Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

CPSC Slow to Issue Product Safety Warnings

We expect state and federal agencies charged with protecting public safety to warn and protect us from dangerous products and defects in a timely way.

That is particularly the role of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In the story below, grieving parents of a baby who died by suffocation in a Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play sleeper in 2017 say the agency knew about previous deaths and injuries but the product was still on the market.

The baby sleeper in this case was eventually recalled by Fisher-Price but only after information about its safety issues and reported deaths was obtained by Consumer Reports and made public. Here is some history.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The federal law being called into question here, section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, has been controversial for years. It basically requires the CPSC to give manufacturers at least 15 days advance warning before it goes public with news of a safety defect from which the public could learn the name of the manufacturer and product involved. The manufacturer can then respond to the CPSC with its position, and object to the release of the information.

Since the CPSC is surprisingly not empowered to order a product recall without going into court to sue for one, the agency and manufacturer are often at loggerheads for years over the issue. This is why when you hear about a recall, it is typically the manufacturer “voluntarily” doing it and not the CPSC. Additionally, some say if manufacturers know that the product defect and injury reports they file with the CPSC are not going to be easily made public that incentivizes them to continue to make such important disclosures.

While the TV report above asserts that section 6(b) is a gag order being placed on the CPSC, a former assistant general counsel at the agency says it is not. He asserts the real problem at the agency is that it fails to understand and use its existing authority.

No matter, in the current Congress, the Sunshine in Product Safety Act was filed to abolish section 6(b), but it has gone to committee and not likely to pass.

Whether section 6(b) is preventing the CPSC from naming names and alerting the public early to safety hazards, or they are not effectively using their own rules and tools, the result is the same. We deserve better protection.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Carnation Breakfast: Where’s the Promised Protein?

Earlier this month, a class action lawsuit was filed against Carnation about the allegedly misleading label on some of its Breakfast products.

The product, which comes in packets, boasts on the front of the package that it has 13 grams of protein, 21 vitamins and minerals, 3 times the vitamin D of milk, and three times the calcium of Greek yogurt.

Carnation breakfast

On the far right of the package, in tiny type, is a key disclosure:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Carnation - add milk

Most shoppers are not likely to see that, and it certainly isn’t remotely close to the protein claim. On the back, the ingredients statement has powdered nonfat milk as the primary ingredient. That might lead one to believe all you have to do is add water.

However, when checking the nutrition facts label, it becomes clear that the protein content of each packet is only 5 grams, and only magically becomes 13 grams as represented on the front of the package when consumed “as prepared” when adding milk.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Carnation nutrition label

So, what do you think? If you picked up this product and saw the 13 grams of protein claim on the front of the package, would you understand that that amount is only the result of adding milk to the product? There are no instructions on how much to add.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Is Quaker Lower Sugar Oatmeal Really Lower in Sugar?

Alan B. recently wrote to us saying that Quaker Oats was promoting its lower sugar variety of instant oatmeal as having a 33% reduction in sugar. He suggested this was a bit of smoke and mirrors because while the ingredients were the same, the packets of the lower sugar version were simply about one-third less in weight than the regular version, so of course they are lower in total sugar.

Quaker Regular vs Lower Sugar

So, we launched a massive investigation to see if there was an actual reduction in sugar or if it was just a packaging trick.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Quaker comparison

The regular version had 11 grams of sugar per packet, while the lower sugar one had only four grams. But because the packets are different sizes, we have to look at the percentage of sugar in each. The regular version is 26% sugar and the lower-cal version is only 13% sugar. If the lower sugar version packet was the same size as the regular one, its sugar content would be 5.5 grams – exactly half the amount in the higher sugar version.

So you really are getting a product with significantly less sugar. And despite our reader’s assertion that the ingredients are the same, they are not.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Quaker ingredients

Since ingredients are listed in the order of predominance, there are actually more apples in the lower sugar version than sugar.

So Quaker appears to be under representing the reduction in sugar on the box. The lower sugar version has 50% less sugar, not the 35% claimed.