Health

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

This Coppertone Sunscreen Is Not So Special

A while back, a California consumer sued the makers of Coppertone sunscreen for deceptive practices alleging she overpaid for their product.

In her complaint, the consumer said she bought Coppertone Sport Mineral “Face” at twice the price of the regular version believing it was specially formulated for use on one’s face. The label said “Won’t Run Into Eyes” and “Oil Free.” Sometime thereafter she learned that the “face” product was identical to the regular Coppertone Sport Mineral product but cost twice as much.

Coppertone[Not to scale… Enlarged for readability]

*MOUSE PRINT:

Her lawyers assert:

Based on the prominent “FACE” marking and face-specific representations on the front label of the Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE products, reasonable consumers believe that the lotion is specifically formulated for use on the face. In other words, reasonable consumers believe that there is something different about the Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE lotion that makes it better suited for use on the face, as compared to regular Coppertone Sport Mineral lotion.

The pricing of Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE reinforces this reasonable belief. Per ounce, Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE costs twice as much as regular Coppertone Sport Mineral.

In short, Defendant is tricking consumers into thinking they are buying sunscreen lotion specially formulated for the face, when in reality, they are just buying Defendant’s regular Sport Mineral sunscreen in a smaller—and far more expensive bottle.

For its part, the company admits that the formulation of the two products is identical but marketed in two different packages. They say everything they state on the package is absolutely true, there is no deception, and the case should be dismissed.

The case has not been resolved yet.

We have previously reported how Excedrin sells several versions of its pain relievers all with the exact same ingredients but markets them for various different uses, such as for migraines or menstrual cramps.

So what do you think? Is it deceptive for a company to market the exact same product in two different ways, and charge twice the price for the one presented as a specialty use?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Fish Fillets Plumped Up With Water

MrConsumer was always suspicious that store brand frozen, unbreaded fish fillets were somehow plumped up with water to add to the package weight because after pan frying they would shrink to a fraction of their original size.

Now, in a lawsuit just filed by consumers from three states, food giant, Conagra, is accused of doing just that to two big brands of breaded fish fillets — Van de Kamp’s and Mrs. Paul’s.

fish fillets

While the package says “100% whole fish filtets,” the ingredients statement tells a different story.

*MOUSE PRINT:

ingredients

According to the lawsuit:

The truth is, Defendant pumps up those fish with an industrial filler called sodium tripolyphosphate (“STPP”) and extra water to artificially add weight, which may then ooze out as a white goo when the fish is cooked. STPP, a suspected neurotoxin, is typically used to manufacture things like rubber, paint, and antifreeze. STPP also is used by unscrupulous businesses in the seafood industry to engage in short weighting.

The disclosure in tiny print on the back of the products’ labels about the presence of STPP does not dispel or disclaim to reasonable consumers the bold, prominent statements on the front and back of the products suggesting that the products are composed of ‘100% whole fish

The consumers’ lawyers say the fish is soaked in a solution of STPP which encourages the absorption of water. On average, they say, this adds 13-percent of extra weight to the fish.

Here is a video demonstration of how much a fish fillet shrinks when pan fried by exuding the water it had been plumped up with.

In the lawsuit, the lawyers allege a variety of unfair and deceptive practices under various consumer laws and seek a stop to the practices charged. Conagra has not commented on the pending litigation. And a consumer lawyer told MrConsumer that using STPP may be legal.

What do you think of the practice of bulking up the weight of fish products with water and chemicals?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Kettle Chips: When Cutting the Fat Doesn’t Cut the Calories

When a product is air fried, one expects it to have fewer calories. Such doesn’t seem to be the case, however, with Kettle Chips.

Here is the regular variety of Kettle chips. It has 140 calories per ounce and nine grams of fat.

Regular Kettle Chips

Now here is the “air fried” Kettle chips.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Air Fried Kettle Chips

This variety says “air fried” in huge letters, but in small type that some people might miss, it says “kettle cooked, air finished.” What? The chips are really deep-fat fried, but then blown dry, so to speak?

That alone could be misleading, and so the company was just sued in March by a consumer.

But look closer, comparing the two nutrition labels. The air-fried product says 30% less fat than the regular version, and sure enough, it has six grams of fat per ounce versus nine grams of fat. But how is it possible that the bag with less fat has the exact same amount of calories per ounce? The ingredients in both products seem to be in the same order of predominance.

We asked Campbell’s Soup, the maker of Kettle chips, for an explanation. They did not reply.

Now it is your turn. What could explain that there is no change in calories in the air-fried product despite having one-third less fat?