Anticipating the rollout of the “Cash for Clunkers” program, Smart USA is offering a $99 a month deal on its tiny Smart fortwo car.

All you have to do is buy a Smart car (which lists for $13,335), apply the $4500 government subsidy, accept financing of 5.9%, and you get to pay only $99 a month.

Oh… one other thing… buried in the footnote.

*MOUSE PRINT:

$99 monthly payment based on customer trade-in of an eligible vehicle qualifying for the CARS $4,500 voucher level and a 36-month balloon loan with $0 cash due at signing and a final balloon payment of $6,667 [emphasis added] at the end of the loan term and a $13,335 MSRP which includes the destination charge and excludes tax, title and dealer fees. 5.9% APR financing for 36 months at $11.32 per month, per $1,000 financed.

Sounds like the tricky financing that got some homeowners in trouble.

Over the past decade or two, tuna cans have gone from 7 ounces to 6.5 ounces to 6.25 ounces to 6-1/8 ounces to 6 ounces and finally to 5 ounces last year. But look at the new Costco Kirkland brand cans:

*MOUSE PRINT:

They have gone up to 7 ounces, and so have Chicken of the Sea and Starkist brands sold at Costco. The increased size comes at an increased price, no doubt, but tuna cans are now back to their original size. It appears that Costco is the only seller of the new upsized cans.

In Costco’s monthly magazine, their consumer reporter touted the fact their tuna contains fewer fillers and less water than competitors.  She went on to say that you get triple the tuna in their 7-ounce can  (12 tablespoons) compared to the tuna found in some brands’ 5-ounce cans (4 tablespoons). She enlisted her husband to do the test, as noted in the box on the left.

How is it possible that the 7-ounce can of tuna can contains triple the amount of tuna of a 5-ounce can when it only contains two extra ounces of contents?  The answer is it can’t unless the brand name manufacturer is packing more ocean in its cans than tuna.

Our trusty mouse measured the amount of tuna in a 5-ounce can of Chicken of the Sea solid white tuna, first squeezing out the water, and found that it contained one-half cup, which is 8 tablespoons (not the four tablespoons that Costco claimed).

It is reasonable to believe Costco’s claim that its brand of tuna in 7-ounce cans contains 12 tablespoons of tuna (3/4 cup), if a 5-ounce can of other name brands contains 8 tablespoons (1/2 cup).  It is not however plausible that Costco’s brand contains triple the amount of tuna.  Two requests to Costco to comment on their claim went unresponded to.

Costco’s 7-ounce cans cost $1.50 each (in packs of eight), while sale prices for brand name tuna in 5-ounce cans are typically about a dollar.  That makes them just about equivalent.

Some chicken producers are now doing something similar when processing their chicken. On the left is a typical package of chicken you might find in any supermarket. It says “100% natural” breasts (with some rib meat).  You expect there to be nothing but chicken in the package in all likelihood. However, look at the fine print disclosure:
 

*MOUSE PRINT: “with up to 15% natural chicken broth.”  What’s that?  Primarily salt and water.  So you are really paying $3.99 a pound for the water that comprises 15% of the package weight.

Current labeling law still allows the chicken to be labeled “all natural” because water and salt are natural ingredients, irrespective of the fact that they are being injected into the birds to make them weigh more.

Makers of plumped chickens say the extra water and salt help make the chicken more moist and tender. While that may be true, they are not eager to tell you that a four-ounce serving of enhanced chicken may have eight times the chicken’s normal sodium content — equivalent to the salt in a large serving of fast food french fries.

For more information on plumped chickens, here is a recent LA Times article, a video on the plumping process from CBS News, and Foster Farms’ wonderfully clever website, “Say No to Plumping“.

*MOUSE PRINT: The asterisk refers to a fine print footnote that says, “Based on paired preference tests performed 10/2008.”

When Mouse Print* asked the company in an email to explain exactly how the test was done (Who interviewed the dogs or did they fill out a written questionnaire? Did you have a translator for foreign breeds? <grin>) the company declined to specify the methodology but rather invited a call to customer service. Upon doing so, the representative spoke only in generalities off the top of her head without real knowledge of the protocol.  And, being transferred to a supervisor only resulted in being deposited into voicemail.

Assuming the test was conducted in a legitimate manner, their own data do not support the claim they made that 8 out 10 dogs prefer their Nutro. When tested against Science Diet, only 67.3% preferred Nutro, not 80% or more. Likewise  only 73.3% preferred it over Natural Balance brand. In no example given in the ad did eight out of ten dogs tested prefer Nutro.

Certainly, Nutro did well in the tests, just not as well as they advertise. Hey, Nutro, why even make a claim that your own data contradict?

Take Cheerios, for example. On the left is a box purchased a couple of months ago, and on the right is a box purchased last week.

The old one claims that Cheerios can help lower your cholesterol four percent in six weeks, while the new one says by 10% in just one month. It further goes on to claim on the front panel that eating three servings of Cheerios a day “may reduce the risk of heart disease.”  The products themselves are unchanged. So what’s going on here?

*MOUSE PRINT:

Old box: “A [1998] clinical study showed that eating two 1-1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol.”

New box: “A new [2009] study proves that Cheerios cereal plus a reduced calorie diet that is low in fat can help lower bad cholesterol about 10% in one month. … Eat two 1-1/2 cup servings [daily] … and cut 500 calories from your diet.”

So basically, Cheerios found a new study that lets them tout a significantly enhanced cholesterol reduction claim. Well, “found” is too strong a word. How about paid for and co-authored an as yet unpublished study? (See abstract of the study, which was published, in a somewhat unconventional journal.)

*MOUSE PRINT:

This is not to say that every study paid for by a corporation is suspect, but it seems a bit unusual that the company also co-authored the study.

General Mills says that 204 overweight/obese adults with high LDL (bad) cholesterol were tested. While General Mills touts Cheerios helps lower  (bad) cholesterol 10% on its box and website, the abstract of the study seems to say it was actually lowered only 8.7%.

All of this has not made the FDA happy, so they sent the company a warning letter in May. The letter asserts that the  health claims the company is making for Cheerios puts it in the category of a drug, and they have not registered Cheerios as a drug. Interestingly, the letter only refers to the original 4% claim, and not the new 10% one.

Time will tell how this cereal drama plays out, but odds are all their cholesterol lowering claims won’t disappear completely and you still won’t need a prescription to buy Cheerios.