Current Events in May 2017

Warmer weather finally appears to be here to stay in many areas of the country, and consumers will likely take advantage by spending more time outside. But trekking around in nature comes with dangers of its own.

In particular, experts say that the past two warm winters will mean an increased tick population going forward, which means a surge in tick-borne infections and diseases. While most consumers think of Lyme’s disease when the subject is brought up, researchers say that one condition to look out for is Powassan virus, which can cause long-term neurological problems, severe illness, and even death.

"About 15% of patients who are infected and have symptoms are not going [to] survive. Of the survivors, at least 50% will have long-term neurological damage that is not going to resolve," said Dr. Jennifer Lyons, chief of the Division of Neurological Infections and Inflammatory Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a CNN report.

Escalating symptoms

Historically, Powassan hasn’t been a huge problem in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says only 75 cases have been reported in the last 10 years. However, those who are infected and develop symptoms are at extreme risk of serious medical conditions.

Lyons explains that the initial symptoms are very much like the flu, with consumers experiencing muscle aches, pains, fever, and headache. But in just a couple of days, things may escalate and become much more serious.

"You start to develop difficulties with maintaining your consciousness and your cognition. . . You may develop seizures. You may develop inability to breathe on your own," said Lyons.

Unfortunately, there are no vaccines or treatments currently available for Powassan, but Lyons points out that there are some experimental treatments that can be administered if a patient comes in when symptoms are still in their early stages. However, she admits that “we have no idea if any of that works.”

Focus on prevention

As such, consumers who want to avoid infection must concentrate their efforts on not being bitten by ticks in the first place. Researchers have identified three species of ticks that can carry the virus – lxodes cookie, lxodes marxi, and lxodes scapularis. The last is more commonly known as a deer tick, which consumers may recognize as a major carrier of Lyme’s disease.

Experts say the best way of avoiding tick bites is to not enter high brushy areas when outside and to wear long sleeves and pants whenever possible. Consumers should also be sure to buy and use insect repellent and frequently conduct tick checks after being outside.

“The best thing people can do if they’re worried about Powassan or any other tick-borne virus is to prevent against all tick bites. . . Essentially, you don’t need to worry about Powassan if you don’t get bit by a tick,” said Dr. Daniel Pastula of the University of Colorado Denver and the Colorado School of Public Health.

To learn more about Powassan and other tick-borne viruses, consumers can visit the CDC’s site here.

If you're a Gmail user and receive an email saying someone you don't know is sharing a Google Doc with you, resist the urge the click on the link. Google says it's a nasty phishing scam.

"We have taken action to protect users against an email impersonating Google Docs, and have disabled offending accounts," Google said in a statement to Fortune magazine. "We’ve removed the fake pages, pushed updates through Safe Browsing, and our abuse team is working to prevent this kind of spoofing from happening again. We encourage users to report phishing emails in Gmail."

Google said it acted within one hour of the scam's appearance, but a lot of damage was done in that first hour. Security experts say the hackers were likely able to steal millions of email addresses stored in victims' contacts folders, apparently the objective of the scam.

We've seen this before

In some way the scheme is similar to one we warned you about back in January. In that campaign, hackers were able to spoof emails from someone the victim knew, making it more likely he or she would fall for it.

At the bottom of the email was an attachment -- or what appeared to be a Gmail attachment. But it wasn't the real thing. It was a graphic representation of what Google uses to indicate an attachment.

If the victim clicked on the "attachment," he or she was taken to a page that looks exactly like Google's Gmail log-in page. There, the victim was asked to enter credentials to log into the Gmail account again. If the victim complied, the scammer immediately seized the account information, loged in, and began sending the phishing email to everyone in the victim's contacts.

What it looks like

In this new version, an email hits your Gmail inbox with the subject line "(name) has shared a document on Google Docs with you."

The body of the message says "(name) has invited you to view the following document:"

Below that line is a blue box with the words "Open in Docs." That's the link that then takes you to a bogus site instead of opening a document.

According to hacking expert Zach Latta, who has posted extensive warnings on Twitter, Google has revoked the app so there is nothing more for consumers to do. For those who have been victimized, Latta offers this advice:

1. Go to myaccount.google.com/permissions
2. Find the app "Google Docs"
3. Revoke all permissions

To some consumers, gluten has almost become a bad word. Recent dieting trends have taken the lead with promoting gluten-free food products, and even advertisers are prominently displaying items that don’t include the protein.

Part of the reason that gluten-free products have become so popular is because of the increased awareness of Celiac disease -- an autoimmune disorder that causes intestinal inflammation when gluten is consumed; the condition affects approximately 3 million people in the U.S. After observing these symptoms, some medical experts have concluded that gluten can have negative health effects on the general population, including increased risk of obesity and heart disease.

