Current Events in August 2014

The number of people standing in the unemployment line for the first time continues to drop.

Figures released by the Labor Department (DOL) show initial applications for state unemployment benefits plunged by 14,000 in the week ending August 2 -- to 289,000. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com were calling for a total of 308,000.

Analysts note that the average initial claims level has dropped below 300,000 to 293,500 over the last four weeks which would imply payroll growth in the neighborhood of 300,000 new jobs per month. Yet, the DOL reported that the economy created just 200,000 positions last month.

Thus they say, if there is not a surge in job growth in August, we could see the initial claims level jump above the 300,000 mark again.

The 4-week moving average, which is not as volatile as the weekly number and therefore considered a more accurate gauge of the labor market, fell by 4,000 to 293,500. That's the lowest level for the average since February 25, 2006.

The full report is available on the DOL website.

Sears Canada is recalling Joe Boxer licensed boys 3-piece Eat Sleep Play Pajama Sets.

The PJ Sets do not meet flammability testing standards for sleepwear.

The company says it has received no reports of incidents to date.

The PJ Sets were sold in boys' sizes: small, medium, large and extra-large at Sears Canada retail stores between January 2014, and July 2014, for $29.99.

The affected manufacturer numbers and corresponding Sears item numbers are:

Consumers who have the recalled PJ sets should stop children from wearing them, and return the sets to their nearest Sears department store for a full refund if accompanied by a receipt of sale or Sears Card statement, or for the lowest selling price without a receipt.  

Zemco Industries of Buffalo, N.Y., is recalling approximately 106,800 pounds of smoked sausage.

The product contains soy, an allergen that is not declared on the label of the product.

There have been no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.

The product subject to recall includes:

• 2.5-lb. packages of “CAVANAUGH SMOKED SAUSAGE”

The products were produced on June 11, 2014; June 13, 2014; June 19, 2014; July 10, 2014; July 19, 2014; and Aug. 1, 2014, and has Use By dates of Sept. 9, 2014; Sept. 11, 2014; Sept. 17, 2014; Oct. 8, 2014; Oct. 17, 2014; and Oct. 30, 2014.

The product bears the establishment number “Est. 5222” on the package, and was sent to distribution centers for resale, as well as retail establishments nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the company. The problem occurred when the company reformulated the product and updated packaging and labeling but the employees utilized the old formulation containing soy that was not declared on the updated packaging and labels. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact consumer relations at (866) 328-3156.  

Seoul Shik Poom of Englewood, N.J., is recalling Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bars.

The products may contain eggs, an allergen not listed on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

The recalled Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar (4bars/432 ml) was distributed nationwide through retail stores.

The product was sold in a silver plastic cooling bag marked with code # IC1006 and UPC CODE: 761898632925, and has an expiration date of 03/20/2015 stamped on the package.

Consumers who posses the recalled product and are allergic to eggs should return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 201-567-7780 - ext 140, Monday through Friday between 9:00am - 5:00pm (ET).

It was only a matter of time before scammers discovered social media. To them, email phishing scams are so 2009. Really aggressive identity thieves are now using social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn to ensnare victims. It turns out it's easier and a lot more lucrative.

Social media uses are always getting friend requests. Most often it's someone from the user's circle of friends. But getting a friend request from a friend-of-a-friend is not uncommon.

Assuming that person is who they say they are, without confirming it, is dangerous, says Arun Vishwanath, associate professor of communication at the University of Buffalo. You could fall victim to what's being called “farcing,” exposing dozens of your friends and contacts for good measure.

“Farcing takes place on popular social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google Plus and has been used for online bullying, identity theft, organizational espionage, child pornography and even burglary,” said Vishwanath.

Wealth of information

Consider all the information that is available to a “friend.” It's enough to make a scammer hyperventilate. Once accepted as a friend, the scammer would have access to your name, your nicknames and the names of friends and relatives.

Chances are he would learn what schools you attended and where you have worked. He might even learn your address, pet’s name, favorite vacation sites plus when you’re leaving and how long you’ll be gone. The list is almost endless and all of it is valuable to someone trying to steal your identity.

Vishwanath got the idea for a study of the phenomenon from a local crime story in the Buffalo area. He says a substitute teacher created a false identity and fake Facebook profile in which he pretended to be a female student. He allegedly used that identity to entice minors — some of whom were his students — to send him explicit sexual photographs. He is now serving 30 years in prison.

But people who want more than mere sexual titillation have grabbed onto social media as a means to pry sensitive information from unsuspecting victims – information that can be used to take out loans and clean out bank accounts.

