Consumer News: Thanks to AI, you can’t always believe your eyes

The company cited declining sales and rising debt

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Saks Global has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, citing persistent losses, high interest costs, and a sharp slowdown in luxury spending.

• The company plans to keep stores and its e-commerce operations open while it restructures debt and renegotiates leases.

• Vendors and landlords are expected to feel the impact, as Saks Global seeks court approval to revise payment terms.

Saks Global has declared bankruptcy, becoming the latest luxury retail operator to seek court protection amid weakening consumer demand and mounting financial pressure in the retail sector.

In a filing submitted to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the company said it would pursue a Chapter 11 reorganization designed to stabilize operations while preserving its core business. Saks Global reported that elevated borrowing costs, lingering inventory imbalances, and cautious spending by higher-income shoppers had eroded cash flow over the past year.

Chapter 11 provides us with the flexibility to realign our cost structure and strengthen our balance sheet, the company said in a statement. Our goal is to emerge as a more focused, financially resilient retailer that can better serve customers and partners.

Saks Global said it has secured debtor-in-possession financing to support day-to-day operations during the restructuring. Stores will remain open, online orders will continue to be fulfilled, and customer loyalty programs will be honored, according to the filing.

Hard times

The bankruptcy underscores the challenges facing luxury retailers as inflation-weary consumers pull back on discretionary purchases and competition intensifies from both online platforms and discount outlets. Analysts note that even high-end brands have struggled with excess inventory and rising operating costs, particularly for real estate and logistics.

Saks Global took on extensive debt in 2024 when it purchased another luxury retailer, Neiman Marcus.

Suppliers and landlords are closely watching the case, as Saks Global is expected to seek revised payment schedules and lease terms. Industry experts say the outcome could influence negotiations across the retail sector, especially in major urban shopping districts.

The company did not disclose a timeline for exiting bankruptcy but said it intends to use the process to streamline operations, reduce debt, and refocus on its most profitable categories.

Why your groceries cost more without looking smaller

• Shrinkflation went quiet. Brands now hide it with redesigns, formula tweaks, and multi-pack tricks instead of obvious size cuts.

• You get fewer real uses. Smaller portions or weaker formulas mean youre paying more per load, serving, or use.

• Unit price tells the truth. If price per ounce jumps while the package looks the same, value already shrank.

A few years ago, shrinkflation was easy to catch. Manycereal boxes suddenly lost a few ounces andbags of chips started to feel suspiciously lighter. Consumers noticed, many complained, and even shared side-by-side photos online to give everyone a heads up.

Well guess what? Brands noticed that too.

Today, shrinkflation hasnt gone away. Its simply evolved. So now instead of seeing obvious size cuts, companies are now using packaging redesigns, quiet formula changes, and multi-pack math tricks. All designed to make you not notice the smaller size.

For consumers, the result is the same: you pay more for less. You just dont realize it as quickly, or at all.

Smaller packages disguised by redesigns

One of the most common tactics is shrinking the product at the same time as a visual refresh or package redesign.

In other words, when the packaging looks new, most shoppers dont remember exactly how big it used to be.

Youll see things like:

• Taller or wider containers that hold less volume
• Softer bags replacing rigid boxes, creating more empty space
• Opaque packaging that hides how full the product really is

Snack foods are especially prone to this. Large manufacturers like PepsiCo regularly refresh branding across entire product lines. A redesign gives cover to reduce net weight without drawing attention to the change.

Ice cream is another category where this has been especially visible. Containers that once held a true half-gallon quietly dropped to smaller sizes years ago, and further reductions often happen alongside fancy new labels or lid changes.

How to spot it fast:

Skip the front of the package entirely. Train your eyes to go straight to the net weight and compare price per unit (ounces, grams, pounds, etc) with the competition. That number is the only thing that matters, and its the one brands hope you forget to check.

Formula changes instead of size cuts

When shrinking the package risks too much attention, brands often change whats inside instead.

Instead of reducing volume, companies adjust formulas to lower production costs. The product may look the same, but it doesnt perform or taste the same as before.

Common examples include:

• More water or fillers in cleaning products
• Lower concentrations that require more product per use
• Flavor changes marketed as lighter, smoother, or less intense

Laundry detergent is famous for this trick. Brands like Tide and Gain, both owned by Procter & Gamble, have rolled out multiple Ultra, Turbo, and HE-focused formulas over the years.

Along with many of these new formulas came subtle changes like redesigned measuring caps, higher recommended fill lines, and updated dosing instructions for large or really dirty loads.