But a new study from Columbia University Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School shows that these conclusions, particularly those surrounding heart disease risk, are false. In fact, the researchers say that avoiding whole grains as part of a gluten-free diet may increase heart disease risk in people who don’t have Celiac disease.

"Gluten is clearly harmful for people with celiac disease. But popular diet books, based on anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, have pushed the notion that a low-gluten diet is healthy for everyone. Our findings show that gluten restriction has no benefit, at least in terms of heart health, for people without celiac disease. In fact, it may cause some harm if they follow a low-gluten diet that is particularly low in whole grains because those grains appear to have a protective effect against heart disease," said lead author Dr. Benjamin Lebwohl.

Vast majority not gluten intolerant

Of course, the researchers admit that those suffering from Celiac disease aren’t the only ones that have to watch their gluten intake. While about 1% of the U.S. population have the disease, many more suffer from a condition called “non-celiac gluten sensitivity,” which triggers some of the same symptoms as Celiac’s disease.

However, the researchers say that the vast majority of Americans suffer from neither condition, and they theorized that cutting out gluten from their diets was likely having a negative effect.

"Despite the relatively low prevalence of celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity, surveys suggest that about one-third of Americans are trying to cut down on gluten. This certainly benefits companies that sell gluten-free products. But does it benefit the public? That is the question we wanted to answer," said Lebwohl.

More harm than good for most

The study assessed 65,000 women and 45,000 men who took part in the Nurses Health Study and Health Professionals follow-up study. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire every four years from 1986 to 2000 in which they detailed their estimated level of gluten consumption; none of the participants were diagnosed with Celiac disease.

The findings showed that there was no association between gluten consumption and increased risk of coronary heart disease, with those who ate the least amount of gluten having the same rate of heart disease as those who ate the most gluten. These results indicate that people may have been contributing to their own heart issues by not eating whole grains, which have been shown to be beneficial to heart health.

"Based on our data, recommending a low-gluten diet solely for the promotion of hearth health does not appear warranted," concluded Dr. Andrew Chan, a gastroenterologist and Chief of the Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The full study has been published in the British Medical Journal.

The fight over net neutrality is turning nasty. Although it's a topic that doesn't stir much interest in your average consumer, those who have opinions hold them very strongly.

Take Craig Sillman. He's a Verizon vice president in charge of what is called "public policy" (i.e., lobbying), and he is not happy with groups that describe themselves as "public policy" advocates, like Free Press and Fight for the Future.

Sillman says a lot of these groups are just out to raise money from their supporters and will say whatever it takes to make their point.  

"You gotta understand, there are a lot of advocacy groups out there that fundraise on this issue," said Sillman. "So how do you fundraise? You stir people up with outrageous claims. Unfortunately, we live in a time where people have discovered that it doesn't matter what's true, you just say things to rile up the base."

So is this a gotcha' incident? Something Sillman said behind closed doors? No, oddly enough it's part of a video released by Verizon recently. It's what you might call a "fake news" video in which an apparent Verizon employee identified only as "Jeremy" questions Sillman as though he were a reporter.

But despite Sillman's rather self-serving claim, non-profit advocacy groups aren't the only ones expressing concern about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman's plan to deep-six net neutrality rules -- and not everyone is driven by financial motives.

"Open and equal access"

“The internet must remain open and accessible to everyone,” said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan in a recent statement. “Open and equal access to the internet is crucial to information sharing and competition. The FCC’s proposal would allow internet service providers to pick winners and losers among content providers and their customers. I urge the FCC Commissioners to vote against this proposal.”

Sillman would perhaps say that Madigan is just saying what she thinks voters want to hear, but judging from the mail and the reader statistics that let websites like ours count how many people read a given story, net neutrality is not exactly a barn-burner topic.

It is true that conservative interests and Republicans tend to favor deregulating big telecom companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast while liberals and Democrats generally want to treat them like utilities, regulating rates and requiring that all users get the level of service they're paying for.

In the case of net neutrality, the rules put in place by the Obama-era FCC require companies like Verizon to treat all traffic equally. Since Verizon owns AOL, Yahoo, and other content providers, critics say it might tend to favor its own traffic over competitors. This is the allegation that Sillman and new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai say is strictly theoretical and doesn't have to be dealt with until and if it actually becomes a problem.

Critics like Madigan disagree. "Existing net neutrality rules prohibit internet service providers like AT&T or Comcast from discriminating among customers and content providers. They also ensure that when consumers purchase internet access, they can reach the content of their choice without interference and that any website can reach customers without having to negotiate or pay for special access," she said.

