Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us



--
Peter Aitken

On Feb 2, 11:28 am, Peter A > wrote:
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

I guess they finally threw out the dishwater they used to use.

maxine in ri

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
> --
> Peter Aitken


This, from the same testing organization that said Japanese home stereo
speakers sounded terrific in the mid-1980s, when they were made out of
cardboard.

"maxine in ri" > wrote

> On Feb 2, 11:28 am, Peter A > wrote:
>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

> I guess they finally threw out the dishwater they used to use.

What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's what
I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt, something
like
that. Never did get the attraction, but then I'm no coffee connoisseur,
either.

nancy

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
> Peter Aitken

I've found McDonald's coffee is excellnt at breakfast time but not at
lunchtime, since it has probably been sitting a while due to lack of demand.
(Coke is then king). At least, that's what I've found at our local McD's.

Dora

"> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken


I must agree. Near my work, there is a McDonalds 100 feet from a Starbucks.
I drive by every morning and go straight to the McDonalds and order my usual
Medium coffee. With tax $1.29. I drink it black and find it excellent.

Funny thing is I do this every day at the same time, and I know they know
me, but every day they ask if I want cream or sugar. Then when I get to the
pick up window, they ask me again. Must be some sort of rule.

Larry T

On 2007-02-02, Peter A > wrote:

> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.

Who's doesn't? A properly made cup of Folger's instant is better than
*$.

nb

On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:

> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's what
> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt, something
> like that.

"Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
>> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's
>> what
>> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt,
>> something like that.
>
> "Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>
> nb

I've never been able to figure out the popularity. Now, I have to admit
I've never tasted Starbuck's coffee. But I have heard so many negative
comments about the stuff (not to mention the price!) it's hard to believe
there is practically one on every corner.

Jill

Say what you want Guys I tried it and liked it even before this report
came out !



Live The Moment

jmcquown wrote:
>
> notbob wrote:
> > On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
> >
> >> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's
> >> what
> >> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt,
> >> something like that.
> >
> > "Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
> >
> > nb
>
> I've never been able to figure out the popularity. Now, I have to admit
> I've never tasted Starbuck's coffee. But I have heard so many negative
> comments about the stuff (not to mention the price!) it's hard to believe
> there is practically one on every corner.
>
> Jill

I think the popularity relates not to their mediocre coffee, but to
their slew of sugar laden foofie drinks...

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us


Hmm, here in Seattle all of the McDonalds' serve Seattle's Best Coffee, so
that's no big surprise here...

Hasta,
Curt Nelson

On 2007-02-02, Pete C. > wrote:

> I think the popularity relates not to their mediocre coffee, but to
> their slew of sugar laden foofie drinks...

Well, that's precisely it. Starbuck's forte is milk and sugar. The
coffee is just a flavor component. In fact, the coffee by itself is
so bad it requires milk and sugar just to make it drinkable. It has
one other virtue. Since Starbucks uses predominantly cheaper robusta
beans, its coffee has a high caffeine content. Even I used to drink
it, with lots of milk and sugar, to stay awake in late afternoon when
I started to nod at my workstation. A 16oz cup of that stuff *will*
wake you up!

nb

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

Starbucks must taste like poop then because I can not stand Mc Donalds
coffee! just tastes burnt.

Tori

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Peter A" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants
>> and found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
>
>
> This, from the same testing organization that said Japanese home
> stereo speakers sounded terrific in the mid-1980s, when they were
> made out of cardboard.

I recall when they said that Haagen Daz vanilla ice cream was "too rich."
They preferred Friendly's, IIRC.

Right.

You always have to be careful and read the criteria they use for judging.
They probably don't like dark roasts. BTW, isn't MacDonald's selling Paul
Newman organic coffee nowadays?

