Current Events in January 2017

Americans don't agree on much these days, but on one topic, we're united -- most of us have been data breach victims, according to a new study.

Democratic Party leaders were famously hacked, possibly by the Russian government. Hackers made off with private information from at least 1 billion Yahoo email accounts. Records of the World Anti-Doping Agency were stolen and released.

The list goes on, and, according to a study from the Pew Research Center, at least 64% of Americans have personally experienced a major data breach, while 49% feel that their personal information is less secure than it was five years ago.

Pew also found that 41% of Americans have dealt with fraudulent charges on their credit card, and 15% have received notice that their Social Security number had been compromised. A substantial majority (70%) of Americans anticipate major cyberattacks in the next five years on our nation's public infrastructure.

Perhaps more ominously, many Americans lack faith in government and business to keep their information safe. They express concern about telecommunications firms and credit card companies but have even less faith in the federal government and social media platforms.

In fact, says Pew, 28% of Americans are not confident at all that the federal government can keep their personal information safe and secure from unauthorized users, while 24% of social media users lack any confidence in these sites to protect their data. 

It begins at home

Given this somewhat alarming lack of confidence in business and government institutions, you might think that Americans would respond by tightening up their own cybersecurity measures.

Not so. The study found that consumers largely fail to pursue even the simplest method of protecting themselves by ignoring password safety guidelines.

Only 12% of internet users say they use password management software, with about two-thirds saying the simply memorize their passwords while 18% write them down on a piece of paper.

"In other words, fully 84% of online adults rely primarily on memorization or pen and paper as their main (or only) approach to password management," Pew researchers said. As a result, many if not most use the same or very similar password for most of their online accounts.

About 25% said they use simple, easy-to-guess passwords because -- no surprise -- they're easier to remember. 

Cybersecurity experts find this surprising, given the large number of highly effective, free, and easy-to-use password management tools, like LastPass, KeePassX, Dashlane, and Sticky Password, to name just a few. These and many others have both free and paid premium versions that will not only remember your passwords but also generate new, secure ones and keep all your devices in sync. (PC Magazine recently rounded up the best of the latest password managers). 

Why so lax?

Why are Americans so lackadaisical about cybersecurity when they feel so threatened by imaginary or at least highly unlikely threats dreamed up by politicians, scam artists, and snake-oil peddlers of various descriptions?

Good question. The Pew study didn't offer any answers but did confirm the "What? Me Worry?" attitude that seems to prevail. Researchers found that fully 69% of adult Americans say they don't worry about how secure their passwords are. Even those who have experienced a major data breach generally don't do anything to prevent the next one from happening.

Ah, but when it comes to encryption -- a method of coding data that makes it difficult if not impossible to decipher -- Pew found American consumers lined up along the same lines that so markedly divide them politically, almost as if encryption were a metaphorical wall. 

About 46% believe that government forces should be able to decipher encrypted communications to spy on individuals while 44% believe that technology companies should be able to use encryption that governments can't hack. 

A little privacy is OK, but there's no sense going overboard with it. That, in a nutshell, is the message being delivered by the advertising industry to Congress in the hope that the Federal Communications Commission will junk privacy rules adopted last October.

Like the rest of the federal government, the FCC is under new management and has been busily undoing the programs put in place during the Obama years. Already headed for the scrap heap are net neutrality rules and plans to break the cable industry's monopoly on set-top boxes.

Now the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) wants to be sure it's not left behind in the rush to repeal consumer protection measures. It's asking its friends in Congress to instruct the FCC to toss the online privacy order adopted by the FCC last October. 

“We support the goal of ensuring that consumers’ online activities are subject to privacy and data security protections that comport with consumer expectations and long-standing privacy policies that have both protected consumers from harm and allowed the internet to flourish," the group claims in a letter. "However, the FCC’s Order would significantly harm consumers as well as our nation’s digital economy.”  

“The FCC’s sweeping privacy Order is unprecedented and misguided and would be damaging to the entire online advertising ecosystem,” said Dan Jaffe, Group Executive Vice President of Government Relations for ANA. 

Jaffe said the ad industry already has "highly-effective existing privacy self-regulatory programs" in place and doesn't need any advice or instruction from government.

The rules in question establish a "framework of customer consent" that basically require broadband providers to tell consumers that their personal information may be shared with market researchers and advertisers. Consumers would be able to opt out if they wished. Sensitive personal information would require stricter measures. 