What could actually happen if net neutrality rules are scrapped? Madigan lists these possibilities:

• Consumers being unable or forced to pay to access certain websites;
• Decreased competition as start-ups fight for access with larger, established companies; and
• Telecommunications companies that also own media companies giving preferential treatment to media content they own, putting smaller content providers and their customers at a disadvantage.

"No evidence of systemic failure"

FCC chair Pai has argued that there was no need to implement the net neutrality rules in the first place. 

"There was no evidence of systemic failure in the Internet marketplace. As I said at the time, 'One could read the entire document . . . without finding anything more than hypothesized harms.' Or, in other words, public-utility regulation was a solution that wouldn’t work for a problem that didn’t exist," he said in a speech late last year. 

The FCC is expected to vote at its May 18 meeting to eliminate the new rules. Free Press, one of the groups that drew Sillman's wrath, has been trying to raise $100,000 to fight the repeal.

"It's official. Trump and Pai plan to destroy net neutrality," says the FreePress.net site, insisting it's not too late. "Chairman Pai could still back down if he wants to leave the dark side."

Gasoline prices, which normally rise from the end of winter through Memorial Day, have gone down over the last few days, handing motorists an unexpected gift for this time of year.

The national average price of self-serve regular is $2.36 a gallon, down four cents in the last week, according to the AAA Fuel Gauge Survey. The national average price of premium gas is down two cents, to $2.89.

"I'm surprised by the price drop, but we've been really good at pumping oil and producing gasoline lately," Dan McTeague, senior petroleum analyst at Gasbuddy, told ConsumerAffairs. "The latest figures show refineries have been processing 17 million barrels of oil a day, that's more than at any other time, in any season."

McTeague credits that refinery production, along with the recent drop in crude oil prices, with countering the usual seasonal rise in fuel prices. He says the two are likely connected. When oil prices dropped unexpectedly, he says many refineries jumped at the chance to produce more gasoline at a higher profit margin.

Roaring back online

"Refineries have not just come back on line, they've roared back on line, ramping up production at an unprecedented pace," McTeague said.

They've produced so much gasoline they've exceeded demand, which is now putting downward pressure on prices. Going back to April 11, the benchmark New York gasoline futures price was $1.79. Today, McTeague says it has dropped to $1.49.

At the pump, some states have seen a bigger drop than others. In Indiana, the price of regular has fallen a dime a gallon in the last week. In Illinois, the average price is down seven cents a gallon.

The good news? Most of the country will probably see a steady decline in gasoline prices through Memorial Day and into the summer.

"I wouldn't bet the farm on prices going back up again anytime soon," McTeague said.

Financial literacy is a hot button topic these days. Personal finance experts say consumers often get in trouble financially because they lack basic money-management skills.

Personal finance expert Christopher Krell says financial education should start early, and it should start at home. Krell cites a recent study by WalletHub showing an alarming rise in credit card debt. Consumers added more than $60 billion in new debt in the fourth quarter of last year.

“In an environment such as this, it is difficult to set an example for your kids,” said Krell. “When they see mom and dad constantly reaching for the credit card, they begin to think that living in debt is okay. It is imperative that you teach kids now to save even if it’s a life lesson in don’t-do-what-we-do.”

But research shows parents aren't promoting financial literacy at home. The recent Junior Achievement-Jackson Children’s Financial Literacy Survey showed that 33% of children haven’t been taught how to get or earn money.

 The poll of 500 elementary school-aged children and their parents also revealed that 41% of children had not been taught how to spend money. At the same time, nearly half had not learned how to give money to help people.

How to start

To help children improve their financial literacy, Krell suggests starting with teaching them the value of money. Give them an allowance in exchange for household chores, but have them separate the money into three categories -- save, spend, and give.

Once they have enough money in the "save" pile, have children open a savings account at a bank. True, they will earn a minuscule amount of interest, but the lesson is about compounding interest. The money in the account will grow, albeit slowly.

Krell says parents should also take advantage of trips to the grocery store to teach children the value of comparison shopping. Teach them about generic items and why they cost less than brand name products. Krell suggests letting children select some of the items on a grocery list by comparison shopping.

Be honest

Okay, so maybe you haven't done such a great job with your finances and don't feel you're in any position to teach your kids good financial habits. Wrong, says Krell. He urges parents to be honest about the family finances. If you have credit card debt, explain to your kids why that makes things harder.

At the same time you're teaching kids the value of money and how to handle it, Krell also advises teaching the value of giving. Have your children donate some of their money to a local charity or cause, like a food bank, so they can see how their contributions are helping people.

“Remember, it’s never too soon to start teaching your children the value of money,” said Krell. “The worst thing we can do is never speak with our kids about money, saving, spending and giving and then expect them to go out into the world to try to figure it out on their own. It’s a recipe for disaster.”

It's generally thought that poor people are the biggest consumers of fast food, but a new study suggests that's not the case. The Ohio State University study found that middle-income consumers are also regular visitors to McDonald's and KFC.

"It's not mostly poor people eating fast food in America," said Jay Zagorsky, co-author of the study and research scientist at OSU's Center for Human Resource Research. "Rich people may have more eating options, but that's not stopping them from going to places like McDonald's or KFC."

Zagorsky's study showed that middle-income Americans were most likely to eat fast food, although the differences from other groups was relatively small. Even the richest people were only slightly less likely to report fast food consumption than others.

The researchers used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which has questioned the same group of randomly selected Americans since 1979.

In the study, researchers used data from about 8,000 people who were asked about their fast-food consumption in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 surveys. Participants, who were in their 40s and 50s at the time of the surveys, were asked how many times in the past seven days they had eaten "food from a fast-food restaurant such as McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell."

Results were compared with the participants' answers to questions about their wealth and income. While there were some slight differences in how wealth and income were related to fast-food consumption, Zagorsky said the results were similar.

79 percent

Overall, 79 percent of respondents ate fast food at least once and 23 percent ate three or more meals during any one of the weeks recorded in the study.

A key finding was that people whose income or wealth changed dramatically during the four years of the study -- either going way up or way down -- didn't change their eating habits.

"If you became richer or poorer, it didn't change how much fast food you ate," Zagorsky said.

Lack of time

One hallmark of the heavy users of fast food was a lack of time.

The study found that fast-food eaters tended to have less leisure time because they were more likely to work more hours than non-fast-food eaters.

Zagorsky said he hopes the results of this study can help guide policymakers when they come up with laws regarding how to prevent obesity or guide nutritional choices for Americans.

"If government wants to get involved in regulating nutrition and food choices, it should be based on facts. This study helps reject the myth that poor people eat more fast food than others and may need special protection," he said.

In recent years, fast food restaurants have gone into a bit of slump. Consumers’ growing preference for fresh and locally sourced foods has generally been bad for business, but some eateries have managed to make comebacks by turning to better technology and automation.

That appears to be something that Pizza Hut is considering. The company will reportedly be looking to invest $130 million in an agreement with Yum Brands Inc. to “accelerate a bold transformation of the Pizza Hut U.S. business,” according to an earnings call.

Yum Brands CEO Greg Creed says the investment will finance updates to restaurants’ technology and operations, as well as an aggressive advertising campaign in 2018. He called the agreement a “win-win” for both brands and said that Pizza Hut’s new “digital delivery-centric strategy. . . will make it easier for our customers to get a better pizza.”

President and CFO David Gibbs agreed with the sentiment, saying that the investment would “unlock significant value in years to come.”

Pizza Hut will certainly be banking on these estimates coming true. The company saw a 7% decline  in its restaurants last quarter while competitors like KFC and Taco Bell saw sales increase by 2% and 8%, respectively.

Dish Network's first quarter earnings report may sum up the problems and opportunities for cable TV providers in the age of cord-cutting.

Dish reported that it lost 143,000 pay TV subscribers during the three month period, even as it brought 547,000 new subscribers online. At the same time, the company's average revenue per user (ARPU) dropped below $87.

Dish owns over-the-top (OTT) service Sling TV, which streams a package of live TV programming, similar to basic cable, starting at $20 a month. That makes it an attractive alternative for consumers seeking to get away from $100-plus cable TV bills.

"While the company does not disclose standalone numbers for Sling TV currently, we believe that the net Sling TV subscriber adds have helped reduce the rate of decline in the pay-TV subscriber base," Forbes reported in its coverage of the Dish earnings call. "Since many of the pay TV additions were for Sling TV, which is offered at a lower price point, the company’s Pay TV ARPU declined to $86.55 from $87.94 a year ago."

"Sling TV was the first to give customers pay TV without long-term contracts, credit checks or strong arm sales tactics and we remain focused on providing consumers with the best entertainment experience, Roger Lynch, Sling TV's CEO told ConsumerAffairs.

Keeping them in the family

It might seem counter-intuitive for Dish to offer a cheaper service for consumers who want to cancel their subscriptions, but these consumers are going somewhere. The thinking is to keep them in the family, even if they're paying less.

It is but one example of how full-service pay TV providers are coping with the new environment. Gary Guthrie, of Louisville, Ky., found his cable TV company ready to deal when he called to cut the cord.

