Current Events in May 2014

The New York Attorney General is calling for a statewide ban on the use of “microbeads” in cosmetic and beauty products, and earlier this week released an environmental report, “Unseen Threat: How Microbeads Harm New York Waters, Wildlife, Health and Environment” (available in .pdf form here).

Though the report of course mentions problems specific to New York State, the general complaints are valid everywhere.

The problem with microbeads – minuscule balls of plastic used in exfoliating face creams – is that they never go away. They're non-biodegradeable, so they won't break down. They're small enough to slip through filters at wastewater-treatment plants, which mean they ultimately end up going back into public water supplies, or in lakes and oceans. There, they can easily absorb or become coated with toxins, are ingested by fish and other animals, and thus might also play a role in concentrating toxins and introducing them into the food chain.

Not alone

New York isn't the only state to consider banning microbeads for environmental reasons; Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and California are all considering similar proposals.

Microbeads also have many opponents overseas; the Dutch nonprofit Beat The Microbead promotes an “international campaign against microbeads in cosmetics.”

Even among the companies who might use them in their products, microbeads have few if any supporters. Many companies, including Unilever, Johnson and Johnson, L'Oreal and Colgate/Palmolive have already stated intentions to phase microbeads out of their products.

Visitors and newcomers to America — specifically, those who spend enough time here to waste some of it vegging out in front of the TV — are often amazed by our strange and exotic television commercials for prescription pharmaceuticals, since New Zealand is the only other country where “direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising” is legal.

So if you've watched television lately, you've probably heard something about the many men who suffer from “low T,” or low testosterone, which can be treated with various topical gels or patches so talk to your doctor if you have any of the symptoms mentioned in this commercial.

If you are taking any of these testosterone treatments then you should talk to your doctor (again) because he might not know that various forms of FDA-approved testosterone replacement therapies seem to increase patients' risk of heart attack, stroke or other problems. Not that your doctor is being lax; the studies suggesting this correlation are only a few months old, and word hasn't fully got out yet.

If you've purchased testosterone supplements by responding to one of those last-night commercials, talk to your doctor before you start or continue taking them. Low testosterone is not something you can self-diagnose.

On January 31, 2014, the FDA announced that it was “evaluating risk of stroke, heart attack and death with FDA-approved testosterone products” though it also specified that “At this time, FDA has not concluded that FDA-approved testosterone treatment increases the risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. Patients should not stop taking prescribed testosterone products without first discussing any questions or concerns with their health care professionals.”

FDA investigating

But the FDA is still investigating the possibility, after a November 2013 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

The men included in this study had low serum testosterone and were undergoing imaging of the blood vessels of the heart, called coronary angiography, to assess for coronary artery disease. Some of the men received testosterone treatment while others did not. On average, the men who entered the study were about 60 years old, and many had underlying cardiovascular disease. This study suggested a 30% increased risk of stroke, heart attack, and death in the group that had been prescribed testosterone therapy.

How was that 30% increased risk determined? Researchers followed up with the men about two and a half years after the men had their angiography. Among the men who had received testosterone therapy, 26% of them either had a heart attack, suffered a stroke, or died from any cause; this number dropped to 20% among the men who did not have testosterone replacement therapy.

The November 2013 AMA study wasn't the first to suggest a correlation between testosterone therapy and heart problems, though. In 2010, the New England Journal of Medicine mentioned an aborted clinical trial intended to test testosterone gel on patients over 65; researchers halted the study early after subjects showed an increased number of heart attacks and other heart-related problems.

That 2010 study, meanwhile, inspired another study which the online journal PLOS One published in January 2014, noting that “An association between testosterone therapy (TT) and cardiovascular disease has been reported and TT use is increasing rapidly.”

Remember: “increased risk of heart disease” is not remotely synonymous with “guaranteed to cause a heart attack.” However, if you are undergoing testosterone replacement therapy — and especially if you or any of your genetic relatives have a history of heart problems — talk to your doctor and decide whether the risks of testosterone therapy might outweigh the benefits, for you.

The manufacturer of the sleep drug Lunesta (eszopiclone) has been ordered to change the drug label and lower the current recommended starting dose.

The order from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) comes in the wake of data showing that eszopiclone levels in some patients may be high enough the morning after use to impair activities that require alertness -- including driving -- even if they feel fully awake.

Reducing the dosage

Taken at bedtime, the recommended starting dose has been decreased from 2 milligrams (mg) to 1 mg for both men and women. The 1 mg dose can be increased to 2 mg or 3 mg if needed, but the higher doses are more likely to result in next-day impairment of driving and other activities that require full alertness. Using lower doses means less drug will remain in the body in the morning hours.

Patients currently taking the 2 mg and 3 mg doses of Lunesta should contact their health care professional to ask for instructions on how to continue to take their medicine safely at a dose that is best for them.

“To help ensure patient safety, health care professionals should prescribe, and patients should take, the lowest dose of a sleep medicine that effectively treats their insomnia,” said Ellis Unger, M.D., director, Office of Drug Evaluation I in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Recently, data from clinical trials and other types of studies have become available, which allowed the FDA to better characterize the risk of next-morning impairment with sleep drugs.”

