Consumer Product Warnings and Reviews

In an effort to keep your family healthy, you try your best to keep a clean home. But in order to stave off symptoms such as sniffling, sneezing, and itchy eyes, you may need to do more than dust and scrub surfaces.

According to the experts at Broan, homeowners should also remember to combat airborne dangers that could pose a health threat. 

In a recent poll, the ventilation product manufacturer found that although most homeowners are aware that unhealthy indoor air can cause health problems, many do not recognize the signs of poor indoor air quality in their home.

Signs of poor indoor air quality

"We spend up to 90 percent of our time indoors; our home should be our sanctuary. Yet too often, homeowners overlook the warning signs of poor indoor air quality, attributing it instead to everything from asthma to the common cold," said Michelle Gross, senior global director of channel marketing, services, and digital.

A few signs that the air in your home may not be as clean as it could be include: mold, chemical smells, foggy windows and mirrors, and lingering cooking smells.

Contributors to poor indoor air quality include using a fireplace, running central heating and cooling systems, cooking often, or lighting a candle. Not having a bathroom fan or range hood can also negatively affect indoor air quality, says Broan.

Ways to improve indoor air

Good air flow is vital to achieving and maintaining healthy air quality, says home improvement expert Danny Lipford.

"Bath fans and range hoods are the easiest ways to drastically improve indoor air quality," he said. “The key is to use them every time you shower or cook, leave them on for 10 minutes after you've finished, and replace them every 10 years."

To help homeowners improve indoor air quality, Broan recommends the following tips:

• Install a fan or hood. For optimal ventilation, your kitchen should have a range hood and your bathroom should have an appropriately-sized fan. Be sure to use fans every time after cooking and showering.
• Follow the 10-minute rule. Run your range hood for at least 10 minutes after cooking to eliminate lingering smells and particulates. Do the same after showering to remove humidity.
• Clean it monthly. For maximum effectiveness, clean range hoods and bathroom fans once a month.
• Replace as needed. Most range hoods have a lengthy lifespan of around 10-12 years, but be sure to change bathroom fans when they no longer prevent your mirror from fogging.
• Clean regularly. Wash linens frequently in hot water, vacuum regularly (making sure not to forget doormats), and remove shoes upon entering the home.

Summer evenings and backyard gatherings go hand-in-hand, and having an inviting outdoor area can help make entertaining family and friends al fresco even more enjoyable.

To help homeowners transform their backyard into a beautiful outdoor oasis, outdoor living product manufacturer Napoleon enlisted a third party research team to find out how the design of outdoor spaces can directly impact human emotions.

"The research shows the most loved areas of the home combine relaxation, socialization and functionality," said Stephen Schroeter, Napoleon's senior vice-president of sales and marketing.

"Outdoor spaces provide a great opportunity to accommodate all three, yet they are still vastly underutilized by most homeowners,” Schroeter added.

Outdoor design ideas

Outdoor living spaces can also boost your home's value. A National Association of Realtors survey shows many buyers are willing to pay a premium for a home with an outdoor living space. 

But when it comes to outdoor remodeling projects, improving your home's resale value should come secondary to enhancing the overall enjoyment your family will get from the finished results.

Homeowners can add to the natural ambiance of firefly-illuminated summer evenings by using the following design tips from Schroeter:

• Add an outdoor kitchen. Take your cook-out to the next level by adding an outdoor kitchen in which to prepare a meal for your guests. A quality grill is essential in an outdoor kitchen, says Schroeter. Other features to consider adding: an outdoor refrigerator or beer dispenser, pizza oven, and sink for easy clean-up.
• Create an area for socialization. Establishing a gathering place is key when it comes to outdoor living spaces. To do so, choose a central location and add a variety of seating options. Consider adding a built-in fireplace or fire pit to serve as a focal point and enable your outdoor space to be used later into the season.
• Create distinct zones. Give each area of your backyard a purpose by using barriers like large plants, a pergola, or privacy panels. Divided zones help create the feel of a secluded getaway, says Schroeter.
• Appeal to the senses. To enrich the auditory atmosphere, consider adding outdoor speakers or a water feature to eliminate street noise. Enhance the smell of your space by adding fragrant bushes with a sweet scent, such as honeysuckle or lilac.
• Add charming details. “Small touches can go a long way,” says Schroeter. He recommends personalizing your space with items that define your unique style. “Don’t be afraid to add bold pops of color -- an outdoor living area is a great place to explore a more adventurous design than might be considered inside the home,” he added.

Most people associate cleaning with time, effort, and an array of fancy spray solutions, but getting your home spic and span doesn’t have to take all day, or require the use of expensive products.

A few simple tricks can help take some of the hassle out of cleaning, according to the home experts at HouseLogic.com. They recently rattled off a few clever tips for taking a home from grungy to gleaming.