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:44:43 -0600, "Tori M" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
>>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>>> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>>
>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>>
>>Starbucks must taste like poop then because I can not stand Mc Donalds
>>coffee! just tastes burnt.
>>
>>Tori
>>
> As much as I like my occasional Starbuck's non-fat latte, I
> have stopped at McD's a couple of times in the last few
> years -- in the morning on the way to work -- and the coffee
> was very good and fresh!
>

Last time I had it it was probably 3 years ago.. maybe 2.5.. so if it has
improved since then.. good. I was pregnant with my monkey at the time and
the caffine helped him jump arround for the cameras :P

Tori

"Janet Puistonen" > wrote in message
news:8lRwh.85$FM3.84@trndny06...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Peter A" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants
>>> and found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>>
>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>>> --
>>> Peter Aitken
>>
>>
>> This, from the same testing organization that said Japanese home
>> stereo speakers sounded terrific in the mid-1980s, when they were
>> made out of cardboard.
>
> I recall when they said that Haagen Daz vanilla ice cream was "too rich."
> They preferred Friendly's, IIRC.
>
> Right.
>
> You always have to be careful and read the criteria they use for judging.
> They probably don't like dark roasts. BTW, isn't MacDonald's selling Paul
> Newman organic coffee nowadays?


I don't trust any test that doesn't involve measurements with instruments,
and even those tests can be designed incorrectly, as we saw with the baby
seat debacle.

notbob wrote:
> On 2007-02-02, Pete C. > wrote:
>
>> I think the popularity relates not to their mediocre coffee, but to
>> their slew of sugar laden foofie drinks...
>
> Well, that's precisely it. Starbuck's forte is milk and sugar. The
> coffee is just a flavor component. In fact, the coffee by itself is
> so bad it requires milk and sugar just to make it drinkable. It has
> one other virtue. Since Starbucks uses predominantly cheaper robusta
> beans, its coffee has a high caffeine content. Even I used to drink
> it, with lots of milk and sugar, to stay awake in late afternoon when
> I started to nod at my workstation. A 16oz cup of that stuff *will*
> wake you up!
>
> nb


Is Starbuck's really Robusta coffee? That's would explain why they dark
roast it, but everyone complains that it tastes burnt. I dunno, I've never
had Starbuck's.

I like dark roast coffee. But when I'm driving cross-country I can live on
nothing but McDonald's coffee and ice cream cones. McD's coffee is
consistently not bad. You never know with truck stop coffee.

Bob

zxcvbob said...

> I like dark roast coffee. But when I'm driving cross-country I can live
> on nothing but McDonald's coffee and ice cream cones. McD's coffee is
> consistently not bad. You never know with truck stop coffee.
>
> Bob


McD can consistently afford to buy the best coffee and sell it at next to
nothing to get you in the door for breakfast. If their coffee sucked, who
would stop in for breakfast. That AND starbucks doesn't offer the
bottomless cup o' joe for $0.69.

The last good cup of coffee I had was at McD's about a year ago.

Andy

"Andy" <q> wrote in message
>
> The last good cup of coffee I had was at McD's about a year ago.
>
> Andy

It may be a regional thing, but here in CT we have Newman's Own coffee at
McD's and IMO, is excellent. And I'm not a coffee drinker usually.

zxcvbob wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> one other virtue. Since Starbucks uses predominantly cheaper robusta
>> beans, its coffee has a high caffeine content. Even I used to drink
>> it, with lots of milk and sugar, to stay awake in late afternoon when
>> I started to nod at my workstation. A 16oz cup of that stuff *will*
>> wake you up!
>>
>> nb
>
> Is Starbuck's really Robusta coffee? That's would explain why they
> dark roast it, but everyone complains that it tastes burnt. I dunno,
> I've never had Starbuck's.
>
I like dark roast too, in fact I have an excellent dark roast from
Stockholm. It never tastes burnt

> I like dark roast coffee. But when I'm driving cross-country I can
> live on nothing but McDonald's coffee and ice cream cones. McD's
> coffee is consistently not bad. You never know with truck stop
> coffee.
>
I have to agree McD's is consistent. But as Dora pointed out, you don't
want to order it at lunch time!