The measure applies only to internet service providers, not to individual websites.

"Naked power grab"

Supporters of the measure said it was consistent with other privacy frameworks, including the Federal Trade Commission’s and the Obama Administration’s Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

Industry interests bitterly fought the privacy measure when it was adopted, calling it "a naked power grab," but consumer and privacy groups were generally supportive.

Meredith Rose, staff attorney at Public Knowledge, said the rules would be "a step forward to protecting consumers’ economic and dignitary rights in their own data."

Rose said that without such rules, "consumers face a very real threat of having personal data exposed, sold to third parties without their knowledge, or misused in other fashions." 

Or, as former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler put it at the time: "It's the consumers' information and the consumer should have the right to determine how it's used."

ANA was joined in the letter by the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s), the American Advertising Federation (AAF), the Data and Marketing Association (DMA), the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI), CTIA, the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom), NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA), the American Cable Association, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), ITTA, the ICC, and the US Chamber of Commerce. 

It still isn't clear just how serious the Trump administration really is about imposing a 20% tax on imports from Mexico, but it's certainly gotten Mexico's attention.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox was on CNBC's Squawk Box Friday morning to denounce President Trump and the tax idea, in the process opining that American-made cars were "mediocre and overpriced."

After suggesting to reporters on Air Force One that a 20% import tariff is a possible way to pay for Trump's border wall between the two countries, News Secretary Sean Spicer clarified his remarks to say the 20% tax is just a possibility among many that are being considered.

Even so, the prospect of a 20% tax on consumer goods coming into the U.S. from Mexico is something consumers should think about. Because when costs get added to things, it is the consumer who buys them that ultimately bears the extra cost.

Retailers would pass them on

David French of the National Retail Federation tells The New York Times that the extra cost of goods would land on retailers' doorstep. He says they would have no choice but to add them to the retail price that consumers pay.

While French says that prospect "runs counter to the way consumers are feeling" at the moment, it would present an interesting dichotomy. Shoppers might go into a store and see two nearly identical items, one made in Mexico and the other imported from a country that doesn't have to pay a tariff. The price of one could be considerably higher than the other.

Confusion on the car lot?

Or consider a new car dealership. Some of the cars might be made in the U.S. and some might be made in Mexico. Would the manufacturer price the cars from Mexico higher, or would it spread the increase across the entire fleet, making all of its cars more expensive?

Austin TV station KXAN quotes the Texas Association of Business as predicting an import tax would hurt the Texas economy. Beside higher prices for goods, including fresh produce, the organization said it could lead to job losses and a reduction in state tax revenues.

The bottom line is a lot of stuff could get more expensive. Forbes says it isn't complicated. It won't be Mexico that pays for the border wall, it will be you.

Back in 2015, PayPal split away from eBay in an effort to focus on its electronic transactions business. Since then, the company has vigorously pursued agreements with other companies and institutions to increase the number of people who use its service.

In February of 2015, the U.S. Treasury said that it would start accepting payments via PayPal at its Pay.gov site, giving consumers more options on how they can pay fines, penalties, or loan repayments. Even more recently, the company teamed up with MasterCard to offer consumers more tap-and-pay options.

Now, it looks like the online payment company is looking to strike a deal with Amazon. Bloomberg reports that the two companies are discussing the possibility of letting consumers pay for Amazon purchases by using their PayPal accounts. While a verified plan has not been announced, officials say the deal is very possible.

“We’re closing in on 200 million users on our platform right now. At that scale, it’s hard for any retailer to think about not accepting PayPal,” said CEO Dan Schulman.

Potential deal

The potential deal could be pretty attractive to Amazon users who are leery of submitting their credit card information to buy products. In a best-case scenario, the move would allow for more sales on Amazon’s end and create more point-of-sale presence for PayPal.

However, while consumers would enjoy more freedom, some may question whether the deal is actually necessary for Amazon. Back in April, the company announced its own PayPal-like program that would allow customers to use their Amazon accounts to pay for products sold by associated merchants.

However, as Schulman pointed out, the 197 million active users on PayPal may be hard to ignore, despite Amazon’s desire to control payments on its own. Thus far, Amazon has declined to comment on the matter.