The dose change is based -- in part -- on findings from a study of 91 healthy adults ages 25 to 40. The study shows, compared to an inactive pill (placebo), Lunesta 3 mg was associated with severe next-morning psychomotor and memory impairment in both men and women 7.5 hours after taking the drug.

The study found that recommended doses can cause impairment to driving skills, memory, and coordination as long as 11 hours after the drug is taken. Despite these long-lasting effects, patients were often unaware they were impaired.

Label changes approved

In addition, the FDA has approved changes to the Lunesta prescribing information (label) and the patient Medication Guide to include these new prescribing recommendations. The drug labels for generic eszopiclone products must also be updated to include these changes.

In a drug safety communication, the FDA is urging health care professionals to caution patients taking Lunesta about the risk of next-morning impairment for activities that require mental alertness, including driving. Alertness can be impaired even in people who do not feel drowsy.

Drowsiness is listed as a common side effect for all insomnia drugs, along with warnings that people may still feel drowsy the next day after taking one of these products. The FDA is continuing to evaluate the risk of impaired mental alertness with the entire class of sleep drugs, including over-the-counter drugs, and will update the public as new information becomes available.

In Jan. 2013, the FDA announced a dose reduction  for sleep drugs that contain the active ingredient zolpidem, such as Ambien and Ambien CR, because of the risk of next morning impairment.

New home construction surged in April following a strong showing the month before.

Figures released by the Census Bureau show housing starts shot up 13.2% from March to a  seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,072,000, putting that rate of homebuilding 26.4% above the same period a year ago.

At the same time, the government revised its March figure higher -- to 947,000 and is 26.4 percent (±11.8%) above the April 2013 rate of 848,000.

Construction of single-family homes ran at an annual rate of 649,000 in April were at a rate of 649,000, while buildings with five units or more were
constructed at a rate of 413,000.

Building permits

Applications for building permits -- an indicator of developers’ plans for the next few months, were up 8.0% in April to seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,080,000.

Permits for single-family homes totaled 602,000, and permits for apartment buildingswere at a rate of 453,000.

The full report is availabl e on the Commerce Department website. http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf

General Motors is recalling 103,158 model year 2005-2007 Chevrolet Corvette vehicles manufactured March 29, 2004, through June 22, 2007.

The underhood bussed electrical center (UBEC) housing can expand and cause the headlamp low beam relay control circuit wire to bend. If the wire is repeatedly bent, it may fracture causing a loss of low beam headlamp illumination, decreasing the driver's visibility, as well as the vehicle's conspicuity to other motorists, increasing the risk of a crash.

GM will notify owners, and dealers will replace the UBEC housing unit, free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Model year 2008-2013 Chevrolet Corvettes will be covered under customer satisfaction program number 14203 for the same issue.

Owners may contact Chevrolet customer service at 1-800-222-1020. GM's number for this recall is 13146.

General Motors is recalling 2,440,524 model year 2004-2012 Chevrolet Malibu vehicles manufactured May 16, 2003, through October 11, 2012; 2004-2007 Malibu Maxx vehicles manufactured June 25, 2003, through April 5, 2007; 2005-2010 Pontiac G6 vehicles manufactured May 26, 2004,
through January 4, 2010; and 2007-2010 Saturn Aura vehicles manufactured April 24, 2006, through May 26, 2009.

In the affected vehicles, increased resistance in the Body Control Module (BCM) connection may result in voltage fluctuations in the Brake Apply Sensor (BAS) circuit. These fluctuations can cause one or more of these conditions: the brake lights to illuminate without the brake pedal being pushed; the brake lights to not illuminate when the pedal is pushed; difficulty disengaging the cruise control; moving the gear shifter out of the 'PARK' position without pushing the brake; and disablement of crash avoidance features such as traction control, electronic stability control, and panic braking assist features.

Any of the above failure conditions increases the risk of a crash.

GM will notify owners, and dealers will attach the wiring harness to the BCM with a spacer, apply dielectric lubricant to both the BCM and harness connector and the BAS and harness connector, and will relearn the brake pedal home position, free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Owners may contact General Motors customer service at 1-800-222-1020 (Chevrolet), 1-800-762-2737 (Pontiac), 1-800-553-6000 (Saturn). GM's number for this recall is 13036.

It's hard not to feel confused — or at least suspect that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler might be confused — when you read today's news reports that the FCC has voted for “net neutrality,” and hear Wheeler praise “net neutrality” and a free and open internet even though the actual FCC rules seem to run counter to what “net neutrality” is supposed to be.

Net neutrality, as the label suggests, is basically the idea that all websites should be treated equally (or viewed neutrally) by Internet service providers: you can reach all websites at the same speed, whether websites belonging to big rich companies or little blogs and mom-and-pop startups.

But what the “net neutrality” the FCC passed today also allows for an Internet “fast lane” granting certain companies faster connection speeds provided they pay for the privilege.