Many of the tips named by HouseLogic can be implemented using items you probably already have around the house.

Easy cleaning hacks

Loathe labor-intensive cleaning tasks? Then the following tips might prove to be useful additions to your mental collection of cleaning know-how.

• Freshen up naturally with plants. Skip the air freshener and opt for fragrant houseplants, such as citrus, sweet bay, orchids, or cuban oregano.
• Make a “go-cart” for mobile cleaning. Corral your cleaning supplies onto a cart with wheels for easy room-to-room transportation.
• Get rid of mattress odors with baking soda. To oust unpleasant odors emanating from mattresses, use a sifter or fine mesh strainer to sprinkle about a cup of baking soda directly onto your mattress. Let it sit for about an hour to soak up the odors, then vacuum it up.
• Give greasy stove burners an ammonia soak. Ammonia fumes can power through stubborn stove grease. Simply take ¼ cup of ammonia and seal it up with one of the burners in a large ziploc bag.
• Clear garage debris with a leaf blower. Leaf blowers can be handy tools for helping to clear away dust, cobwebs, and leaves from your garage.
• Use a drill brush on tub grunge. Retrofit your cordless drill with a scrubber to tackle tough stains in the tub.
• Spray shower doors with windshield rain repellent. Solutions like Rain-X can help to keep your shower door clean and dry by causing water to bounce right off.
• Clean dirty air vents in the dishwasher. Dirty dishes aren’t all your dishwasher can clean. Toss dirt-covered air vents in the dishwasher to get them looking as good as new.

The chemical known as 2,4-D has been around for decades, long before Dow AgroSciences began marketing it as a new weed killer called Enlist Duo in 2014.

Iowa farmer George Naylor recalls using an herbicide containing a potent chemical combination of both dicamba and 2,4-D about forty years ago on his soybean and cotton fields, "because it was the most powerful herbicide you could get.” He remembers seeing the product volatilize into the air, run with water and crinkle the leaves of his soybean plants. 

He eventually stopped spraying that herbicide “because all the other herbicides basically made it obsolete.” Since the 1990s, Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, containing the chemical glyphosate, has taken over as the weed killer of choice on industrial farms, but that’s about to change.

Data that reporters and analysts have obtained from government agencies shows that the spraying of glyphosate herbicides has increased with the planting of soybean and cotton seeds that are genetically modified to resist glyphosate.

That, in turn, has likely led to an epidemic of super-weeds, in which weeds evolve to survive spraying. With super-weeds estimated to wreak havoc on tens of millions of acres of farmland, the agrochemical industry has presented a solution: more potent herbicides. Now, weed killers containing the older chemicals 2,4-D and dicamba are once again being heavily marketed to farmers.

EPA pulls Enlist Duo's approval, but Trump's EPA brings it back

“Take control of weeds like never before,” Dow writes in one online advertisement for Enlist Duo. The herbicide, which is meant to be sprayed on cotton and soybean seeds also developed by Dow, genetically modified to withstand both glyphosate and 2,4-D, was pulled from the market in 2015 after environmental and food safety groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration.

After a year of litigation, the EPA said it had revoked the registration for Enlist Duo over concerns that it may may be more drift-prone, more potent, and more toxic than previously thought. But the EPA under President Trump decided to give Enlist Duo another chance. In January, the agency approved the marketing of the Enlist herbicide and its accompanying seeds in a total of 34 states.

"From its initial approval in 2014, EPA consistently acknowledged that Enlist Duo will damage crops,” Center for Food Safety staff attorney Sylvia Wu tells ConsumerAffairs. But because it was mostly small farmers who would be affected by the crop damage, the EPA approved Enlist anyway, Wu says. "Unfortunately, with both administrations, the pesticide and chemical industry has been very effective with lobbying at the federal level.”

A coalition of advocacy groups -- the Center for Food Safety, the Pesticide Action Network, Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Biological Diversity, Family Farm Defenders, and the National Family Farm Coalition -- on March 21 filed a new federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for approving Enlist Duo once again. They charge that the EPA violated the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws when approving the Enlist technology in 34 states.

The groups overall object to the increased dependence on herbicides in industrial farming. "Roundup was initially touted as a replacement for older, more dangerous chemicals like 2,4-D,” Jim Goodman, an organic farmer with the group Family Farm Defenders, says in a news release. “Now that Roundup, the widely used carcinogenic pesticide is failing to kill weeds, Dow is bringing back 2,4-D and teaming them up to create a more toxic mix than ever.”  (The official stance from federal regulators is that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, but the issue is a matter of intense debate).

Dow did not return an interview request from ConsumerAffairs. “Adding tolerance to a new 2,4-D, the Enlist weed control system advances herbicide and trait technology by building on the glyphosate and glufosinate systems,” Dow tells farmers in online advertising.