Millennials would rather not have a closet filled with clothing that is considered “popular,” a new survey suggests. For this reason, their fashion purchases are not likely to be guided by the opinions of online influencers and others on their radar.

A study conducted by researchers from LIM College in Manhattan found that less than 7% of Millennials reported being influenced by the opinions of bloggers and vloggers. Professors Robert Conrad and Kenneth M. Kambara say that it’s the “newness” of a product that often lands it in the shopping cart of a Millennial.

"Our study is very revealing about what these millennials' purchase drivers are and how the fashion industry is executing on them. Each views her or himself as a 'market of one' and wants to have something exclusive and not readily available to others,” said Professor Conrad.

“They want to put their look together in their own original, authentic way,” he added. In fact, the study found that 62% of Millennial consumers consider the uniqueness of an accessory or article of clothing to be the most compelling reason to make a fashion purchase.

Product uniqueness

For their study, “Shopping Trends Among 18-35 Year-Olds,” the researchers polled 665 Millennials. In addition to revealing that Millennials want clothing that is unique, the findings suggested that fashion brands may want to change their approach to marketing to Millennial consumers.

"To millennials, the uniqueness of the product is more important than the brand attached to it, or what 'influencers' might say about it. As soon as a fashion item is seen as popular, mainstream and easily accessible, millennials will immediately abandon it. Unlike their parents at the same age, there are no 'uniforms,’” said Dr. Kambara.

Instead of offering the same products and advertising through influencers, Kambara says fashion brands should focus on the uniqueness of the products they offer. Changing product assortments more quickly may also help, as Millennials tend to have short attention spans.

“Not only must the offerings be new and different, there should not be a lot of them available. This is what Zara does so well. While customer satisfaction, perceived price-value ratio and the overall shopping experience drive choice, for millennials the fundamental differentiating factor is product uniqueness and innovation."

Self-driving car technologies are becoming a hot market for automakers, with many major players trying to be the first to bring new systems to the public. Many innovators closely guard their work from competitors, and employees are typically restricted from publicizing their company’s secrets.

However, Tesla says that one of its former employees breached his contract with the automaker in order to set up his own autonomous driving company. The company is suing Sterling Anderson, formerly the Director of Autopilot Programs at Tesla, for allegedly downloading confidential information about the company’s Autopilot program, destroying evidence, and trying to poach former co-workers.

“This dispute arises out of the efforts of Sterling Anderson, a former non-technical program manager of Tesla’s Autopilot team, to violate his contractual and other obligations to Tesla by attempting to recruit at least a dozen Tesla engineers, taking Tesla’s confidential and proprietary information, and doctoring and destroying evidence in an effort to cover his tracks – all for the benefit of a competing venture he launched while still a Tesla employee,” the suit states.

“Get-rick-quick environment”

Anderson worked at Tesla for just over a year before being dismissed on January 4. He is accused of trying to poach around a dozen Tesla employees, despite having signed a non-soliciting agreement in his contract. Additionally, the company claims Anderson stole “hundreds of gigabytes” of important information to his laptop, all while wiping his iPhone data and erasing and doctoring files to cover his tracks.

With that information, Tesla says that Anderson created his own self-driving company with partner Christopher Urmson, called Aurora Innovation, in order to benefit from a “get-rick-quick environment” that has been created by automakers. The suit points to other similar ventures such as Cruise Automation and Otto, which both benefitted greatly when companies snatched them up.

“Small teams of programmers with little more than demoware have been bought for as much as a billion dollars. Cruise Automation, a 40-person firm, was purchased by General Motors in July 2016 for nearly $1 billion. In August 2016, Uber acquired Otto, another self-driving startup that had been founded only seven months earlier, in a deal worth more than $680 million,” the suit said.

Fear of competition?

Tesla is seeking damages for losses it incurred due to Anderson’s alleged actions, punitive damages for the “malicious” nature of the alleged acts, and injunctions against Aurora Innovation pending verification that the company is using Tesla’s proprietary technology.

In response, Aurora stated that the suit “reveals both a startling paranoia and an unhealthy fear of competition” from Tesla.

“This abuse of the legal system is a malicious attempt to stifle a competitor and destroy personal reputations. Aurora looks forward to disproving these false allegations in court and to building a successful self-driving business,” the company said in a statement.

Tesla filed its suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara on Thursday morning.