Earlier this year, Netflix agreed to pay Comcast to ensure Comcast subscribers could get faster connections to the Netflix site; Netflix later signed a similar deal with Verizon. The new FCC rules basically say yes, that's fine; Comcast, Verizon and other providers can indeed charge Netflix higher rates for faster service.

But is that necessarily unfair? Just yesterday, after all, came reports that streaming video services like Netflix account for more than half the broadband traffic in North America.

Good arguments?

Perhaps there are good arguments to make, then, that Netflix should pay more since it consumes more traffic. Or should Internet customers who use lots of bandwidth — the people actually streaming those Netflix videos — pay more than those who do not?

They already do, or soon will. Comcast — which now charges Netflix higher costs for faster connections — is also imposing broadband caps on its customers.

So there's a limit to how much bandwidth you can use for Netflix or other services, in addition to the extra fees Netflix and other services pay to ensure you can access them in a timely manner.

Critics of the FCC proposal fear than the Internet will basically be divided into haves and have-nots: easily accessible websites for companies rich enough to pay for fast-lane service, slow and clunky websites for everyone else.

But FCC Chairman Wheeler, while supporting Internet fast lanes, still said, “there is one Internet. Not a fast Internet, not a slow Internet, one Internet.” One Internet with a fast lane.

It's sometimes fun to sit here now, at the Pinnacle of Technological History To Date, and read old-fashioned predictions about their future (our past) and see how utterly wrong most of them were.

For example: when railroads were first invented — more specifically, when inventors first realized “Hey, these newfangled 'engine' things might not just power labor-saving machines; it's possible that, for the first time in history, people could travel on land faster than even the fastest horse can run!” — there were fears that the human body simply couldn't withstand prolonged exposure to crazy-fast speeds like 15 miles per hour, and at truly ridiculous speeds, like 30 or 40 mph, you'd either suffocate because it's impossible to breathe with air being sucked out of your carriage that quickly, or be unable to see anything because the human optical system probably can't process images of such unnaturally fast motion.

At the other extreme, there were predictions that proved far too wildly optimistic — the year 2000 came and went with no moon bases, flying cars, robot servants or 15-hour standard workweeks.

Heh heh heh. Silly old-timers with their silly old predictions, right? Except if you sit here now, at the Pinnacle of Technological History To Date, and make your own predictions about the future, there's a very good chance that one day your predictions will prove just as silly.

Driverless car

Consider the eventual promise of a true driverless car: get in your vehicle, give it your destination, then go to sleep if you wish, confident you'll be at your destination when you wake up. Too optimistic, or on its way? Google has already developed and tested a semi-driverless car: you can't actually sleep while you're in it, because the car requires an attentive human failsafe in case anything goes wrong.

But this is the earliest and most primitive form of the technology, so perhaps the suggestion, “A truly driverless robot car will come, even within modern people's lifetimes,” won't be listed among the silly-oldtimer predictions of the future.

Indeed, most of the “driverless cars are/will be much better than cars with drivers” arguments sound perfectly logical, even airtight, from a year-2014 perspective: it's true that of all the car accidents involving human drivers to date, the vast majority were caused by either human error or human frailty — sleepy drivers, distracted drivers, drunk or drugged drivers, careless drivers and just plain bad drivers.

Then, too, there are the accidents caused by generally good and responsible drivers whose reflexes, response times and senses are merely human rather than superhuman; could a well-designed and well-programmed robot car avoid the sort of accidents certain to happen with frail, faulty humans?

Life savers

Here's two articles from the past week exploring the near-future possibilities — and possible ramifications — of automated driving systems. The first is a May 7 article from IEEE Spectrum's blog, asking “How many lives will robocar technologies save?”

[Three-word summary: possibly a lot.]

This isn't about actual driverless or robot-driven cars, more about robot-assisted driving technology: warning systems far better and more precise than human senses. In a project sponsored by Toyota, some engineers at Virginia Tech ran a long, complicated and detailed study which led to thoroughly unsurprising results: yes, cars equipped with lane-change-warning devices would probably reduce the number of accidents caused by accidental or careless lane changes. Cars equipped with collision-warning systems are less likely to get into collisions. Why bother studying such obvious things?

But Spectrum addresses that:

You may well ask why anyone bothers to model the advantages of these warning systems when it stands to reason that they must save lives. Problem is, what stands to reason hasn’t always turned out to be true.

The early antilock braking systems (ABS) seemed so obviously good that the public flocked to buy them as optional features, and insurers offered discounts on policies for cars equipped with them.  But when the accident reports rolled in, insurers found that ABS had made no visible improvement. It seems that drivers, emboldened by their super-automatic brakes, had driven a little more aggressively than before.

So proximity sensors and collision-avoidance systems and other warning devices will almost certainly be standard features on cars of the near future, whether driven by humans or not.

Tough decisions

Meanwhile, Wired took its driving-technology predictions even further, in this piece by Patrick Lin addressing some of the philosophical and ethical questions which programmers of true robot-driven cars would have to consider: “The robot car of tomorrow may just be programmed to hit you.”

