible to suggest to parents that EpiPen is a substitute for vigilantly avoiding their children’s allergens," Rosenblum said. "Our resolution of this case ensures that consumers will understand the limitations of EpiPen as well as its approved uses.”

The Oregon AG’s office also said that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is considering a “related investigation” against Mylan’s EpiPen marketing.

EpiPens in schools

Despite the Oregon legal action, no one is suggesting that EpiPens are unnecessary or that they aren't lifesavers when severe allergy alerts occur.

In fact, Congress passed a bill just last week today that would help fund school efforts to fight allergy attacks.

The U.S. Department of Education currently offers grant money to states in which schools are taking steps to prepare for asthma attacks. Under the newly passed H.R. 2094, the department would prioritize those funds to benefit states where schools also prepare for allergy attacks by having a stock of epinephrine (EpiPen), and staff trained to use it.

In a statement released after the Senate voted, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. Phil Roe (R-Md.) praised the legislature's decision, and urged President Obama to sign the bill into law.

"As the grandfather of a child with severe food allergies, I know all too well how critically important it is to administer life-saving epinephrine in the minutes following the onset of an anaphylactic attack," Hoyer said.

Blockbuster was the chain Americans loved to hate. Sure, it had stores everywhere, more than 5,000 of them at its peak, and offered a huge treasure trove of movies on DVD and VHS but it also seemed to have a knack for finding ways to scalp customers with late fees and other penalties that made an evening's home viewing more expensive than a ticket to a Broadway show.

It got its comeuppance as the rise of Netflix, Amazon and other streaming video services made movie watching easier and cheaper, and eliminated the late fee problem.

Battered on all sides, Blockbuster sank into bankruptcy a few years ago and was purchased by Dish Network, the satellite TV company, for reasons no one ever quite understood. Dish quickly closed many of the remaining stores and now says it will close the remaining 300 by early January, at a cost of about 2,800 jobs.

About 50 stores that are operated by franchisees will remain open.

Dish paid $234 million for the chain, saying it would bring it up to speed as a digital retailer. Not much panned out, though, and its efforts amounted mostly to changing signs, rearranging stores and trying to attract more Hispanic customers in inner-city neighborhoods.

Blockbuster tried to emulate Netflix' DVD-by-mail effort, with about as much success as it displayed in its other efforts.

"This is ridiculous. I have not received any new releases in months now," said Jack of Brooklyn, NY, in a complaint to ConsumerAffairs a few months ago. "I have been with them for several years and this started happening about seven months ago. Not one movie at all."

Dish CEO Joe Clayton said this week that, although it was closing the stores, Dish continues to "see value in the Blockbuster brand, and we expect to leverage that brand as we continue to expand our digital offerings."

Is the economy finally gaining some momentum? The latest government figures show an increase in real gross domestic product (GDP -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- might lead you to think so.

After expanding at an annual rate of 2.5% in the second quarter, GDP increased at an annual rate of 2.8% in the July-September quarter. Bear in mind that the third-quarter advance estimate is based on incomplete data and will likely be revised in a report to be issued in early December.

Consumers step it up

The data show the third-quarter increase was due largely to an increase in consumer spending, private inventory investment, exports, residential fixed investment, nonresidential fixed investment, and state and local government spending. Those factors were partly partly offset by a drop in federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

Research and Policy Director Josh Bivens, the research and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, says even with the uptick,GDP growth was too slow to bring down unemployment and restore the U.S. labor market to its full potential. "What today’s report confirms," he said, "is that the U.S. economy was weak going into the fiscal showdowns this fall -- and these showdowns almost surely just weakened it further." We'll know for sure, he added, when the 4th quarter GDP numbers are released in January.

The full GDP report is available on the Commerce Department website.

Jobless claims

Separately, the Labor Department (DOL) reports first-time applications for state unemployment benefits fell by 9,000 for the week ending November 2 to 336,000. Economist surveyed by Briefing.com were calling for a total of 335,000.

After two months of biases from computer glitches and the government shutdown, officials say there were no unusual factors that might have skewed the numbers this time out, providing what's termed “a clean reading” of the labor situation.

Nonetheless, analysts point out that the claims level is almost exactly where it was prior to the data problems.

The 4-week moving average, which strips out the volatility of the weekly numbers and is considered a better gauge of the labor situation, fell 9,250 for the week -- to 348,250.

The complete report can be found on the DOL website.  

