Congress proposes extension and expansion of home-buyer tax credit

Legislation to extend and expand the federal home-buyer tax credit, which is scheduled to expire on November 30, passed by a 98-0 vote in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday. The U.S. House of Representatives could vote on the measure as early as today.

Under the proposed legislation, first-time home buyers or those who haven't owned a home in the last three years would continue to receive the $8,000 tax credit that's been in place since January 2009. The tax credit has been a major boon to existing home sales, spurring five gains in the past six months, according to the National Association of Realtors.

In an effort to stimulate even wider sales, the legislation would also extend a $6,500 credit to buyers who have owned their current home for at least five years. Both credits would be phased out for individuals with annual incomes above $125,000 and for joint filers with incomes above $225,000. The credit would be available for principal (read: not vacation) homes that cost $800,000 or less, and to qualify, buyers would have to sign a purchase agreement by April 30, 2010, and close on the home by June 30, 2010.

"Tax credits like this only work by creating the sense of urgency to take advantage of them," said Senator Johnny Isakson, the Georgia Republican who's former real-estate executive. "This is the last extension of the home-buyer tax credit, and I urge all Americans, whether they're first-time buyers who've always dreamed of having a home of their own or someone who's been gridlocked in the failure of our move-up market, to take advantage of this opportunity."

As we reported in "Questionable Claims for $8,000 First-Time Home-Buyer Tax Credit Spawn IRS Investigations," allegations of fraud related to the credit have arisen. (Bloomberg reported the other day that about 1.2 million home buyers have claimed $8.5 billion in tax credits in 2009 year, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury.) The new legislation includes antifraud language that would give the Internal Revenue Service greater oversight during the processing of returns.—Daniel DiClerico | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Get all the details about buying a foreclosed home and avoiding foreclosure-related scams. Be sure to get a thorough inspection of any property you're considering. If you'll be fixing up your new home, refer to our Kitchen-Planning Guide and Home Improvement Guide interactive.

Latest news on Chinese drywall

"This is a complicated problem, and we have several studies and other activities underway to help bring the best possible science to bear. The first sets of data released today start to explain differences between Chinese and non-Chinese drywall, but more remains to be learned. We are sharing what we know at this point and are outlining the next steps as we continue to work to answer homeowners' questions about what is causing the effects reported and observed."
 
That's how the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in a press statement released yesterday in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, described its ongoing investigation into Chinese drywall.
 
On its Drywall Information Center, the CPSC says it has received almost 1,900 reports from people in 30 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., "who believe their health symptoms or the corrosion of certain metal components in their homes are related to the presence of drywall produced in China." (In the photo, the small gray section directly under the thumb is drywall removed from a home.)
 
Read more about yesterday's news in this post on the Consumer Reports Safety blog and sign up for Chinese-drywall alerts from the CPSC. e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook
 
 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ventures into social media

If you've seen the Verizon Wireless ad in which a son pleads with his father to "cool it with the Twitter updates," you realize that at least on the high-tech front, there's not much of a generation gap between today's kids and their parents.

So it makes sense that the stodgy federal government has entered the world of social media. The latest agency to try out Web 2.0 is the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is now using YouTube (CPSC Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum is shown), Twitter, and FlickR as ways to raise awareness of safety issues and recalls.

The agency has relied on its Web site, OnSafety blog, and e-mail alerts to spread the word, and ran the "Drive to 1 Million" campaign more than two years ago. Now the CPSC will publish its recall notices, videos, podcasts, and more on the aforementioned social networks. The push began yesterday with a campaign aimed at preventing furniture tip-overs.—Gian Trotta | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: To stay on top of product recalls and other safety-related topics, read the Consumer Reports Safety blog.

Buzzword: Bamboo-zle

What it means. Bamboozle means to deceive, dupe, or hoodwink. But this green-era alt spelling of the term—bamboo-zle—adds a new meaning, specifically covering dubious claims made by manufacturers of bamboo clothing and textiles. Bamboo-zle is akin to greenwashing, another of our Buzzwords.

Why the buzz? The Federal Trade Commission this week charged four clothing and textile manufacturers with making false product claims about bamboo-based products. In its August 11 press release, the FTC said the "bamboo-based textiles, actually made of rayon, are not antimicrobial, made in an environmentally friendly manner, or biodegradable." Sami Designs, LLC, Jonaeno, CSE, Inc.(d.b.a. Mad Mod), and Pure Bamboo, LLC have settled the FTC's complaints, but litigation continues against The M Group, Inc. (d.b.a. Bamboosa).

"When companies sell products woven from man-made fibers, such as rayon, it is important that they accurately label and advertise those products—both with respect to the fibers they use and to the qualities those fibers possess," said David Vladeck, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in the release.