Here's a problem: even assuming perfected driverless-car technology, and further assuming a time when all cars are driverless (and thus human error and human weakness no longer cause car accidents), 100% perfect accident avoidance still won't be possible:

In future autonomous cars, crash-avoidance features alone won’t be enough. Sometimes an accident will be unavoidable as a matter of physics, for myriad reasons – such as insufficient time to press the brakes, technology errors, misaligned sensors, bad weather, and just pure bad luck. Therefore, robot cars will also need to have crash-optimization strategies.

What does that mean? Here's a couple of examples: suppose a crash is unavoidable for some reason, there's two cars ahead and your robo-car will hit one of them. One car is a heavy, sturdily-made SUV with an excellent safety rating, the other choice is a flimsy little mini-car. Which should your robo-car hit?

Well, the robot programming would want to minimize the chance of causing death or serious injury, which means hitting the big safe car is the better choice, as the flimsy car's driver is far more likely to be hurt. Except that means robot cars would effectively be programmed to single out cars with high safety ratings.

As Lin pointed out:

Programming a car to collide with any particular kind of object over another seems an awful lot like a targeting algorithm, similar to those for military weapons systems. And this takes the robot-car industry down legally and morally dangerous paths.

Even if the harm is unintended, some crash-optimization algorithms for robot cars would seem to require the deliberate and systematic discrimination of, say, large vehicles to collide into. The owners or operators of these targeted vehicles would bear this burden through no fault of their own, other than that they care about safety or need an SUV to transport a large family. Does that sound fair?

What seemed to be a sensible programming design, then, runs into ethical challenges.

Helmeted or not?

And other challenges are even worse. Lin posited another hypothetical: suppose a crash with a motorcyclist is unavoidable. The car must choose between hitting a driver who wears a helmet, or a driver who does not. A driver without a helmet is far more likely to die in an accident, and reducing the chance of death or serious injury is surely a laudable goal, yet there are obvious ethical problems with programming cars to target helmet-wearing motorcyclists:

...we can quickly see the injustice of this choice, as reasonable as it may be from a crash-optimization standpoint. By deliberately crashing into that motorcyclist, we are in effect penalizing him or her for being responsible, for wearing a helmet. Meanwhile, we are giving the other motorcyclist a free pass, even though that person is much less responsible for not wearing a helmet, which is illegal in most U.S. states.

Not only does this discrimination seem unethical, but it could also be bad policy. That crash-optimization design may encourage some motorcyclists to not wear helmets, in order to not stand out as favored targets of autonomous cars, especially if those cars become more prevalent on the road.

Will driverless cars really take off in your lifetime, or at least your kid's? Will solutions be found for the ethical problems they pose? Wait long enough, and the question's bound to answer itself.

If you're looking to be relieved of your worldly goods, you can hang out in a casino, buy a batch of Lotto tickets daily and give big piles of money to everyone you meet.

Or you can just sign up for cable, telephone and Internet service.

The ink is not even dry on the Federal Communications Commission's new policy that lets companies like Comcast charge companies like Netflix higher rates to ensure that their streaming video moves smoothly and quickly and now the perhaps over-confident carriers are beginning to move towards their longtime dream -- getting more money on both ends.

A Comcast executive is being quoted today as saying he expects the company will roll out "usage-based billing" — what most people call "data caps" — to all of its customers within five years.

"I would predict that in five years Comcast at least would have a usage-based billing model rolled out across its footprint," Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said, according to ThomsonReuters (transcript).

Forked tongue

But hey, put yourself in Comcast's shoes. Currently consumers pay you $100 or so per month for Internet access and other "bundled services." If they want faster Internet connections, they pay a few bucks more.

Netflix and other big content companies pay for their local connection to the Internet but until recently, they haven't paid a premium to the Comcasts of the world even though they use more than half the available broadband capacity most days.

So now that they have their hands in the pockets of the content providers, Comcast and the other carriers are just doing what big monopolies do -- sharpening their plans to shake more money out of consumers. 

Come on, did you really expect anything else?

Well, that didn't take long! On Tuesday, May 13, the European Union's Court of Justice ruled that Google and other search engines are, in at least some circumstances, legally obligated to stop linking to old news stories about various people — true and accurate news stories about people — if the people in question request it, because in the European Union, apparently, there is such a thing as a “right to be forgotten” and the Internet is obliged to honor it.

The original case was brought by a Spanish man, Mario Costeja González, whose house was repossessed and auctioned for unpaid taxes back in 1998. A Spanish newspaper printed legal notices about the proceedings — standard operating procedure for a daily paper, in Spain or in America — and then in 2009, Costeja asked Google to stop linking to the old notices in searches for his name.

Google refused, Costeja took Google to court and the court sided against Google.

Requests run rampant

That was Tuesday afternoon. On Wednesday came the first undetailed reports that Google was received an unspecified number of takedown requests, and by Thursday morning, the BBC shared some specifics: a politician running for re-election wants Google to stop linking to old news stories about his behavior in office.

A pedophile wants Google to stop linking to news articles about his previous criminal conviction for possession of child pornography, and a doctor wants Google to stop linking to negative reviews written by his patients.

Those are the only three examples the BBC mentioned; Google has not officially commented on just how many takedown requests it has received.