Guthrie figured that he could lower his monthly bill from $120 to $50 by dropping TV and keeping internet.

"When the cable folks got hold of me, they whined and kept passing me around to 'retention specialists,' Guthrie told ConsumerAffairs. "Finally, I cried 'uncle' when they gave me basic cable and internet for $65. In retrospect, that was a better deal than I thought because besides the local channels, I could access a lot of programs and channels on demand, albeit delayed, and continue my DVR service."

For Guthrie, that's worked out relatively well. He signed up for a couple of video streaming services for more on-demand content. Unfortunately, however, his basic cable package did not include ESPN.

Sling TV

"That’s when I found Sling TV," Guthrie said. "It had a tier that had ESPN’s channels and the cable news channels for $20, so I figured I could swing with that for three to four months and get my basketball fill."

But he reports a few technical issues with buffering, and making Sling work seamlessly with Google Chromecast. He also found a lot of the games he wanted to see were blacked out. Now that basketball season is over, he's dropped Sling and paying a total of $75 for cable, a streaming service, and internet.

Major pay TV players have sharpened their pencils in recent months to attract new customers to make up for the ones who are cutting the cord. Direct TV, recently purchased by AT&T, has a two-year basic TV package starting at $50 a month for the first year, but it jumps to $90 a month for the second year.

Verizon Fios offers several bundles of telephone, internet and TV, with all three costing a total of $80 a month for the first year. But as cable TV customers quickly learn, there are additional charges for boxes and modems.

Comcast's Xfinity HD Triple Play, including phone, internet and TV, starts at $140 with a two-year agreement. But as Guthrie found, that's just the asking price.

Two-year agreements

With the major players, a two-year agreement is standard. If you cancel before then, you'll pay a prorated early termination fee.

But if you are out of contract with your current provider and thinking about cutting the cord, it might pay to call and threaten to leave, just to see how accommodating your current provider might be.

The number of cord-cutters is still relatively small, but it's growing. Pay TV companies know this and are looking for creative ways to keep their customers connected.

Learn more about Cable TV and streaming video providers.

As it took aim at numerous Obama-era regulations, the Trump Administration in early April declared a 60-day delay on implementation of the Fiduciary Rule.

Simply put, that Labor Department regulation requires any professional dispensing financial advice for retirees to put the client's interests ahead of his or her own.

The financial services industry is nearly unanimous in opposing such a rule and early drafts of the continuing resolution (CR) spending bill that Congress passed over the weekend contained language to eliminate it altogether.

But according to Investment News, the version that passed Congress did not contain the Fiduciary Rule-killing language. The rule is now set to take effect in June unless Congress or the White House takes specific action to block it.

Democrats made it a deal-breaker

According to the Investment News report, the rule-killing language had to be removed in order to avoid a government shutdown. Democrats dug in their heels and refused to vote for a CR that killed the Fiduciary Rule.

In reiterating its opposition to the Fiduciary Rule back in April, the Financial Services Institute said the rule is unnecessary because its members have been working in the best interests of clients long before Dodd Frank legislation was implemented.

The trade group, which represents the financial services industry, argues that the rule would result in small investors, such as individuals saving for retirement, losing access to all investment advice.

Backers of the rule have worried that financial advisors who are earning commissions and fee on investments have a financial incentive to recommend them to their clients, whether they are in the client's best interest or not.

"The American Bankers Association (ABA) has long advocated for changes to the fiduciary rule and a longer implementation period to allow banks of all sizes time to comply," the ABA said in a statement Tuesday.

Asking for further delays

ABA is one of several trade groups asking for a meeting with Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta to discuss the rule's implementation. Meanwhile, 100 GOP members of the House have appealed to Acosta to further delay the rule's implementation.

On the other side, consumer groups have championed the rule and urged the administration to allow it to take effect. Nancy LeaMond, executive vice-president of AARP, says investors need to know the advice they are receiving is objective and unbiased.

"Many advisers already meet a fiduciary standard, and many more firms, brokers and agents have invested significant time and money to comply with the new rule," LeaMond said in a statement back in February. "It is time that all Americans can count on retirement investment advice that is in their best interest, not the interest of Wall Street."

LeaMond said she worries that delaying the rule will cause consumers to continue to get conflicted advice. And the more consumers have to pay in fees and commissions, she says, the less they have for retirement.

Airline executives discovered an uncomfortable truth when they appeared Tuesday before a House committee in Washington.

Republicans and Democrats in Washington may not agree on much, but they both hate the airlines with equal passion. The hearing, called in the wake of United's use of force to remove a passenger from one of its planes, gave lawmakers a platform to vent their anger.

