Standing in a store’s lightbulb aisle, facing rows of LED, CFL, and halogen bulbs, with terms such as lumens, color rendering, and Kelvin temperature, is enough to make you long for the days of good old incandescents. With no sales associate in sight, you’re reduced to hoping you get lucky and another shopper who happens to be an electrical engineer or a rocket scientist will amble by. But usually it’s just you and a bunch of bulbs.

Once you crack the code, though, it’s not so intimidating and you’ll be able to focus on what really matters: how much you’re willing to spend and how bright a bulb you need.

LEDs get most of the attention these days—as well as all of the top spots in our lightbulb Ratings. Manufacturers continue to invest in LED development, and those lightbulbs have become sophisticated electronic devices. But they’re expensive. For the price, though, you can expect a bulb that lasts 23 years or longer.

CFLs have improved, too. The best of them are quick to fully brighten, and they provide bright light. They’re also less impaired by frequently turning them on and off than earlier versions were. CFLs are a lot cheaper than LEDs and can last seven to 10 years. Yet even though CFLs are much better than they were a decade ago, the best aren’t as good as the top-rated LEDs.

There is a third choice: halogen bulbs. A type of incandescent, they instantly brighten, they’re dimmable, and some cost less than $2. But they use a lot more energy than LEDs and CFLs. Some have a color filter that improves the light’s color, but it also reduces light output. And they usually last only about a year or two—so you’ll be back in the lightbulb aisle a whole lot sooner.

Battle of the bulbs: Pros and cons of two energy-saving lightbulbs

If you can live without instant brightness, also consider these other well-performing CFLs from our tests: Feit Electric Ecobulb Plus 60W, $2.50, a CR Best Buy, and the even brighter Feit Electric Ecobulb Plus 100W, $2.30.

1) When used 3 hours per day. 2) Based on electricity savings, using the national average energy rate, and bulb savings when compared with a 60-watt incandescent.

All shapes and sizes

Although they don't look the same, all of these LEDs are for use in lamps and replace a 60- or 75-watt incandescent. Manufacturers are introducing various shapes to improve efficiency and light distribution, help manage heat, and lower costs. The Feit Electric and Philips Slimstyle did well in our tests; the Nanoleaf did not. The others are being tested.

This article also appeared in the October 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Q. After I marinate meat, fish, or poultry, is it OK to use the marinade during cooking or as a sauce?

A. A marinade that has been in contact with raw animal proteins may contain harmful bacteria, so never reuse it without following these recommendations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Bring the marinade to a rolling boil in a pan, then boil it for 1 minute, while stirring constantly. Then it can be used as a sauce. But to be totally safe, make extra marinade and set part aside before dunking your meat in the rest.

Acids, oils, herbs, and spices in your favorite marinades lend delicious flavors to meat, fish, and poultry. Beyond tasty, marinades make meat more tender because they typically contain acids from vinegar, citrus, tomato juice, beer, or wine that unwind tightly-coiled animal protein fibers.

And note: Heavily charred meat, fish, and poultry can expose you to potentially cancer-causing compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCAs), but some evidence suggests that using a marinade can reduce the risk.

Read our special report on ground beef and get six safety tips for your next cookout.

To marinate safely follow these steps:

1. Refrigerate it. Don’t marinate at room temperature. Put marinating meat or fish in a covered container and put it in the refrigerator.
2. Time it. Don’t go too long; over-marinated animal proteins may become too mushy—or too tough. Marinate in the refrigerator in a covered container for up to 24 hours for dense meats, 2 to 24 hours for poultry and just 15 to 60 minutes for seafood.
3. Wash up. Don’t reuse containers or utensils that have touched raw meat before washing them carefully first.

A version of this article also appeared in the September 2015 issue of Consumer Reports on Health.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Y ou’re settled in safe at home when suddenly the lights go out and the comforting hums of the refrigerator and furnace fade out. As you rummage around in a drawer for the flashlights and batteries, you’re probably kicking yourself for not investing in a generator after the last storm. Don’t let that happen during the next one. The best of the 45 generators in Consumer Reports' tests supply power for everything from the bare necessities to your whole house. Some generators deliver more juice than others. Some, including pricey inverter models, provide power that’s cleaner and won’t make appliances run hotter and sensitive electronics run less reliably. Others include smart features, such as automatic shutdown if engine oil gets low. Here’s how to choose one wisely, install it properly, use it safely, and keep it running as long as possible.

Choose stationary or portable

Stationary models are significantly more expensive, but they start automatically when the power goes out and often supply more power than portables. They also periodically run a self-diagnosis routine that can alert you, via the display panel or sometimes text or e-mail. Running on natural gas or propane, they save you the hassle and safety risks of storing gallons of gasoline.

In addition to costing less, portables can be transported easily to another location. If you go for a portable, one handy new feature to look for is a removable console, connected via cable to the generator. You can plug directly into the console without running extension cords to the generator, which we don’t recommend.

Know your power needs

Unless you want the generator to keep the whole house running, compile a list of priorities for what you want your portable model to power. At the very least you’ll probably want to make sure essentials such as the refrigerator, sump pump, and heating system stay on. Additionally, you can map every outlet and switch in the house so that you’ll know which circuit on your service panel powers what. Two people on cell phones can do that easily. Leave one person manning the panel while the other goes from room to room, checking what works as circuits are switched on and off. A circuit finder, $25 to $30, can help identify which circuit on your service panel powers a given receptacle.

Of course, for a fee a pro can also perform that diagnosis for you. The list of circuits will help you determine just what you want your generator to target.

Consult a pro

Whichever type of generator you choose, consult an electrician to ensure proper selection and installation. If you already know which items in your home you’ll want to power, you could save hundreds by not paying for the labor required to map the circuits. If you’re going for a stationary model, a pro should be able to help with your town or municipal requirements for proper location on your property, noise restrictions, and obtaining permits.

Consider a transfer switch

Extension cords are a hassle, and they can be hazardous. A transfer switch, about $500 to $900 with labor to install, links the generator to your circuit panel. That lets you power circuits, including those for hardwired appliances, directly. You’ll need at least a 5,000-rated-watt generator to use one.

Keep up with maintenance

For a stationary generator, make a habit of checking its display to see whether maintenance is required. For a portable, your owner’s manual will tell you how often to change the oil and which type to use. If your generator uses gasoline, add stabilizer to all of your stored fuel.

Always operate safely

Never run a generator indoors; it creates deadly levels of carbon monoxide. It should be run at least 15 feet from the house, away from doors and windows, and never in the basement, the garage, or any other enclosed space. Don’t run a portable in the rain; model-specific tents are available online.

How much generator do you need?

Here’s what different-sized generators can power. Pick a model that generates wattage at least equal to the total for what you’re powering. Manufacturers also suggest totaling the higher surge watts that some appliances—such as fridges and pumps—draw when they cycle on. One caveat: Small portables require you to connect appliances using extension cords, which is inconvenient and can even be potentially dangerous.

