Health

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

They’re Peddling 8 Prescription Drugs in a Home Emergency Kit

MrConsumer was taken aback when he saw a nationally televised commercial by The Wellness Company selling an emergency kit containing eight prescription drugs that you keep at home just in case you need them at 2 a.m. when pharmacies and doctors’ offices are closed.

You get bottles of these eight prescription drugs to self-treat conditions such as parasites, strep, pneumonia, lyme disease, bacterial infections, GI and urinary tract infections, and more.

Wellness Company drug list

To get the kit, you have to fill out a health form, and have a brief consultation with a health professional at the company who can write the prescription.

Once you get the kit, how exactly do you diagnose yourself with these conditions? They give you a handy booklet about what to use each drug for, or you can speak to a health-care professional at their company during regular business hours for an extra fee, presumably.

And how much does this kit cost? $299.

*MOUSE PRINT:

In their FAQ section they reveal a key fact:

No insurance accepted

To the best of our knowledge, no state pharmacy boards or consumer authorities have taken legal action against the company because what they are doing may not be outside current medical, legal, and ethical guidelines. One state pharmacy board reportedly denied a drugstore’s request to carry a similar kit in their store.

Some things are very unsettling about this whole proposition:

  • Shouldn’t new conditions be diagnosed first by a doctor, rather than having patients read a booklet to self-diagnose and self-medicate, perhaps incorrectly, in the middle of the night?

  • Should doctors and pharmacies be allowed to prescribe and dispense packages of drugs on the speculation that someday they might come in handy, particularly knowing that some patients may self-medicate without proper diagnosis or medical follow-up?

  • Can’t purchasers of these kits wait until 8 a.m. the next day to call their doctor to get a real diagnosis or prescription?

  • How many of these drugs will expire before use and wind up being a big waste of money?

  • Why haven’t state or federal medical authorities stepped in to regulate sales of kits like these?

    Please offer your thoughts in the comments.

    • Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

    Lawsuit: Safe Melt Not Safe for Pets

    Safe MeltIn March, two New York consumers sued the manufacturer of Safe Melt — a snow and ice melter specifically marketed to pet owners as “pet safe” and “pet friendly.” [See complaint.]

    After walking on areas treated with Safe Melt, which is 100% magnesium chloride, their dogs suffered various injuries including paw and skin irritation and lesions, and one dog developed kidney disease and died.

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    The lawsuit contends:

    … Safe Melt is not safe for pets. It is composed entirely of magnesium chloride (“MCL”), which is harmful for pets to ingest and dangerous for them to touch. Safe Melt can cause gastrointestinal irritation, diarrhea, bloody vomiting, respiratory depression, kidney failure, and cardiac arrest to pets that eat it, lick it, or groom their paws after walking over it. It can also cause chemical burns, cracked paw pads, and painful irritation if it gets embedded in pets’ fur or has direct contact with their skin.

    Apparently the company contends that the “pet safe” claim refers to the fact that their product comes in round pellets, rather than sharp, jagged crystals which could cut into pets’ paws. And their website says that the product “won’t burn or irritate pets’ paws.”

    The consumers say they paid a premium price for this supposedly safe product and want their money back. The lawyers are suing claiming misrepresentation and false advertising.

    If you see a claim on ice melter that says “safe for pets,” what do you understand that to mean?

    Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

    Questioning the Annual Good/Bad Produce Lists

    Last week, Consumer World linked to the report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) where they announced the 2026 annual “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15” lists of produce items that are highest and lowest in pesticide residue according to recent government tests.

    EWG says:

    This year’s guide incorporates data from a total of more than 54,000 samples of 47 fruits and vegetables. EWG uses USDA data for non-organic samples of fruits and vegetables from the most recent sampling periods [emphasis added]…

    A reader of ours was concerned because his favorite vegetable, spinach, topped the bad list. When he poked more deeply into the report, he discovered EWG’s 2026 ranking for spinach was based on tests done 10 years ago according to the methodology section of the report!

    EWG says that their 2026 lists are based on the “most recent sampling periods.” Most people reading that, like our reader, might expect to see that the 2026 good and bad lists were based on 2025 test results. Apparently, however, the most recent test results available from the U.S. government are from 2024.

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    And for spinach, it is even older, according to EWG:

    … to analyze residues on spinach, we used 1,295 samples the USDA collected between 2015 and 2016, the most recent data range for spinach.

    In fact, only three of the “2026 Dirty Dozen” were tested “recently.” And their 2026 lists are based on tests as old as 2011 — 15 years ago! We annotated their “Dirty Dozen” list below with the actual dates the produce items were last tested for pesticide residue.

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    Dirty Dozen "recent" tests

    We contacted EWG and asked for all the dates of the most recent tests that were used to compile their 2026 “good” and “bad” lists.

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    Most Recent Tests Used in 2026 Report

    Most recent test dates

    Scroll down the list.

    We believe the average reader would never expect an annual report of test results could be based on old data. In fact, only three varieties of produce in the 2026 Dirty Dozen list were tested in 2024 – the most recent year. Others made the “bad” list because of test results from as long ago as from 2013. Couldn’t industry practices change where produce that was previously contaminated is now less so, and categories that did well previously could now exhibit more contamination than previously?

    We asked EWG some very pointed questions about the fairness of coming out with annual good and bad lists when the vast majority of items have not been tested recently. We also asked why they don’t disclose right in those lists the test dates upon which their rankings are based?

    EWG responded immediately with comments by Varun Subramaniam, their science analyst, saying that the government does not test each category every year. He also said in relevant part:

    We often find that, even with updated testing data, residues remain consistent over time in the absence of new regulations. For example, new data were available for pineapples this year for the first time since 2002; however, this update after a long pause didn’t change pineapple’s position on the Guide…

    [On] our methodology page, we publish a list of the sample sizes and most recent sampling years for every produce item on the Shopper’s Guide.

    … we find that overall trends in pesticide use on specific produce items generally remain consistent over time… so, while some of the data is a few years old, they likely still represent the current overall contamination profile of the corresponding produce item.

    What do you think? Should this organization keep coming out with annual lists when there is no recent data to support most of their rankings? Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments.