Here, for example, is Campbell’s Tomato soup — the regular type and the 25% less sodium version. Their regular tomato soup is $1 a can, while the can with less salt is $1.39. A huge percentage price difference. Funny, how we’re charged more for less. But it gets worse. When one checks the nutrition label, there is a big surprise:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The 25% reduced sodium version has just as much salt as the regular version!

Interestingly the mouse print on the back of the label of their regular tomato soup claims that it has 42% less sodium than Campbell’s regular soup — a greater reduction in salt than their so-called reduced sodium product.

How does Campbell’s explain these discrepancies? Consumer reporter Michael Finney (who tipped us off to this story) of the local ABC affiliate in San Francisco asked them [ignore initial 15 second ad]:

(Here is a direct link to the story if you cannot access the video above.)

Based on the product’s name, one would think this was more of a trail mix, containing only almonds, cashews and cranberries. Yum.

*MOUSE PRINT:

It really has more oats and sugar than any other ingredient, as well as flour and oil. The key ingredients — almonds, cashews, and cranberries — are not even in the order of predominance suggested by the product’s name. In fact, they are in the opposite order, with more cranberries present than almonds.

Just as those old Freezer Queen two pound frozen entries used to be named “Gravy and Turkey” because there was more gravy than turkey in product, Trader Joe’s should simply rename their product more accurately.

Thanks to Willie L. for this submission.

When she contacted Sears, the consumer recounts, “a technician who handles warranty service for Sears told me it is quiet because there is no compressor in it and it cannot keep food cold enough to eat safely if there is no compressor.” Please visit Walletpop for the rest of her tale, and learn whether Sears gave her any money back.

Here is how Sears promotes this refrigerator on its website:

It is described in part as:

This Thermoelectric refrigerator chills your food without noise and vibration. You’ll never notice it’s there until you need a snack! With no harmful refrigerants, this quiet, compact, thermoelectric refrigerator will be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone.

It is nice to know that this appliance has no harmful refrigerants, but it does have something worse.

*MOUSE PRINT: The disclosure that is missing in that product description is that it is not safe to store perishable food in this “refrigerator.” According to the Food and Drug Administration, refrigerators should be kept at 40 degrees or below, which this appliance is apparently unable to do.

The FDA goes on to say:

“The goal is to keep yourself and others from being sickened by microorganisms such as Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, and C. botulinum, which causes botulism. Keeping foods chilled at proper temperatures is one of the best ways to prevent or slow the growth of these bacteria.” –FDA

Given the limitations of this unit and the potential illness it could cause, it seems to us that Sears should pull these units off the market or clearly label them as “coolers” along with appropriate warnings that perishable food should not be stored inside for more than a few hours. It would also seem appropriate that Sears either warns existing purchasers of the potential danger of these units or recalls them.

This looks like a local TV news station’s report on acai berries, reporter and all, who tested the stuff herself.  The station, News 8, WKRV-TV is in Florida, according to the masthead.

*MOUSE PRINT:  WKRV-TV in Florida is non-existent.  WKRV is a small FM radio station in Illinois, and may once have been a TV station in some other cities.

But what about our intrepid investigative reporter, Rachel Frank, pictured above?  Well, it seems she has a twin sister named Julia who wears the exact same clothing and works at some other health news website:

The “sisters” wrote about their experience using the product in a diary-format for a four week period, including saying “My energy level seemed to steady climb each day during this first week.”  Funny how the sisters made the exact same typo in each of their reports.

*MOUSE PRINT: Even more coincidental, women named “Jackie”, “Christine”, and “Kate”, and one unidentified man who looks strangely like NBC’s white house correspondent Chuck Todd, all said the same thing in those exact words on their websites.

In the first ad above, there are two disclaimers at the top.

*MOUSE PRINT: One says “advertorial” and the other says “this website is not affiliated with any news outlet.”

Hmmm.  So those few words are somehow supposed to overcome the net impression created by the website that this is a television station doing an investigation of a diet pill?

We saved the best for last:

*MOUSE PRINT: At the very bottom of the website in tiny type on a grey background is this disclosure:

“This website, and any page on the website, is based loosely off a true story, but has been modified in multiple ways including, but not limited to: the story, the photos, and the comments. Thus, this blog, and any page on this website, are not to be taken literally or as a non-fiction story.” –Ad 1

“THE STORY DEPICTED ON THIS SITE AND THE PERSON DEPICTED IN THE STORY ARE NOT REAL. ” — Ad 2

Finally, there have been some real news reports of consumers who took advantage of “free trial offers” and wound up being billed for hundreds of dollars of unordered products.  (See also our story on tooth whitener offers.)

Buyer beware.

Companies have joined in to help raise money for various breast cancer organizations typically by promising to donate X cents or X dollars for every product sold bearing a pink ribbon. A maximum donation is often stated in the advertising. So many companies have joined in doing these promotions dubbed “cause marketing”, that store shelves and ads are filled with pink ribbon items.

Some women with breast cancer are now speaking out about the commercialization of their disease. They don’t like the fact that some companies appear to be profiting from their pain.

“Many breast cancer survivors like Zielinski find themselves conflicted over this little powerful ribbon. Some survivors feel companies are exploiting breast cancer, marketing themselves as philanthropic outfits that care about women when what they mostly care about is the pink ribbon’s enormous ability to boost profits. Some just feel overwhelmed by the constant pink reminder, especially in October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, of a disease that has forever altered their lives.” — Sick of Pink, Boston Globe Magazine, October 4, 2009

Poking around the Internet, Mouse Print* discovered that Buy.com was promoting its own very pink “Breast Cancer Awareness Store.”

Among the items being sold there are pink luggage and even pink flash drives from PNY.  In many cases, there is no specific disclosure of how much money of your purchase will be donated to breast cancer causes.

*MOUSE PRINT: Some items just say, “Portions of the proceeds of the sale of this flash drive go the Susan G. Koman for the cure foundation.”

The site also did not appear to say whether it was actually Buy.com or the products’ manufacturers who were making the contributions.

*MOUSE PRINT: A public relations representative for Buy.com when asked by Mouse Print* replied:

“As part of Buy.com’s National Breast Cancer Month Promotion, the participating manufacturers are making the donation when each item is sold.”

While manufacturers need retailers to promote pink products in order to donate the sums they have promised, some consumers might erroneously have believed that this retailer was also making a contribution derived from the profit on the sale of these pink items.