Small portable: 3,000 to 4,000 watts

What it powers: The basics, including:

• Refrigerator (600 watts)
• Sump pump (600 watts)
• Several lights (400 watts)
• TV (200 watts)

Price range: $400 to $800 for most; more for inverter models that use an alternative technology that makes wattage output smoother so that there are no power surges.

Midsized portable and small stationary: 5,000 to 8,500 watts

What it powers: Same as small models, plus:

• Portable heater (1,300 watts)
• Computer (250 watts)
• Heating system (500 watts)
• Well pump (1,500 watts)
• More lights (400 watts)

Price range: $500 to $1,000 for portable; $1,800 to $3,200 for stationary.

Large portable: 10,000 watts

What it powers: Adds one of these:

• Small electric water heater (3,000 watts)
• Central air conditioner (5,000 watts)
• Electric range (5,000 watts)

Price range: $2,000 to $3,000.

Large stationary: 10,000 to 15,000 watts

What it powers: Same as large portable models, plus:

• Clothes washer (1,200 watts)
• Electric dryer (5,000 watts)

Price range: $3,500 to $5,000 plus installation.

How much fuel?

A 7,000-watt portable generator will use 12 to 20 gallons of gasoline per day if run continuously for 24 hours. More powerful generators use more fuel. (Store gasoline only in ANSI-approved containers.) A small 8,000-watt stationary model can run for eight to 15 days on a 250-­gallon propane tank or indefinitely on a natural-gas line.

‘Superstorm’ is now part of our lexicon. But just what made October 2012’s Sandy so super? A hurricane followed by a nor’easter, it packed a potent one-two punch. Winds of 80-plus mph, epic waves, and the storm surge pummeled the East Coast—killing at least 147 and causing about $50 billion in damages. Read our special report, "Lessons Learned From Superstorm Sandy," to help you be prepared when a natural disaster strikes. 

This article also appeared in the October 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

How much should you spend on a washer? You don’t have to pay $1,500 to get a washer that cleans well. Expensive washers offer a jumbo capacity and extra features, but if you don’t need to wash 26 pounds of laundry in one load and using your phone to check your laundry’s progress from Starbucks isn’t a priority, then take a look at these washers from Consumer Reports’ tests. They get the job done and cost $800 or less.

Agitator top-loaders

They’re cheaper, have faster wash times, and are still the big sellers. But they use a lot more water and extract less of it than high-efficiency (HE) top-loaders and front-loaders, extending dryer time. The center post agitator takes up space so these machines hold less laundry than HE washers—typically 12 to 16 pounds. And most are relatively noisy and not so gentle on fabrics.
Consider: Whirlpool WTW4850BW, $580, and the GE GTWN5650FWS, $650. These top picks delivered impressive cleaning in our tests and the normal wash time using the heavy-soil setting is 50 to 55 minutes. You’ll save 5 to 10 minutes by using the normal wash on normal-soil setting.
Tip: Some washers aren’t so gentle on fabrics so use the normal wash on light-soil setting when possible and the delicate cycle when necessary.

High-efficiency top-loaders

HE top-loaders hold 17 to 28 pounds of laundry. Compared to agitator washers they typically clean better, use less water, and spin at higher speeds so more water is extracted and dryer time is shortened. But the high-speed spin can tangle and wrinkle clothing and normal wash time using the heavy-soil setting is usually 65 to 80 minutes. Shave about 15 to 20 minutes off by using the normal wash on normal-soil setting. It’s also known as the medium-soil or mid-soil setting.
Consider: Kenmore 28132, $800, Samsung WA45H7000AW, $500, Kenmore 26132, $600, Kenmore 27132, $700, and the Samsung WA48H7400AW, $720. They have large capacities—the Kenmore 28132 is jumbo—were impressive at cleaning, and are relatively quiet as you’ll see in our washing machine Ratings. But like most top-loaders most weren't so gentle on fabrics. 
Tip: Your laundry will tangle less if you wash similar items together and rather than dump everything into the machine at once, add a few items at a time and unbunch sleeves, pant legs, and socks. Before you put them in the dryer shake them out.

Front-loaders

The best we tested typically clean better than the best HE top-loaders and use less water. Most can hold about 17 to 28 pounds of laundry and spin even faster than HE top-loaders, usually extracting more water and reducing dryer time. Wash times range from 65 to 100 minutes using heavy-soil setting, so use the normal-soil setting and save about 15 to 20 minutes.
Consider: LG WM3570HVA, $800; be sure to try to TurboWash option as it will trim about 15 minutes off the wash time of full loads and in our tests cleaning was just as good. Also look at the Samsung WF42H5000AW, $720. Both washers were excellent at cleaning.The LG WM4270HWA, $800, was impressive at cleaning and worth a look. 
Tip: A front-loader's high spin speeds might vibrate too much for the machine to be placed near a bedroom or family room, but keep in mind that concrete floors can absorb vibrations well, unlike wood-framed floors.

More choices

Our washing machine Ratings give you all the details. We rate wash performance, energy- and water efficiency, capacity, gentleness, noise, vibration, and cycle time (normal wash on heavy-soil setting) and let you know if there's a matching dryer. Use our buying guide to compare washer types and features and if you have questions, email me at kjaneway@consumer.org.

—Kimberly Janeway 

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

You'd expect any vacuum cleaner with the word pet in its model name to ace Consumer Reports' tough pet fur test in which cat hair is embedded into carpet piles. And most of the pet vacuums in our current Ratings did just that. Unfortunately, some of those that excelled at pet hair removal were lackluster at other tasks. In fact, only one of the full-size pet vacuums made our recommended list, the bagged upright Hoover WindTunnel T-Series Pet UH30310, $150. It was excellent at pet hair removal and cleaning bare floors and very good at cleaning carpet.

If you want an all-around top performer, don't be swayed by pet hair names and claims. The Miele Complete C3 Marin, $1,100, and the Kenmore Progressive 21714, $400, are at the top of our list of canister vacuums and both are excellent at pet hair removal. Our top upright, the Kenmore Elite 31150, $350, was very good on that task but two of its brandmates, the Kenmore 31140 and the Kenmore Progressive 31069, aced it. They both cost $200 and are CR Best Buys.

Of the pet models we tested, we found eight that were excellent at pet hair removal but had subpar performance on other tasks. Unfortunately, we also found some real dogs among the pet models. The canister Dyson Cinetic Animal, $550, was only fair at removing pet hair and was also mediocre at cleaning carpet although it did well on the bare floors test. The canister Dyson Ball Compact Animal, $450, scored only 34 out of a possible 100, but did a decent job at picking up pet hair.

Two hand vacuums in our tests also make pet hair claims. The Shark Pet Perfect II SV780, $60, our top hand vacuum was very good at picking up pet hair but the Bissell Pet Hair Eraser 33A1, $35, got our poorest marks for pet hair.

Judging vacuums at Consumer Reports continues all year long and we're always looking for a champ among the vacuums we test. Luckily, we usually discover a few top dogs. To see how other vacuums fared see our full vacuum Ratings and recommendations.