Warning label on product meant to assuage concerns 

The EPA’s document explaining its reasons for the “Final Registration of Enlist Duo,” included as part of the lawsuit, sometimes reads like a document arguing against the approval of Enlist Duo. “This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates….Drift or runoff may adversely affect aquatic invertebrates and non-target plants...Application around a cistern or well may result in contamination of drinking water or groundwater...Small amounts of spray drift that may not be visible may injure susceptible broadleaf plants.”

The EPA multiple times describes the risk of drift, or the chemical drifting from its intended target and killing other plants, or worse. “Without considering mitigation measures, it is reasonable to assume spray drift may be a potential source of exposure to residents nearby to spraying operations... Sprays that are released and do not deposit in the application area end up off-target and can lead to exposures to those it may directly contact....residues can eventually lead to indirect exposures (e.g., children playing on lawns where residues have deposited next to treated fields).”

For studies conducted on rats, meant to evaluate the effect that dietary exposure to the herbicide could have on human females of child-bearing age, “fetal skeletal malformations (14th rudimentary ribs) were observed,” the EPA writes. Studies meant to evaluate the effect on the general population found “an increased incidence of incoordination and slight gait abnormalities (forepaw flexing or knuckling) and decreased motor activity.” Inhalation was linked with “increased mixed inflammatory cells within the larynx, which was not totally resolved following a 4-week recovery period.”

"The toxicity profile of the active ingredient 2,4-D shows that the principal toxic effects are changes in the kidney, thyroid, liver, adrenal, eye, and ovaries/testes in the rat following exposure to 2,4-D via the oral route at dose levels above the threshold of saturation of renal clearance,” the EPA says. “Maternal and developmental toxicity were observed at high dose levels exceeding the threshold of saturation of renal clearance.”

But the agency ultimately determined in the same document that the toxic effects only occurred at exposure levels that they estimated were well above what people would likely be exposed to. 

"A premise of compliant applications"

More important, according to the EPA, is that a warning label on the product itself should reduce the risk of both drift and toxicity. The EPA writes that its evaluation into the risk of spray drift “is based on a premise of compliant applications which, by definition, should not result in direct exposures to individuals because of existing label language and other regulatory requirements intended to prevent them.”

Following the label, the EPA says, will “reduce exposures off-site to levels well below risk concern levels for both birds and mammals, thereby limiting any potential risks of concern to the treatment site itself.”

The Enlist Duo label instructs farmers not to spray “during a local, low level temperature inversion because drift potential is high.” Farmers are also instructed to avoid spraying if rain is expected in the next 24 hours and to maintain a 30-foot buffer between their field and everything else. “Do not apply under circumstances where spray drift may occur to food, forage, or other plantings that might be damaged or crops thereof rendered unfit for sale, use or consumption,” the label instructs. “Do not apply at wind speeds greater than 15 mph.” 

To combat the growing problem of herbicide resistance, particularly concerns that weeds may eventually develop a resistance to 2,4-D, the EPA has put Dow in charge of investigating. Dow AgroSciences “must investigate any reports of lack of herbicide efficacy and submit annual reports to the EPA,” the EPA says. “The initial mechanism users can use for communicating directly with DAS  is a toll-free number to get advice on how to resolve any uncontrolled weeds.”

Pushing the limit on labels

George Naylor, the cotton and soybean farmer from Iowa, says that farmers are under so much pressure to keep up with the demands of industrial farming that they often do not follow labels as closely as they should. “I think every farmer has probably pushed the limit on windspeed, because they want to get those weeds sprayed before they get too big,” Naylor tells ConsumerAffairs.

"The cost squeeze gets me and other farmers to do something they know they shouldn't be doing...it's been our national policy for a long time to put farmers in that squeeze.” Additionally, he says, “more and more of the spraying is done by third parties, either the local co-op or a private applicator.” For those and other reasons, he says it has become a very common phenomenon for sprays from neighboring farms to damage another farmer’s crop.

But Naylor counts himself as among the more fortunate. While most farmers work on land that they are renting, and therefore face constant pressure from landlords and competitors, Naylor works on family land that he inherited.  As other farmers turned to genetically modified seeds in the 1990s, he continued using traditional seeds, and in 1999 even filed a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that the company’s GM seeds were contaminating his own fields.

As a past president of the National Family Farm Coalition, one of the organizations now suing the EPA for approving Enlist Duo, Naylor sees a future in which all farming will be completely industrialized, with everything in the hands of corporations rather than small farmers. Naylor, on the other hand, is trying to convert his own farm to an organic one, but the process has not been easy.

"If you create insecurity in their [farmers'] lives, they will have to make as much money each year as they possibly can, and to do that, you use whatever technology Monsanto or Dow or DuPont put out there,” he says. “The average farmer out there today farms on too big a scale to even think about going organic.”