"Members of Congress fly a lot," said committee chairman Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) "So do many of our constituents, the people in this room, and those watching online. We’ve all been in a situation where we just want to get to our seat, get in the air, and get home as quickly as possible."

"But imagine, almost seven hours into a long travel day, you get physically ripped out of the seat that you paid for, and thrown off the plane. Or imagine, while single-handedly trying to get your infant children on a flight, an attendant yanks your stroller away, nearly hits your baby with it, then almost come to blows with another passenger who stands up for you."

Regulations at the ready

Democrats, meanwhile, have been busy drafting proposed regulations that would mandate certain service standards and punish airlines if they fail to meet them. And while GOP lawmakers generally loath any kind of new regulation, Democrats warned the assembled airline executives that on this, they just might make an exception.

Shuster told The Hill that he went into the hearings with an open mind, hoping to gain insight into what Congress should do, if anything, to try to make flying a little more pleasant. The committee is working on a major aviation bill, and Shuster made clear he's willing to consider customer service components of it, if necessary.

Overbooking

Much of the hearing focused on the practice of overbooking flights, requiring one or more passengers to be bumped from the flight if everyone who purchased a ticket shows up. Airlines overbook because in practice, there are usually some no-shows. These days, the airlines do not like to fly with empty seats.

But that's just one aspect of flying that consumers have come to despise, especially the consumers who also happen to be members of Congress, who go back to their districts each week -- almost all of them aboard a commercial airliner.

"This Committee and the Congress do not want half-measures or temporary fixes," Shuster warned the airline executives. "This issue is not going away. We are not going away, we will hold you accountable, and we expect real results."

In recent years, researchers have been trying to determine why allergies in children seem to be on the rise. Some experts have theorized that consumers in industrialized nations live in cleaner environments and are not exposed to enough bacteria to build up a resistance.

Now, a new study suggests that phthalates in plastic products could be the culprit. Researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Leipzig, Germany say that children are more likely to develop allergic asthma if their mothers were exposed to phthalates during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

“It is a well-known fact that phthalates affect our hormone system and can thereby have an adverse effect on our metabolism or fertility. But that’s not the end of it. The results of our current study demonstrate that phthalates also interfere with the immune system and can significantly increase the risk of developing allergies,” said UFZ environmental immunologist Dr. Tobias Polte.

Exposure leads to allergies

For those who don’t know, phthalates are used by companies as plasticizers during the manufacturing process to make products more flexible. However, these chemicals can enter our bodies through skin contact, foodstuffs, and respiration and can disrupt several internal processes.

The UFZ researchers conducted a mother-child cohort study in mouse models to see what effect phthalate exposure had on mice offspring. The models were exposed to certain levels of phthalates during their pregnancy and lactation periods, and then the offspring were analyzed to see if the chemicals had any effect on their allergic responses.

While the findings showed that the adult mice were not affected by the phthalate exposure, their offspring had a “clear tendency” to develop allergic asthma, a trait that was even passed down to third generation mice.

“The time factor is therefore decisive: if the organism is exposed to phthalates during the early stages of development, this may have effects on the risk of illness for the two subsequent generations. The prenatal development process is thus clearly altered by phthalate exposure,” said Polte.

Methyl groups and DNA

Deeper investigation by Polte and his team found that phthalates affected developing mice at the genetic level. An analysis revealed that so-called “methyl groups” had become attached to the DNA of developing mice that were exposed to the chemicals, which inhibited the production of certain proteins.

When the researchers treated affected mice with a substance meant to break the methyl groups, the mice demonstrated fewer signs of allergic asthma. To see if the same process could be affecting human children, Polte and his colleagues consulted a cohort study and found similar genetic disturbances.

"Thanks to our translational study approach - which led from humans via the mouse model and cellular culture back to humans again - we have been able to demonstrate that epigenetic modifications are apparently responsible for the fact that children of mothers who had a high exposure to phthalates during pregnancy and breastfeeding have an increased risk of developing allergic asthma," says Polte.

Going forward, the researchers intend to investigate why phthalates lead to gene methylation and how this leads to the development of allergies.

The full study has been published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 

The American College of Financial Services (ACFS) has released a survey of older Americans that it says raises troubling questions about retirement in America.

The organization says when it quizzed a large group of retirement-age Americans on retirement issues, three out of four did not pass. Broken down, those between the ages of 60 and 75 with at least $100,000 in assets lacked knowledge about how to pay for long-term care, maximizing investments, and strategies for sustaining income throughout retirement and life expectancy.