—Mary H.J. Farrell

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Smeg is an Italian appliance manufacturer that makes pro-style ranges, among other things. The name is short for Smalterie Metallurgiche Emiliane Guastalla, which sort of helps you understand why the company goes by Smeg. “Technology with style” is the company’s tagline so when the testers at Consumer Reports had to reach for a Sharpie to write common oven temperature settings near the knobs of the Smeg ranges in our tests, things started to get really interesting.
 
We tested the $3,000 Smeg C30GGXU1 30-inch gas range and the $3,200 Smeg C36GGXU 36-inch gas range. Those prices are low by pro-style standards; if only the performance was better. The Smeg C30GGXU1 scored 45 out of 100. The oven is small, there’s no self-clean feature, and baking and broiling were unimpressive. Range-top heat was fast, but we were unable to simmer tomato sauce on the largest burner when it was set to low.

The Smeg C36GGXU was even worse and landed at the bottom of our ratings of 36-inch pro-style ranges, scoring 23 out of 100. “Some previously tested pro-models have floundered in our tests, so while the Smeg scores are disappointing, they aren’t shocking,” says Tara Casaregola, the engineer who oversees Consumer Reports’ tests of cooking appliances. “What was kind of shocking to us was the design of the oven controls, if these models are intended for the U.S. market.”
 
Casaregola used a Sharpie to mark off temperature settings we needed—325°F on the smaller range and 350°F on the larger (or choose from 285°, 330°, 390°F and up). No matter how neatly you print, writing with a Sharpie on the front of one of these ranges cheapens the look. And the unusual oven timer knob has five-minute intervals, up to an hour, with a quick buzz alerting you that time’s up. It reminded us of an old wind-up egg timer.

Shopping for a Pro-Style?

We did find some winners. The KitchenAid KDRS407VSS was the best of the 30-inch models we tested and made our top-picks list. It’s $4,000 and is a dual-fuel range, pairing a gas cooktop with a small electric oven. Among 36-inch pro-styles, the dual-fuel KitchenAid KDRU763VSS is tops and $6,000. We also recommend the $7,500 GE Monogram ZDP364NDPSS. See our full range Ratings and recommendations for all the details. Any questions? E-mail me at kjaneway@consumer.org.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

On the back of the box, the very pricey ($40 for a 3.3 ounce bottle) Shiseido WetForce Ultimate Sun Protection Lotion SPF50+ makes the following promise: “Providing powerful protection for your skin, this innovative protective veil actually becomes even more effective when it comes into contact with water.” The claim on Shiseido’s website goes further, saying that soaking in water for 30 minutes enhances the product’s ultraviolet (UV) protection by 20 percent.

If you're going to be swimming or sweating, you want a good-performing water-resistant sunscreen, so we decided to investigate this claim by testing WetForce’s SPF (sun protection factor) in a laboratory. SPF is a measure of how well a sunscreen protects against UVB rays—the type that cause sunburn. First, our experts applied the sunscreen to dry skin on one area of our test subjects’ backs, let it dry, and then exposed that section to laboratory UVB light. Then we applied the sunscreen to a different area, let it dry, and had the subjects sit in a tub of water for 30 minutes. When they got out, we put that second area under the same UVB light. The next day, our experts examined both areas for sunburn.

We also subjected WetForce to the standard testing we perform on all sunscreens—measuring its UVB protection after the amount of time the product claims to be water resistant (in this case it was 80 minutes) and testing for protection against UVA rays, the type that cause wrinkles and skin cancer. (See our video on how we test sunscreens.)

What we found: The average SPF of Shiseido WetForce Ultimate Sun Protection Lotion SPF50+ was the same whether the testers’ skin was dry or exposed to water for 30 minutes. There was no increase in UVB protection.

In our standard sunscreen testing, WetForce did earn an Excellent rating for UVB (meaning it protects very well against sunburn), but just a Fair rating for its UVA protection. Combining the scores from our UVA and UVB testing with other performance factors, Shiseido WetForce Ultimate Sun Protection Lotion SPF50+ received a score of 40, which earned it a Fair rating for overall performance. (Our top rating is Excellent, followed by Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor.)

We sent Shiseido a copy of our test results and methodology and asked the company for a response. Shiseido said in an e-mail: “It is our policy not to comment on testing done outside of the auspices of our company.” They also said that our findings may vary from theirs because of differences in test protocols.

Our bottom line: Given that our tests showed no improvement in UVB protection, Shiseido’s better-when-wet claim is misleading—and even potentially harmful if consumers interpret the claim to mean they don’t need to reapply the sunscreen when they get out of the water. At $40 for a 3.3 ounce bottle, Shiseido WetForce Ultimate Sun Protection Lotion SPF50+ is one of the most expensive sunscreens we’ve tested. We think that’s a high price to pay for a sunscreen that earned only a Fair rating overall in our tests, especially since we found several products that cost far less and performed better. For example, Coppertone Water Babies SPF 50 costs $10.50 for an 8-ounce bottle and received an Excellent rating for UVA and UVB protection. But whatever sunscreen you choose, be sure to reapply as soon as you get out of the water—or every two hours you’re out in the sun.

—Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

 Energy efficiency has come a long way from that evening in February 1977 when President Jimmy Carter put on a cardigan and told Americans to turn down their thermostats. Thanks to more energy-­efficient practices and products, ranging from refrigerators to lightbulbs to central air conditioning, the average American spent $2,500 less on energy in 2014 (adjusted for inflation) than he or she would have if no improvements had been made, according to a June 2015 report by the American Council for an Energy-­Efficient Economy.

But every dollar saved by consumers is one less in revenue for power companies. That has prompted industry leaders to warn of a “death spiral,” a scenario in which sinking profits from efficiency will force utilities to raise their rates, causing more consumers to migrate to rooftop solar. Many utilities are using that argument to propose steep rate increases that penalize the public for doing the right thing. “Where’s the incentive to insulate your attic or install a solar water heater if it’s not going to lead to lower energy bills?” says Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C.

Raising the stakes even more is the fact that the Clean Power Plan, released in August by the Environmental Protection Agency, would require U.S. power plants to cut carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent below their 2005 levels by 2030. The industry claims that this could lead to yet more rate increases, but the EPA analysis says the investments in efficiency could actually lower consumers’ bills.

Rising rates for energy

Currently, utilities can’t just jack up the cost of electricity when it suits their bottom line. State laws require them to make a formal proposal through their public utility commission. Wisconsin’s Madison Gas and Electric, for example, proposed to increase fixed charges (the part of the bill customers pay no matter how much energy they use) from $10 in 2014 to $68 by 2017. Kansas City Power & Light requested a fixed-charge increase from $9 to $25. “This is clearly the industry’s playbook,” says Rick Gilliam, regulatory policy director for Vote Solar, a nonprofit. “We’ve never seen utilities in so many states making the same proposals based on all the same talking points.”

Even when an increase in fixed charges is accompanied by a drop in the rate per kilowatt-­hour, it’s the energy hogs who end up paying less. For example, an analysis of Kansas City’s proposed fixed-charge increase found that only customers who used at least 1,500 kilowatt-­hours per month would see a decrease in their monthly bill. Those who used less than the national average of 909 kWh per month would see their bills go up anywhere from 5 to 35 percent.

