Associate Director

Grocery prices may vary based on shopping habits, new report shows. Grocery shoppers may unknowingly be paying varied prices for identical items due to "surveillance pricing," a practice using personal data to manipulate costs. SAN DIEGO - A new investigation has found that grocery shoppers may be paying different prices for identical items purchased at the same store, depending on their personal data and shopping history - a practice known as "surveillance pricing." The Groundwork Collaborative, a Washington DC nonprofit, partnered with Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union to investigate how online and brick-and-mortar retailers use customer information to adjust prices. The study had 400 volunteers purchase the exact same items from the exact same store on Instacart. "We found variation in the prices that they saw for 75% of the items and on average, that spread the different prices that folks saw was 7%. That could cost families $1,200 a year, given how much they spend on groceries, typically," said Elizabeth Pancotti, Managing Director of Policy and Advocacy at The Groundwork Collaborative. Surveillance pricing is a growing practice where companies use artificial intelligence and customer data - including purchasing history, income, location, and browsing behavior - to charge different prices to different shoppers. "If you buy the same peanut butter every week at the grocery store, you might get charged a little more than your neighbor, who is a little less discerning about their peanut butter choices," said Pancotti. Online retailers gather information from shipping data and smartphones, while brick-and-mortar stores use customer loyalty cards to collect years of purchase history data. Some stores are even piloting electronic shelf labels that can change prices in real time, according to Pancotti. Instacart responded to the investigation with a statement denying the practice: "Prices never change in real-time... they are completely randomized. Personal, demographic, and user-level behavioral data are never used to set online item prices on Instacart." Consumer advocates recommend using a private web browser, clearing cookies, and checking prices using multiple devices to avoid surveillance pricing. Two bills to ban surveillance pricing in California have stalled in Sacramento, while a similar bill was introduced this week in the U.S. Senate. "These tests are not dynamic pricing - prices never change in real-time, including in response to supply and demand. The tests are never based on personal or behavioral characteristics - they are completely randomized," - an Instacart spokesperson said. "Affordability has always been at the heart of Instacart's mission, helping people access the nutritious food they need from the retailers they love. Retail partners control their prices on Instacart, and we work closely with them to align online and in-store pricing wherever possible. Each retailer's pricing policy is displayed on their Instacart storefront, so customers always know when prices may differ from in-store and can easily compare prices across retailers before checkout. Just as retailers have long tested prices in their physical stores to better understand consumer preferences, a subset of only 10 retail partners - ones that already apply markups - do the same online via Instacart. These limited, short-term, and randomized tests help retail partners learn what matters most to consumers and how to keep essential items affordable. For example, a customer may see slightly lower prices on everyday essentials, such as milk or bread - the items families care about most - and slightly higher prices on less price-sensitive products, like craft beverages or specialty snacks. Personal, demographic, and user-level behavioral data are never used to set online item prices on Instacart. We'll continue partnering with retailers to ensure that online grocery shopping is as transparent, affordable, and accessible as possible for everyone," - an Instacart spokesperson said. WATCH: More Perfect Union report on surveillance pricing:

Tesla and Jeep ranked as least reliable used cars, according to owner survey. Consumer Reports has recently released a new used-car reliability leaderboard, ranking 26 popular car brands based on survey results. The results may surprise many, as Tesla has found itself at the bottom of the list, even being beaten by Jeep in the reliability survey. At the top of the list, Lexus scored the highest with a rating of "77" out of 100, followed closely by Toyota at "73." Mazda secured the third position with a score of "58," while most mainstream European and Japanese brands fell in the middle with scores around "50." On the other hand, American OEMs and Kia dominated the bottom of the list, scoring below "40." With a score of only "31," Tesla found itself at the very bottom of the list. This raises questions about how a car with relatively few moving parts could have so many reported issues by owners. Despite the consistent reports of Tesla's inconsistent build quality, the extent of owner complaints was surprising. Consumer Reports is widely respected for its objective and in-depth car reviews. The organization conducts thorough evaluations by purchasing the cars it reviews and testing them in a well-equipped private facility. The used-car reliability survey draws on a vast amount of data, with over 140,000 vehicles surveyed from the 2016 to 2021 model years. To determine reliability and create the ranking, Consumer Reports compares the number of reported problems in cars of a specific model year to the average number of problems. The analysts then weigh the reported problems based on severity to calculate a score. This method provides a comprehensive view of what used-car buyers can expect over five to ten years. While owner-reported issues may introduce inconsistencies, studies like this offer valuable insights into the performance of older cars. This information is particularly useful for individuals looking to make informed decisions when purchasing a used car. Regarding new cars, Consumer Reports noted that Tesla has made significant improvements, with its latest models demonstrating better-than-average reliability. In fact, Tesla now ranks in the top 10 of Consumer Reports' new car predicted reliability rankings. Overall, the survey provides valuable information for consumers looking to make informed decisions about their vehicle purchases. It highlights the importance of considering reliability when choosing a car, whether new or used. For more automotive news and updates, stay tuned to The Drive.