According to E.U. commissioner Viviane Reding, the court decision is “a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans,” though it's uncertain where or if Reding and the E.U. Court draws any distinction between “protecting personal data” and “trying to erase history.”

As of press time, there's no word on whether Google will, for example, comply with the takedown requests from the pedophile or the politician, nor whether Google is even legally obligated to do so — the court decision, as written, leaves much room for interpretation.

The E.U. has no equivalent to America's First Amendment's free-speech guarantees; you can be successfully sued for libel even if you're telling the truth. Whether the court will revisit its decision in light of recent developments is also unknown-as-of-presstime detail.

Everyone, it seems – from President Obama on down – is posing for 'selfies,” those self-portrait photographs taken by extending a smartphone as far as an arm can reach and snapping a picture.

While it might seem like an exercise in narcissism, Toby Rush, CEO of EyeVerify, sees it as a tool to vastly expand his firm's biometric security product.

EyeVerify, a Kansas City start-up, has developed an application that takes an “eyeprint” of your eye, to work in the place of a password. A great idea, perhaps, but somewhat cumbersome to implement.

But then the “selfie” trend came along, prompting device manufacturers to respond in a way that benefits EyeVerify, and Rush contends, also benefits mobile security.

“This year you're seeing a significant upgrade in front-facing camera capabilities,” Rush told ConsumerAffairs. “As manufacturers upgrade those cameras we are able to use them to image and pattern match the blood vessels of your eye.”

Front camera usually an after-thought

When you look at marketing material for smartphones you often find a short list of specs. They include processor speed, graphics capability, screen resolution and the resolution of the rear-facing camera.

Little mention has been made of the front-facing camera, since it was rarely used and, when it was, mostly for video chats.

“Now we're seeing enough use-demand for the selfie camera that manufacturers are beginning to upgrade it,” Rush said. “We've seen in the last few weeks, and we have information about phones that are coming, where the front-facing camera is now making it on the short list of specs.”

Big upgrade

In the last week Chinese manufacturer Huawei has launched a new smartphone featuring an 8 MP front camera, an obvious bow to consumers who now select a device, in part, for its ability to snap a “selfie.”

By comparison, the new Samsung Galaxy S5 has a 2 MP front-facing camera, more than ample optics capability to work with EyeVerify's eyeprint system, according to Rush.

Optics are only part of the equation. A smartphone needs the processor speed to handle the complex software required to process the EyeVerify system.

“We have been able to enhance our algorithms and leverage these newer cameras to do that with a common smartphone,” Rush said. “What we're doing is leveraging existing hardware on smartphones and tablets that are already widely deployed and will continue to be widely deployed.”

Mobile banking security

The eyeprint system's principal application at present is for mobile financial services, though Rush says future uses will quickly emerge. Currently the mobile banking app NetTeller uses it, primarily in Australia.

“When they want to log you into the banking app you hold the phone up 8 to 12 inches away from your face where it would capture the image of your eye,” Rush said. “We capture that, process it in under a second and log you in with the equivalent of a 50-character complex password.”

It's not just secure, Rush points out, it's also convenient for the consumer.

“We're giving you very high security with something you never have to remember, type in or change,” he said.

It's been shown that one effective way for people to maintain a healthy weight is to keep track of the number of calories consumed each day.

It's simple math. You burn a certain number of calories each day. Your daily calories should balance out.

This is also true for cats and dogs, and just as there is a growing obesity problem among humans a growing percentage of pets are overweight or obese. And much like humans, carrying this extra weight can take a toll on your pet's health.

"Overweight animals also have certain health issues," said Susan Nelson, clinical associate professor and veterinarian at the Kansas State University Veterinary Health Center. "It can aggravate joint disease. It can lead to Type 2 diabetes. It can aggravate heart conditions, and it can lead to skin diseases as folds in the pet's skin get bigger. It can even shorten their life span."

Unlike controlling your own weight, controlling your pet's weight doesn't require willpower. You, after all, are the one handing out the food each day.

Over-feeding

But Nelson said in almost every case of an overweight dog or cat, its owner is over-feeding it.

It starts with an accurate measurement of the pet's food. Nelson says it's important to define terms. For example, a recommendation of one 8-ounce cup of food is a precise measurement. It isn't the same as using a Big Gulp drink cup to dispense food.

Next, it's important to know how many calories are in that cup of food. The pet food company should list the number on the packaging. If it doesn't, contact the manufacturer to get this information.

The number of calories per cup can vary widely between different brands and types of food – the difference can easily be as much as 200 to 300 calories per cup. Adjust the amount accordingly or you could easily double the number of daily calories your pet consumes.

Also, Nelson says the feeding guides you find on the bags are broad guidelines. They may or may not be ideal for your pet.

"In the testing facilities, these animals are typically mandated to have a certain amount of exercise per day because they are research animals," Nelson said. "In reality, a lot of the pets that we own don't get as much exercise as those dogs and cats in the research facilities."

Exercise is critical

Exercise is the second part of a weight control plan for your dog or cat, just as it is for you. Nelson recommends at least 20 to 30 minutes of daily exercise for your dog or cat. This isn't always easy to do for indoor pets.