Testing his theory

To prove his point Vishwanath set up a simulated farcing experiment on Facebook and watched it unfurl. He created 4 fake profiles, each with different levels of information attached to them. For example, some had photos and other friends, some didn't.

He next recruited 150 Facebook users and contacted them with friend requests. One in 5 agreed with the initial friend request. Another 13% of that group agreed to provide the new “friend” with additional information about themselves when he asked. That's what he calls Stage 2 of a farcing attack.

“A motivated farcer can go on to the second stage, requesting more information directly from the victim by using messaging functions within the social media platform,” Vishwanath said. “Messages can be crafted to take advantage of the asymmetries between the information mined from the victim’s page and the deceptive intent of the phisher.”

Protecting yourself

One obvious way to protect yourself, he says, is to be much more careful when you make friending decisions — phony, even felonious, characters will present themselves as great new friend possibilities. Only friend people you actually know. Another way is to limit the amount and types of personal information you share on social media sites.

“These scams are on the rise and will continue to increase with the popularity of social media, exponentially increasing the number of farcing victims worldwide,” Vishwanath said.

The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) has conducted a study of Facebook users, assessing their awareness of the farcing threat. The results were not encouraging.

The ITRC study found that more users tended to be concerned and aware of identity theft related to Facebook, they did not always act in accordance with such concerns. Consumers still tend to believe that financial harm cannot be caused by Facebook usage, the report concluded.

“As our world transforms more and more into a cyber environment, social networking becomes a larger part of our lives,” said Nikki Junker, Social Media Coordinator for the ITRC. “Because of this, it is important to understand how social networking users comprehend the safety risks while engaging on such sites.”

Back in January, we reported that federal safety regulators were looking into reports of braking problems in 2007 and 2008 Toyota Camry hybrids, potentially affecting about 30,000 cars.

While it's possible that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may eventually decide there is ample evidence for a safety recall, that process is a lengthy one that often leads nowhere.

Toyota, however, appears to be trying to get out in front of the problem by issuing what's called a "warranty enhancement," under which at least some Camry owners are qualifying for warranty coverage of their problems with their brake actuator system. 

A Toyota official said there are about 177,500 vehicles covered by the warranty enhancement program. Cindy Knight, public affairs manager for Toyota Motor Sales USA, said the program applies to model year 2007-2011 Camry Hybrids. 

Letters going out

"We began sending Owner Notification letters in early July, and will continue mailing over several months," Knight told ConsumerAffairs.

At least one of those receiving the letter had been pressing Toyota about the problems he had encountered. 

"I have a Camry and had been fighting for two months to get them to pay for a replacement brake accuator (almost $2K job). They just relented and I thought you might want to do an update on your story, so others could benefit," said a ConsumerAffairs reader named Andy, who sent us a copy of the letter he received from Toyota, informing him of the warranty enhancement covering malfunctions of the brake actuator system.

In a follow-up, Andy told us the work has been done on his car and he's now a happy Camry owner. While that's good news for Andy, other Camry Hybrid drivers aren't as happy, although perhaps they will be if they are included in the enhancement program. Until then, complaints continue to pile up at SaferCar.gov, the NHTSA site where consumers can report problems with their vehicles.

Just yesterday (Aug. 4), a Toyota owner filed this complaint with NHTSA:

REGULARLY WHEN I DRIVE THIS CAR I PRESS THE BRAKES AND THEY DO NOT ENGAGE OR THEY ENGAGE ON A DELAY. I HAVE MENTIONED IT TO THE TOYOTA SERVICE CENTER SEVERAL TIMES. I FIRST NOTICED THE ISSUES IMMEDIATELY AFTER I PURCHASED THE CAR. I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO TOYOTA WHO DISMISSED MY COMPLAINT. TOYOTA ALWAYS TELLS ME NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THE BRAKES. THEY ALSO TOLD ME THAT IT WOULD COST MY $140 TO LOOK INTO THE PROBLEM.

The day before, another consumer said this:

WHILE DRIVING I ATTEMPTED BRAKE TO SLOW ENTRY INTO UPHILL DRIVEWAY. ALL LIGHTS ON DRIVER PANEL LIT UP. BRAKES DID NOT RESPOND TO SLOW DOWN OR STOP. WITH FULL FORCE I DEPRESSED BRAKE PEDAL. SINCE DRIVE WAY WAS UPHILL, I COASTED TO STOP JUST SHORT OF GARAGE DOOR BEFORE CRASHING. THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME THE BRAKES TOTALLY FAILED DURING LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

Consumers who are having what they think may be brake actuator problems who have not received a letter from Toyota may want to follow Andy's lead and write directly to the company. The address is:

Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.
19001 South Western Ave.
PO Box 2991
Torrance, CA 90509-2991

Bad news: if you're reading this, there's a very good chance you need to change your password because a 20-something computer hacker in Russia already knows it.

