Health

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

When It Comes to Eye Drops, They Can’t All Be the #1 Doctor Recommended Brand

MrConsumer has been having trouble focusing on his computer screen, and his eye doctor recommended using eye drops for dry eyes. In reviewing the websites and product labels of various brands, I discovered a curious thing — three companies all claimed their products to be the “#1 doctor recommended” brand!

Systane by Alcon

Systane

*MOUSE PRINT:

On their website, Alcon, the maker of Systane, shows all their tears products with the #1 claim on the box, and says the claim is based on an IQVIA ProVoice Survey of Eye Care Professionals 12 months ending December 31, 2021.


Refresh by Allergan

On its website, Allergan, the maker of Refresh brand eye drops also says that its family of products is #1 doctor recommended. Their claim is based on an Ipsos survey done in 2021.

Refresh


iVizia by Similasan

And just to further confuse the situation of dueling #1 claims, now comes a new product entrant into the U.S. market called iVizia.

iVizia

*MOUSE PRINT:

It boldly says “#1 Doctor Prescribed.” But in smaller type it is not that this specific product is most prescribed, but rather this manufacturer is number one in Europe.


Company Response

We wrote to the makers of both Systane and Refresh to ask some very pointed questions of how they both could be making the same #1 claim. We requested details of the survey, who qualified as an eye care professional, how the key question upon which their claim was based was worded, and whether they thought consumers picking up a specific product would understand that the number one claim was not necessarily about that product but rather an overall brand preference.

Abbvie, the maker of Refresh, did not reply to multiple requests for comment. Alcon, the maker of Systane, said in a not particularly responsive prepared statement:

“Alcon stands behind the #1 doctor recommended brand of artificial tears claim, which is substantiated by an IQVIA ProVoice Survey of 4,441 eye care professionals during the period January 1 to December 31, 2021. IQVIA is a third party that specializes in advanced analytics and clinical research services to the life sciences industry. Alcon complies with all applicable advertising and marketing laws and regulations in making the claim.”

We didn’t ask the makers of iVizia about its claim since it clearly distinguishes its claim as an overseas recommendation.

Without more facts to better evaluate and understand the basis for the other claims, however, the truth just becomes blurred.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Beyond Meat Sued Over Protein Content of Its Veggie Burgers

Beyond Burger frontSix Illinois consumers are suing Beyond Meat, one of the leading makers of plant-based burgers and other meat substitutes, alleging that the company overstates the amount of protein in most of their products. It goes on to assert that the “daily value” percentage (“DV”) representing how much protein the product contributes to meeting the government’s daily requirement for protein is grossly exaggerated.

For the product above, for example, the company claims each burger has 20 grams of protein and that represents 40% of an adult’s daily requirement.

Beyond Burger Nutrition Facts

The lawyers for the consumers say otherwise in their complaint because they had the products tested by a laboratory.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Plaintiffs’ counsel commissioned testing of Defendant’s Products, which show that the Products do not contain the amount of stated protein amount and/or protein DV [Daily Value] %. For example, Defendant’s Beyond Beef Plant-Based Ground 16oz Patties, which is labeled as “20G Per Serving” and “40% DV” for protein, actually contains 19G Per Serving by nitrogen testing, and 7% DV for protein.

So the tests showed that there is slightly less protein, but how much the protein contributes to your daily requirement for protein is completely out of whack according to the lawyers. They say you are only getting 7% DV because of the quality of the pea protein used, not the 40% claimed. This is because, they contend, the company did not use the proper test to determine protein quality as required by federal regulations which factors in the digestibility and amino acid utilization of the protein being tested. For further reading, here is an article about pea protein vs. whey protein and how they are tested and compare. Contrary to what the lawyers claim, however, it says that pea protein concentrate rates pretty high generally.

The lawsuit concludes that Beyond Meat has misrepresented many of its products in violation of various federal and state consumer protection and other regulations.

For its part, Beyond Meat said “The allegations in the filing are unfounded and not representative of Beyond Meat’s products. We are prepared to vigorously fight this case.”

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Are Nellie’s Eggs Really “Free Range?”

Nellie egg boxWith egg prices going through the roof at the moment, some companies still promote premium-priced eggs because they are seemingly raised in a more humane way such as those that are “cage-free” or “free range.”

One such company, Nellie’s, sells Free Range eggs and claims in this video that unlike other egg farming factories that house their hens in overcrowded warehouses…

“Our free-range hens get to live their lives like real hens, with access to pasture everyday in good weather. Our hens can spread their wings, forage in the fields, or scratch in the dirt.”

Nellie's pasture

Even on their [previous] box, the company claims that their chickens “get to peck, perch, and play on plenty of green grass.”

Nellie box claim

But, a class action lawsuit says that a more accurate depiction of the everyday conditions Nellie’s hens face is this, taken from a PETA video:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Nellie hens

The complaint alleges:

… the conditions in Defendant’s henhouses are virtually indistinguishable as those from the example they show as being not “Free Range” where hens are essentially “liv[ing] inside a space much like a large overcrowded warehouse.” Nellie’s itself describes this as a “grim existence” for these hens. But contrary to its packaging representations, that is precisely how Nellie’s own hens live.

Defendant’s hens can only get outside through small hatches cut at intervals along the sides of the shed. The hatches are closed all winter and during inclement weather. In pleasant weather the hatches are closed at night and are not opened until 1 pm the next day.

Because of this overcrowding and limited time that the hatches are open, many of Defendant’s hens are unable to ever access the hatches or the outdoor space.

The lawsuit, therefore, alleges false and misleading claims are being made by the company. A couple of months ago, a judge denied the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Here is a little more about the case and the judge’s initial ruling.

Godiva Case Update

Back in December we told you about a class action case filed by consumers against the Godiva chocolate company for misleading customers into believing that their expensive delicacies were made in Belgium when in fact they are manufactured in Pennsylvania. (See our original story.)

Now a judge has approved a negotiated settlement between the parties giving consumers who purchased Godiva products between 2015 and 2021 up to a $25 refund with proof of purchase. Several state AGs objected saying the terms of the settlement did not benefit consumers enough, but the judge denied their claims. Oddly, the deadline for filing claims passed before the judge made his final ruling.