Taylor Farms Maryland in Jessup, Md., and Taylor Farms Texas in Dallas are recalling an additional 22,849 pounds of broccoli salad kit products due to concerns about possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination in the salad dressing.

There have been no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products.

The salad kits were shipped to distributors and retail locations (delis) for consumer purchase in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia. This recall is in addition to the 5,084 pounds of similar products that were recalled in late October.

The products listed below are being recalled as part of this expansion:

• 6.06-lb. boxes labeled “TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH BACON AND DRESSING” with the case code 310151, produced on Oct. 14 through Oct. 24, 2013.
• 12.13-lb. boxes labeled “TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH BACON AND DRESSING” with the case code 310153, produced Oct. 14 through Oct. 24, 2013.
• 6.33-lb boxes labeled “Kit, Broc PPC” with case code 5900067, produced Oct. 15 through Oct. 20, 2013.

Case labels bear the establishment number “EST. 34522” or “EST. 34733” inside the USDA mark of inspection. Retail consumers and the general public will not typically see the boxes and labels, because the product is usually unboxed by retailers (such as deli counters and restaurants) and the kit used to make salads for retail sale. The boxes and labels would be more likely to be seen by distributors and retailers.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact Taylor Farms Customer Services at 866-508-7048 between the hours of 9-5 Pacific Time.

Orbit Baby is recalling 2,962 G2 Car Seat Bases, Model No. ORB822000, manufactured from March 20, 2013, through July 20, 2013, with batch numbers A0840, A0860, or A0880.

The StrongArm Knob component of the Orbit Baby G2 Car Seat Base intended to secure the seat's base, may become detached or spin. If the seat base is not properly secured, a child may be at an increased risk of injury in the event of a crash.

Registered owners will be notified and Orbit will provide a free remedy kit along with repair instructions to them or any owner that notifies Orbit of the need for a kit. The recall is expected to begin during November 2013.

Owners may contact Orbit Baby customer service at 1-877-672-2229.

Consumers frequently get into trouble with payday loans. Sometimes it's because they don't fully understand what they're getting into, but other times it's because the lenders impose fees or charges that weren't properly disclosed upfront.

While some states try to regulate payday lenders, the industry is pretty free-wheeling and a growing number of payday loans are made via the Internet, where they often escape state and federal oversight.

That may be about to end. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) says it is now accepting complaints about payday loans. And, in an unrelated move, the Pew Foundation has released the results of a study xx

“Before the Consumer Bureau, consumers who had trouble with payday lending products had few places to turn,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “By accepting consumer complaints about payday loans, we will be giving people a greater voice in this market.”

Payday loans, also known as “cash advances” or “check loans,” are often short-term, small-dollar loans, generally for $500 or less. Payment is generally due the next time the borrower gets paid -- meaning the loan may require repayment in only a few weeks. Many lenders require that borrowers grant them advance access to checking accounts in order to repay the loans.  

Pew's findings

And then there's the Pew Charitable Trusts, which today issued a report that offers some suggestions for federal and state lawmakers on how to make the payday loan marketplace more safe, transparent, and predictable.

According to a series of studies by Pew, repayment of these short-term loans takes 36 percent of the paycheck of the average borrower, who can afford to pay only 5 percent. As a result, the typical customer has to repeatedly “re-borrow” the money every two weeks, spends five months of the year in debt, and ultimately pays $520 in fees for the original loan of $375.

“Payday loans fail to work as advertised,” said Nick Bourke, who directs Pew’s payday lending research. “They far exceed borrowers’ ability to repay, and — by a 3-to-1 margin — payday loan users say they want more regulation of the product. All small loans must have affordable payments. Payday loans do not. Pew’s research demonstrates effective ways to address this problem.”

Based on findings from the reports, Pew recommends that when policymakers choose to allow these loans, the following regulations should be in place to minimize harm to consumers and to maintain a marketplace for lenders:

• Limit payments to an affordable percentage of a borrower’s periodic income. 
  (Research indicates that payments above 5 percent of gross income are often unaffordable.)
• Spread costs evenly over the life of the loan.
• Guard against harmful repayment requirements or collections practices.
• Require concise disclosures that reflect periodic and total costs upfront.
• Continue to set maximum allowable charges for small-dollar-loan markets that serve those with poor credit.

A poll of payday loan borrowers, which also appears in the latest report, indicates support for reform. The nationally representative survey of payday loan borrowers reveals that an overwhelming 9 in 10 support a system of installment payments over time instead of the conventional lump-sum-repayment structure. Moreover, 8 in 10 favor payments that fit consumers’ budgets by taking a more manageable amount of each paycheck.