Farmers didn't follow instructions for dicamba technology 

The recent lawsuit that conservation groups filed against EPA for approving Enlist Duo follows similar litigation that they have filed over Monsanto’s Dicamba technology. In that case, the EPA under Obama allowed Monsanto to begin selling Dicamba-resistant seeds before the accompanying herbicide, which is supposed to come with a special nozzle to reduce the risk of drift, was approved. Farmers as a result then turned to other, unapproved dicamba sprays, leading nearby peach farmers and grape growers to complain that their livelihood was being destroyed by dicamba-drift.

One farmer in Missouri was even murdered over fights about drifting dicamba. The complaints led the EPA to launch criminal investigations into dicamba misuse, putting the blame on non-compliance rather than with the product itself. It is an approach that doesn't sit will with people like Sylvia Wu, the attorney with the Center for Food Safety. "Farmers end up with the blame,” she tells ConsumerAffairs, “and the financial harm of misused pesticides.”

Could you be watering your lawn with toxic lead and phthalate chemicals? According to new data, the answer may be yes.

Researchers at the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center recently followed-up their 2013 study, which examined hazardous substances in common consumer items, with data on toxic chemicals in gardening products -- specifically, lawn and garden hoses.

Thirty-two hoses were tested for the presence of chemicals such as lead, cadmium, bromine, chlorine, and phthalates. The results of the study indicated that high levels of toxic lead and phthalate chemicals are still lurking in many garden hoses.

Experts recommend steering clear of hoses containing toxic chemicals, as they have been linked to health problems such as birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, premature births, and early puberty in laboratory animals.

“Even if you actively avoid putting harmful chemicals into your yard or garden in the form of pesticides, you could still be adding hazardous chemicals into your soil by watering with one of these hoses,” said Gillian Miller, Ph.D, staff scientist at the Ecology Center, in a statement.

Best and worst products

The good news, Miller adds, is that there are a number of safe hoses available. Safe, top-rated products were all polyurethane hoses.

The following hoses were rated among the best:  

• Big Boss AquaStream Ultra Light
• Pocket Hose Dura-Rib II
• Room Essentials Coil Hose with Multi Pattern Nozzle
• Water Right Professional Coil Garden Hose

Some hoses didn't fare as well, however. Examples of the worst products include:

• HDX 15-foot Utility Hose, from the Home Depot: The product contained phthalate plasticizers and 6.8% (68,000 parts per million) lead.
• Swan Hose Reel Leader 5/8 in x 6 ft Hose, from Walmart: The product contained phthalate plasticizers and 0.52% (5,200 parts per million) lead.
• Apex NeverKink 5/8 in x 50 ft, from Lowes: The product contained a mixture of chemical hazards commonly associated with e-waste: phthalate plasticizers, lead (366 ppm), antimony (1,779 ppm) and bromine (1,592 ppm).

For more than seven years, consumers have complained about their Pyrex glassware coming apart -- "exploding," to use the most generally-employed term -- only to meet vociferous objections from World Kitchen, the Reston, Va., company that makes Pyrex.

Now the company has filed suit in federal court against the American Ceramic Society, claiming the society disparaged its product in a "sensational" article in the September issue of the society's monthly bulletin. The suit also names Peter Wray, the editor of The American Ceramic Society Bulletin; and the co-authors of the article, Richard Bradt and Richard Martens.

In the article, the defendants claimed that "American-made glass cookware, including Pyrex brand glass cookware made by World Kitchen, is unsafe for typical cooking in consumers' kitchens, poses a significant risk of injury to consumers, and is substantially less resistant to breakage during normal use in consumers' kitchens than foreign-made glass cookware," according to the complaint, Courthouse News Service reported.

World Kitchen insists the claims are untrue and overblown.

"Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of household cooks have used more than a billion of pieces of Pyrex glass cookware safely in their kitchens for generations, and with knowledge of the information and data confirming Pyrex's exemplary safety record, the defendants launched a sensational, multi-publication campaign of disparagement against American-made glass cookware, including Pyrex glass cookware, alarmingly and falsely claiming that Pyrex glass cookware does not provide an adequate margin of safety for typical kitchen cooking, including for making recipes from the well-known cookbook 'The Joy of Cooking,' and falsely claiming that Pyrex glass cookware poses a significant risk of injury from 'shattering' or 'exploding' cookware, when, in fact, this is not the case," World Kitchen's suit alleges.

"Prior to publishing their sweeping, alarming and highly disparaging assertions falsely impugning the safety of the entire American glass cookware industry, including Pyrex glass cookware, the defendants conducted no testing of American-made or foreign-made products in normal cooking conditions to substantiate their false and disparaging comparative claims that American glass cookware, including Pyrex glass cookware, is multiple times more susceptible to breakage during normal use in consumers' kitchens and less safe than foreign-made glass cookware."