While rayon, an artificial fiber, can be created from the cellulose found in plants and trees, including bamboo, it's processed using a harsh chemical that releases air pollutants. In our past tests of towels, cotton and bamboo blends were softer after washing than all-cotton towels, though they were also more expensive.

Another popular bamboo product, flooring, is a bit more environmentally friendly than wood, since bamboo, a fast-growing grass can be harvested in as little as four years. (That's a bamboo forest shown.) In our latest report on nearly 50 flooring products (full story and ratings available to subscribers), two bamboo products outperformed other wood alternatives.—Celia Kuperszmid Lehrman | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: If you're planning to remodel your kitchen with new flooring, cabinets, or appliances, check out our recently updated Kitchen-Planning Guide.

Avoid summertime burglar-alarm scams

One consumer rip-off that shows no sign of abating is the annual invasion of door-to-door salespeople who use dubious and intrusive tactics to sell burglar-alarm systems to unwary homeowners, a topic we covered in "Scam Alert: Don't Get Ripped Off by an Alarm Company."

Jane Driggs, president of the Better Business Bureau of Utah, stops short of advising you not to buy an alarm system from door-to-door salespeople, but says, "You just have to make sure that you verify everything the company says and do your comparison shopping as if somebody hadn't come to the door." Read the BBB's "Don’t Fall for the Deceptive Pitch of a Door-to-Door Alarm Salesman."

Law-enforcement and consumer-protection officials warn you to be wary of an alarm salesperson who:

• Attempts to alarm you by citing rashes of burglaries in their neighborhoods.

• Claims to represent or wear clothing with logos from major alarm manufacturers like GE and Honeywell. These firms don't sell directly to consumers and don't allow their logos to be used by door-to-door salespeople.

• Tries to gain entrance into your home. "I actually had a salesperson reach inside the door to show me where his system would go and ask if he could come in," says Driggs. "I have a big dog, so I wasn't worried about it, but I could see a lot of people might have let him gain admittance that way."

• Offers a free system. Experts say "free" systems usually come with higher monthly service fees. Also be sure that the contract clearly indicates what the monthly service fee will be. "If they say your charges are going to be $44 a month for a one-year term, verify that that's what the contract says—don't sign it if it isn't clearly stated," says Driggs.

"Alarm companies generally don't make money on the equipment, but on he monthly services. You should focus on the quality of the service and the length of the contract—many jurisdictions limit the length and number of automatic renewals," says Ron Walters, the Security Industry Alarm Coalition's director of field operations. Make sure the contract stipulates the length of the agreement and any associated early-termination fees.

• Says the company is ready to install your system right away. Experts say legitimate alarm companies don't mind taking the time to talk to consumers to get a comprehensive view of their security needs.

• Claims your current alarm company is defunct. A scam recently spotted by our colleagues at The Consumerist involves Orem, Utah-based Pinnacle Security. The company's reps have been implying to customers of CastleRock Security in Wichita, Kansas, that CastleRock has gone out of business, a claim CastleRock disputes. Another variation on this theme is a salesperson's claim that your current equipment needs updating. Read more about this story on the KWCH Web site.

Industry experts stress that you should deal only with well-established companies. Find out which local or state agency has jurisdiction over alarm companies and check the records of any company you're considering using. Also see whether your homeowner's-insurance company offers a discount for using certain alarm companies.—Gian Trotta | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: These low-cost products and commonsense procedures can boost your home security. And read about Rex, a virtual watchdog.

Advertising for Oreck Halo vacuum generates challenge by competitors

In some of its ads and infomercials, vacuum maker Oreck calls its $600 Oreck Halo the "world's only UV-C germ-killing vacuum." Other spots feature families with small children lying on a carpeted floor, crawling across the kitchen, or scurrying in from the outdoors. "The MRSA is very alarming," says a concerned father in one TV ad, after the potentially deadly bacterium is discovered in his home.

Such engaging claims have likely piqued the interest of many consumers. But they've also interested the Federal Trade Commission, following a referral by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. After Oreck declined to participate in the NAD process, in which national advertising claims are reviewed for truthfulness and accuracy, the organization referred the matter to the FTC.

Vacuum manufacturer Dyson initiated a challenge about the Oreck Halo with the NAD in March 2009, about six weeks after Oreck's February 3, 2009, launch of the vacuum. Dyson was concerned about two claims by Oreck that said the Halo can "Kill and reduce germs on all of your floors while you vacuum" and "Reduced up to 99.9% of bacteria in laboratory testing."

In a response to the NAD, Oreck, which had acquired the Halo trademark and certain assets from Halo Technologies, Inc. in July 2008, said it was cooperating with the FTC to address its advertising.