Daimler Vans USA (DVUSA) is recalling 22 model year 2017 Mercedes-Benz Metris Vans manufactured September 9, 2016, to September 28, 2016.

The passenger airbag may have been manufactured with an incorrect Tether Activation Unit (TAU). As a result, in the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger front airbag, the air bag may not vent properly.

An improperly vented airbag may not protect the front passenger as expected, increasing the risk of injury.

What to do

DVUSA will notify owners, and authorized Mercedes-Benz Sprinter dealers will replace the front passenger airbag, free of charge.

The recall is expected to begin February 8, 2017. Owners may contact DVUSA customer service at 1-877-762-8267.

Jaguar Land Rover North America is recalling 550 model year 2016 Land Rover Range Rover & Range Rover Sport vehicles, and 2017 Range Rover Evoque vehicles.

The vehicles have a front passenger airbag inflator initiator that may fail to ignite during a crash, preventing the airbag from deploying.

The failure of the front passenger airbag to deploy increases the risk of injury.

What to do

Land Rover will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front passenger air bag, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin February 20, 2017.

Owners may contact Land Rover customer service at 1-800-637-6837. Land Rover's number for this recall is P094.

Forget about Democrats and Republicans, the war between Uber and Lyft is heating up, with Lyft revealing plans to launch in 100 new U.S. cities by the end of the year, bringing its total to 300. It's adding the first 40 new cities today. Uber, by contrast, operates in 450 cities worldwide.

If it sounds to you like the ride-sharing giants may be running out of cities, you're right. Among the 40 cities Lyft is adding today are Harrisonburg, Va, Redding, Calif., and Johnson City, Tenn. Great little towns no doubt, but not exactly Boston or Dallas.

While adding cities is an obvious way to grow, both services are also broadening the scope of their services. Lyft, for example, recently announced it was partnering with home healthcare services to provide non-emergency medical transportation. 

Even more esoteric, Uber and Lyft have rolled out programs that let you use pre-tax dollars to hitch a ride to work. Through partnerships with companies like WageWorks and Zenefits, Lyft is letting employees use their benefit accounts to pay commuting costs. Uber has a similar program. They apply only in certain cities at the moment.

Falling prices, sorehead drivers

Another way to grow business is to cut prices, something Uber has been doing rather aggressively, and today Lyft said it has cut its fares by about one percent nationwide.

That doesn't sound like much and may not matter to most passengers but it puts a dent in drivers' pockets, which seems to be causing a noticeable attitude shift among the drivers we hear from and encounter on frequent Uber and Lyft journeys.

In fact, the Uber drivers we encounter are starting to sound like New York cabbies. We heard recently from a Los Angeles driver who goes by the moniker of Wise Guyy.

"Do you know as an Uber driver here in Los Angeles, our vehicles cost us 54 cents per mile just to accept a trip and 27% of the time we will drive 1-2 miles and get cancelled because the passenger thinks we will take too long to get there!" Wise Guyy asked, his dander piqued by our recent story that complained of Uber drivers failing to show up and charging a cancellation fee.

"Do you know Uber passengers 89% of the time slam the door upon exiting our cars! Do you know that 99% of Uber drivers DO NOT TIP their drivers!" Wise Guyy continued.

How he arrives at those percentages we're not sure, but as for tips, last time we checked Uber's official policy was that tipping was discouraged. I use Uber a lot and always offer a tip but have frequently had drivers refuse to accept it.

Maybe I'll run into Wise Guyy next time I'm in Los Angeles. I'll have my tip ready and will be sure to close the door gently.

The Washington State Department of Health has issued a warning about a mumps outbreak in several counties. State health officials are urging Washington residents to immunize themselves and take other precautions against the disease to stop it from spreading further.

Incidents of the disease began popping up in October, and there are currently 278 confirmed cases in five counties. They include King County (160), Spokane County (80), Pierce County (34), Snohomish (3), and Yakima County (1).

What to do

Mumps is a viral disease that can be passed from person to person. It usually starts with a fever that can last a few days, with symptoms including headache, muscle aches, tiredness, and loss of appetite. Swollen salivary glands are a trademark of the disease and can surface after the initial sickness period.

Residents are being asked to be especially careful about close contact in order to reign in the disease. Officials say to avoid kissing, hugging, and other close contact with anyone who is suspected to have the mumps. If you suspect you have the mumps, you are urged to stay home and contact your healthcare provider, the local healthcare department, or the Family Health Hotline at 1-800-322-2588.

