Money 'wasted on useless products'
Consumers could save up to £400 by ignoring far-fetched claims about products that do not work, a watchdog has said.Which? magazine has released a list of 10 "money-wasting products you don't need" after tests found they failed to live up to the claims on the packaging.
Among the blacklisted cleaning products, gadgets and potions are tumble dryer balls, cleaners designed specifically for the kitchen or bathroom, and fuel additives.
Several products were so far from matching their claims, they did the opposite of what they were supposed to in tests and could cost extra time and money, the watchdog said. A gas energy saver took more energy to boil a pan of water than without it, and the tumble dryer balls had no effect in tests and did not save time on drying.
A peanut butter maker took 20 minutes to produce 40g of butter - longer than it would take most people to walk to the corner shop for a 300g jar - and was almost impossible to clean.
Which? recommended consumers avoid cleaners that claim to be designed for specific areas in the home in favour of a multi-surface cleaner, tumble dryer balls, wash balls designed to clean without detergent and colour-catcher fabric sheets.
Gadgets to be avoided, other than peanut butter makers and gas energy savers, are smoothie makers with taps, that proved difficult to clean and slow pouring, and small photo printers, which were expensive and no better than a general printer.
A test of 12 anti-wrinkle eye creams found a £2.98 pot of Simple moisturiser had the same "limited" effect as the most expensive cream, but Which? recommended consumers avoid them altogether.
A test of petrol and diesel additives found none made a noticeable improvement to car performance.
Which? magazine editor Martyn Hocking said: "Which? believes that some products are simply not worth spending your hard-earned money on. Several products were so far from matching their claims, they did the opposite in our tests and could cost you extra time and money. Other products have astounded us with how useless they seem to be."
Which? recommended consumers avoid cleaners that claim to be designed for specific areas in the home in favour of a multi-surface cleaner, tumble dryer balls, wash balls designed to clean without detergent and colour-catcher fabric sheets.
Gadgets to be avoided, other than peanut butter makers and gas energy savers, are smoothie makers with taps, that proved difficult to clean and slow pouring, and small photo printers, which were expensive and no better than a general printer.
A test of 12 anti-wrinkle eye creams found a £2.98 pot of Simple moisturiser had the same "limited" effect as the most expensive cream, but Which? recommended consumers avoid them altogether.
A test of petrol and diesel additives found none made a noticeable improvement to car performance.
Which? magazine editor Martyn Hocking said: "Which? believes that some products are simply not worth spending your hard-earned money on. Several products were so far from matching their claims, they did the opposite in our tests and could cost you extra time and money. Other products have astounded us with how useless they seem to be."
© 2010 Press Association