This isn't the first time the NAD has looked at the Halo. In early 2008, when Halo was still owned by Halo Technologies, the NAD reviewed a challenge filed by Bissell Homecare, Inc. that cited several health-related and superiority claims made by Halo Technologies in its print and Web advertising and on product packaging. The NAD released a ruling on February 13, 2008, that included two key NAD recommendations:

• Halo should discontinue claims involving traditional vacuums (for example, "Some folks might . . . try using traditional vacuum cleaners, but all that does is disperse these things that cause the symptoms of allergies") because of the absence of comparative testing.

• Halo should qualify any "germ killing" claims by explaining that ultraviolet light can kill certain bacteria and allergens on the surface of carpeting if they are exposed to the light for a sufficient period of time, without implying that the vacuum can instantly kill all germs and dust mites embedded in the carpet, reduce or eliminate the incidence of allergies, or provide any health benefit.

The manufacturer disagreed with the NAD's findings, although it agreed to take them into consideration in its future advertising.

Regarding the current NAD review, in an e-mail to Consumer Reports, Oreck stated, "In the prior NAD matter involving Halo Technologies, the NAD found the light chamber to be effective in laboratory testing. The NAD only questioned actual consumer use testing."

Specifically, the NAD ruled that Halo Technology's original testing did not "determine the impact of the UV-C light emitted from the Halo vacuum on dust mites and allergens in carpet during actual use. This is important because in addition to the germs on the carpet surface, dust mites and allergens are also commonly found within the fibers of carpeting and far below the surface."

Oreck's e-mail went on to say that the manufacturer has since "commissioned and obtained consumer use testing by a national expert. The results are on Oreck's Web site and in Oreck's infomercial." Oreck added that the FTC has not requested additional information or action. Therefore, its advertising claims are presumably allowed to stand, at least for the time being.

We haven't reviewed the Oreck Halo but did test the Halo UVX, $400, for an October 2008 report on vacuum cleaners. While the UVX was excellent at cleaning bare floors, it was merely good on carpets, and our engineers found it noisy and hard to handle. It ranked 33rd out of 36 among upright vacuums. (The Oreck Dutch Tech DTX1400 canister, $900, in our ratings is a very good canister vacuum that excelled at cleaning bare floors and picking up pet hair. The Oreck XL Deluxe U3760HH, $400, is a good upright that also excelled at bare floors and pet hair.)

Oreck says its Halo benefits from "100 design and performance enhancements" made to the original technology, but none of them relate to its germ-killing abilities. "The Oreck Halo light chamber did not require improvements to be effective," says Oreck.—Daniel DiClerico | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Read our latest report on vacuums (available to subscribers), which includes ratings of dozens of upright and canister vacuums. And use our free buyer's guide for more expert advice.

Earth Day Special: Looking back at 20-plus years of greenwashing

You might have encountered the term greenwashing only in recent years, but the practice of making green claims on products and services that really aren't their products goes back longer. And for more than two decades the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has looked into greenwashing in advertisements and marketing, following policy and procedural guidelines set by the National Advertising Review Council.

In 1988, the NAD ruled on one of its first major cases of green marketing. Archer Daniels Midland Company had run a series of TV ads suggesting that a switch to ethanol-blended fuels would be as good for the planet as "having one-third fewer cars on the road." Not true based on the evidence, the NAD ruled, and recommended that ADM modify its claim.

In the years since, the NAD has issued more than 30 environmental decisions. Cases are initiated through monitoring by NAD staff or through challenges from companies questioning claims by their competitors. The first wave greenwashing came in the early 1990s, and the second started a few years back and continues today, says Andrea Levine, NAD director.

Today's greenwashers rely on many of the same tactics from last decade. The question of degradability and landfill reduction is one favorite form of snake oil. "There was the 1990s ad for plastic utensils that were going to save our precious water resources because you didn't have to wash them," Levine recalls. Just last month, the NAD ruled against Dispoz-O, the maker of Enviroware plastic tableware (PDF), saying that the company couldn't provide reliable scientific evidence that its products break down in months, as claimed.

Gross exaggeration is another popular ploy, as when a 2007 Panasonic promo proclaimed that "Panasonic Plasmas are environmentally friendly. No lead. No mercury. No worries. Most LCD TVs have mercury." The NAD ruled that while it's true that plasma TVs don't contain mercury, their significant energy consumption hardly makes them environmentally friendly.

Then there are hyperbolic statements, including Seventh Generation's suggestion that its household-cleaning products are "as gentle on the planet as they are on people."

Some products do promise some benefit to the planet, but advertisers then make too much of the perceived health risks of their competitors' products. A case in point is formaldehyde-free insulation, marketed thus by Johns Manville: "We got rid of formaldehyde in the insulation. So now all you have to worry about is getting rid of the monsters under the bed." That apparent demonizing of formaldehyde-bonded fiberglass went too far, the NAD ruled.