An investigation just found some protein powders contain high lead levels - Here are 7 brands that got the safest scores. These supplements to meet your daily intake are a staple at this point. Here's how to shop your way around a newly discovered danger. Over the past several decades, protein powders and shakes have become a fixture of the wellness industry, driving booming sales and dominating supplement aisles, as well as social media feeds. These days, Americans from all walks of life consider these beverages a basic part of their diets. However, a new Consumer Reports (CR) investigation based on independent and unbiased product testing may give some buyers pause. It found that many protein products still contain unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals, despite a thriving industry and higher consumer expectations for safety. The outlet tested 23 protein powders and ready-to-drink shakes from popular brands, after anonymously purchasing multiple samples from online retailers like Amazon and Walmart, as well as health stores such as Whole Foods and Vitamin Shoppe in New York. The products were analyzed for total protein content and contamination by heavy metals including lead, arsenic, and cadmium. The findings were alarming: "For more than two-thirds of the products we analyzed, a single serving contained more lead than CR's food safety experts say is safe to consume in a day - some by more than 10 times," writes Paris Martineau, an Investigative Reporter for Consumer Reports who worked on the study. According to the Mayo Clinic, exposure to high levels of lead can cause many symptoms, including but not limited to: * Brain damage * Nervous system damage * Developmental disabilities in children * High blood pressure in adults * Premature birth Lead was the most prevalent heavy metal detected, but some powders also contained concerning levels of cadmium and inorganic arsenic - both classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as probable or known carcinogens. Despite the contamination concerns, all products met or exceeded their labeled protein content, ranging from 20 to 60 grams per serving. Two plant-based powders, Naked Nutrition's Vegan Mass Gainer and Huel's Black Edition, stood out as having especially high lead levels. A single serving of these products contained 7.7 and 6.3 micrograms of lead respectively - far exceeding safe consumption limits at 1,570% and 1,290% of Consumer Reports' daily lead limit. Marketed as a clean protein source, Naked Nutrition's minimal label touts "Only five premium ingredients with nothing to hide." However, he investigators found that seven of the products had low levels of heavy metals, and marked these as "Better Choices for Daily Consumption." In order of their safety, these top-performing products were: * Muscle Tech 100% Mass Gainer (no limit) * Dymatize Super Mass Gainer (4 servings per day limit) * Momentous Whey Protein Isolate (3 [1/3] servings per day limit) * BSN Syntha-6 Protein Powder (2 servings per day limit) * Optimum Nutrition Gold Standard 100% Whey (1 [3/4] servings per day limit) * Transparent Labs Mass Gainer (1 serving per day limit) * Owyn Pro Elite High Protein Shake (1 serving per day limit) Showing no signs of slowing down, Yahoo! Finance reports that the protein supplement industry is expected to reach a value of $38.29 billion by 2030, up from $23.90 billion in 2022. Without stronger regulatory standards to better protect consumers, risks will rise with sales, the investigators note. "Protein powders and shakes have become immensely popular and are part of a daily routine for many people who are focused on consuming more protein in their diet," said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports. "Our tests found that toxic heavy metal contamination in protein supplements is widespread and has worsened since we first analyzed these products 15 years ago." Now, Consumer Reports has launched a petition calling on the FDA to take action once the government shutdown is over. "No one should have to worry that their protein shake could expose them to dangerous levels of lead. It's time for the FDA to protect the public and hold industry accountable by setting strong limits on lead in protein powders and shakes," Ronholm added in an October 14 press release. In the meantime, consumers looking to lower their personal risk should choose products wisely, limiting intake to reduce exposure to harmful heavy metals. Or, skip powdered products in favor of food sources, such as lean meats, eggs, legumes, whole grains, and low-fat dairy.