In Hawaii, where 12 percent of homes have solar, Hawaiian Electric delayed some homeowners from installing solar panels until system upgrades could be made to handle the flow of power back into the grid. The utility also proposed charging new solar customers an extra $16 per month. And it wants to end its “net metering” program, which credits solar customers for electricity that’s fed back into the grid when they’re generating more power than they need. Under its plan, new customers would get back roughly 50 percent less per kWh from the utility than current customers receive. That could significantly extend the payback period for new solar customers.

Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry’s main trade group, points out that utilities have made and continue to make massive investments to build and maintain the nation’s power grid, and that all electricity customers should share in the costs. “Rooftop solar customers still rely on the grid and its services around the clock,” says executive vice president David Owens.

But fixed-charge increases are “too blunt an instrument for covering those costs,” says Samantha Williams, staff attorney and policy advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Instead of falling back on arcane rate designs or blaming solar, utilities should work with regulators and their local communities to come up with innovative solutions.”

Thinking outside the grid

Some utilities are doing just that, building customer loyalty by marketing their expertise alongside their product. Green Mountain Power in Vermont is re­invent­ing itself as a full-service energy provider—for example, by leasing high-efficiency heat pumps. Later this year it will also offer the Tesla Powerwall, a home battery that allows for the storage of power generated by a rooftop solar system. “Our philosophy is that you don’t resist where the customer wants to go,” says the company’s president and CEO, Mary Powell. “You figure out how to enter into new relationships with them.”

Another approach is the adoption of time-of-use (TOU) rates, which help utilities manage demand by making energy more expensive during periods of peak use. Consumers stand to benefit through behavior modification, such as setting the dishwasher to run at night, when rates may be cheaper.

Certain consumer groups, such as the AARP, argue that people who are home during the day, like many retirees, will be stuck with higher daytime rates. To help encourage adoption, more utilities have made their TOU plans opt-in. During a recent Sacramento Municipal Utility District pilot program, customers who opted in reduced their energy use between 9 and 12 percent during peak afternoon hours.

Those measures show what’s possible when the power industry sees energy efficiency as an opportunity rather than a threat. “Utilities that resort to piling on costs in ways that deter clean energy investments will restrict their options and alienate their customers,” says the NRDC’s Williams. “And that will only hasten the death spiral they’re so afraid of.”

This article also appeared in the October 2015 issue of Consumer Reports.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

 Think that a roll is a roll is a roll? The truth is that for years, toilet paper manufacturers have been selling less product and masking the shrinkage with hyperbole and hard-to-quantify claims. According to John T. Gourville, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School, they get away with it because consumers have a better grasp of how much an item costs than they do of the size it should be.

"They have in their minds that this toilet paper costs 79 cents and that one costs 89 cents,” he explains. “They’re not taking into account that one has fewer sheets.”

Once one company downsizes its products, others follow to avoid appearing more expensive. The maker of Angel Soft brags that its double roll has 60 percent more sheets than Charmin Ultra’s double roll. Still, those brands have many sizes, and counting sheets isn’t the only way to determine value—sheet size and thickness are also factors.

Consumer Reports contacted some customer-service representatives to find out what’s behind all the shrinkage and received a variety of explanations. Many suggested that their products had become so good that consumers actually need less of it.

A customer rep for Kimberly-Clark, maker of Cottonelle and Scott, told us that the downsizing was a marketing decision in response to rising costs for manufacturing and distribution. A follow-up statement said that product innovations yielded “better, stronger tissue, so that you need fewer sheets to get the job done.”

Procter & Gamble’s customer rep told us that reducing the number of sheets actually enabled the company to improve the quality of its flagship Charmin TP. The newer version is more flexible than previous ones, the rep said, and consumers should need much less.

Costco’s decision to trim its Kirkland Signature multipacks from 36 to 30 rolls was also explained as a less-is-more approach. A customer rep said that the company took out the six rolls to provide a better product, and that the toilet paper was actually thicker than it was before.

Manufacturers have also boosted their brand offerings to include not just single and double rolls but “mega,” “triple,” and “jumbo” variations, and other sizes. That makes comparing products even more confusing.  

Some rolls are so bulky they may not even fit their bathroom enclosures, especially the ones in older homes. Not to worry, say the makers of Charmin. The brand’s mega rolls come with a money-back guarantee if they don’t fit. So be sure to hold on to your receipt and the package’s UPC code just in case you need to claim your refund.

Our advice: Don’t flush money down the drain. Find a brand you like and stock up when it’s on sale. Check our toilet paper buying guide for more.

Sheet counts then and now

Since 2009, Consumer Reports has tested bathroom tissue multiple times. And during that span, many manufacturers have shrunk the size of their rolls. To gauge the difference, we looked at nine current products, comparing the number of sheets per roll and the size of the sheets with previous versions. We used a so-called double roll, the most popular size, as our benchmark in most cases. Be aware that some brands, such as Kirkland Signature, downsize by decreasing the number of rolls per package.

Angel Soft roll call

As companies shave sheets, they’re expanding product lines. The king of line extensions is Angel Soft. According to its manufacturer, Georgia-Pacific, there are seven roll sizes, from 132 to 528 sheets. (Six are pictured here.) The reason for all that choice? According to a customer-service representative, they’re just different price points. But John T. Gourville, a professor of marketing at Harvard Business School, says it’s an effort to corner the market. “One issue is shelf space,” he points out. “By having a proliferation of sizes, you increase the likelihood that a consumer randomly buying toilet paper or shampoo will buy your brand. And being a good-selling brand, you can command more shelf space and take it away from a competitor.”

The packaging may say that wipes, those toilet-paper supplements, are flushable or safe for sewers and septic tanks. But after testing, we beg to differ. It took at least 10 minutes for the wipes we tested to break down into small pieces in our mixer filled with water, which provides more churning than waste pipes. When we left the wipes in water overnight, some disintegrated, some didn’t.

The bottom line. Don’t use your toilet as a wastebasket. Toss used wipes into an actual garbage can. The same advice holds true for tissues and paper towels.

This article also appeared in the October 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

 A  little blue label with a star in the middle has helped consumers find the most efficient models across more than 70 product categories since 1992. The Energy Star logo—given to models that exceed the federal minimum efficiency standard by at least 10 percent—is recognized by more than 85 percent of Americans, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the voluntary Energy Star program. But the attention isn’t always for the right reasons.

Star wars

In recent months, Energy Star has entered the crosshairs of congressional leaders who want to roll back important features of the program. Exhibit A: the bill dubiously named the Energy Star Program Integrity Act, sponsored by Rep. Robert Latta, R-Ohio, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. Referred to by some on Capitol Hill as the “Whirlpool Bill” because of that manufacturer’s strong backing of it, the bill would undercut Energy Star by taking away consumers’ right to sue when a product is mislabeled with the Energy Star logo, thereby misrepresenting the promised energy savings.

The bill is unlikely to be voted into law on its own. But it could definitely be added as an amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015, a comprehensive energy bill that has been debated in the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources.