Jill

In article <8lRwh.85$FM3.84@trndny06>,
"Janet Puistonen" > wrote:

> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> > "Peter A" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants
> >> and found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
> >>
> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
> >> --
> >> Peter Aitken
> >
> >
> > This, from the same testing organization that said Japanese home
> > stereo speakers sounded terrific in the mid-1980s, when they were
> > made out of cardboard.
>
> I recall when they said that Haagen Daz vanilla ice cream was "too rich."
> They preferred Friendly's, IIRC.
>
> Right.
>
> You always have to be careful and read the criteria they use for judging.
> They probably don't like dark roasts. BTW, isn't MacDonald's selling Paul
> Newman organic coffee nowadays?

That's what I like about Consumer Reports. They tell you their
criteria. If you like them, you look at their results. If you don't,
then their results are irrelevant. Some people think that is a flaw. I
don't.

"Dan Abel" > wrote

> That's what I like about Consumer Reports. They tell you their
> criteria. If you like them, you look at their results. If you don't,
> then their results are irrelevant. Some people think that is a flaw. I
> don't.

Agreed. I look at what features they cover and then I know what
to look for or what I am not interested in paying for; things like
that. I appreciate that information, especially when I'm looking to
buy something I know nothing about.

nancy

On Feb 2, 2:59 pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
> > What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's what
> > I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt, something
> > like that.
>
> "Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>
> nb

I love strong coffee but it did taste a bit charred. I don't think
I've ever had McDonald's.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> That's what I like about Consumer Reports. They tell you their
> criteria. If you like them, you look at their results. If you don't,
> then their results are irrelevant. Some people think that is a flaw. I
> don't.

You mean like testing car seats at 70 mph and reporting they don't work at
35 mph? The makers should sue them for every penny of sales lost from CR's
stupidity.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:59:34 -0600, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
>> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's what
>> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt, something
>> like that.
>
>"Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>
Only by people who don't know dark roast from dirty dishwater.

--
See return address to reply by email

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:09:52 -0600, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>> On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
>>
>>> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's
>>> what
>>> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt,
>>> something like that.
>>
>> "Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>>
>> nb
>
>I've never been able to figure out the popularity. Now, I have to admit
>I've never tasted Starbuck's coffee. But I have heard so many negative
>comments about the stuff (not to mention the price!) it's hard to believe
>there is practically one on every corner.
>
the commentary is made by mental midgets, that all.

--
See return address to reply by email

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:02:56 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>Is Starbuck's really Robusta coffee? That's would explain why they dark
>roast it, but everyone complains that it tastes burnt. I dunno, I've never
>had Starbuck's.
>
>I like dark roast coffee. But when I'm driving cross-country I can live on
>nothing but McDonald's coffee and ice cream cones. McD's coffee is
>consistently not bad. You never know with truck stop coffee.


My local McDonald's makes very good coffee. I prefer Pete's, which
Starbuck's is based on and their beans are much more serious coffee
drinker oriented.

--
See return address to reply by email

> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:02:56 -0600, zxcvbob >
> wrote:
>
>>Is Starbuck's really Robusta coffee? That's would explain why they dark
>>roast it, but everyone complains that it tastes burnt. I dunno, I've
>>never
>>had Starbuck's.


Modern Marvels had a show on coffee The president/founder of Starbucks
pointed out the problem with most cheap coffee is that they use Robusta .

From:
http://www.starbucks.com/ourcoffees/...es+and+b eans
Arabica vs. Robusta Coffee Beans - There are two commercially important
coffee species: coffea arabica and coffea canephora (robusta). Arabica
coffee (about 75 percent of world production) grows best at high altitudes,
has a much more refined flavor than other species, and contains about 1
percent caffeine by weight. As the name indicates, robusta coffee is a
robust species, resistant to disease, with a high yield per plant. It
flourishes at lower elevations and produces coffee with harsher flavor
characteristics. Starbucks buys only the highest quality arabica coffees
available, beans whose flavor develops fully through the Starbucks Roast®.

sf wrote:
>
>
> >"Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
> >
> Only by people who don't know dark roast from dirty dishwater.

I have never had a problem with Starbucks coffee. I object to their
smallest size being so large, for using pretentious names for like "tall"
instead of (not so ) small, and being so expensive. I object to their
limited seating being taken up by loiters who buy one over priced coffee
and sit there for three hours reading or doing homework. But I don't think
their coffee is bad.