A dog or cat that lies around most of the day takes very few calories to meet its daily requirements, which makes it hard to lose weight. Exercise will increase its metabolic rate and burn more calories.

Most people often find it easier to exercise a dog than a cat. But if your cat is both an indoor and outdoor pet, making sure the cat spends as much time outside as possible will help it remain active and burn calories.

For indoor cats, Nelson has a few tricks up her sleeve to encourage exercise.

"You can try scattering the food around in small portions throughout the house so that they have to hunt for it and get more exercise that way or you can place the food in a location where the cat has to go up and down stairs," Nelson said. "There are also items call food puzzles that you fill with food and the pet needs to work at it to slowly retrieve the kibble."

Worrisome numbers

In its annual survey for 2012, the Association for Pet Obesity Prevention (APOP) found the number of overweight cats in the U.S. had reached an all-time high. Veterinarians rated 52.5% of dogs and 58.3% of cats overweight or obese.

Insurance companies that write health policies for pets have noted this alarming trend.

“Diabetes, heart and lung diseases, bone and joint diseases, skin conditions and different types of cancer are more common in overweight animals, as is a shorter life expectancy,” VPI Pet Insurance, part of Nationwide, said in a recent statement.

In 2009, the company said its policyholders filed more than $17 million in claims for conditions and disease caused by excessive weight. The company suggests pet owners are adding to the problem by over-feeding their animals or feeding them the wrong types of food.

You may find it hard not give your pet any treats, but you can substitute attention for extra calories. If your pet can't go cold turkey, try switching to lower-calorie treats, such as veggies, and limit the total calories from treats to no more than 10 percent of you pet's daily allotted caloric intake.

"I think it's important to realize that food does not equal love," Nelson said. "It's hard to resist those big, brown eyes, but those extra calories can really add up."

Editor's note: Voters in Jackson County, Oregon, will vote next Tuesday on banning GMOs from food. But in this op-ed, Mischa Popoff, a former organic food inspector, says the measure is ill-conceived.

---

According to the rules for organic production – written, edited and finalized by organic industry stakeholders – there is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). And yet, supporters of Measure 15–119 to ban GMOs in Jackson County, Oregon, claim to be trying to protect organic farmers.

Read the standards. Organic farmers are not allowed to use GMOs; but since GMOs are perfectly safe, contact with them does not result in the decertification of an organic crop. Indeed, not a single organic crop in North America has ever been decertified due to contact with a GMO.

Activists claim GMOs don’t perform as advertised. But American farmers choose to grow them for the same reason European farmers wish they could grow them: decreased weed and pest pressure, increased yields, improved nutrition, reduced fuel consumption, and reduced soil erosion.

So, why are organic activists so dead-set opposed to this new science? Simple, because GMOs deliver on everything the organic industry once promised. As such, the people who brought you certified-organic food in America that tests positive for prohibited pesticides a whopping 43% of the time, seek to ban GMOs from the face of American agriculture.

Pure and nutritious

I grew up on an organic grain farm and became an organic inspector in 1998. I believed it was important to produce food that was pure and nutritious, while minimizing our impact on the land. But rather than pursue these goals that were once the backbone of the organic movement, an urbanized leadership replaced all the fulltime farmers who used to run the organic movement, and launched a full-frontal assault on ALL forms of science-based farming, with genetic engineering in the forefront.

Many activists pretend that banning GMOs has nothing to do with advancing organics. But the National Director of The Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins (a vocal supporter of 15–119), spells it all out: “The challenge will be to see if organic consumers, environmental organizations, farm activists, churches, and public interest groups can begin making headway in the bigger battle — driving genetically engineered crops off the market all over the world.”

Still think Measure 15–119 has nothing to do with the self-serving aims of urban organic activists? If their way is better, why not prove it instead of trying to ban the competition?

To avoid providing an answer, some activists claim to be organic but not certified. But the rules of organic production apply to anyone who uses the term “organic.” This was done by organic stakeholders to prevent anyone from misusing the term. So there’s no escaping the rules that stipulate no threat to an organic crop from GMOs.

"GMO contamination"

Others, like organic farmer-activist Chris Hardy – director of GMO Free Jackson County – claim the rules don’t apply because their buyers demand a 100% GMO-free product. This led Hardy to actually sabotage his own crop by plowing it down – without bothering to test it first! – under the pretense that he was avoiding GMO “contamination.” Read America’s organic standards Mr. Hardy; even a buyer can’t change them.

The person who threatened Hardy’s crop wasn’t his neighbor growing GMOs. It was him and his buyer. But it’s against the law to claim to exceed America’s organic standards, which is precisely what such zero-tolerance for GMOs tries to do.

While most organic farmers are honest and hardworking, and would never plow down a crop for political reasons, they’re saddled with a litany of useless rules that make organic farming in America less efficient than when their grandparents farmed. And it’s all thanks to the tax-funded, anti-GMO leadership of the organic movement.

Genetic engineering gave us synthetic insulin for diabetics! And it could prevent a half-million kids from going blind and dying each year in the Majority World due to Vitamin-A deficiency. GMO Golden Rice could already be saving these kids, but for the fact that anti-GMO organic activists stopped it from being approved on the claim it will harm organic rice, which is nothing but a bald-faced lie.