Graded on an A to F scale, 74% of older consumers got an F on the quiz. Fewer than 1% got an A, which required a score of 91% to 100%. Only 5% got a B score and 8% scored a C, while 13% got a D.

Understanding basic facts

"Over the next 12 years, an estimated 10,000 Baby Boomers will reach the age 65 every day," said David Littell, Retirement Income Program Co-Director at ACFS. "More and more Americans are retiring but so few understand basic facts and strategies when it comes to ensuring that their retirement is a comfortable one."

Littell says he's alarmed by the survey because it's clear that most older Americans are not prepared for the decades they'll spend in retirement when they are not earning a steady stream of income.

Granted, the questions on the quiz were not all that simple. For example, which is better -- to work an extra two years and defer Social Security an extra two years, or increase retirement contributions by 3% for the five years prior to retirement?

The answer is working longer, and 33% of those taking the quiz got it right, 67% got it wrong.

Here's another question: what is the amount you can "safely" withdraw from your retirement savings each year? The answer is 4%, with only 38% knowing the answer.

Major knowledge gaps

ACFS says there are major gaps in knowledge when it comes to long-term care expenses. Only 30% knew that its mostly family members who pay the cost of nursing and assisted living expenses. The government only pays if the person is on Medicaid.

Littell says the take-away from the survey is that there is a premium on retirement literacy. He says retirees and pre-retirees need to ack now to gain the knowledge they need to make smart decisions in retirement.

To get started, you might check out these six books recommended by AARP. You might also want to read our reviews of investment advisors.

It's only been a day since members of Congress reamed airline executives and demanded to know why they "hate the American people." Now a report says American Airlines is planning to jam even more seats into its newest airplane model, the Boeing 737 Max. 

CNN Money reports that American will cram in an additional row of seats into the new airplanes, increasing capacity by six passengers by shrinking the distance between seats from 31 inches to 29 in three rows. Other rows will shrink to 30 inches.

You might think that the new, even more cramped seats will be ultra-cheap but no, they'll cost the same as other economy seats. 

Squeezing in travelers

As if to ensure maximum discomfort at all times, American is also shrinking the size of the bathrooms. thereby adding room for another four passengers. If you're keeping count, that's ten more passengers stuffed into each of the new planes.

The CNN report said United is considering a similar squeeze play, but the carrier, still smarting from its passenger-dragging episode, wouldn't confirm that report.

The incredible shrinking seat ploy would, at best, put American and the other "legacy" carriers on a par with budget carriers. Actually, some budget carriers provide more leg room than their older competitors. JetBlue, Southwest, and Alaska all fall into the 31″ to 33″ range.

Mindfulness and meditation are concepts that are growing in popularity these days. In two recent studies, researchers found that mindfulness training was effective at reducing stress and helping young college students cope with starting at a new school. Now, yet another study shows that meditating for short periods every day can help all consumers.

Researchers from the University of Waterloo have found that as little as 10 minutes of mindful meditation each day can help keep consumers focused and prevent anxiety. Researcher and PhD candidate Mengran Xu explains that this calming exercise can help people turn internal thoughts towards achieving a goal.

“We found that meditation practice appears to help anxious people to shift their attention from their own internal worries to the present-moment external world, which enables better focus on a task at hand,” Xu said.

Staying in the moment

To come to these conclusions, the researchers asked 82 participants who experience anxiety to perform a task on a computer while experiencing intermittent interruptions and distractions to see how well they were able to stay focused.

After experiencing the test once, participants were then randomly split into two groups – an experimental group which engaged in a short meditation exercise and a control group that listened to an audio story.

After the activities, the researchers reassessed all participants and found that those who took part in the meditation exercise were able to focus on the assigned task more easily than their peers. Data that was collected after the tests indicated that the meditation exercise helped participants switch to attentional focus from internal focus, which helped keep their minds from wandering.

"Mind wandering accounts for nearly half of any person's daily stream of consciousness. For people with anxiety, repetitive off-task thoughts can negatively affect their ability to learn, to complete tasks, or even function safely,” said Xu. "It would be interesting to see what the impacts would be if mindful meditation was practiced by anxious populations more widely."

The full study has been published in Consciousness and Cognition.

Most consumers know that you shouldn't take certain medication if you are taking certain other medication. Their active ingredients don't work well together and create health risks.

There is probably less awareness that there are foods you shouldn't eat if you are taking certain medication. The reactions can be just as harmful.

For example, eating kale, spinach, and tomatoes can be part of a healthy diet, but not if you are taking certain blood thinners. If you are, these foods can increase the risk of an irregular heart beat and even a heart attack.