Those who are healthy should consider receiving an MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella viruses. If you’re unsure if you've received the vaccine before, or know you haven’t, you can call your healthcare provider to schedule an immunization and blood test.

To learn more about the mumps and receive more information, visit the Department of Health’s page here.

The idea of keeping tabs on a baby’s vital signs by strapping an electronic sensor to their sock may sound appealing to many parents, but pediatricians argue that there is little benefit to these smartphone-connected baby monitors.

False alarms may frighten young parents and lead to unnecessary tests performed on healthy babies, said Dr. Christopher P. Bonafide. What’s more, there is no evidence that baby vital signs monitors prevent any potentially fatal problems in normal infants.

“These devices are marketed aggressively to parents of healthy babies, promising peace of mind about their child’s cardiorespiratory health,” said Bonafide, a doctor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“But there is no evidence that these consumer infant physiological monitors are life-saving or even accurate,” he said, adding that these products “may cause unnecessary fear, uncertainty and self-doubt in parents.”

Concerns regarding effectiveness

In an article published recently in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Bonafide and his colleagues compared claims made in ads for high-tech baby monitors with what these devices are actually capable of.

The authors focused their research on five models of smartphone-integrated infant physiological monitors from names like MonBaby, Baby Vida, and Owlet.

While manufacturers do not claim their products treat, diagnose, or prevent disease, a video advertisement for Owlet suggests otherwise. It mentions SIDS and suggests that the device may alert parents that something is wrong.

These baby vital signs monitors have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration -- and manufacturers can continue to avoid FDA medical device regulation because they do not claim that the monitors prevent SIDS, the authors explained.

“Since these baby monitors are not regulated by the FDA, we have to question what testing has been done to assure the safety and quality of these designs,” said David T. Jamison, executive director of Health Devices at ECRI Institute.

False alarms

In response to the JAMA opinion piece, Owlet said that the company has performed “extensive product safety testing" and noted that its products are compliant with CPSC standards. 

"By giving parents the right information at the right time, we empower them to make informed choices," Owlet said, adding that the company’s mission is to "help parents take a proactive approach to their baby's health and wellness."

But Bonafide says that even if these monitors prove to be accurate, “there is a serious question whether these are appropriate in monitoring healthy infants. A single abnormal reading may cause overdiagnosis -- an accurate detection that does not benefit a patient.”

Baby vitals monitors can often mistake a baby’s kicks, rolls, or a harmless fluctuation in their vitals as a life-threatening situation, Bonafide explained. These false alarms may lead to a trip to an emergency department, where babies may be forced to undergo unnecessary blood tests, X-rays, and even hospital admission.

Some states have tough usury laws that keep payday lenders from setting up shop. States that cap interest rates at 30% have found that payday lenders, who may charge 400% or more, will stay away.

But in the absence of state regulations, local communities often find it is up to them to control these storefront operations that researchers at the University of Utah and University of New Mexico contend "often strip wealth from society’s most economically vulnerable individuals and communities.

In fact, the researchers say these storefronts outnumber all McDonald’s, Burger King, Starbucks, and Walgreens stores combined. After studying how Silicon Valley in Northern California, Greater Metropolitan Dallas in Texas, and Greater Salt Lake City in Utah handled the issue, the researchers have issued a report with 10 lessons for other communities who want to reduce or control payday loan activity within their jurisdictions.

10 Lessons

Lesson 1: Form a strong, broad-based community organization and draw up operating rules.

Lesson 2: Tell a story. Don't get caught up in abstractions like “500 percent interest” or “debt traps,” but let actual borrowers tell how payday loans affected their lives and present that message to the community.

Lesson 3: Learn to operate on a shoestring budget. It can be done.

Lesson 4: When enlisting allies, don't overlook faith leaders. They are usually motivated and can be very effective.

Lesson 5: Develop a strong media strategy, both for local media and using social media and other web-based platforms.

Lesson 6: Enlist someone in elected office to run interference for you in political and government affairs.

Lesson 7: When local government bodies are considering proposals dealing with payday lending, meet with them well in advance of any vote and present your case. Arguments should be tailored to what matters most to the individual policymakers.