Of course, you've already read countless variations of that story: “Hackers break into database. If your information was on it, you must protect yourself.”

So when you hear about the hack attack du jour, you immediately want to know the specifics: which one of my passwords am I supposed to change this time? Which company or organization got its database hacked? What was the time frame?

And you expect an answer along these lines: “If you made any credit- or debit-card purchases at an XYZ store, or online at XYZstore.com, between January 13 and February 10, your information is at risk.” That also implies a comforting corollary: “If you've never shopped at XYZ, or at least didn't shop there between those two listed dates, you have nothing to worry about.”

Unfortunately, such information is not available for this latest hacking. Even if it were available, it would be too much to summarize here in a single news article, because it's not just one company or website that's been attacked; it's at least 420,000 different websites ranging from obscure little sites to major household-name companies.

Largest known collection

The New York Times reported yesterday that researchers from Hold Security discovered a Russian cyber-criminal gang had “the largest known collection of stolen Internet credentials, including 1.2 billion [unique] user name and password combinations and more than 500 million email addresses …. [and] confidential material gathered from 420,000 websites, including household names, and small Internet sites.”

Hold Security wouldn't release the names of any affected companies or sites, due to non-disclosure agreements and also a desire to avoid identifying companies whose sites remain vulnerable. Therefore, there's no way for ordinary computer-users like you to know which of your passwords were compromised, if any.

Thus far there's no evidence that the Russian hackers have been using stolen passwords to open false credit card accounts or commit other forms of identity theft; the hackers are primarily using this information to send spam to various social media accounts.

Whether you need to change your passwords or not, this latest hacker discovery serves as another reminder of this important online-security rule: don't use the same password across multiple sites.

Last month, for example, the online ticket-seller StubHub had over 1,000 customer accounts hacked into, yet the hackers never actually managed to breach the StubHub database.

Instead, they hacked into various other databases, or even installed malware on individual computers, in order to steal people's passwords from one account – email, online banking, social media sites, even small online discussion forums – and then test those stolen passwords to see if they'd work in customers' other accounts. And in the case of over 1,000 StubHub customers, it did.

Still: a thousand customers of a ticket-resale site is extremely small potatoes compared to 1.2 billion people. Consider: it's estimated that, as of 2014, there are 2.9 billion Internet users on the entire planet Earth. And of those 2.9 billion Earthling web-surfers, over 40% have their passwords in the hands of a small Russian hacker-ring.

During the prohibition era in America, people resorted to “bathtub gin” for their supply of spirits and moonshiners did a thriving business. But more often than not, Americans thirsty for an alcoholic beverage brewed their own beer at home. It wasn't difficult, the ingredients were readily available and weren't very expensive.

You might say those home brews of the 1920s gave birth to today's craft beer industry, which is rapidly gaining marketshare from the mass market giants.

What exactly constitutes a craft beer is hard to pin down. The term typically applies to the size of the brewery making it, as much as to the artistry that goes into the product.

Craft brewers are generally small, independently owned breweries in which the end product is a work of art, not to be influenced by cost. Many of these breweries started in someone's basement, with a compelling back story adding to the market appeal.

Premium-priced

Because the beers are brewed in small batches and don't scrimp on production costs, craft beers are not cheap, selling for the same price or more as a premium German import.

But despite the cost and despite a lackluster economy going on 5 years, sales of craft beer are booming. A new report by consumer research firm Mintel finds that 23% of beer drinkers choose a craft beer.

The survey found that consumers who never drink craft beer – who only buy Budweiser or Coors, for example – make up only 30% of the beer-drinking population. Clearly, brand loyalties are shifting.

Most craft beer drinkers cite taste as the main reason for selecting a particular brand, but their affinity shares characteristics with consumers who value certain types of food, because of the way it is produced or the fact that it is local.

Small is beautiful

There may be certain political/cultural/lifestyle significance at work as well. Whether they know it or not, many craft beer aficionados are embracing the philosophy of British economist E.F. Schumacher, who developed the theory that “small is beautiful,” because it is more empowering to people.

The Mintel survey found that among beer-drinking Millennials, the segment's heaviest users, 70% say that the brand of beer says a lot about who they are. In other words, you are what you drink.

"There is a strong sense of community in the craft beer world," said Mintel food and drink analyst Beth Bloom. "Consumers like to share knowledge with one another and are highly invested in the products that they choose.”

Lifestyle choice

So drinking a craft beer is a lot like savoring a fine wine. There is information to be absorbed and the uniqueness of the product lends itself to social activities.