Vote “NO” on Measure 15–119, and tell the activists in Jackson County to read their own rule book. Otherwise, you can rest assured, farming in America will go back in time.

---

Mischa Popoff is a former organic farmer and USDA-contract organic inspector. He is the author of Is it Organic? and has co-authored articles alongside Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, and leader of the Allow Golden Rice Now! campaign.

You might not like to think about it but one thing all consumers will be buying one of these days is "death services" -- the euphemism of the funeral industry. 

And just before that, we may be in the market for "dying services" -- which can range from having an intern pound on our chest in an emergency room to drifting peacefully away under hospice care.

You may say that while dying is often unpleasant, we only have to do it once, so it's not so bad. But that argument also works the other way -- since we only do it once, we're often not very good at it. Let's face it -- unless an air conditioner falls on us while we're walking down the street, the pathway to our exit may be a lengthy and painful one.

But if we lived in Canada, it might be a lot better, a recent study finds. Researchers from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto said they found that the overall quality of death of cancer patients who die in an urban Canadian setting with ready access to palliative care was good to excellent in the large majority of cases, helping to dispel the myth that marked suffering at the end of life is inevitable.

"Fear of dying is something almost every patient with advanced cancer or other life-threatening illness faces, and helping them, to achieve a 'good death' is an important goal of palliative care," said the center's Dr. Sarah Hales.

"We know a lot about disease and the physical symptoms that it may produce, but only recently have we focused on approaches to relieve the fear of death in patients and families and to address the emotional, spiritual and existential concerns that support the quality of the dying experience," she said.

Story continues after video

402 deaths studied

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the sample scored in the "good' to "almost perfect" range of a scale measuring the dying experience, with 61% of the sample scoring in the "neither good nor bad" range of the scale.

Better scores were linked to older patients, high social support (most patients were not living alone), older caregiver age, English as the primary language of the caregiver, greater length of relationship between the caregiver and patient, less caregiver bereavement distress (i.e. grief, stress-response, and depressive symptoms) and home death.

The study examined 402 deaths of cancer patients between 2005 and 2010 in the three acute care hospitals of University Health Network and from the Tammy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, a home palliative care program at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.

Caregivers of the patients who spoke and read English were contacted and, those who agreed, were interviewed about the quality of death and dying using the Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) questionnaire, the most widely used and best validated tool to assess the dying experience.

Although the dying and death experience ratings were generally positive, for a substantial minority, symptom control and death-related distress at the end of life were problematic. Fifteen per cent (15%) of the sample scored in the "terrible" to "poor" range for symptom control, with 19 percent scoring in the same range for Transcendence – feeling unafraid of or making peace with dying. These could be areas in which further interventions are needed to improve outcomes, say the authors.

The study is being published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.

E-cigarettes are gaining mainstream attention as a competitor to traditional cigarettes, but a new study finds that smokers are less inclined to consider them safer than cigarettes.

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that in 2010, 84.7% of smokers surveyed believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes, but according to this new study in 2013, that number dropped to just 65%.

The study also looked at the perceived harmfulness of e-cigarettes among current smokers. In 2010, 84.7% of smokers surveyed believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes, but according to this new study in 2013, that number dropped to just 65%.

"This apparent decline in smokers' beliefs about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared with regular cigarettes is perplexing against the background of advertising and media messages touting e-cigarettes as safer alternatives and cessation aids," said co-investigator Cabral Bigman, PhD, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"One possible explanation is that the increased media attention over the lack of FDA approval and regulation of this emerging tobacco product, injuries arising from e-cigarette-induced fires, and health concerns from toxic chemicals in e-cigarettes in recent years may have conveyed conflicting information about the relative safety of e-cigarette use," Bigman said.

Low usage levels

While levels of awareness have increased rapidly, use percentage is still very low with only 6% of U.S. adults reporting ever using e-cigarettes. This small number means that e-cigarettes may not yet be a threat to tobacco control programs, but at the same time, means any claim that e-cigarettes are helping to reduce the harm done by regular cigarettes is probably premature.

"There is an ongoing debate within the public health community about whether e-cigarettes are a viable alternative for harm reduction and whether smokers are merely supplementing or truly replacing their smoking with e-cigarettes and achieving smoking cessation," said co-investigator Andy Tan, MBBS, MPH, MBA, PhD, Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

"It is uncertain whether increased population e-cigarette awareness and perceptions about reduced harm might play a role in encouraging smoking-cessation behaviors. However, public health professionals should systematically scrutinize the nature of marketing activities and media coverage of e-cigarettes, their impact on population awareness and perceptions of e-cigarettes, and how these factors may influence e-cigarette use and smoking prevalence in the U.S. population."

Rising energy and food costs helped push the government's consumer price index (CPI) moderately higher in April.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI was up 0.3% last month following an 0.2% increase in March. For the last 12 months, inflation is running at an annual rate of 2.0% -- the largest 12-month increase since last July.