I can go into Tim Hortons and get a medium size good cup of good coffee and
a decent muffin for $2.29 and have a place to sit down to enjoy it, or pay
over $4 for a Starbucks coffee and a mediocre muffin, if they have any, and
then find that after waiting an eternity to be served that there is no
place to sit.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:13:24 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>
>>
>> >"Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>> >
>> Only by people who don't know dark roast from dirty dishwater.
>
>I have never had a problem with Starbucks coffee. I object to their
>smallest size being so large, for using pretentious names for like "tall"
>instead of (not so ) small, and being so expensive. I object to their
>limited seating being taken up by loiters who buy one over priced coffee
>and sit there for three hours reading or doing homework. But I don't think
>their coffee is bad.
>
I agree, their terminology is silly.... but maybe that's how they got
noncoffee drinkers to notice them.




--
See return address to reply by email

In article >,
says...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
>
McDonalds may strive for uniformity in their products, but the
definitely don't achieve it. In our area there are McDonalds that are
just plain scuzzy, and the stuff they serve is usually pretty bad in my
experience, coffee included. In contrast, other outlets are clean,
bright, efficient and serve decent food, within the limitations of their
menu.

My wife and I were out early one morning last week and stopped at a McD
about 35 miles from home for breakfast. Everything was freshly-
prepared, and the coffee was quite good. Like night and day compared to
the one five minutes from the house, which is truly nasty.

Much depends on the store manager and his area boss, I'm guessing.

Bob

Peter A wrote:
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants
> and found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

When I was but a teen (LOL) I worked at an ice cream parlor which also had
permission to use some of the original fat for 'Dyer's Hamburgers'. And the
coffee they served was Kava instant coffee granules. Tasted pretty good;
sure kept me awake!

Jill

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:42:34 -0500, yetanotherBob
> wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>>
>>
>McDonalds may strive for uniformity in their products, but the
>definitely don't achieve it. In our area there are McDonalds that are
>just plain scuzzy, and the stuff they serve is usually pretty bad in my
>experience, coffee included. In contrast, other outlets are clean,
>bright, efficient and serve decent food, within the limitations of their
>menu.
>
>My wife and I were out early one morning last week and stopped at a McD
>about 35 miles from home for breakfast. Everything was freshly-
>prepared, and the coffee was quite good. Like night and day compared to
>the one five minutes from the house, which is truly nasty.
>
>Much depends on the store manager and his area boss, I'm guessing.

That's interesting. I've always thought of McDonald's restaurants as
being pretty much the same (with some regional differences). But it
makes sense that one that is poorly managed and maybe has poor staff
as well might serve sub-par food.

Laurie

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:28:32 -0500, Peter A >
wrote:

>Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

I go to coffee shops occasionally, but more to have someplace
relatively quiet to visit with someone than for the coffee.
Coffeehouse coffee may taste different than McDonald's or Country
Kitchen, but I really wouldn't notice. I do order a light roast at
coffee shops, but I do that anytime I have a choice.

We don't have a Starbucks around here (but I've been to a few of them
elsewhere), but we have Caribou Coffee. Otherwise, all the places are
local. To me they're all the same. I'm such a boring coffee person.

Laurie

<Alan > wrote in message
> Well, they had an outside lab do those tests, and apparently
> someone dropped the ball in the communications between CR
> and the lab.
>
> Sad thing, but it can happen.
>
> I give CR LOTS of latitude, because they are the ONLY
> organization who is trying to bring some product truth to
> the market place.
>
> As others have said, if CR's criteria aren't mine, the tests
> are still illuminating to me and help me with buying
> decisions.

Considering the publicity and repercussions of publishing such important
results, it is just plain incompetence that they would let something like
that get through. This is not something like rating a car a 1 mpg less than
was actually recorded, this is potentially devastating to the companies that
make the car seats. CR should be keel hauled and made to pay for their
incompetence. Subcontracting makes me even more questioning of the
integrity of the organization.