“Craft brands share exposure through collaboration, a practice almost wholly unique to the craft beer market,” Bloom said. “As such, tap rooms, bottle shops, and beer-garden-style breweries, where craft beer can be discovered, discussed, consumed on-site, and even purchased for at-home enjoyment, make for a complete, customizable experience. Craft beer is not only a beverage choice; it appears to be a lifestyle choice."

Research gathered by Technomic shows craft beer is especially favored by consumers in bars and restaurants. According to the research firm, 55% of all craft beer purchased in the U.S. is consumed in a commercial establishment.

Testament to its strong appeal, craft beer's popularity has boomed during the worst economic times since the Great Depression. Mintel projects craft beer sales in the U.S. will reach $20 billion this year. That's more than double the sales from 2009.

How fast must an Internet connection be, to qualify as broadband? According to current FCC standards, “broadband” status requires a minimum downloading speed of 4 Mbps (megabytes per second), and 1 Mbps to upload.

But this week the FCC started seeking public comment on a proposal to raise that standard, and require broadband download speeds of at least 10 Mbps.

By way of comparison, Netflix currently recommends a minimum speed of 5 Mbps to stream a video in HD (compared to 3 Mbps for SD).

Under current 4 Mbps FCC standards, almost one-fifth of the current U.S., population lacks access to a reliable broadband connection. If the higher 10 Mbps standard is adopted, that percentage is certain to grow.

No comparison

How do American broadband speeds compare to the rest of the world? Not well; our Internet connections are slower and clunkier than what most advanced nations enjoy.

In February 2012, the average global broadband speed was already slightly higher than 10 Mbps. That was two and a half years ago, a long time by computer or Internet technological-evolution standards.

By April 2014, the global average was up to 17.9 Mbps and at least 12 places on Earth had average connection speeds significantly higher than the United States.

Hong Kong had the fasest average connection speed in the world: 65.4 Mbps for downloading. American Internet speeds also lag considerably behind those of such countries as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, Romania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Of course, where Internet speeds are concerned, those countries and cities all share an advantage over the United States: they have much higher population densities packed into much smaller landmasses.

There's only 31 square miles in all of Hong Kong, compared to almost 3 million square miles of land in the continental U.S., and wiring 31 square miles for super-fast Internet speeds is obviously easier than wiring 3 million miles (even if you ignore the wilderness areas). But even if we can't be as well-wired as Hong Kong, we still have plenty of room for improvement.

The FCC will seek public comment for 45 days.

Everybody wants to save on their home heating and cooling costs, but it's important to be skeptical of solutions that sound too good to be true, as a group of North Carolina homeowners learned.

A Greensboro company promised it would save consumers 25% on their energy bills -- a promise that drew the attention of Attorney General Roy Cooper, who obtained a temporary restraining order barring Carolina Energy Green Solutions from offering or performing home insulation work in North Carolina. Cooper is also seeking a permanent ban against the defendants, refunds for consumers and civil penalties.

The company often targeted seniors, Cooper contends, as outlined in examples listed in the complaint filed with the court:

• An 83-year old Nash County man says Carolina Energy Green Solutions promised that he would save 30% on his electricity bill if he allowed the company to install its insulation in his home and claimed to be affiliated with his power company. The homeowner agreed to pay $5,600 and financed the project through Carolina Energy Green Solutions’ finance company. He has not seen a reduction in electricity usage or costs.
• A 72-year-old consumer from Davidson County paid $4,878 to have Carolina Energy Green install attic insulation that he was told was the same material used to make astronaut suits. He has yet to see anywhere near the $500 per year savings he was promised on his heating bills.
• A 77-year-old woman in Durham County paid $3,100 to have the company install compact fluorescent light bulbs, a water heater blanket, outlet insulators, an energy-saving showerhead, attic insulation, and weather stripping after being told the company was affiliated with the Jimmy Carter Foundation and a member of the Better Business Bureau. To date, she hasn’t saved the 25% on her energy bills that she was led to expect.

According to Cooper’s complaint, Carolina Energy Green Solutions called consumers and offered to perform a free survey of the insulation in their homes. Consumers who agreed to the survey had a Carolina Energy Green Solutions representative walk through their homes and point out supposed leaks that would benefit from the company’s products.

As the complaint describes, the representative would then offer to install Carolina Energy Green Solution’s products, typically promising savings of 25% on their gas, oil or electric bills. Once consumers agreed to the installation, they were given the option of financing the cost — usually $3,000 or more — or paying it in full upfront.

After months without little or no reduction in their power bills, consumers complained to the company and asked for refunds but got nowhere.