Pyrex glass cookware is used in about 90 million U.S. homes, or 80 percent of U.S. kitchens, according to World Kitchen's lawsuit.

World Kitchen says that Pyrex has an exemplary safety record, and that "consumer reports of injuries attributed to breakage of glass cookware from any cause, including incidents that involve product misuse or another manufacturer's brand, represent only a tiny fraction of a percent of the Pyrex glass cookware used in American kitchens for generations."

Challenges complaints

World Kitchen has consistently challenged claims by consumers who report problems with their Pyrex bakeware and has challenged ConsumerAffairs and other publications with legal action for reporting such claims.

In a 2008 statement to ConsumerAffairs, World Kitchen spokesman Bryan Glancy challenged the accuracy of published consumer complaints:

"We cannot speculate on how someone was using their bakeware, and whether or not they were using it correctly. Without examining the product, there is no confirmation that the product involved was Pyrex bakeware (as opposed to another manufacturers product). For this reason, unsubstantiated and unconfirmed reports of breakage should not be used as the basis for any conclusions to be drawn about Pyrex products."

World Kitchen demands a retraction and apology, a corrective press release, and wants the defendants ordered to remove the article from its website.

When it comes to coffee makers there seems to be a new one on the market every day.

There's single-cup coffee machines, programmable coffee machines and coffee makers that are too advanced for their own good and have a bunch of unnecessary buttons and features.

But even if a coffee maker is able to produce a cup of Joe, pour it and walk it to your bedroom, most people still just want a product that’s reliable, doesn’t break down immediately and is able make a good cup of coffee on a consistent basis.

Black & Decker is one of the older and better-known companies in the coffee machine business, and although the company is best known for its tools and handyman products, it’s also known for its array of coffee machines that are used by millions of people all around the globe.

Some of the B & D coffee machines on the market are the 12-Cup Switch Coffee Maker that goes for about $20 on the company’s website. Then there’s the Single Serve Coffee Maker, the Brew ‘n Go Personal Coffee Maker, the 5-cup coffee maker, which are all well under $100.

There’s also the SpaceMaker Thermal Coffee Maker for $79.99 that hangs above your kitchen counter and is pretty sleekly designed, but it was recalled earlier this year due to the glass breaking while in motion and spewing out hot coffee on people.

Despite some of the company’s coffee machine shortcomings, Black & Decker is still one of the go-to coffee makers on the market today, as reports indicate its machines are sold in over 100 countries around the world.

What's also fairly consistent in many parts of the world are the holidays, and here in the U.S. Black Friday is upon us, so we wanted to pull a few comments about Black and Decker coffee makers from our review section--as we know many consumers have thought of buying one for a family member, a friend or co-worker. But is that really a good idea?

Not too pleased

Keith of North Carolina would probably advise against it, as he purchased a couple of B & D coffee makers as gifts, and also bought one for himself. It turns out that he wasn’t too pleased with how his maker performed.

“I bought three Black & Decker coffee makers, two as gifts and one for our home,” he wrote in his ConsumerAffairs post.

“The model number is CM1010B. As so many others have noted, you cannot pour a cup of coffee without spilling it all over the counter. The design of the spout on the carafe is the apparent problem. In addition, although less than a year old, one of the units quit working completely. This is obviously an on-going problem, and these units are still being sold at Wal-Mart,”  wrote Keith.

And he wasn't alone, Erin of Beaverton, Ore. also purchased a Black and Decker Coffee Maker as a holiday gift and said the low price of the machine wasn’t worth the hassles she had to endure.

 “Stupid me for buying a 12-cup Black & Decker coffee maker,” she wrote.

“It turned out to be the most expensive cheap coffee maker. I bought it for Christmas and here in April, not only do we have a plastic chemical smell/taste in the coffee, but the carafe has always dribbled as other complainants have stated.”

“What’s worse, the chemical and plastic taste/smell is stronger now,” she added. “God only knows what carcinogenic chemicals we are leaching into our bodies. They probably made this in China from recycled computer plastic contaminated with heavy metals and other dangerous things. When will I learn that you always get what you pay for?”

Receiving end

Unlike Keith and Erin who purchased the coffee makers as gifts and ultimately regretted their purchase, there were also those readers who were on the receiving end of the makers as holiday gifts.

“We received a ‘brand new in the box’ coffee maker as a gift,” explained Gerald of Florida in his posting.

“We followed the instruction and poured in one cup of water, placed the cup under the spout and pressed the start switch. Shortly, the water began to boil and it spit out the top and onto my wife, burning her arm. ... After navigating the Black & decker phone maze, I reached a person named Mary who only cared about getting my name and email address, but was not interested in hearing about this dangerous product.

“She told me she was following company directive on this. I thought about giving it as a gift to a personal injury lawyer, but decided to offer B&D a chance to rectify the issue.” wrote Gerald.

We reached out to Black & Decker for a statement but hadn't received a response at the time this story was written.

For what it's worth, of the 245 reviews on our site as of this writing, most are way less than stellar, which is something to think about if you’re planning to purchase a coffee maker as a gift this holiday season.

Hey, President Reagan had Star Wars, why shouldn't you have Riddex? If you believe Google Product Search, a seemingly miraculous product called Riddex Plus Pest Repeller will "repel rodents, roaches, ants & spiders" with no muss, no fuss.

Way back in 2003, Riddex marketers agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they made unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of their electromagnetic (EM) and ultrasonic pest control products but that doesn't seem to be slowing down Riddex today. 

Just enter Riddex and Google Product Search will assure you that this fine example of American engineering will: "Turn your home's wiring into a pest repellent force field. Patented digital pulse technology repels rodents, roaches, ants & spiders."

Not only that, it's "non-toxic, no chemicals or poison" and to top it all off, has a "built-in nightlight" and is "easy plug & play," just like your Windows computer. What? No trash compactor?

There's also this disclosure: "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following 2 conditions: This device may not cause harmful interference, and This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation Made in China" [sic]

Well, that certainly cleared up any remaining confusion. And just in case there's any doubt, Google Product Search gives Riddex 4 1/2 stars.  On a scale of 1 to 5, that's pretty good, so one might think this thing must really be the answer to rodent infestations.

Does it really?

But does it really do that? Amy, of Columbus, Ohio, doesn't think so.  

"The Riddex product does not get rid of roaches and mice. I asked the company for a refund and didn't receive it. I lost $227.10," she told ConsumerAffairs.

Neither do the other consumers we've heard from.  Oh, and by the way they say the moneyback guarantee doesn't work very well either.

"This product does not work at all," said Denise of Bronx, NY. "The commercial for this product guaranteed that it would work. However, if it didn't," said Jerrod, of Brooklyn, NY.

Jerrod had bought not one but two of the devices and thus, is doubly annoyed: "I bought a 2-year extended warranty on this garbage product. I called the company requesting my money back. I was told that the 30 days had expired and in order to obtain new devices, I would need to send in $18 per unit," he said.

And then there's Roberta of Mount Sinai, NY: 

"I ordered online 2 sets for $59.90 to go to the same address. I was charged a shipping fee of $35.80 instead of the advertised $8.95. The customer service number is a machine that does not resolve problems."

FTC report

The Federal Trade Commission was pretty skeptical too when it tried to rid the world of Riddex.  Its report alleged that Riddex made unsubstantiated claims that:

• their electromagnetic pest control products repel, drive away, or eliminate mice, rats, and cockroaches from homes and other buildings in two to four weeks, and drive them away by sending a pulsating signal throughout or altering the field around the electrical wiring inside homes and other buildings; and that they act as an effective alternative to, or eliminate the need for, chemicals, pesticides, insecticides, exterminators, and pest control services;
• their combination electromagnetic/ultrasonic pest control devices effectively repel, control, or eliminate mice, rats, cockroaches, rodents, insects, spiders, silverfish, and bats from homes and other buildings, and upset nesting sites of mice, rats, and cockroaches within walls, ceilings, and floors by using the products’ pulse or electromagnetic technology through the household wiring;
• their ultrasonic pest control devices effectively repel, drive away, or eliminate mice, rats, bats, crickets, spiders, and other insects from homes, and eliminate the need for toxic chemicals, poisons, or traps; and
• their pest control products are effective within an area ranging from up to 800 square feet or up to 2,000 feet, depending on the model.

No more primetime

Now, let's be honest.  It's not surprising that a product like this would be advertised on late-night infomercials and sketchy cable channels.  But here we have some of the supposedly greatest names in no-evil-doing retailing -- not just Google Product Search but Amazon, Walmart, Target and Walgreens -- selling a product that stretches credulity beyond normal margins.

We've asked some of the retailers mentioned above about this but, as our inquiries are normally ignored, don't seriously expect to hear from them.

As for whether the thing works -- well, other than the comments  from consumers who say it doesn't, we checked PhysicsForums.com and found comments like these:

• "About ten years ago we tried a similar product. When I saw a spider making a web directly over the ultrasonic transducer, I took it as a clue that they don't really do much."
• "My in-laws have the little pulsing clickers all over their house. They still get mice. It would seem the best rodent protection is of the feisty feline variety for them."
• "I had something similar in my kitchen for roaches ... and when I finally gave up on it serveral had nested and died within it. Perhaps the pulse needs to be tuned to more country music frequencies. Then again, I would starve and die since I would never return to the kitchen."

Meanwhile, consumers with a serious pest problem might want to call a reputable pest control company.  

More information about Riddex

Peggy, of Chrisney, Ind., says she purchased a Cuisinart coffee maker less than a year ago and this week the wiring overheated and burned.

“I want satisfaction from the company,” Peggy told ConsumerAffairs.com. “Can I return this to the place I purchased it or will Cuisinarat make this good? Someone should make this right for the price I paid for the product. With all the complaints on this site, why has Cuisinart not recalled their product?”

To answer Peggy's first place, no, she should not return the item to the retail store. Instead, she should contact Cuisinart directly. In all likelihood the product has a one-year warranty so Peggy should be covered.

As for Peggy's second questions, companies usually don't recall products unless they are forced to. And that doesn't happen unless lots of consumers complain to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Common problem?

So is this a common problem?  It certainly seems to be, judging from the 100 or so complaints we've received at ConsumerAffairs.com.  Here's a sampling:

• Lawrence of Hinckley, OH: Purchased a Cuisinart Coffee Maker for our office less than 1 year ago. This morning, 1-31-12, the girls in the office heard a crackling sound. Upon further investigation, smelled strong electrical burning and discovered smoke pouring out of the coffee maker.
• HP of Valrico, FL: Cuisinart 12-cup coffee pot after less than one year of use caused an "electrical melt down" a few days ago. Had I not been home, who knows the extent of damage it could cause? After checking online evidently this has been a "known" problem!
• L of Syracuse, NY: As in all other posts, loud crackling noise, smoke pouring from coffeemaker. Luckily, I was home. DCC2200 model was purchased in Feb 2011. I absolutely cannot believe that a recall has not been issued. I am not hopeful they will honor my refund request. I will certainly not be buying a Cuisnart small appliance in the future.

But in the social media world, the little birds are tweeting and everyone's smiling, at least according to a computerized sentiment analysis of about 750 comments on Twitter, Facebook and so forth.

Why the disparity?  Hard to say but if 100 or so people have a problem and 700 or so don't, that's still not very good odds.  A prudent consumer might consider that one in eight chance of having a meltdown in the kitchen and look elsewhere.

---

Sentiment analysis powered by NetBase

 The following statement was submitted to ConsumerAffairs.com by Hy Cite Corporation:

A Message from Hy Cite Corporation/Royal Prestige

Complete customer satisfaction is our number 1 priority. Hy Cite Corporation, the owner of the "Royal Prestige" brand, sells its Royal Prestige products through authorized independent distributors. Hy Cite and our distributors are committed to serving our customers. While no business is free from customer complaints, with hundreds of thousands of customers, the number of our customer complaints is exceptionally small. In fact, our customer satisfaction level is extremely high and the response to our products in the home is overwhelmingly positive. Please visit our websites at www.royalprestige.com and www.hycite.com to learn more about our company and to review customer testimonials. They speak volumes about our products and customer commitment.

Our Products

We belive we offer the finest cookware available at any price and, with our 50-year limited warranty, they are a smart, lasting value. Even more important, our cookware is designed to complement your healthy lifestyle. It has been specifically engineered to allow you to cook in a healthy way using moderate heat and little or no water or grease, which can help your food retain valuable nutrients and reduce your fax intake. We are proud to offer our products and excited that more and more people are learning about the health benefits of "waterless greaseless" cooking.

Our Pledge

It's simple. We want all of our customers to be completely satisfied with our products and service. If you have any problems, questions or comments, here is how we can be reached. Please do not hesitate to call so that we may assist you.

Warranty, Merchandise or Delivery: Please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-279-3373 (bilingual).

Billing or Financing: Please call our Credit Department at 1-800-280-9708 (English) or 1-800-280-9709 (Spanish).

All Other Matters: Please call our Customer Care Department at 1-877-494-2289 (bilingual).

Hy Cite Corporation
333 Holtzman Road
Madison, WI 53713-2109

January 21, 2002
Last summer, Hy Cite Corp. asked ConsumerAffairs.com to put it in touch with consumers who had submitted complaints to us. We provided contact information for 27 consumers and the company recently reported the following results:

We are pleased to inform you that all complaints have either been resolved by us or abandoned by the consumers. We have attached specific details of our efforts, contacts and success at resolving the complaints lodged by the twenty-seven consumers you provided to us. The following is a summary of our efforts.

• To date, we have made efforts to contact all twenty-seven consumers. ...
• One of the twenty-seven consumers expressed that she was pleased with her purchase of Royal Prestige products.
• Sixteen of the twenty-seven consumers responded to our inquiries, which resulted in all sixteen consumers having their issues resolved. Ten of the sixteen that responded had their issues resolved and have signed a resolution letter to that effect. ... Notably, six of the sixteen consumers had their issues resolved either by the sales office prior to our contacting them or they had minor issues, such as warranty replacements, etc., that were handled immediately and we did not feel a resolution letter was needed for the files.
• The remaining ten consumers did not respond to our inquiries or ceased communicating with us to conclude the resolution. ... Significantly, we have discovered that several of these ten consumers have never had an account with us, indicating that they were never customers of Hy Cite Corporation/Royal Prestige.

As you can see by the above summary ... the complaints posted on consumeraffairs.com have either been fully resolved or abandoned. Hy Cite Corporation/Royal Prestige and the Distributors who market Royal Prestige products have always worked very hard to resolve issues when made aware of the problems, as we have done in this instance, and believe we are unfairly and inaccurately portrayed on consumeraffairs.com.

As a result of our specific efforts to successfully resolve those complaints appearing on consumeraffairs.com, the information posted on consumeraffairs.com is false and there is no basis for listing Hy Cite Corporation/Royal Prestige or any of its Distributors on your website. As an organization concerned with consumer affairs, certainly you are interested in accurately portraying companies and recognizing those companies that respond specifically, positively and universally to the consumers' complaints posted on consumeraffairs.com. Accordingly, we request your cooperation in removing Hy Cite Corporation/Royal Prestige and any of its Distributors from your website. In light of the holidays, we request our removal from consumeraffairs.com and other related website by January 11, 2002.

Regards,

Larry Schauff
Vice President-Financing

We have noted the cases that the company says it resolved. Most of the resolutions consisted of payments to the customer. In some cases, the company declared the case "resolved" when the consumer failed to respond or stopped communicating. Not all of the cases appeared on our site and we were not able to identify a few of the cases cited by the company; thus, not all of the "resolutions" appear on the site.

Meanwhile, we have added a number of new complaints that have been received since last summer. As of Jan. 21, 2002, there are 66 complaints in our database. About half have been received since July 2001.

Since the "resolved" complaints are similar in nature to the complaints received during the last six months, we see no reason to remove any of the old complaints. We believe they serve a useful purpose by alerting consumers to the difficulties others have encountered so that they might take steps to avoid similar problems.

Food Shelf Life Recommendations

Version 1.1

8/14/98

Grocery product shelf life is based upon the Manufacturer’s Date Packaged (DP) code. Manufacturers encode the Date Packaged somewhere on the product in a form unique to their internal procedures. My objective is to provide Date Packaged (DP) code keys for well-known products to assist your food purchasing and rotation efforts. Remember that these times are the manufacturer’s recommendations for MAXIMUM freshness and nutrient value. Several vendors indicated their products are edible long beyond the published recommendation dates.

The information presented here was retrieved from either the vendor’s website or via contact with the vendor consumer hotline. In order to maintain freshness within the suggested expiration dates, food should be stored in a dry, cool location. Discard any food product exhibiting changed color, odor, or taste. Storage temperature has a great influence on shelf life. Per Del Monte – a 15-degree change reduces expected shelf life by 50% (ideal temp is 65; if stored at 80, then shelf life is reduced by 50%).

Recommended product Shelf life is defined as MOS (months) Unopened and Opened. Both of these timeframes are calculated using the Date Packaged (DP) as the base. Unopened refers to total months the product can be stored at home. Opened refers to the total months (or days or weeks) the product can be stored once it has been opened. If the chart has a time recommendation for Opened, consider it as a SUBSET of the Unopened timeframe. For example, if a product has an Unopened shelf life of 12 months and an Opened recommendation of 3 months, the following statements are true:

• For maximum freshness, the product should remain on your shelf for a maximum of date packaged + 12 months
• Once the product is opened, it should remain on your shelf for a maximum of 3 months OR less. The combined unopen and open timeframes should not exceed date packaged + 12 months.

This chart is a work in progress. Feedback for additions, corrections or improvements should be forwarded to czimmer@gte.net for inclusion in a subsequent update. The chart is organized closely to the sequence of the generic Cupboard Storage Chart at extension sites (e.g. http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/dp_fnut/HRAP/STORAGE/cupstor.htm ). I’ve included the extension product recommendations in the table. They are listed without a specific manufacturer entry and with "generic" in the comment column. Food categories include:

• Staples
• Mixes and Packaged Foods
• Canned and Dried Foods
• Spices, Herbs, Condiments, and Extracts
• Others

Chart column definitions:

• DP= Date Packaged; (X= letter or number not significant to product shelf life, Y=Year Packaged, MM or M= Month Packaged (if only one M then 1-9=Jan-Sep, A=Oct, B=Nov, C=Dec unless otherwise noted), DD=Day Packaged, JJJ=Julian Day Packaged (Jan 1 = 001, Dec 31 = 365 or 366 depending on presence of leap year).
• DP LOC= Location of Date Packaged
• UNOPEN= Number of months shelf life unopened from Date Packaged
• OPEN=Number of months shelf life once opened.

FOOD PRODUCT RECOMMENDED SHELF LIFE