In fact, a second anti-Energy Star measure has already been tucked into that legislation. Originally part of the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, the measure was sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. It would repeal the independent third-party qualification requirement that Consumer Reports, along with other advocacy groups, called for after it emerged that many manufacturer-­certified models weren’t meeting the Energy Star specification. (As part of a 2010 federal investigation—during the time that manufacturers were self-­certifying—­undercover agents with the Government Accountability Office managed to get Energy Star qualification for a gas-powered alarm clock and a “room air cleaner” that was nothing more than a space heater with a feather duster and fly strips attached.)

“Something had to be done to put more checks into the system,” says Anne Bailey, Energy Star’s labeling branch chief. “Instead of devoting more tax dollars and staffing up, we used the market to maintain the integrity of whole system.” Starting in 2011, the EPA forced manufacturers to get their products certified by independent labs. Since then, Consumer Reports hasn’t observed any products with questionable claims. The new legislation would spare manufacturers that responsibility (and potential added cost) but would also reopen the door to false energy claims.

The fact that a program with clear consumer benefit faces constant opposition highlights the larger concern of energy efficiency in the U.S. “Energy Star is more reliable than ever,” says Shannon Baker-Branstetter, policy counsel for Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. “We’d hate to see this hard-earned trust eroded by bills that could chip away at its enforcement and integrity, and set a bad precedent that moves the program in the wrong direction.”

Constructive criticism

Even as we call on Congress to end its legislative attacks, Consumer Reports continues to suggest ways for the EPA to strengthen the Energy Star program. For example, it’s not always clear to consumers that Energy Star models of the same product are allowed to use significantly different amounts of energy. That’s because the requirements can change depending on product type. There are more than two dozen separate refrigerator specifications, for example—one for top-freezers, one for bottom-freezers, one for side-by-sides, and so on. But you wouldn’t know that discrepancy unless you also checked the yellow EnergyGuide label, which lists actual energy consumption and operating cost (see the comparison below). We think basing Energy Star on volume, regardless of type, would provide a more apples-to-apples comparison for consumers. Indeed, that’s how we measure and rate energy consumption in our labs.

We are also urging the EPA to end the 5 percent credit that’s currently given to smart grid-enabled appliances. For Energy Star qualified products, which are at least 10 percent more efficient than standard ones, the smart-grid credit essentially gets them halfway there. The problem is, only 2 percent of U.S. households have access to the technology and utility-company dynamic rate pricing that would enable them to benefit from a smart appliance. So consumers could end up with an Energy Star appliance that’s only half as efficient as the label implies.

Same label, different costs

Two Energy Star-bearing refrigerators—the Samsung RH22H9010SR and the Frigidaire Gallery FGHI2164QF—from our recent refrigerator tests have similar capacities, so you might expect them to cost about the same to operate. But the chart below tells a different story. Over the life of the refrigerators—10 to 15 years­—the total difference in operating cost could be around $250, assuming the 2014 national average electricity cost of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Give your house an energy checkup

Putting your home through a comprehensive energy assessment is one of the best ways to lower bills. Also known as an energy audit, the process involves a trained professional using infrared cameras, blower doors, and other high-tech equipment to pinpoint every source of energy loss in your home. But nationwide, only about 4 percent of American households have undergone an audit, according to the Energy Information Administration.

What gives? Jennifer Easler, an attorney with the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, blames the low participation rate on the fact that power companies, under order from state regulators, are often responsible for promoting the energy-audit programs. “You can’t expect a business to aggressively persuade consumers not to buy the very product it’s trying to sell,” she says. Easler says she would rather see energy audits administered by an independent third party.

But even if homeowner participation shoots up, there will still be the matter of paying for the often costly improvements that are recommended by the auditor. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has devised an innovative financing program called “on-bill recovery.” It allows homeowners to take out a loan for their energy-­efficiency upgrades, which they pay back over time through an added charge on their utility bills. The loans are designed so that projected annual energy savings equal or exceed the total monthly charges per year. If your utility doesn’t yet offer this financing option, encourage it to do so.

Send a letter to your legislator protesting the Energy Star-weakening bills. Get sample wording for your letter.

Make your voice heard by signing our petition protesting fixed-charge increases.

Tweet @NARUC using the hashtag #nixthefix.

This article also appeared in the October 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

If you don’t own a food processor, or if the one you have is collecting dust in some dark cabinet, now’s the time to discover the versatility of this essential kitchen device. The end-of-summer harvest means farmers’ markets are bursting with produce that can be turned into fresh sauces, pies, purees, and more. And if you caught our report this week on contaminated ground beef, you’ll be happy to learn that you can easily grind your own in a capable food processor. Here’s how to get the most out of the machine, along with several top picks from Consumer Reports’ latest food processor tests.

Dips, spreads, and sauces. That last-of-the-season basil is your base for a delicious pesto—just blitz it in the processor, along with garlic, pine nuts, oil, Parmesan cheese, and a dash of salt and pepper. Fresh tomatoes, especially those ripe, knobby specimens you see this time of year at farm stands, will yield a flavorful sauce. Hummus and bean dips are a cinch to make in a food processor, especially a machine that delivered uniform chopping and pureeing results in our tests, like the top-rated Breville BFP800XL/A.

Condiments and salad dressing are also easy to create in the food processor, and they cost less that way compared with store-bought products. Homemade mayonnaise, for example, is made by pulsing together egg, vinegar, and mustard, plus salt and pepper (using a pasteurized egg product can prevent the risk of salmonella poisoning). Then slowly pour in about a cup of oil; the best processors have small holes in their pushers that make this easy.

Make more dough. Our top-rated food processors, including the Cuisinart DFP-14BCN, come with a special blade for kneading dough. All it takes is flour, yeast, and a few other basic ingredients to turn out perfect pizza dough, topped with fresh tomatoes, basil, and other farm-fresh ingredients. A food processor is also helpful in creating crusts for pies and tarts filled with seasonal fruits. Simply cut in the chilled butter, pulse with flour and salt, and process in the ice water. 

While we’re on the subject of baking, zucchini bread is another summer classic that’s facilitated by a food processor. The majority of models we tested were very good or better at shredding, which is how you prepare zucchini in most recipes. The Cuisinart Elite Die-Cast 16-Cup food processor adds an extra-wide feed tube and its reversible shredding disc lets you to grate thick or thin shreds.     

Grind it out. Home-ground meat for burgers, meatballs, chili, and the like is safer than the store-bought stuff, since whole cuts of meat are less likely to be contaminated than mass-produced, pre-ground packages. For best results, start with chuck roast or marbled sirloin, cut the meat into 1-inch cubes, and freeze it for about 20 minutes, until the edges are stiff. This will help the food processor’s steel blade cut through the meat cleanly. Be careful not to overprocess the meat. Instead, use the pulse button to deliver short bursts until the meat is coarsely ground.

Food processors that ace our chopping tests should also be proficient at grinding. One to consider is the Oster Versa 1100 Series Performance. At $150, it's very well-priced, plus it doubles as a blender, though it didn't perform to quite the same level in that capacity, especially in our smoothie/icy drink test.       