“People who use payday loans are struggling,” Bourke added. “Most are paying bank overdraft fees, most carry credit card or other debt, and almost all have credit scores at the low end of the scale. Evidence shows that lump-sum payday loans harm consumers compared with loans that have affordable payments. It is possible to make this market work better for borrowers in a way that is viable for lenders.”

Types of complaints

While the Pew recommendations haven't yet been implemented, consumers can begin to submit their payday loan complaints to the Consumer Bureau about:

• Unexpected fees or interest
• Unauthorized or incorrect charges to their bank account
• Payments not being credited to their loan
• Problems contacting the lender
• Receiving a loan they did not apply for
• Not receiving money after they applied for a loan

What to do

To submit a complaint, consumers can:

• Go online at www.consumerfinance.gov/Complaint
• Call the toll-free phone number at 1-855-411-CFPB (2372) or TTY/TDD phone number at 1-855-729-CFPB (2372)
• Fax the CFPB at 1-855-237-2392
• Mail a letter to: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, P.O. Box 4503, Iowa City, Iowa 52244

Additionally, through AskCFPB, consumers can get clear, unbiased answers to their questions about payday loans.

America's retailers are counting on consumers to deliver robust profit margins for the holidays. But instead, retailers may find a lump of coal in their stockings.

Recent surveys have found consumers in a Grinch-like mood as the holiday shopping season approaches. In a poll by GoBankingRates.com, more than 63% of respondents said they have put no money into savings for the holidays this year.

That doesn't mean consumers won't go into debt to finance gifts but a follow-up question asked how much consumers planned to spend this holiday season. More than 40% said they would buy no holiday gifts this year.

Sobering numbers

It's easy to say that now but as the holidays approach, many may somehow find the money and the desire. Still, the numbers have to be sobering to retailers who depend on the last two months of the year to post a profit for the year.

"While it's unfortunate so many shoppers are putting themselves at risk of starting off the new year in debt, what's really surprising is how many people said they're not buying gifts at all; it's not just the young and broke – it's people with children and grandkids, too," said Casey Bond, GoBankingRates.com managing editor. "Recent fiscal turmoil in Washington may have suppressed optimism for holiday consumerism this year. However, I would argue that consumers are being overly optimistic about their ability to resist holiday shopping."

You could dismiss the survey as overly gloomy, but it comes on the heels of a similar one. A poll conducted on behalf of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) shows the overwhelming majority of consumers intend to either spend less than the previous year or nothing at all on holiday purchases.

Grain of salt

But here's the grain of salt – polls the previous four years returned similar findings. Data from 2010 and 2011 reveal the most extreme periods of hardship, with identical results of 91% of respondents indicating they would spend less or zero on holiday purchases. There was no statistical difference between 2012 and 2013 data, with the most recent year revealing that 86 percent of more than 1,400 respondents selecting these categories as most representative of their holiday spending plans.

The poll found that 11% intend to spend as they did last year, saying that their financial situation is stable, while three percent will spend more, feeling as though they are in a better financial position this year. These numbers are identical to 2012 results.

While the holidays can be make or break for retailers, NFCC says the same is true for consumers. In that light, the group sees the poll results as encouraging.

Avoiding costly mistakes

“The statistics speak loudly, and underscore that consumers are not willing to repeat the mistakes of Christmases past by spending irresponsibly this year,” said Gail Cunningham, spokesperson for the NFCC. “The persistently high rate of unemployment coupled with the long duration of unemployment are still very real challenges many people are facing.”

Another poll – this one from financial services firm Edward Jones – also suggests consumers will spend less during the holiday. In fact, 37% said they plan to spend less than they did last year.

"While we expect some sales growth in the retail market this holiday season, those polled expressed a conservative view on holiday spending," said Brian Yarbrough, consumer discretionary analyst for Edward Jones. "This differs from our retail forecasts for the remainder of the year. We anticipate solid numbers from most retailers with luxury players leading the charge."

A fourth survey – Deloitte’s 28th annual survey of holiday spending intentions and trends – is a bit more encouraging for retailers. The survey, conducted in mid October, found the average shopper planned to spend $421 on gifts this year, up from $386 last year. They also plan to purchase more gifts this year, ending a five-year decline.

“Consumers are feeling more generous about gift spending, and we are encouraged by their plans to spend more on going out for celebrations, decorating their homes and treating themselves and their families to ‘early gifts’ while holiday shopping this year,” said Alison Paul, vice chairman, Deloitte LLP.