Food and energy

The cost of food was up 0.4% in April, with meet prices surging 2.9% the biggest increase in more than 10 years. Prices for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs 1.5%, while dairy products were up 0.5% the sixth advance in as many months.

Energy prices were up 0.3% for the first advance in 3 months. index increased 0.3% in April after declining in February. The biggest increase was the cost of gasoline (+2.3%) followed by natural gas (+0.3%). In contrast, fuel oil costs were down 3.0%, while electricity costs fell 2.6% -- the largest decline since 1986.

When those volatile categories are stripped out, the “core Rate” of inflation was up 0.2% -- the same as in March.

Other costs

Looking at costs beyond food and energy, shelter was up 0.2%, medical care costs rose 0.3% and airline fares jumped 2.6% -- the largest increase since November 2009.

The full May CPI report is available on the Labor Department website.

General Motors is recalling 477 model year 2014 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles manufactured May 23, 2013, through March 25, 2014, 2014; GMC Sierra vehicles manufactured May 25, 2013, through March 31, 2014; and 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles manufactured January 29, 2014, through March 27, 2014.

In the affected vehicles, the tie rod threaded attachment may not be properly tightened to the steering gear rack. An improperly tightened tie rod attachment may allow the tie rod to separate from the steering rack, resulting in a loss of steering, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Owners are advised not to drive their vehicles until they have been inspected and repaired. Owners should contact GM to have their vehicles towed to the dealership.

GM has notified all owners, and dealers will inspect the inner tie rods to make sure that they are correctly tightened, replacing the steering gear, as necessary, free of charge.

The recall began on May 14, 2014. Owners may contact General Motors customer service at 1-800-222-1020 (Chevrolet), or 1-800-462-8782 (GMC). GM's number for this recall is 14204.

General Motors is recalling 140,067 model year 2014 Chevrolet Malibus manufactured June 12, 2013, through May 2, 2014, and equipped with a 2.5L engine with the auto stop/start option.

The vehicles may experience a complete loss of brake vacuum assist, disabling the hydraulic boost assist. If the hydraulic boost assist is disabled, slowing or stopping the vehicle will require additional brake pedal effort and a lengthened stopping distance. Both of these effects increase the risk of a crash.

GM will notify owners, and dealers will update the electronic brake control module software, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin around May 30, 2014.

Owners may contact General Motors customer service at 1-800-222-1020. General Motors number for this recall is 14201.

Bravo is recalling select lots and product(s) of Bravo Pet Food.

The products have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The company has received a limited number of reports of dogs experiencing nausea and diarrhea that may be associated with these specific products.

There have been no reports of human illness as a result of these products.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to distributors, retail stores, internet retailers and directly to consumers. The product can be identified by the batch ID code (best used by date) printed on the side of the plastic tube or on a label on the box.

The recalled products are as follows:

1) These products are being recalled because they may have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes:

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! BEEF BLEND FOR DOGS AND CATS (Made in New Zealand)
All 2lb., 5lb., and 10lb. tubes
Product Numbers: 52-102, 52-105, 52-110 
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! BEEF BLEND FOR DOGS AND CATS (Made in New Zealand)
All 2lb., 5lb., and 10lb. tubes 
Product Numbers: 52-102, 52-105, 52-110 
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

2) These products are being recalled out of an abundance of caution because while they did not test positive for pathogens, they were manufactured in the same manufacturing facility or on the same day as products that did test positive:

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! LAMB BLEND FOR DOGS AND CATS (Made in New Zealand)
All 2lb., 5lb., and 10lb. tubes 
Product Numbers: 42-102, 42-105, 42-110
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! LAMB BASIC FOR DOGS AND CATS (Made in New Zealand)
2lb. tubes 
Product Number: 42-202 
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! BEEF & BEEF HEART FOR DOGS AND CATS (Made in New Zealand)
5lb. tubes 
Product Number: 53-130
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! 100% PURE & NATURAL PREMIUM GRASS-FED BUFFALO FOR DOGS AND CATS (Manufactured by: Bravo! Manchester, CT)
NET WT 2LBS (32 OZ) .91KG (Tubes)
Product Number: 72-222 
Best Used By Date: 1/7/16

PRODUCT: BRAVO! TURKEY BALANCE FORMULA (Manufactured by: Bravo! Manchester, CT)
NET WT 2 LBS (32 OZ) .09KG, Chub (tube)
Product Number: 31-402 
Best Used By Dates: 1/7/16 and 2/11/16

NET WT 5 LBS (80 OZ) 2.3KG, Chub (tube) 
Product Number: 31-405
Best Used By Dates: 1/7/16 and 2/11/16

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! LAMB BLEND FOR DOGS AND CATS (Manufactured by: Bravo! Manchester, CT)
5 LBS (80 OZ) 2.3KG, Chub (tube)
Product Number: 42-105
Best Used By Date: 2/11/16

Pet owners who have the affected product should dispose of this product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash receptacle). They can return to the store where purchased and submit the Product Recall Claim Form available on the Bravo website www.bravopetfoods.com for a full refund or store credit.

Consumers may contact Bravo toll free at (866) 922-9222.