Doctors tend to be with their advice -- quit smoking, eat less, exercise more and so forth. But for some reason, a study finds they're not as eager to recommend a daily low-dose aspirin for patients who might benefit from it.

That's according to a University of Rochester study of a national sample of more than 3,000 patients. It found that a majority of middle-aged men and women eligible to take aspirin to prevent heart attack and stroke do not recall their doctors ever telling them to do so, 

Published online by the Journal of General Internal Medicine, the finding illustrates a common disconnect between public health guidelines and what occurs in clinical practice. The study is consistent with other research showing that physicians often do not recommend aspirin as prevention therapy to the general population, despite established guidelines by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force.

Pressed for time?

Several reasons might explain the reluctance, such as competing demands and limited time to properly assess a patient’s eligibility for aspirin, according to lead author Kevin A. Fiscella, M.D., professor of Family Medicine at the UR School of Medicine and Dentistry.

Uncertainty about the benefits of aspirin therapy versus potential harms like bleeding in the digestive tract, also hinder physicians’ decisions, the study said.

Co-author John Bisognano, M.D., director of outpatient cardiology services at UR Medicine, said most physicians can agree on approaches to medical care in immediately life-threatening situations, but have less enthusiasm to quickly embrace preventive guidelines, particularly when they involve wide-ranging interventions for a large segment of the population.

Also, patients can be reluctant to heed advice that conflicts with past practices, Bisognano noted. Despite the USPSTF guidelines for aspirin being published in 2009, for example, the FDA declined to approve the same recommendations as recently as last spring.

“Patients often view changes as an illustration that folks in the medical field can't really make up their minds,” said Bisognano. “Changes can undermine a practitioner's or patient's enthusiasm to immediately endorse new guidelines because they wonder if it will change again in three years.”

But science and medical practice is fluid, he said, and the only way to move the field forward is to continually understand and look for ways to apply the new data and avoid assumptions of the past.

Applications for new mortgages were a little higher last week, according to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).

The MBA's Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey shows applications rose 1.6% for the week ending August 1.

The Refinance Index jumped 4% from the previous week, pushing the refinance share of mortgage activity to 55% of total applications -- the highest level since March 2014.

The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity was unchanged at 8% of total applications.

Contract interest rates

• The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs) with conforming loan balances ($417,000 or less) rose 2 basis points -- to 4.35% from 4.33%, with points decreasing to 0.22 from 0.24 (including the origination fee) for 80% loan-to-value ratio (LTV) loans. The effective rate increased from last week.
• The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with jumbo loan balances (greater than $417,000) increased to 4.26 percent from 4.22 percent, with points increasing to 0.35 from 0.23 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.
• The average contract interest rate for 30-year FRMs backed by the FHA rose from 4.03% to 4.06%, with points increasing to 0.02 from 0.00 (including the origination fee) for 80% LTV loans. The effective rate was up from last week.
• The average contract interest rate for 15-year FRMs was up 4 basis points to 3.51%%, with points increasing to 0.28 from 0.25 (including the origination fee) for 80% LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.
• The average contract interest rate for 5/1 ARMs increased to 3.32% from 3.31%, with points falling to 0.35 from 0.40 (including the origination fee) for 80% LTV loans. The effective rate was down from last week.

The survey covers over 75 percent of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications.

Any food product bearing a gluten-free claim label now must meet the requirements of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule that defined what characteristics a food has to have to bear that label.

The rule, adopted by the FDA a year ago, also holds foods labeled "without gluten," "free of gluten," and "no gluten" to the same standard.

Meeting the terms

As one of the criteria for using the claim "gluten-free," FDA set a gluten limit of less than 20 ppm (parts per million) in foods that carry this label. This is the lowest level that can be consistently detected in foods using valid scientific analytical tools.

Also, most people with celiac disease can tolerate foods with very small amounts of gluten. This level is consistent with those set by other countries and international bodies that set food safety standards.

"This standard ’gluten-free’ definition eliminates uncertainty about how food producers label their products,” said Felicia Billingslea, director of FDA's division of food labeling and standards. “People with celiac disease can rest assured that foods labeled 'gluten-free' meet a clear standard established and enforced by FDA."

Warmly received

The new rule was welcomed by advocates for people with celiac disease, who face potentially life-threatening illnesses if they eat the gluten found in breads, cakes, cereals, pastas and many other foods.

Andrea Levario, executive director of the American Celiac Disease Alliance, notes that there is no cure for celiac disease and the only way to manage the disease is dietary -- not eating gluten. Without a standardized definition of "gluten-free," these consumers could never really be sure if their body would tolerate a food with that label, she adds.

