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:

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

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.

In a series of TV commercials, Whole Foods Market, whose nickname is “whole paycheck” because of its outrageously high prices, claims just the opposite here.

This claim brings to mind the title of one of Judge Judy’s books:

When MrConsumer saw the following TV commercial for a lawyer referral service, he couldn’t believe it.

When I was in law school we learned about the code of professional responsibility that required lawyers to advertise in a dignified and professional manner. Since this ad is for a lawyer referral service, perhaps they don’t have to follow these rules, but what does it say about the lawyers on whose behalf they are advertising?

Incidentally, the guy hawking the gold watch, is comic Shaun Jones.

We recently wrote about CapitalOne Shopping rebates (see story) that left out a whole bunch of important information. But, we saved the best for last.

If this were your regular supermarket, getting two-percent back up to $1,000 in rebates might be a somewhat attractive offer on first blush. But think about it for a minute.

*MOUSE PRINT:

This offer is for a one-time purchase only. So to get back the maximum advertised rebate of $1,000, one would have to spend $50,000 at Stop & Shop, and gift cards are excluded. How disingenuous can this company be? Thanks for nothing, CapitalOne Shopping.

Over the years, deodorant brands have made various dryness and long-lasting claims. It was quite a milestone when some claimed 24-hour protection. Then it morphed into 48 hours. And 48 hours of protection soon became 72 hours. And now, the latest — 96 hours of protection.

*MOUSE PRINT:

This suggests if you put on this deodorant/antiperspirant on Monday, you don’t have to apply it again until Friday. So no showers for you Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Come on, how disingenuous.

And one more thing. Their old claim was “5 in 1” referring to five benefits it conferred like wetness protection, odor control, fast absorption, etc. They have now changed the claim to “5X” which most people would interpret as providing five times the strength or protection. What they really mean is that it (still) provides five types of protection. Thanks for nothing, Unilever.

For many products and brands, prices have just gotten completely out of control. Here are three examples where the sellers must think high prices don’t matter.

Almost $28 for four razor blades? Thanks for nothing, Gillette, I don’t care how good those blades are.

They are charging $6.99 a pound for turkey and it is frozen? I don’t care where it was raised and even if it was spoon-fed all-natural grain every day. Who in their right mind is going to pay over $100 for a frozen turkey, when most supermarkets sell conventionally raised birds for 69 cents a pound at Thanksgiving time? Thanks for nothing.

Lastly, will anyone buying a $130,000 Rolex watch really be interested in using a coupon code to save money? Thanks for nothing, Rolex.

To add credibility to their company, their tout a very high 4.8 star rating from TrustPilot.

However, when eagle-eyed reader David B. checked the TrustPilot website, the real rating was revealed.

*Mouse Print:

It got only 1.3 stars, not the almost five stars claimed on the company’s website.

And a synopsis of those almost two thousand reviews (not the over six thousand that Homeaglow touted) suggests the company is not delivering what it promised.

Most reviewers were let down by their experience overall. Customers express significant dissatisfaction with the service, frequently citing issues with pricing, subscriptions, and cancellations. Many consumers feel misled by hidden fees and unexpected charges, particularly concerning a recurring membership they were not aware of upon initial sign-up.

We asked the company for an explanation of how they could be claiming a near-perfect 4.8 rating from TrustPilot when the actual TrustPilot site gives them a failing grade. They did not respond.

He said that GoodRx was less than my insurance. (This has happened before and it raises a whole other issue of how in the world when paying for prescription coverage can their price wind up being more expensive than the price with a free discount card?)

With the GoodRx number I had given the pharmacy years ago, the price came to $8.68.

I was a bit shocked because I had checked the price at the GoodRx website for this particular pharmacy, and it was almost double what the pharmacy actually charged using my old card.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The pharmacist said there was no rhyme or reason for the various prices charged or how it is possible that discount cards can offer better prices than real insurance coverage.

We asked GoodRx how a price using one of their old cards could differ so dramatically from their current website price at the same particular pharmacy. Here is what a spokesperson told us, in relevant part:

There are a few things that may have led to the discrepancy between the price with your prior, physical card and the price you see on our website:

Contracted reimbursement: Some of the prior pricing we distributed under our ‘PBM marketplace’ model, particularly via direct mail, were individually contracted between PBMs and pharmacies. While some of these legacy PBM cards may be accepted at point of sale based on their legacy agreements, and could have lower pricing and margins to retail, we want to make sure both our consumers and retail pharmacies have a sustainable and reliable experience at the counter.

We also checked with NeedyMeds.org, a nonprofit that connects consumers to affordable medication programs. Their president echoed GoodRx’s comments suggesting that the old card may have had a better pricing structure, and that reimbursement rates change online quickly and can vary among processors.

Whatever the reason for the difference, it pays to double-check the price if you have an old GoodRx card laying around or on file at your pharmacy. You could save money.