Despite concerns that October's government shutdown and debt crisis would dampen consumer sentiment, Paul says the survey found little evidence of that.

Now that the Bloomberg Era is drawing to a close in New York City, who will launch such ambitious municipal projects as citywide bike lending, restrictions on Big Gulps and new laws to prohibit smoking at home?

Perhaps it is Los Angeles that will take up the cudgel. It is launching a project that would bring free -- yes, we said free -- broadband fiber to every home and business and provide free hotspots in public areas.

Now, there are about 3.5 million people in LA and hundreds of thousands of businesses. Public areas we don't know about. Do you think they'll count the freeways? If so, you're talking about a lot of wi-fi.

It's a massive undertaking, perhaps one that skeptics might say is hardly necessary, since Los Angeles already has the Internet, courtesy of Verizon, Time Warner, Charter, AT&T and numerous other providers. Why does the city think it needs to shove its way into the telecom business? Who knows?

Who pays?

And then there's the question of cost. Who's going to pay for all this? Ah, that's where those clever devils at City Hall are way ahead of us. The city plans to put the project out for bid, basically. Whoever "wins" the bidding will not only get to build the network, it will also have to pay for it.

Oh, and besides the estimated $3 to $5 billion construction cost, it will have to pay the costs of any city agency that has to trouble itself to aid in the build-out. And maintain the network, of course.

"The city is going into it and writing the agreement, basically saying, 'we have no additional funding for this effort.' We're requiring the vendors that respond to pay for the city resources needed to expedite any permitting and inspection associated with laying their fiber," said Steve Reneker, who is the general manager of the Los Angeles Information Technology Agency.

(Who even knew there was such a thing? Well, the LAITA, we'll have you know, operates the 311 phone number that you can call to report a dead squirrel or a burned-out street light. It also operates the city's various websites, its fire and police dispatch centers and so forth. So it is clearly up to the job. Too bad LAITA wasn't in charge of setting up Healthcare.gov.)

"If they're not willing to do that, our City Council may consider a general fund transfer to reimburse those departments, but we're going in with the assumption that the vendor is going to absorb those up-front costs to make sure they can do their buildout in a timely fashion," Reneker added, just to make it perfectly clear the the contractor had better finish on time ... or else. Or else what? Good question. It's not like the city is dangling a check in front of whatever lucky company "wins" the contract.

Yes, but who pays?

So let's ask this again: just how, exactly, is this gargantuan undertaking supposed to be financed?

Well, let's see. Los Angelenos will get free Internet access of 2 Mbps to 5 Mbps or so. If they want higher speeds, they'll have to pay for it. So there's a few bucks right there.

Oh, and maybe the network will be supported by advertising, the city fathers indicated. You know, like those ads they have on buses? Except these would be on like the, you know, Internet. 

Hey, no worries.

There’s a longstanding debate (which we doubt will be settled anytime soon) regarding where to strike the balance between human needs and animal rights.

At one extreme, you have people who insist humans and animals are practically equal: eating any meat is as bad as cannibalism, they say, and owning any animal as evil as owning a human slave. At the other extreme, you have people insisting animals deserve no consideration at all: abolish all animal-cruelty laws, they say, and don’t worry about “humane” conditions for livestock.

But most people are somewhere in the middle: it’s okay to eat animals, they say, and “use” them to benefit humans, but at the same time we ought to be humane about it, and not subject animals to unnecessary suffering.

Of course, that still leaves plenty of room for disagreement: exactly what constitutes “humane” treatment? What suffering is “unnecessary?” And some of the strongest disagreements center around the issue of testing cosmetic products on animals — on the one hand, we don’t want people risking their health via wearing dangerous makeup, but on the other hand, it’s very difficult to use words like “necessary” and “eyeshadow” together in the same sentence while keeping a straight face.

But on the other other hand, technology has advanced to the point where, while we might still need to test drugs and medicines on animals, there are superior non-animal alternatives for testing cosmetics.

With this background in mind, we call your attention to a news story out of China — which, you might recall, has spent the last few years fighting off scandal after scandal related to the export of unsafe, contaminated food — including dog food — and household products.  