• Lesson 8: Remember that the industry will oppose your efforts and is well-funded. Be prepared for the pushback.

• Lesson 9: If you are successful in passing an ordinance, help other municipalities do the same.

• Lesson 10: Try to translate your success on the local level to similar efforts on the state and national level.

Some communities have learned these lessons well. The Lubbock, Texas City Council is reportedly close to passing a payday lending ordinance.

There is very little federal regulation of payday lenders, though the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has moved in that direction in recent months, proposing new rules amid strong political and industry opposition.

Walmart already sells just about anything you can think of, but now it's adding cars to the list. According to a report in Automotive News, Walmart will be teaming up with CarSaver, an online car-seller, which will lease space from Walmart, much as McDonald's and others do now. 

Of course, there's no need to actually go to the store. You can download the CarSaver app and buy the car of your choice without leaving home. But Walmart thinks many consumers would still like to kick the tires before signing on the digital line. And many would prefer to do so without the pressure that visiting a dealer showroom often entails.

CarSaver has had space in a Walmart Supercenter in Stuart, Fla., for about a year, Walmart spokeswoman Molly Blakeman said. She added that customer response was still being evaluated.

Less hassle

CarSaver claims to take much of the hassle and risk out of buying a car, although local car dealers are still involved in the transaction. CarSaver says it conducts competitive pricing research to be sure it is offering the best possible price for each model and "shadow-shops" dealers to be sure they are in compliance with the program's rules.

What this means is that by shopping through Walmart and CarSaver, you may wind up getting the same car from the same dealer that you would have gotten if you did all the footwork yourself, but the claim is that you will get the best price with less hassle.

The CarSaver program is similar to TrueCar, which already is affiliated with Sam's Club, Walmart's members-only shopping club. 

So far, Tesla is the only major car company to do away with dealers. It has managed to convince legislatures in a handful of states to let it sell directly to consumers. General Motors has experimented with selling cars online but delivery is still through local dealers, who are protected by local laws that prohibit direct sales to consumers. 

Mindfulness is a popular concept these days -- living in the moment with complete awareness and acceptance. It's supposed to make you feel better.

Mindfulness was popularized by Jon Kabat-Zinn, who developed a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program, which he started at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in 1979.

Since then, the medical community has shown increasing interest in the concept as a way to relieve stress and improve overall health. It goes without saying that many see it as a meditative coping mechanism for modern life. In the brief video below, Kabat-Zinn provides a short explanation of mindfulness.

NIH-funded study

In a sign of just how interested medical science has become, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded a study to quantify mindfulness's ability to relieve stress. In a clinical trial, researchers who studied patients with anxiety disorder, which affects an estimated seven million Americans, found they have reduced stress-hormone and inflammation following stressful situations after going though a mindfulness meditation course. Patients who didn't take the course had worsened responses.

“Mindfulness meditation training is a relatively inexpensive and low-stigma treatment approach, and these findings strengthen the case that it can improve resilience to stress,” said lead author Elizabeth Hoge, MD, associate professor in Georgetown University Medical Center’s Department of Psychiatry.

The study

All of the subjects in the study took the eight-week Stress Management Education course, which included general tips on the importance of good nutrition, sleep habits, and other wellness topics. But the subjects were divided into two groups, only one of which also got mindfulness training as part of the course.

The group that got the mindfulness training reported feeling much less stressful after the training. Perhaps more importantly, blood-based markers of subjects’ stress responses confirmed the stress reduction. The control group that did not get the mindfulness training saw these blood-based markers rise.

The take-away, says Hoge, is that science is now adding to the evidence that mindfulness training is effective in treating anxiety.

Back in November, we reported on which retailers were best-rated by an advocacy group for reducing harmful chemicals in their products. At the time, Walmart earned the highest rating for its “meaningful progress toward safer products.”

Target came in just behind at the number two spot, but a new initiative by the retailer may change that. In an announcement on its corporate website, the company has vowed to increase transparency of the chemicals used in its products, reduce the use of certain chemicals that may be dangerous to public health, and develop safer alternatives for dangerous chemicals.

“Our chemical strategy will be one of the most comprehensive in the U.S. retail industry, including all Target-owned and national brand products and operations, not just formulated products. It’s ambitious, but using our size, scale and expertise, we think we’ll be able to make significant progress,” said Jennifer Silberman, Target’s chief sustainability officer.