The result is fewer real-world loads than the label suggests. A bottle advertised for 64 loads might realistically deliver closer to 5055 for many families, especially those with large-capacity washers. That gap doesnt look dramatic on the shelf, but it adds up over time.

How to spot it fast:

Check the usage instructions. If a new formula suddenly recommends a larger dose for the same task, you know that youre paying more per use.

Multi-packs that hide per-unit increases

Multi-packs used to be one of the safest ways to save money. Im here to tell you those days are over in many cases.

Brands have started to hide shrinkflation inside multi-pack bundles, knowing shoppers focus more on the total pack price rather than the size of each pack.

Tactics include:

• Same number of items, but smaller individual sizes
• Value packs that quietly lose bonus items
• Mini versions replacing standard sizes without a clear label change

You see this a lot with things like yogurt cups, snack packs, and beverages. Soda brands in particular, including Coca-Cola, have leaned heavily into mini cans and smaller bottles with a price per-ounce that keeps increasing.

How to spot it fast:

Ignore the pack price altogether. Always look at the unit price on the shelf label. If the unit price isnt posted, thats your cue to be cautious.

Where shrinkflation is most aggressive right now

Shrinkflation isnt evenly distributed across the grocery store and youll often have to seek it out.

But it definitely tends to show up most in categories where:

• Products are purchased frequently
• Brand loyalty is strong
• Serving sizes are flexible or subjective

Right now, the highest-risk categories to be aware of include:

• Packaged snacks and chips
• Paper goods and cleaning supplies
• Coffee and beverages
• Pet food and treats

The main thing these items have in common is that consumers tend to buy them on autopilot and dont look for price increases or smaller packaging.

Knowing this, companies are keenly aware that they can make small change and slip them into stores, often without immediate backlash from shoppers.

How to spot shrinkflation without doing aisle math

If youre like me, you dont want to pull out a calculator in the middle of the store every time something looks fishy. The good news is you dont have to.

Here are some practical shortcuts that work:

Trust the unit price over the sales sticker.

Grocery stores tend to update shelf unit prices quickly, but the new packaging often lags behind and takes some time to make it to the shelf.

For example, lets say last month the unit price for Tide read $0.18 per ounce. This month, its now $0.21 per ounceeven though the bottle and label appear unchanged. This is simply because the new packaging hasnt made it into the store yet. But by simply paying attention, you know its on its way.

Take photos of your regular buys.

Take the guess work out of it completely and snap a quick photo of the net weight on products you buy all the time. Add the photos to a shopping folder in your camera roll. This will give you a great reference point the next time you shop and a price looks different.

Be suspicious of new look packaging.

Any time you see a new label, or redesign, your internal radar should start beeping.

Thats when you double-check the size and usage instructions to make sure youre not being messed with. If you are, it could be time to try a different brand, maybe even the private label.

Compare store brands.

Speaking of private-label products, they often lag behind national brands when it comes to shrinkflation. So, if the store brand suddenly looks much bigger for the same price, thats a clue the national brand probably shrunk right in front of your eyes.

When shrinkflation actually makes sense

To play devils advocate for a minute, not all downsizing is automatically bad.

Sometimes smaller packages can translate to less food waste for smaller households, and often when products get reformulatedits to improve shelf life or fix a safety issue.

The real issue here isnt about changing sizes though; its about transparency.

Problems arise when shrinkflation happens quietly and prices stay the same or go up. It leaves consumers in the dark, without a clear way to compare value. When shoppers cant tell upfront that theyre paying more, its natural that their trust for the brand starts to erode. But hopefully this guide will help you spot it easier so you can adjust your buying patterns.

New Skyscanner data reveals where your dollar goes the furthest this year, and when to book to save even more

• Affordable travel is still possible in 2026. New Skyscanner data shows Americans can find roundtrip flights for a few hundred dollarsor lessby staying flexible on destinations and travel dates.

• Timing matters more than you think. Wednesday is the cheapest day to fly on average in 2026, reinforcing that midweek travel can unlock meaningful savings.

• Booking smart can stretch your budget further. Jumping on deals early, using price alerts, and keeping an open mind about where to go can make a big difference in what you pay.

With the holidays behind us and a fresh year ahead, many Americans are already dreaming about their next getaway but actually choosing where to go (and how much it will cost) isnt always easy.

Thats where new data from Skyscanner comes in. The report takes a closer look at the cheapest destinations Americans can fly to in 2026, along with the most budget-friendly days of the week to travel.

The findings push back on the idea that travel is only getting more expensive and show that a little flexibility with timing and destination can go a long way. ConsumerAffairs spoke with Lourdes Losada, Director of the Americas for Skyscanner, who encourages travelers to stay open-minded, as thats how you get rewarded with surprisingly affordable options you may not have considered before.