Not every advertising challenge results in charges of blatant greenwashing. When the Clorox Company had to defend its Green Works product line, the NAD ruled that the cleaners are, in fact, as effective as traditional cleaning products at removing most soils. However, the NAD recommended that Clorox be clear with consumers that Green Works cleaners cannot kill germs or cut through tough grease stains as well as some stronger cleaners that contain disinfectants.

The same dark green versus light green dichotomy that applies to environmentalism goes for greenwashing. "There are always going to be companies that take advantage of what they think consumers want," says Levine. But on the whole, she's "seeing changes that are more than just cosmetic, with companies doing serious soul-searching into their corporate policies and coming up with products that are truly beneficial for all."

Ultimately, she adds, it's consumers who have "the purchase power to drive environmental policy."—Daniel DiClerico | e-mail | Twitter

Essential information: Read our report on buying green products and learn the truth about some green groups.

EPA responds to Consumer Reports article on low-VOC paint, vows action

Green paint has gone mainstream. Many major manufacturers have at least one line that's low in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and several eco-friendly niche brands have joined the market. The Environmental Protection Agency's attention to low-VOC paints, however, has lagged, as we reported in our March 2009 report on interior paints.

Among the article's findings:
• Federal VOC limits are higher than those set by many regional and state agencies.
• The national test method for measuring VOCs is outdated.
• Limits should apply to tints, which are typically added to the can at the point of purchase, not just to base coats.
• The federal government should establish VOC standards for indoor-air pollutants.

Consumer Reports received a response to the article in a March 31, 2009, letter from the EPA, signed by Acting Assistant Administrator Elizabeth Craig. She noted that the EPA is working on an amendment to the current VOC rule that will lower federal VOC limits to 150 grams per liter (g/l) for nonflat finishes and 100 g/l for flat. The amendment will also call for a more accurate test method for VOCs. As for colorants, Craig wrote, "We are not aware of any state or local agency that has included colorants in the VOC emission calculation for architectural coatings." But, she added that the EPA will solicit public comment on the issue with an eye toward future action.

Craig did not address our concerns of indoor-air quality and VOCs since the EPA has no statutory authority to regulate VOC in the indoor environment. She noted that "the EPA's Indoor Environments Division is currently working to increase its public education efforts and the public's understanding of issues related to VOC in the indoor environment."

"We appreciate the timely response from the EPA acknowledging our concerns around VOC limits for paints and pigments and explaining their plans for upcoming regulatory actions to address," says Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., director of technical policy at Consumers Union.

The EPA has said it will promulgate a new rule for stricter VOC regulation some time after December 2009. We'll continue to report on the agency's efforts.—Daniel DiClerico | e-mail | Twitter

Essential information: Read our buying advice for air purifiers and use these simple tips to improve the quality of your home.

In Westchester County, some contractors have built a bad reputation

Most of the contractors I've dealt with have been upstanding citizens, but in Westchester County, New York, home-improvement pros again headed the 2008 top-10 list of complaints filed by residents there, according to a March 3 release from the county's Department of Consumer Affairs.

Home-improvement contractors were the subject of 357 of the more than 1,500 complaints the department received. The county issued 121 summons to unlicensed contractors and began enforcing a new law that allows for the seizure of tools and trucks. Gasoline sales, furniture stores, specialty services (including collection agencies and home-security companies), motor-vehicle sales, heating-oil companies, food stores, professional services, utilities, and department stores made up the rest of the list.

To try to avoid hassles on your next project, use our advice for hiring a contractor, finding a handyman, and choosing between a contractor or the services at a home-improvement center. And learn how to keep yourself from getting scammed by burglar-alarm companies, duct-cleaning services, and chimney sweeps.—Gian Trotta

Essential information: Read about New York State's Know Your Contractor Web site, launched last fall to help consumers avoid getting ripped off by shady pros.

Better Business Bureau complaints and "Amish heaters"

Unless you've become a recent devotee of spartaneity, you've probably seen one of the TV or print ads for the Heat Surge Roll-N-Glow Electric Fireplaces, commonly called Amish heaters. In the ads, Amish craftsmen radiate calm contentment as they craft wood mantels for the Heat Surge space heaters. The ads are so popular that they've generated the requisite parodies on YouTube. (Read the Consumer Reports review of the Amish heater.)

The Better Business Bureau has received complaints about a range of issues related to the heaters, including customer service, pricing, and service. Still other consumers have taken issue with Heat Surge's ads. As the Los Angeles Times reported last week, a BBB probe revealed that some of the people pictured in the ads are Amish and that the mantels, unlike the China-made heaters, are manufactured in this country.—Gian Trotta

Essential information: Heat Surge claims the heaters will help you "save big on your heating bills." (You can, if you employ zone heating.) "Don't Let Energy Savings Go Up and Out the Chimney" includes proven ways to save energy during heating season, with information on space heaters, programmable thermostats, and wood- and pellet-burning stoves.