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Americans will spend about $200 billion dollars this year fixing up their homes—nearly a fifth in the form of DIY projects. That’s a lot of freshly painted kitchens, reinsulated attics, and spruced up exteriors. But for every DIY success story, there will be more than a few fiascos. During a recent visit with Mark and Theresa Clement, the husband-and-wife hosts of the radio show and podcast MyFixitUpLife, we talked about some of the most common DIY blunders. Before you swing a hammer or fire up the power tools, take in the following words of wisdom. 

Know your limits. Taking on too large a project is a common misstep, but you can also take on too little. “For women, you can probably do more than you think,” says Theresa. “For men, you can probably do less.” All kidding aside, it’s always best to start small and work your way up to larger, more complex projects. “Hang a shelf in the bedroom before you try to redo the bathroom,” says Mark. 

Do the paperwork. You might not be a licensed contractor, but you still have to play by the building department rules. That includes securing a permit for most home improvement projects (some exceptions include painting, carpeting, and replacing your appliances). “Advanced DIYers make this mistake all the time,” says Mark. “I know it’s a hassle, but going through the permit process will force you to do the job correctly.” And when you go to sell your home, you won’t have to worry about any unpermitted upgrades suddenly becoming an issue.

Take your time. This one has to do with the “HGTV effect,” or the false impression that a kitchen can be remodeled in a single weekend. “It might look that way on TV, but you don’t see all the people working behind the scenes,” says Theresa. Even basic DIY projects require thorough planning and preparation. That includes gathering all the necessary tools and materials and carving out sufficient time for the project. Remember that the rest of your life won’t be put on hold while you’re in DIY mode. “You still have to walk the dog and pick the kids up from soccer practice,” says Mark.        

Don’t cut corners. This misstep often starts with the materials—buying cheap paint that needs multiple coats or using drywall screws to hold a deck together. Using the wrong tools will also slow down a project. “Simply not wearing a tool pouch can cost you hours, whether you’re reupholstering a dining chair or putting on a new roof,” says Theresa. Inexperienced DIYers also cut safety corners, which can have very serious consequences. Goggles, earplugs, and dust masks are essential, and you also want to protect your hands and feet. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen guys pressure washing their deck in flip flops,” says Mark.

Do it for love. The DIY approach can be cheaper than hiring a professional. But if saving money is your only motivation, chances are the end result will be short on satisfaction. “The best DIY projects are about being personal and making your space your own,” says Theresa. Sure, you still have deal with less glamorous tasks, like fixing the leaky kitchen faucet or regrouting the bathroom tile. But to be a happy DIYer, also take on projects that allow for some level of creativity and self-expression. And if you save a few hundred bucks in the process, so much the better.

Another great way to save? Check Consumer Reports’ latest Ratings of a variety of home improvement products. We’ve got top-rated paints costing less than 30 bucks a gallon, hard-wearing floors that sell for as little as $2 per square foot, and dozens of CR Best Buys across all the major major appliance categories.    

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Now that incandescent lightbulbs have largely been replaced by energy-saving LEDs and CFLs, a trip down the lightbulb aisle can be confounding. Not only are the lightbulbs different but the terms used to describe them are too. Fortunately, if you take some time to read the labels, you can find the right lightbulbs for your fixtures. Here's a lightbulb lingo decoder from the pros at Consumer Reports.

Light appearance

Differences in light color are easy to see. Warm yellow light, similar to an incandescent, has a color temperature around 2700K. (The K is for Kelvin, a temperature scale that measures light color.) Most Energy Star qualified bulbs are in the 2700K to 3000K range. Bulbs 3500K to 4100K cast a whiter light, and those 5000K to 6500K give off a bluer-white light.

Energy used

Watts tell you how much energy the bulb uses. So a 10-watt LED that provides the same amount of light as a 60-watt incandescent saves you energy and money.

Lumens

The more lumens, the brighter the bulb (think luminous), but many of us still think in terms of watts. For bulbs used in lamps and ceiling fixtures, known as A-type, 800 lumens provide light as bright as a 60-watt incandescent; an 1,100-lumen bulb replaces a 75-watt one; and 1,600 lumens are as bright as a 100-watt bulb.

Life

Unlike other bulbs, LEDs typically don’t burn out. Instead, the light fades over time and is considered useful until it’s decreased by 30 percent. It’s that useful life, in years, that you’ll see on the label.

Energy Star

Bulbs carrying the Energy Star label are independently certified to ensure that they meet high standards. Warranties must be longer than the industry norm—at least three years for LEDs and two for CFLs—and the Star may help you earn rebates from your utility, so check out energystar.gov/rebate-finder.

Mercury-free

That’s true for all LEDs. CFLs do contain mercury. Though the amount is small and has decreased substantially, CFLs should be recycled to keep mercury from being released into the environment when bulbs break in the trash or a landfill. If a CFL breaks at home, follow the cleanup tips from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Notice

Lighting Science, an LED manufacturer, has added a warning to its packages that says, “Exposure to certain electric lights may cause biological effects, some potentially disruptive.” That’s scary, vague, and a way to sell LEDs with less blue light. Studies have shown that exposure to any light at night is associated with an increased risk of sleep problems, and eyes are especially sensitive to blue light, which LEDs emit more of. Bulbs with a light color around 2700 kelvins are a better choice.

CRI

Ever look at yourself in light that makes your skin tone look weird? A bulb’s CRI, or color rendering index, tells you how accurately colors appear under the bulb’s light. It ranges from 0 to 100. Halogen, a type of incandescent bulb, is often around the perfect 100. Most LEDs and CFLs we’ve tested are in the 80s, with a few in the low 90s.

Omnidirectional

LEDs cast light only in a specific direction, unless advanced engineering was used to design the bulbs, enabling them to shine in all directions. Such omnidirectional A-type bulbs are ideal for lamps.

Divide and conquer. PARs and BRs, the bulbs used in recessed lighting fixtures or floodlights, have a number such as 30 or 64 in their description. Divide by 8 to learn the bulb’s diameter in inches. You’ll need that number when picking bulbs for your fixtures.

Consider the dimmer. Most LEDs are dimmable, but some flicker and make noise when lowered. Improve compatibility by using a dimmer recommended by the LED manufacturer, usually listed on its website.

Be a matchmaker. Don’t leave home without your old bulb. It’s a sure way to know that the LED fits your fixture, because some are bigger or heavier than other bulb types.

Use as intended. If an LED is used in an enclosed fixture but wasn’t designed for it, the bulb can overheat and begin to dim, change light color, or fail earlier than expected. We note in our lightbulb Ratings which LEDs manufacturers say can be used in fully enclosed fixtures. Many of our tested LEDs and CFLs can work outdoors but must be shielded from water, so check the package.

Separate types. Don’t use both CFLs and LEDs in the same fixture if a lamp takes multiple bulbs and has a dimmer. That can disrupt interaction between bulbs and dimmer, causing flickering and flashing.