Clear goals

In the announcement, the company stated clear goals that it wishes to achieve for transparency, chemical management, and innovation. They include:

• Achieving transparency in all ingredients by 2020, most notably in fragrance, beauty, baby care, personal care, and household cleaning products.
• Removing phthalates, propyl-paraben, butyl-paraben, formaldehyde, formaldehyde-donors, and NPE’s from beauty, baby care, personal care, and household cleaning products by 2020.
• Removing flame retardants that are potentially carcinogenic or pose other harm to consumers from textile products by 2022.
• Investing $5 million in green chemistry innovation by 2022.

Company officials admit that these goals are ambitious, but they hope the steps will help Target become a leader and example for other retailers to follow.

“We hope our robust approach will accelerate similar efforts across the industry. Ultimately, we want to bring all stakeholders together to innovate and champion a consistent, industry-wide approach to greener chemistry,” said Silberman.

Forward-thinking policy

Target intends to start achieving its goals by working with business partners to ensure that its products are sourced responsibly. Efforts to introduce safer chemical substitutions will also be a vital part of its strategy.

“Part of knowing what’s in products is understanding where they come from and how they’re made. So we’ll build on our work in the responsible sourcing space to help us verify that supply chain processes are sustainable, as well as ethical and responsible, from beginning to end,” said Irene Quarshie, vice president of quality & compliance with Target Sourcing Services.

Some companies have already come out in support of the initiative. Seventh Generation -- a supplier of cleaning, paper, and personal care products – has stated that consumers will benefit from Target’s progressive strategy.

“This announcement is a huge win for consumer transparency and we’re thrilled that Target is taking this step. It’s a forward-thinking policy like this that will drive industry change, ensuring that the health of our planet and its people are never compromised for profit,” said Seventh Generation CEO John Replogle.

Progress on these goals will be announced each year in the company’s Corporate Social Responsibility Report.

If you are in the market for a 2017 model vehicle, it might be helpful to know how much you can get for it when it's time to sell.

Thinking of leasing instead of buying? Vehicles that hold their value will generally have the best lease terms, since your monthly payment is based on the difference in value from the time you drive it off the lot until you turn it back in.

Each year Kelley Blue Book (KBB) analyzes the current crop of new vehicles and estimates which ones will best hold their value. This year, Toyota claimed the honors as Best Resale Value Brand, a title it last held in 2014. Putting it over the top were four 2017 models that hold tightly to their values.

Porsche, meanwhile, was a first time winner of Best Resale Value Luxury Brand on the strength of three of its models. General Motors was right up there, along with Honda and Subaru.

"Toyota and Porsche notably capture the top brand and luxury brand awards, delivering incredible resale value across their lineup of vehicles," said Eric Ibara, director of residual values for Kelley Blue Book.

Trucks and SUVs do best

Ibara says it comes as no surprise that most of the Top 10 Best Resale Value vehicles on the list this year are trucks and SUVs. These segments will only get stronger in the future, he predicts.

The resale values are set by automotive analysts who review the output from statistical models built around millions of transactions. The analysts single out vehicles bringing the highest five-year residual values, as a percentage of their original Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP).

This year the top 10 resale values for individual models go to:

• Chevrolet Colorado
• Chevrolet Silverado
• CMG Canyon
• GMC Sierra
• Honda Ridgeline
• Jeep Wrangler
• Subaru WRX
• Toyota 4Runner
• Toyota Tacoma
• Toyota Tundra

Toyota's strong portfolio

In pushing Toyota to the top of the 2017 heap, the Tacoma claimed honors in the mid-size truck category, the Sienna was tops among minivans and the 4Runner held its value best among mid-size SUVs.

The Honda Fit took the honors among subcompacts, while the Subaru Impreza holds its value best among compacts.

The KBB editors advise consumers that the resale value is just as important as the sticker price when choosing a new car. But while the price is on the sticker in plain view, the residual value is not.

Another thing to keep in mind -- most options and packages, which will always bump up the price of a new car, do not necessarily increase its resale value. Ibara says exceptions include a high-performance engine or a performance package in a sports car.

Regional factors also come into play. In the icy upper Midwest, four-wheel drive vehicles will probably hold their value better than two-wheel drive vehicles. In the deep south, dark-colored cars -- which tend to retain heat -- won't bring the resale value of light-colored ones.