Defining gluten

Gluten is a mixture of proteins that occur naturally in wheat, rye, barley and crossbreeds of these grains.

As many as 3 million people in the U.S. have celiac disease, which occurs when the body's natural defense system reacts to gluten by attacking the lining of the small intestine. Without a healthy intestinal lining, the body cannot absorb the nutrients it needs.

Delayed growth and nutrient deficiencies can result and may lead to conditions such as anemia (a lower than normal number of red blood cells) and osteoporosis, a disease in which bones become fragile and more likely to break. Other serious health problems may include diabetes, autoimmune thyroid disease and intestinal cancers.

How the FDA sees it

In addition to limiting the unavoidable presence of gluten to less than 20 ppm, FDA now allows manufacturers to label a food "gluten-free" if the food does not contain any of the following:

• an ingredient that is any type of wheat, rye, barley, or crossbreeds of these grains
• an ingredient derived from these grains and that has not been processed to remove gluten
• an ingredient derived from these grains and that has been processed to remove gluten, if it results in the food containing 20 or more parts per million (ppm) gluten

Foods such as bottled spring water, fruits and vegetables, and eggs can also be labeled "gluten-free" if they inherently don't have any gluten.

Under the new rule, a food label that bears the claim "gluten-free," as well as the claims "free of gluten," "without gluten," and "no gluten," but fails to meet the requirements of the rule is considered misbranded and subject to regulatory action by FDA.

Restaurant food

Some restaurants use the term “gluten-free” in their menus. The gluten-free final rule applies to packaged foods, which may be sold in some retail and food-service establishments such as some carry-out restaurants. However, given the public health significance of “gluten-free” labeling, restaurants making a gluten-free claim on their menus should be consistent with FDA’s definition.

Billingslea suggests that consumers who are concerned about gluten-free claims in restaurants ask the following questions when ordering foods described as gluten-free:

• What does the restaurant mean by the term “gluten free?”
• What ingredients are used in this item?
• How is the item prepared?

“With the new FDA gluten-free regulations now being enforced, restaurants will be well-served to ensure they are meeting the FDA-defined claim,” said Joy Dubost, Ph.D., R.D., senior director of nutrition, National Restaurant Association. “We will continue to work with restaurant operators and chefs to assist and ensure a favorable dining experience for consumers.”

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing is recalling 263 model year 2014 Sienna vehicles manufactured June 17, 2014, through June 24, 2014.

The affected vehicles have a transmission shift control cable whose protective cable sleeve may have been damaged during assembly. This could cause the control cable to bind or separate during gear shift operation causing incorrect gear selection.

If the transmission shift cable separates while the vehicle is being driven, the transmission gear selection may not match the indicated gear and the vehicle may move in an unintended or unexpected direction, increasing the risk of a crash.

Furthermore, when the driver goes to stop and park the vehicle, despite selecting the 'PARK' position, the transmission may not be in 'PARK.' If the vehicle is not in the 'PARK' position there is a risk the vehicle will roll away as the driver and other occupants exit the vehicle or anytime thereafter, increasing the risk of injury to exiting occupants and bystanders.

Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect and replace the transmission shift control cable, as necessary, free of charge. The recall began in early August 2014.

Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331.

Oasis Brands of Miami, Fla., is recalling Quesito Casero 12-oz with expiration date 09/27/14.

The product has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled product, which was distributed in through retail stores in North Carolina and Virginia, comes in plastic bags labeled “Quesito Casero 12oz, Brand Lacteos Sta. Martha, Fresh Curd, Exp. Date 09/27/14.”

Production and distribution of the product has ceased pending the outcome of an investigation into the cause of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product may return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (305) 599-0225.

Four years after implementation of a rule to protect consumers from overdraft fees, federal regulators report the problem isn't fixed. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reportsoverdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees constitute the majority of the total checking account fees that consumers incur.

This shouldn't be, the CFPB says. The rule that was put into place 4 years ago prevents banks from automatically “loaning” debit card customers the money they need when they make a purchase that exceeds their account balance, at a cost of about $35 a pop.

Why opt-in?

In order for banks to cover those overdrawn transactions, consumers have to “opt-in,” specifically agreeing to allow the bank to cover their overdrafts. So it bears asking, why would anyone opt-in?

For one thing, banks understandably would like to continue offering this highly profitable coverage to debit card customers. As the new rule took effect 4 years ago most banks launched marketing campaigns extolling the virtue of having overdraft coverage.

For consumers who don't opt-in, their purchase is declined if the amount exceeds the balance in their account. While it might cause a moment of embarrassment at the checkout counter, they are spared the cost of the overdraft fee.

They are still subject to a “returned check fee” if they write a check that overdraws their account, but with most transactions occurring electronically, those cases are few and far between.

Steep price

The latest report from CFPB suggests those who have opted-in are paying a steep price for the convenience of overdraft coverage. For these customers, overdraft and NSF fees account for about 75% of their total checking account fees and average over $250 a year.

The report also shows that most overdraft fees are paid by a small number of bank customers. Just 8% of bank customers pay nearly 75% of all overdraft fees. In that regard, the CFPB report suggests the rule change four years ago has, in fact, protected those who declined to opt-in from the worst of the fees.

But 8% is still too many, according to Mike Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), a consumer group. He notes that overdraft fees on debit cards typically exceed the amount of the overdraft itself.

“The CFPB’s examination found that the median debit card transaction that triggers an overdraft is $24 – while the average charges are $34,” he said.

Calhoun cites a CRL study that found the average amount that was overdrawn in a transaction was $20, meaning that consumers paid $1.75 in fees for every $1 they overdrew.

Additional protection

“The CFPB needs to extend consumer protections across the industry,” Calhoun said. “The CFPB should use its authority to ban or limit overdraft fees on debit card and ATM transactions and rein in excessive bank fees on all checking account transactions.”

The banking industry, meanwhile, has a different take.

"No one in America has debit card and ATM overdraft protection today who did not affirmatively opt-in after receiving a one-page summary of fees and services," said Nessa Feddis, senior vice-president of the American Bankers Association (ABA). 

Feddis also says consumers have access to multiple tools to help manage their accounts and avoid over-drawing.

The CFPB report stops short of suggesting it is about to propose tougher rules. It notes that its analysis of the overdraft data is ongoing.

The ABA said it doesn't expect the agency to begin rule making on the issue before 2015.

If you have a 4G LTE smartphone with an "unlimited" data plan from Verizon Wireless, be warned: starting in October, Verizon wants to start throttling your data if you're among the top 5% of data users in a given month when your local cell network is undergoing high demand and you have a month-to-month agreement in lieu of a long-term contract.

Sound confusing? Let's backtrack a bit: what ordinary users call data throttling is part of what Verizon Wireless calls “network optimization” (which, according to Verizon, is absolutely not the same thing as throttling; more on that later).

The Verizon Wireless webpage explaining its “Network optimization practices for customers with unlimited data plans” kicks off with marketing-speak about the “reliable” and “high-quality” service it seeks to give its customers:

You rely on our high quality wireless communications service and we strive to continually provide it for you.

Ensuring Reliability. With tens of millions of customers, it’s our responsibility to upgrade and improve our network, services and practices, so you can continue to trust the network. With this in mind, we’ve implemented Network Optimization practices that will affect a very small percentage of customers.

And what exactly are these practices?

Optimizing Our Network. Our Network Optimization practices for customers with unlimited data plans ensure that you can count on the reliable network you expect. To optimize our network, we manage data connection speeds for a small subset of customers – the top 5% of data users on unlimited data plans – and only in places and at times when the network is experiencing high demand. This ensures that all customers have the best data experience possible.

“Manage data connection speeds” in the sense of “lowering those speeds” sounds an awful lot like data throttling. But the frequently asked questions lower down on that same Verizon Wireless page assures customers that it isn't:

Is this the same as throttling?
No, this is not throttling.

How is this different than throttling?
The difference between our Network Optimization practices and throttling is network intelligence.  With throttling, your wireless data speed is reduced for your entire cycle, 100% of the time, no matter where you are. Network Optimization is based on the theory that all customers should have the best network possible, and if you’re not causing congestion for others, even if you are using a high amount of data, your connection speed should be as good as possible. So, if you’re in the top 5% of data users, your speed is reduced only when you are connected to a cell site experiencing high demand. Once you are no longer connected to a site experiencing high demand, your speed will return to normal. This could mean a matter of seconds or hours, depending on your location and time of day.

Deeply troubled

Verizon first announced the proposed changes in late July, which inspired FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to send Verizon's president and CEO Daniel Mead a July 30 letter (available in .pdf form here) saying he was “deeply troubled” by the news:

"Reasonable network management" concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams. It is disturbing to me that Verizon Wireless would base its "network management" on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology. ... I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as "reasonable network management" a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for "unlimited" service.

Wheeler then asked Mead/Verizon to answer three questions:

1. What is your rationale for treating customers differently based on the type of data plan to which they subscribe, rather than network architecture or technological factors? In particular, please explain your statement that, "If you're on an unlimited data plan and are concerned that you are in the top 5% of data users, you can switch to a usage-based data plan as customers on usage-based plans are not impacted."