This article also appeared in the October 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Considering solar power? Your many choices include buying or leasing the solar photovoltaic (PV) equipment, finding a contractor, and properly sizing a system. Consumer Reports covered much of what you need to know in our recent report about installing solar panels. But before you call in the PV installers, spend a little time with your roofer—even if your roof looks fine. A few pointers:

Not leaking isn’t enough

You might feel your roof is adequate, but your roofer is more qualified to judge before you install a system costing thousands on top of it. The National Roofing Contractors Association recommends that a PV system be installed by a full-service system integrator who’s also well-versed in roofing. But not all installers have this expertise, so your roofer should not only inspect the roof’s condition but also work with the PV installer to ensure that the flashing and weatherproofing is satisfactory. Among other benefits, your roofer should also consult with the PV installer to make sure that fire classifications for both roof and system match.

Timing a combo roof and PV installation

A roof’s working life can range anywhere from 15 to 30 years, and a PV system’s service life can be upwards of 25 years. So the National Roofing Contractors Association recommends that if you’re installing both a roof and a PV system at the same time, install the PV system on a roof with at least as long an expected service life as that of the solar components. If you think you might need to replace the roof during the working life of the solar panels, take care to specify the cost of removing and reinstalling the panels in the contract.

With problems, who gets the call?

The roofer should be your first call since your roof’s primary duty is to keep your home weather-tight. Properly installed PV panels should not cause any damage to your roof.

Need an installer?

To find a roofer, visit the National Roofing Contractors Association online. For a solar installer, both the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners and the Solar Energy Industries Association both maintain state-by-state lists of contractors and solar installers, but only the former offers classes and certifies installers by specific proven skills. For any contractor, also check your municipality’s consumer affairs office for any complaints about a given installer.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Nest, which put the sexy in thermostats, is at it again with a newer, slimmer, easier-to-read version of its Learning Thermostat. The third generation Nest is proof that a thermostat can never be too thin or too pixel-rich. Among the enhancements are a larger, higher-resolution screen and software upgrades that will also be available to its two older siblings.

When Consumer Reports tested the first Nest thermostat, we liked its graphic display, ease of setup, and intuitive controls. The next Nest was a little slimmer and a little smarter. Still, other thermostats in our tests topped the $249 Nest with excellent scores across the board including the Honeywell RTH9590WF, $300, American Standard AccuLink AZone950, $450, and Trane ComfortLink II Smart Control TZone950, $550.

We’ve already added the $249 Nest to our shopping list and will include it in our next batch of thermostat tests, which get underway in the coming weeks. So what are the new features?

What's New About the Nest?

The display on the new Nest is 40 percent larger than its predecessor and has 25 percent more pixels, which makes it really pop. Nest has made that display even easier to see by adding a feature, Farsight, that detects motion from across the room and lights it up. In earlier versions, you had to be within three feet of the thermostat. Another new feature is called Furnace Heads-Up and works with your furnace to detect problems. The thermostat also integrates with Nest’s other two products, the Nest Protect CO and smoke detector, and the Nest Cam, according to the Nest press release.

While Nest touts the thermostat’s sleek design, what it’s really selling is savings. Nest, which is owned by Google, claims that the Nest saves consumers 10 to 12 percent on their heating bills and 15 percent on their cooling costs. Nest is also working with power companies and home security firms to offer customers rebates and access to energy-saving programs with the Nest often thrown in at no cost.

We look forward to testing the Nest and its competitors. The thermostat is available today at Nest.com, Amazon.com, and BestBuy.com and will be coming to brick-and-mortar stores soon. If you don’t care about the new bells and whistles, you can buy earlier generations of the Nest for $199 while supplies last.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Outside temperatures are rising but in the office some cubicle dwellers are dressed for winter. To cope with today’s overly chilled work spaces, employees break out sweaters, blankets, and other woolen wear. But sometimes even the trusty office sweater isn’t enough and that’s when space heaters start appearing under desks. Consumer Reports recently tested four personal space heaters that don’t draw a lot of power so perhaps your office manager won’t object to you using one. But first, why is it so cold in offices anyway?

Office temperatures are calibrated according to a decades-old formula developed when men regularly wore suits to the office and before women made up almost half of the work force. That’s what two (male) scientists reported in a recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Picture a 40-year-old man who weighs 155 pounds dressed in a suit. Women typically have a lower metabolic rate than men and need higher temperatures to feel comfortable.

The researchers found that women prefer temperatures about five degrees warmer than men do. A woman might be more comfortable in a 75 degree room while a man is happy at 70 degrees, a common office temperature. That’s where the personal space heater comes in. While most of the heaters in Consumer Reports' space heater tests have an output of 1,500 watts, the output of the personal space heaters ranges from 200 to 900 watts. They cost between $20 to $45.

Four Personal Heaters

Tops in this batch is the Vornado SRTH, $45, with an output of 900 watts. It was good at spot heating, stays cool to the touch and is relatively quiet. The 3-pound heater has a safety switch that turns it off if it tips over. The Bionaire BCH4562E, $40, wasn’t quite as good at heating but it was super quiet and has a motion sensor that shuts the heater off if no motion is detected within two hours. That’s handy if you get stuck in a long meeting and forgot to switch your heater off. We also tested the Honeywell HCE100B, $25, and the Lasko MyHeat 100, $20. They didn’t perform as well but with outputs of 250 and 200 watts, respectively, will not put much strain on a building’s grid.

If you work in a frigid office that discourages space heaters, try this convincing argument: Employees are more productive when the temperature is just right—not too hot and not too cold. With a little extra warmth this summer, you can spend more time working and less making hot tea.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Robotic mowers offer the same promise of effortless work as robotic vacuums. But while the greatest challenge for a robotic vacuum is such obstacles as electrical cords, chair legs, and the nearest stairway, robotic mowers have a world of wonders to derail them in the great outdoors. That makes them more demanding of your attention than you might expect, considering that these mowers start at about $1,000. And it may make you wonder whether hiring a lawn service is a better option.

Better With Robotics?

In Consumer Reports' lawn mower tests, the best robotic mowers we've seen so far came from the Worx Landroid WG794, which was the easiest to use and had the best quality of cut of the four models we're testing. To define the mower’s range, all robotic mowers require a perimeter wire to be laid and staked. For optimal performance, the lawn being maintained should also be relatively flat, with few depressions.

But: The machines are pricey compared to any other mowers. And you don’t get out of maintenance altogether: Cutting blades need to be changed or sharpened during the year to keep up cut quality, though even at their best, robotic mowers fall short of cutting provided by a typical walk-behind mower. Get behind in your mowing and you’ll need to use a regular mower to bring the grass down to a height the robotic can handle. And most models were hard to set up; their perimeter wires tended to catch on passing feet and break.

Lawn Service Options

Whether they’re one-man shops or larger companies, these services typically do much more than cut grass. They’ll aerate your lawn, treat it for weeds, pests, and disease, and sometimes clear it of leaves come the fall. A few smaller outfits also plow snow in the off-season. Another plus: They’re not limited by the size of your property, as are robotics. And you can stay in your lawn chair.

But: Although lawn service prices vary by region and the size of the company, it’s a safe bet that in two seasons, you’ll have paid more than the cost of a robotic even if all you’re paying for is mowing. Lawn services work on a tight schedule, so getting your property done matters more than delivering stellar cutting. As a result, some services will show up to cut even when the lawn is wet (an ill-advised practice), and they can bring in diseases from other lawns.

