mouse
Go to Homepage


Subscribe to free weekly newsletter

Mouse Print*
is a service of
Consumer World


Visit our sister site:

Consumer Reporters & Advocates in Media


Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

January 19, 2015

CVS Sued Over Eye Vitamin Claims

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 6:25 am

  In June 2014, we told you about some misleading claims (see story) made for CVS Advanced Eye Health vitamins, a product which purchasers might mistake for being just like Bausch + Lomb’s PreserVision — a vitamin proven to slow the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Last week, CVS was sued in a California court by two men with AMD alleging the very things that we did.

In short, Bausch + Lomb’s PreserVision’s formula of six vitamins and minerals was tested (the AREDS2 tests) by the federal government and was shown to be effective in treating AMD which can lead to blindness. The CVS’ Eye Health product, typically located right next to PreserVision in its stores, and seemingly half the price, proclaims that it is comparable to the formula in AREDS2 studies. In fact, it only has two of the six proven ingredients. (Again, please see original story for a more detailed explanation.)

PreserVision vs. CVS

Unlike other false advertising issues, this one has serious health ramifications for anyone who didn’t compare the ingredients lists of the two products side by side. They could well be taking the CVS product thinking that it will slow their progression to blindness, when it probably has little or no effect.

At the time we reported the story originally in June 2014, CVS said they were in the process of removing the comparability claim from their packaging. But last week, they told the Consumerist that “CVS/pharmacy removed this statement from the product once the results of the AREDS2 study were released.”

Really? The results of the AREDS2 test were made public in early May 2013. So, it is inexplicable that a friend saw the CVS product with the same comparability claim still at a CVS store just last week. However, a check for the product at another nearby CVS revealed that a new version of the packaging without the AREDS2 claim was in that store:

CVS Eye Health

Interestingly, the company has reduced the dosage from four pills a day to just one, without changing the amount of ingredients per pill.

• • •

November 24, 2014

How Many One-A-Day Vitamins is Right to Take?

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 7:03 am

 I know, what a dumb question. That’s like asking how many musketeers were in the three musketeers.

JCD, a regular Mouse Print* reader, brought up the issue in the context of One-A-Day vitamins.

One-A-Day

One would expect that you take one per day, right?

*MOUSE PRINT:

One-A-Day back

Nope… you have to take two.

You have to wonder how many people under-dosed on these vitamins because they reasonably assumed that the whole point of One-A-Day is to take one per day. Even at that, you are still not getting 100% of the daily requirement of some of the vitamins in the product.

Bottom line: don’t assume.

• • •

October 20, 2014

What’s Really in That Pet Food?

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:59 am

 A professor at Chapman University in Calfornia just completed a study of the actual contents of dog and cat food with some shocking results.

Of the 52 products tested, only 31 were labeled correctly. Of the about 20 that were potentially mislabeled, seven were cat food and 13 were dog food. What kind of discrepancies did the researchers find?

*MOUSE PRINT:

Sixteen contained a certain kind of meat that was not specified on the label. In three cases, one or two meats were substituted for the meats listed in the ingredients. Pork was the usual addition. On the bright side, no horse meat was found.

The study did not specify the brand names of the affected products (and our request of the author to provide specifics was denied): “It was not our intention to single out pet food brands, but rather to investigate the issue as a whole. Therefore, we will not be releasing the names of the brands or specific products that were tested in this study.”

A pet advocate who has written extensively on this subject at TruthAboutPetFood.com paid for a copy of the study and posted examples of some of its findings:

Sample number P017 – Cat Food (wet). Meat ingredients listed on the cat food label: “Liver (turkey), Turkey, Meat by-product, Chicken”. Testing found: “Chicken and Goat”. This pet food was a ‘turkey’ cat food – but testing found no turkey.

Sample number P019 – Dog Food (dry). Meat ingredients listed on the dog food label: “Chicken, Chicken meal, Beef fat”. Testing found: “Beef, Lamb, Chicken, Turkey, and Pork”. This chicken and beef fat dog food included 3 other animal species that were not listed on the label (lamb, turkey and pork).

We unfortunately have to conclude that in too many cases, the ingredients listing on pet foods is merely a suggested list of what might be in the bag or can.