2. Why is Verizon Wireless extending speed reductions from its 3G network to its much more efficient 4G LTE network?

3. How does Verizon Wireless justify this policy consistent with its continuing obligations under the 700 MHz C Block open platform rules, under which Verizon Wireless may not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the C Block networks; how can this conduct be justified under the Commission's 20120 Open Internet rules, including the transparency rule that remains in effect?

Those FCC Open Internet rules, also known as net neutrality, “established high-level rules requiring transparency and prohibiting blocking and unreasonable discrimination to protect Internet openness,” according to the FCC Open Internet website.

The very next day, July 31, Verizon's “News Center Team” posted this “Message Regarding FCC Letter” which said in its entirety:

“We’re reviewing the letter from the FCC and will respond officially to Chairman Wheeler’s questions in the timeframe requested. What we announced last week was a highly targeted and very limited network optimization effort, only targeting cell sites experiencing high demand. The purpose is to ensure there is capacity for everyone in those limited circumstances, and that high users don't limit capacity for others.”

Out-sized effect

But late in the evening of Aug, 4, the Wall Street Journal reported that Kathleen Grillo, Verizon's senior vice president of federal regulatory affairs, responded to the FCC on Aug. 1, saying that their decision was reasonable against certain unlimited data users who use a “disproportionate amount of network resources and have an out-sized effect on the network …. Not surprisingly, many of these heaviest users of the network are on unlimited data plans.”

(Technically, this does address the FCC's question about limited data use to customers who think they've paid for “unlimited” data; it just doesn't seem to answer the question, merely offer a tautology: unlimited data users sometimes use lots of data.)

Grillo's response to the FCC also said: “Unlike subscribers on usage-based plans, [unlimited data-plan users] have no incentive [to reduce their usage] during times of unusually high demand.”

Again, sounds like a tautology: people who pay for unlimited data use have less incentive to limit their data use than people who pay rates directly based on how much data they use.

Grillo's letter also said: “Rather than an effort to 'enhance [our] revenue streams,' our practice is a measured and fair step to ensure that this small group of customers do not disadvantage all others in the sharing of network resources.”

The letter also said that other carriers do the same thing, and wondered why the FCC singled Verizon out. (Possible answer: because, as mentioned in the FCC's letter, Verizon is operating on the Upper C Block part of the network, which is subject to Open Internet rules?)

The FCC has not yet responded, but says it is reviewing the letter carefully.

Last November, Google announced the launch of a new initiative against child pornography. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt announced at the time that the company was altering its search algorithms in hopes of making it harder to find or share child pornography online, and also making extensive use of Microsoft image-recognition technology in order to detect examples of it.

The process would also involve human oversight; Schmidt said that “computers can't reliably distinguish between innocent pictures of kids at bathtime and genuine abuse. So we always need to have a person review the images.”

Google's announcement then focused entirely on the pictures or videos themselves, and Google's efforts to ensure its search engines weren't used to help distribute them.

Fast forward to last week: In a move which might (or might not) be directly related to Google's earlier anti-child-porn initiative, a Texas man was arrested after Google let authorities know he was using his Gmail account to send images of child porn.

Houston news station KHOU reported on July 31 that:

Police say Google detected explicit images of a young girl in an email that John Henry Skillern was sending to a friend, the company then alerted authorities.

"He was trying to get around getting caught, he was trying to keep it inside his email," said Detective David Nettles of the Houston Metro Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce. "I can't see that information, I can't see that photo, but Google can."

Skillern is a registered sex offender who was convicted of sexually assaulting an 8 year old boy in 1994.

It's been known for a long time now that Google scans email contents in order to provide targeted advertising, but knowing that Google scans emails to make its contents available to law enforcement – even for the noble cause of protecting child-pornography victims – raises potential privacy or civil-liberty concerns.

Consider: Last April, citing privacy concerns, Google announced that it would stop scanning student or government-employee email accounts for advertising purposes. Then again – “we won't scan your email contents looking for ad words” clearly does not mean the same thing as “we're not scanning your emails at all.”

Even if you're inclined to think “Well, scanning private emails isn't so bad if it catches violations of the law” – a few years ago, that argument didn't win Yahoo! many fans after it helped the Chinese government crack down on dissidents by handing over email evidence of such crimes as writing emails praising democracy and criticizing China's one-party government.

Not that child pornography is in any way analogous to writing about democracy; it's just worth remembering that the notion “email company cooperates with authorities to catch catch lawbreakers” is only good when the company and authorities are both trustworthy.

That said: Google insists that its automatic image-scanning technology is only used to detect images of child pornography.