 Cruelty Free International (a UK-based nonprofit which describes itself as “the only global organisation working solely to end animal testing for cosmetics and consumer products”), sent out a press release praising a “Non-animal cosmetics testing breakthrough reported in China”:

Cruelty Free International welcomes reports that the Chinese Food and Drug Administration propose to abolish the requirement for animal testing for cosmetics for domestically manufactured ordinary products (such as shampoo, skincare or perfume) from June 2014. Instead it proposes that industry should now have the option to assess the safety of a substance based on the toxicological profile of ingredients, similar to the Cosmetic Product Safety Report under the EU Cosmetic Regulations. China will thereafter consider further steps for imports and special-use cosmetics based on the experiences.

Last August, Bloomberg business news told the story of a legal Catch-22 facing the French company L’Oreal, as it attempted to increase international sales:

“While L’Oreal is barred by European Union rules from testing on animals within the EU, China’s government requires such trials for every new beauty product. China is the only major market where companies must test their mascaras and lotions on animals.”

The Bloomberg quote continues with some nausea-inducing details regarding exactly what such testing involves.

So it looks like China’s status as the last major world market requiring cosmetic testing on animals will end next June, if these proposed new anti-cruelty regulations come into force.

A new study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) suggests that early signs of autism can be detected in infants as young as two months. This is hopeful news because the earlier the disorder can be detected, the greater the chance of finding and applying effective treatment options.

The warning sign in young infants is a lack of interest in making eye contact with their caregivers. As the NIH wrote in its press release:

"Typically developing children begin to focus on human faces within the first few hours of life, and they learn to pick up social cues by paying special attention to other people’s eyes. Children with autism, however, do not exhibit this sort of interest in eye-looking. In fact, a lack of eye contact is one of the diagnostic features of the disorder."

Researchers from the Emory University School of Medicine and the Marcus Autism Center in Atlanta ran the following test on children up to age three: the kids would watch videotapes of their caregivers (usually their mothers), while the researchers used eye-tracking equipment to monitor exactly where various children directed their gaze.

For children later diagnosed with autism, it turned out that when they were as young as two months old, they started losing interest in looking at their mothers’ eyes. Autism researchers find these results surprising because previous theories of autism postulated that autistic children are born lacking certain innate social skills (like the interest in making eye contact with others). Yet this study strongly suggests that pretty much all newborns have these social skills—except, for some still-unknown reason, children who grow up to be autistic start losing them, as early as two months after birth. 

Of course, discovering a disorder’s warning sign is not remotely the same thing as discovering a way to treat it, which is why the NIH ended its announcement by noting that the next step for the researchers is “to translate this finding into a viable tool for use in the clinic.”

To that end, the NIH is expanding the scope of its current autism study, and enrolling more babies and young children in long-term studies.

The housing market has been in recovery mode for the past two years, with both sales and prices steadily rising. But one group in particular – single buyers – has largely been left on the sidelines, according to a report by the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

The reason? This group still has a difficult time qualifying for a mortgage.

“Single home buyers have been suppressed for the past three years by restrictive mortgage lending standards, which favor dual-income households who are more likely to have higher credit scores,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR's chief economist. “Not seen in this survey is the elevated level of investors in recent years. The housing recovery would have been much weaker without investors, who often purchase with cash.”

Over the last four years investors have spent billions in cash on distressed properties, converting some to rentals while flipping others for a profit. Investors consistently have accounted for 30% of monthly sales, snapping up homes that often would have been purchased by first time home buyers.

Singles' market share declining

The market share held by single buyers declined from 32% in 2010 to 25% in both 2012 and 2013. In the years up through 2010, the single-buyer market share was stable, usually moving only one or two percentage points. Realtors are concerned that an important market segment for home purchases is steadily losing ground, even as the overall market improves.

“Given that mortgage interest rates are expected to gradually rise, we need greater access to credit for a sounder housing recovery,” Yun said. “Affordability conditions remain favorable in much of the country, but consumers need access to safe and sound financing, particularly the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and with low down payment options for first-time buyers.”

The government's new Qualified Mortgage Rule, that takes effect in January, may not help all that much. The rule does allow mortgage lenders some flexibility on the recent demand of at least 20% down. However, the rule's requirement for lenders to ensure borrowers are able to repay the loan may present some single-paycheck households new hurdles.

Survey results

In NAR's latest survey of home buyers, first-time buyers slipped to a 38% market share in the past year from 39% a year earlier. The study's long-term average, dating back to 1981, shows that four out of 10 purchases are first-time buyers.

“The share of first-time buyers appears to be only modestly below normal, but we have to keep in mind that investors have been more active in recent years, and they’re not included in these results,” Yun said. “Historically, first-time buyers are instrumental in housing recoveries because they help existing home owners sell and make a trade.”