• • •

October 6, 2014

CVS to Pay $225K for Misleading Packaging

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:57 am

  Some people call it over-packaging, slack-fill, or deceptive packaging. No matter what the name, it describes a product’s packaging that is deliberately designed to make the contents seem greater than they really are.

Last week, district attorneys from four California counties entered into a settlement agreement with CVS after they charged that the pharmacy chain misled consumers by misrepresenting product sizes or quantity. CVS was said to have used packaging that was “oversized and [with] non-functional slack-fill and/or false sidewalls and/or false bottoms. The company agreed to pay over $225,000 to settle these charges.

*MOUSE PRINT:

cvsfalsepackage

CVS issued a statement to KFSN, the television station that first broke the story:

“CVS/pharmacy has entered into an agreement with District Attorneys in a few California counties to resolve allegations concerning the packaging size of certain CVS Brand products. CVS/pharmacy is committed to ensuring that its product packaging is sufficient in size to accommodate pertinent information about the product. CVS Brand products, including packaging, are generally designed to be similar to the national brand equivalents. While manufacturers generally choose the container size, CVS/pharmacy has agreed to redesign the packaging of certain CVS Brand items.”

We told you about CVS selling vitamins in oversized packages over a year ago. Using our patent-pending super-duper x-ray device (a flashlight) we determined that a bottle of CVS vitamin D softgels only occupied about 25% of the space in a five-inch high bottle:

*MOUSE PRINT:

CVS fill line

The current action against CVS focused on various store brand anti-wrinkle creams they sell:

     
  • Accelerated Wrinkle Repair Moisturizer, Day
     
  • Accelerated Wrinkle Repair Moisturizer, Night
     
  • Age Refine Eye Cream, 0.5 ounces
     
  • Age-Refine Day Cream, 2.5 ounces
     
  • Anti-Wrinkle And Firming Cream
     
  • Healthy Complexion Anti-Wrinkle Moisturizer Acne Treatment Cream, Clear Skin
     
  • Frizz-Defy Hair Serum
     
  • Moisturizing Face Cream Hair Remover
     
  • Preventin -AT 2 in 1 Dark Circle And Wrinkle Eye Treatment
     
  • Maximum Scalp Relief

The agreement allows CVS to continue manufacturing the products until January 1, and continue selling them for two years.

• • •

September 8, 2014

Honestly, Could They Make the Disclosure Any Smaller?

Filed under: Health,Internet,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:36 am

 While watching TV the other night, MrConsumer saw a tiny disclosure at the end of a baby products commercial for The Honest Company. (That’s really their name.) It went by so quickly, and was so small and faint in color, it was very hard to read:

The Honest Company
Click ad to see commercial.

Here is what it says about their “free” trial.

*MOUSE PRINT:

*Only $5.95 for shipping and handling. You’ll be automatically enrolled in our monthly service. Cancel the service at anytime.

Their website gives more details.

*MOUSE PRINT:

*With your Discovery Kit, you’ll be enrolled as a member of The Honest Company. You have 7 days following receipt of your Discovery Kit to cancel your membership at any time, for any reason. We will remind you about your membership options. If you choose to not cancel, you’ll be charged $79.95 /month for the Diapers & Wipes Bundle, $35.95/month for the Essentials Bundle, or $39.95/month for your Health & Wellness Bundle (plus shipping & handling).

Basically, this company founded by actress Jessica Alba offers (among other things) a book-of-the-month-type service for baby supplies, shampoo and detergent, and vitamins. You will keep getting automatic deliveries every month, starting after seven days following receipt of your samples unless you cancel.

While their website makes clear that this is a monthly plan with monthly charges for these packages of goods, why do their TV commercials hide that fact particularly when they call themselves The Honest Company? Their television ad also seems to run counter to what their statement of principles claims:

Create a Culture of Honesty

We are serious about honesty – both as it applies to the integrity of our relationships and in being true to you. And, it’s a standard we encourage throughout our staff, stakeholders, and customers. But, that’s just the beginning. In all we do, we want to make each day a little more fulfilling, inspired, and downright better.

Mouse Print* asked the company twice to comment about their use of such a small disclosure and on this seeming contradiction of their corporate philosophy. We are still waiting for their response and will post it here… honestly.

• • •
Next Page »
Powered by: WordPressPrivacy Policy
Copyright © 2006-2015. All rights reserved. Advertisements are copyrighted by their respective owners.