CR is quick to take companies to task and does not give them any latitude,
so why should they get it in return? If you are holding others to a high
standard, you should do the same for yourself.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:49:05 -0600, Alan wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:30:50 -0600, Laurie S.
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:28:32 -0500, Peter A >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>>>found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>>
>>>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>>
>> I go to coffee shops occasionally, but more to have someplace
>>relatively quiet to visit with someone than for the coffee.
>>Coffeehouse coffee may taste different than McDonald's or Country
>>Kitchen, but I really wouldn't notice. I do order a light roast at
>>coffee shops, but I do that anytime I have a choice.
>>
>>We don't have a Starbucks around here (but I've been to a few of them
>>elsewhere), but we have Caribou Coffee. Otherwise, all the places are
>>local. To me they're all the same. I'm such a boring coffee person.
>>
>>Laurie
>
>We have both Caribou and Starbucks around here, and I have
>to say that they are both good, as long as you know what
>kind of coffee you like.
>
>Caribou is excellent in the sense of traditional roasts.
>
>Starbucks is excellent in terms of darker roasts.

There are too many things at coffee shops. Oodles of flavors of
cappuccinos, frappuccinos, lattes, mocha somethings, Italian ices,
etc. So I just order a large coffee with cream and ask if they have a
light roast.

>(Not gonna mention price. . .)

Is Starbucks more expensive than Caribou? I can't even remember what I
pay for a coffee in a coffee shop (I drink most of my coffee at work,
where it costs me about a $5 deduction out of my paycheck every
month), but I'm guessing it's around $2 for a 12-ounce and a little
more for a 16-ounce.

Then there's the gas station, where it's like a buck for a liter.

Laurie

Edwin Pawlowski said...

>
> <Alan > wrote in message
>> Well, they had an outside lab do those tests, and apparently
>> someone dropped the ball in the communications between CR
>> and the lab.
>>
>> Sad thing, but it can happen.
>>
>> I give CR LOTS of latitude, because they are the ONLY
>> organization who is trying to bring some product truth to
>> the market place.
>>
>> As others have said, if CR's criteria aren't mine, the tests
>> are still illuminating to me and help me with buying
>> decisions.
>
> Considering the publicity and repercussions of publishing such important
> results, it is just plain incompetence that they would let something
> like that get through. This is not something like rating a car a 1 mpg
> less than was actually recorded, this is potentially devastating to the
> companies that make the car seats. CR should be keel hauled and made to
> pay for their incompetence. Subcontracting makes me even more
> questioning of the integrity of the organization.
>
> CR is quick to take companies to task and does not give them any
> latitude, so why should they get it in return? If you are holding
> others to a high standard, you should do the same for yourself.



Does anyone put any faith into Good Housekeeping approved products?

http://www.goodhousekeepingseal.com/r5/home.asp


I always look for the seal.

Andy

Andy wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Does anyone put any faith into Good Housekeeping approved products?
>
> http://www.goodhousekeepingseal.com/r5/home.asp
>
>
> I always look for the seal.
>
> Andy

I hate to disillusion you, but years ago, when we had a manufacturing
business and my father was interested in having The Good Housekeeping
Seal Of Approval, all we had to do was pay a fee for that privilege,
either annually or perhaps monthly.


I will say that we had fine products, but I do not remember that any
safety tests were ever taken by GH or that we were asked to submit the
results of any we had taken.

Margaret Suran said...

>
>
> Andy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone put any faith into Good Housekeeping approved products?
>>
>> http://www.goodhousekeepingseal.com/r5/home.asp
>>
>>
>> I always look for the seal.
>>
>> Andy
>
> I hate to disillusion you, but years ago, when we had a manufacturing
> business and my father was interested in having The Good Housekeeping
> Seal Of Approval, all we had to do was pay a fee for that privilege,
> either annually or perhaps monthly.
>
>
> I will say that we had fine products, but I do not remember that any
> safety tests were ever taken by GH or that we were asked to submit the
> results of any we had taken.


Margaret,

That's OK. I'm glad I asked.

Thanks,

Andy