Other Alternatives

You might be surprised to know that the robotic mowers we’ve tested (we'll post the Ratings soon) can handle up to a half-acre of grass. If your lawn is that large, any of our recommended lawn tractors would do; think about a zero-turn-radius rider if your lawn is flat and you want to finish quickly. But if your lawn is on the small side, any walk-behind mower can handle the job for far less money. The Honda HRR2169VLA, $500, is one of our top-ranked self-propelled gas mowers; the Yard Machines 11A-B96N, $240, is a gas push model that should suffice for a small, flat lawn. But if the point is also being green, consider the EGO LM2000, $400, which wasn’t tops at cutting but was ergonomically excellent. The Black & Decker CM1936, also $400, performed less well overall but delivered better mulching. Both are battery-powered push mowers. Need more guidance? See our lawn mower buying guide.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

Perhaps the most dreaded part of mattress shopping is being swooped down upon within seconds of entering the store, followed by a sales staffer’s efforts to nudge you toward the most expensive models in the store. But what if you entered a mattress store, looked around at the array of mattresses, and were approached by … nobody?

That’s the business model of Hassless—spelled HASSLEss—whose four stores in the Milwaukee area are completely devoid of personnel. The retailer claims it can sell mattresses for less than its competitors without paying for salespeople, and its return/exchange policies are spelled out on the website. Models on the floor, all from Sealy and Simmons, are labeled with specifications, and you can try out the beds without listening to a sales pitch. Have a question? You can call, text, or e-mail the company, which promises to get back to you quickly between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. CST.

Consumer Reports can appreciate the retailer’s refreshing style, for many of our readers complain of feeling duped after buying a mattress. But we advise you to check our mattress Ratings first to learn how well the mattresses we’ve tested support your back and side, how well they endure our simulated eight years of use, and how they fare in other tests, such as our assessment of how well an innerspring mutes vibration, important for couples.

Video Buying Guide

Our mattress buying guide, including the updated video, talks more about our testing and the challenges of buying a product you’ll enjoy for years—at a price you can afford. Which brings us to the first of two concerns about the Hassless business model. Our standard advice is to haggle down the price of any mattress you buy, so long as it’s a business that expects to negotiate prices. (At warehouse clubs such as Costco, online sellers, and some others, the prices are fixed.) If there are no salespeople, you’ll have to call, text, or e-mail your proposal for what you’d like to pay, a prospect that can take the wind out of a good, honest haggle.

Second, some shoppers might prefer to have someone there who can answer questions. Anyone who isn’t equipped with a cellphone or is hearing-impaired might feel dismayed that there’s nobody physically present. We recommend that those shoppers bring a friend—or consider shopping elsewhere.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

A rusty firebox, uneven flames, and a cracked hose are signs that you’ll be needing a new gas grill sometime soon. Your timing couldn’t be better, as retailers mark down prices on grills Labor Day weekend. But not every sale is a bargain. Here’s a look at some of the best gas grills Consumer Reports tested, and some of the worst.

5 Best Midsized Grills

These grills can fit 18 to 28 burgers and made our recommended list, including CR Best Buys, which combine impressive performance and good value. The grills appear in descending order based on overall score.
Weber Spirit SP-320 46700401, $600
Char-Broil TRU-Infrared 463435115 (Walmart), $260, CR Best Buy
Char-Broil Advantage 463240015 (Lowe’s), $300, CR Best Buy
Kenmore Elite 33577, $950
Brinkmann 810-6420-S (Home Depot), $170, CR Best Buy

5 Worst Midsized Grills

Unimpressive high and low-heat evenness helped put these gas grills near or at the bottom of our midsized gas grill Ratings, earning overall scores ranging from 21 to 39 (out of 100)  Here they are in descending order based on overall score.
Delta Heat DHBQ32G-C, $2,100
Summerset Sizzler Series CART-SIZ32, $2,000
Member’s Mark 720-0778C (Sam’s Club), $400
NXR Stainless 7 Burner 780-0832C (Costco), $1,100
Fervor Icon 350S, $1,300 

5 Best Small Grills

Room for 18 burgers or less, these small grills were very good overall. All made the recommended list, except for the $200 Brinkmann—but it came close.
Weber Spirit E-220 46310001, $450
Broilmate 165154, $200, CR Best Buy
Napoleon Terrace SE325PK, $600
Brinkmann Patio 810-6230-S (Home Depot), $130
Brinkmann 810-3800-SB (Home Depot), $200

5 Worst Small Grills

With scores ranging from 25 to 43 (out of 100), these small grills were unimpressive at high heat evenness, and most had trouble on low-heat too. They appear in descending order based on overall score.
Cook Number Grill JAG24C, $900
Solaire AGBQ-27GIR, $1,800
Cadac Stratos 98700-23-01 (Home Depot), $350
Better Homes and Gardens BH14-101-099-04 (Walmart), $360
Captain Cook CC-3B, $500

Want a Large Grill?

We test those too. See our gas grill Ratings and the buying guide for shopping tips. Check the Facebook pages of retailers and manufacturers for the latest on sales and special coupons. And be sure to look online for mail-in rebates. Napoleon grills are expensive, so it’s good to know that they’re offering a $150 rebate for the Napoleon Prestige Pro 665RSIB. It’s our top-rated large grill and $2,600.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.

The start of the school year doesn’t mean the end of sunscreen season for kids. “Counting both recess and sports, children still spend plenty of time outdoors in the fall, and you need to make sure their skin is protected,” says Marvin M. Lipman, M.D., Consumer Reports’ chief medical adviser. While the sun’s burning ultraviolet (UV) B rays become less intense in the fall, getting a sunburn remains a risk and the UVA rays that penetrate skin more deeply and damage collagen and elastic tissue are present year-round. That's why it's important to think about sun safety for kids throughout the year.

You don’t need a special kids’ sunscreen; such products aren’t safer or more effective than regular sunscreens. Still, it’s good to know how well products that are labeled as being for kids work—especially if the sunscreen bottle itself is meant to appeal to children. Pure Sun Defense fits that bill—the bottles feature characters from "Frozen," "Despicable Me," "Marvel Avengers," and other popular cartoons—and hit the market just this past spring.

In our tests, Pure Sun Defense SPF 50 lotion provided excellent UVA and UVB protection. With a score of 98, it matches the performance of Coppertone Water Babies SPF 50 lotion, a kids’ sunscreen that’s done consistently well in our tests over the years. Pure Sun Defense had a barely-noticeable aroma and left a little tackiness on the skin. At $6.00 for an 8-ounce bottle (that’s 75 cents an ounce) it’s one of the least expensive sunscreens in our tests.

The active ingredients in both Pure Sun Defense and Coppertone Water Babies sunscreens are the chemicals avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone. Some parents are concerned about using chemical-based sunscreens on children, and prefer to use a mineral sunscreen. Also known as natural sunscreen, a mineral sunscreen contains only titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, or both. However, our tests have found that mineral sunscreens, while providing some protection, don't shield skin from the sun’s rays as well as those that contain chemicals.

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.