'Don't Eat This if You're Taking That'

AARP and Skyhorse Publishing have just released a book to help consumers taking prescription drugs know what foods they should avoid. The guide, "Don't Eat This if You're Taking That," was written by the husband and wife team of John and Madelyn Fernstrom. You may have seen Madelyn dispensing nutrition advice on NBC's Today Show.

"Most people are surprised to learn that even healthy foods can interfere with the actions of many medicines," Madelyn Fernstrom said. "Small changes in what you eat can make a big difference in making sure your medications are working the way your doctor intended."

Many older consumers are surprised to learn that they should stay away from grapefruit when taking cholesterol medicine. Or they should avoid red wine, hard cheese, and chocolate when taking certain antidepressants. And some herbal supplements, it turns out, can affect blood pressure.

"This book will help anybody tackle the complexities of food and medicine interaction," said Jodi Lipson, Director of AARP Books. "Don't Take This If You're Eating That is especially useful for people taking more than one medication."

What the FDA says

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the wrong combination of food and drugs can prevent the drug from working the way it was intended. Sometimes that means it doesn't work at all, sometimes it works in ways that are bad for you.

Certain drugs can also change the way your body processes food. It can also cause a side effect from the drug to get worse.

Sometimes, anything you eat can affect how a medicine works. That's why some prescriptions come with directions to take with food or to take on an empty stomach.

In a recent report, we detailed how many consumers may unknowingly be suffering from inner ear damage that current tests might not pick up on. The condition might not be that noticeable in a quiet room, but in a crowded restaurant or noisy setting it could make hearing difficult.

Of course, one of the most common fixes for hearing loss is to be tested by a specialist and outfitted with a hearing aid. But unfortunately, these devices are becoming so expensive that some consumers simply can’t afford them; patient advocacy group Hearing Loss Association of America estimates the average cost for a pair of hearing aids is currently around $5,000.

That simple fact has prompted lawmakers to consider legislation that would create a class of hearing aids that could be sold over-the-counter (OTC), according to the Wall Street Journal. However, the hearing aid industry is opposing the effort, and audiologists are also voicing their concerns.

Not covered by Medicare

One of the reasons hearing aid prices have ballooned so highly is the fact that the devices are not covered under Medicare, a stipulation that was imposed in the 1960s when they were cheaper, not as effective, and the health risks associated with hearing loss were not completely understood .

Private insurance companies have also been hesitant to cover the devices in their plans, preferring to follow Medicare’s example. That translates to around 30 million Americans who suffer from some degree of hearing loss having to foot the bill, according to a Johns Hopkins University study.

One consumer, Patricia Holland, explains how she had to wait several years to buy even one hearing aid because of the unexpected high prices. “I only bought a hearing aid in one ear because the cost was so high but you really need two for balance,” she explains.

It’s a story that patient advocacy groups know too well. Barbara Kelley, executive director of Hearing Loss Association of America, says that the organization receives up to eight calls or emails daily from consumers who say that hearing aids are just too expensive, a fact that she says leads to preventable health risks like increased number of falls, anxiety, isolation, and cognitive decline.

“Cost is a barrier. Stigma is a barrier. Access to care is a barrier. People with mild to moderate hearing loss aren’t even taking the steps to get hearing health care,” she said.

Not the answer for moderate or severe cases

This current state of affairs might make the proposed legislation seem like a godsend to those in need of the devices, but the hearing aid industry and audiologists say that OTC hearing aids are not the way to solve the problem, at least not for more moderate or severe cases.

“Hearing loss is a health issue. Going about it with self-diagnosis and self-treatment is not a responsible way to approach hearing loss. . . The proper way to fit hearing aids requires patient service and patient care and that is done through a proper hearing professional,” said Brandon Sawalich, senior vice president of Starkey Hearing Technologies and chairman of the board of the Hearing Industries Association (HIA).

However, Sawalich says that HIA would support efforts to provide OTC hearing aids for mild hearing loss. The American Academy of Audiology remained noncommittal on its stance on the legislation, but voiced concerns that consumers need to know more about different hearing devices and what they can be used for.

Emergence of PSAPS

So, what are consumers who are stuck between high prices and the need for expert consultation to do? Some technology companies say that the answer may lie in personal sound amplification products (PSAPS) that are already commercially available.

Manufacturers of these devices have already come out in support of the legislation, saying that the bill’s passing would allow them to market their products for hearing loss – a practice that is currently forbidden by the FDA because PSAPS are not technically medical devices.

The Wall Street Journal points out that certain devices sold by companies like Doppler Labs and Bose can even be adjusted by smartphone apps and are much cheaper, usually carrying a price tag of less than $500 per ear. Advocates point out that the devices could be a viable solution for consumers with mild hearing loss.