First-time buyers, on average, were 31 years old and earned $67,400 a year. They purchased a 1,670 square-foot home costing $170,000. The typical repeat buyer was 52 years old, earned $96,000 and purchased a 2,060-square foot home costing $240,000.

As the new Qualified Mortgage Rule goes into effect, NAR is expressing cautious optimism that it will, on balance, be a positive factor for the market.

“Realtors understand the importance of avoiding unsustainable lending policies and believe that the regulators’ approach promotes responsible homeownership for consumers and is a return to safe and sound mortgage lending, ” said NAR President Gary Thomas, a broker in Villa Park, Calif.

In comments filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last month, NAR said the new rule “removes the risky product features and low- or no-documentation lending that led to increased defaults, without excluding those buyers who are unable to afford a high down payment.”

Lots of foods are good for you but many of them are somewhat offputting to the uninitiated, like kale, collard and cabbage. Ah, but now we have wild blueberries, which are tasty in pies, yogurt, muffins or just by themselves -- and, it turns out, they're quite healthful besides. 

That's because wild blueberries are a rich source of phytochemicals called polyphenols, which have been reported by a growing number of studies to exert a wide array of protective health benefits. The latest study, this one by researchers at the University of Maine, adds to this growing body of evidence.

This new research, published today in the journal Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, shows that regular long-term wild blueberry diets may help improve or prevent maladies associated with the metabolic syndrome, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

"The metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a group of risk factors characterized by obesity, hypertension, inflammation, dyslipidemia, glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, and endothelial dysfunction," explains Dr. Klimis-Zacas, a Professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Maine and a co-author of the study. "MetS affects an estimated 37% of adults in the US ." Many substances found in food have the potential to prevent MetS, thus reducing the need for medication and medical intervention.

According to the study, wild blueberry consumption (2 cups per day, human equivalent) for 8 weeks was shown to regulate and improve the balance between relaxing and constricting factors in the vascular wall, improving blood flow and blood pressure regulation of obese Zucker rats with metabolic syndrome.

"Our recent findings reported elsewhere, documented that wild blueberries reduce chronic inflammation and improve the abnormal lipid profile and gene expression associated with the MetS." Thus, this new study shows even greater potential such that "by normalizing oxidative, inflammatory response and endothelial function, regular long-term wild blueberry diets may also help improve pathologies associated with the MetS."

There's a pretty good chance that your home is worth more today than it was a year ago -- a really good chance.

CoreLogic's Home Price Index (HPI) report for September puts home prices nationwide -- including distressed sales -- up 12% from September 2012. That's the 19th consecutive monthly year-over-year increase in home prices nationally. On a month-over-month basis, home prices in September were up 0.2% from August 2013.

If distressed sales, which include include short sales and real estate owned (REO) transactions, are stripped out, the year-over-year increase is 10.8%, and the month-over-month rise was 0.3%. Distressed sales include short sales and real estate owned (REO) transactions.

Optimistic forecast

The CoreLogic Pending HPI indicates that October 2013 home prices, including distressed sales, are expected to rise by 12.5% on a year-over-year basis and 0.1% percent on a month-over-month basis. Excluding distressed sales, October prices are poised to rise 11.2% year over year and 0.1% on a month over month basis.

“September marked the unofficial five-year anniversary of the start of the housing crisis,” said Dr. Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic. “The five-year home price appreciation for all homes in the nation was 3.4%. While there is still room for improvement, the CoreLogic HPI is at the highest level since May 2008.”

Report highlights

CoreLogic also reports that as of September:

• Including distressed sales, the five states with the highest home price appreciation were: Nevada (+25.3%, California (+22.5%, Arizona (+14.6%), Georgia (+14.4%) and Michigan (+13.9%).
• Including distressed sales, no states posted home price depreciation in September.
• Excluding distressed sales, the five states with the highest home price appreciation were: Nevada (+22.4%, California (+18.9%), Utah (+13.2%), Arizona (+12.6%) and Florida (+12.6%).
• Excluding distressed sales, no states posted home price depreciation during the month.
• Including distressed transactions, the peak-to-current change in the national HPI (from April 2006 to September 2013) was -17.4%. Excluding distressed transactions, the peak-to-current change in the HPI for the same period was -13.1%.
• The five states with the largest peak-to-current declines, including distressed transactions, were Nevada (-41.4%), Florida (-37.7%), Arizona (-32.1%), Rhode Island (-28.3%) and West Virginia (-26.5%).

All of the top 100 Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) measured by population showed year-over-year increases in September.