The biggest takeaway is that affordable travel in 2026 is achievable if travelers stay flexible and use data to guide decisions, Losada said.

Many Americans assume flights will be expensive, but Skyscanners data shows there are still incredible deals available, sometimes starting under $50 roundtrip. Being open to alternative destinations, traveling midweek, and using tools such as price alerts can make a big difference in stretching travel budgets.

Cheapest travel locations

To create the top 10 list, experts at Skyscanner evaluated round-trip flights booked on the site between January 1, 2025 and October 31, 2025, for travel between January 1, 2026 and December 31, 2026.

Heres the full list:

1. Las Vegas, Nevada

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $232

2. San Salvador, El Salvador

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $282

3. Miami, Florida

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $284

4. Kahului, Hawaii

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $329

5. Orlando, Florida

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $353

6. San Juan, Puerto Rico

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $365

7. Punta Cana, Dominican Republic

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $375

8. Mexico City, Mexico

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $402

9. Cancun, Mexico

   1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $411

10. Milan, Italy

    1. Average Roundtrip Flight Price: $559

Flying cheaper

In addition to the top 10 list, Skyscanner looked at other aspects of travel that can help consumers get the best deal.

One of the most surprising findings is that Wednesday, not Tuesday or Monday, is the cheapest day to fly on average in 2026, Losada explained. Only a quarter of Americans expected that result.

While prices still vary by route and time of year, this reinforces the idea that midweek travel often delivers better value and that checking flexible date tools can uncover savings people might otherwise miss.

Lock in deals early

If youre looking to get away, Losada encourages consumers to jump on deals that they find, as they may not be around for too long.

Waiting too long can mean missing out on price drops and lower fares that appear earlier in the booking window, she said. With only about half of travelers having booked flights so far, those who delay risk paying more as demand increases, especially for popular routes and peak travel months. Setting price alerts and monitoring fares early gives travelers the best chance to lock in deals when prices dip.

Plastic pollution is real, but health impacts inside the body remain uncertain, scientists say

• Researchers say some widely reported findings of microplastics in human organs may be false positives

• Critics warn rushed methods and weak controls could mislead policymakers and the public

• Scientists stress plastic pollution is real, but health impacts inside the body remain uncertain

Scientists are raising serious doubts about a wave of high-profile studies claiming to have found microplastics throughout the human body, warning that many results may be driven by contamination, flawed methods or false positives rather than real plastic particles.

The studies, which reported microplastics and nanoplastics in organs including the brain, blood, testes, arteries and placentas, were widely covered by global media, including the Guardian. But multiple researchers now say the evidence behind some of the most striking claims is far less solid than it appeared.

There is no doubt that plastic pollution is everywhere in the environment, scientists say. But what we actually know about how much plastic ends up inside the human body and what it does there is still very limited.

Race to publish raises concerns

Micro- and nanoplastics are extremely small, often near the detection limits of current analytical tools, especially when scientists are working with complex human tissue.

Researchers told the Guardian that while there is no suggestion of misconduct, the rapid expansion of microplastics research has led to mistakes. In some cases, teams with limited analytical chemistry experience may have rushed to publish results without applying basic quality controls.

The Guardian identified seven studies that have been formally challenged in scientific journals. A separate recent analysis flagged 18 studies that did not properly consider that human tissue itself can generate chemical signals that mimic common plastics.

Scientists warn that faulty evidence could have real-world consequences. Poor-quality studies could lead to misguided regulations or allow industry lobbyists to dismiss legitimate concerns by pointing to unreliable data.

Brain study sparks backlash

One of the most prominent disputed studies reported rising levels of microplastics in human brain tissue over several decades, based on postmortem samples. The findings generated global headlines.

But months later, other scientists published a formal critique, citing weak contamination controls and missing validation steps. One of the critics, Dr Duan Materi of Germanys Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, was blunt.

The brain microplastic paper is a joke, he said, noting that brain tissue is around 60% fat and that fat can create false signals for polyethylene, a common plastic. He suggested rising obesity rates could explain the apparent trend.

The studys lead author, Prof Matthew Campen, defended the work, saying the field is still young and that researchers are learning as they go. He acknowledged room for improvement but said critics have not produced data proving the findings are wrong.

Other studies also challenged

The brain paper is not an isolated case. A study linking microplastics in artery plaques to higher risks of heart attack and stroke was criticised for failing to test blank samples to measure background contamination.

Another study reporting microplastics in human testes was challenged by scientists who said the methods were not robust enough to support the conclusions. Campen, a co-author, responded that bioanalytical assays are never perfect and must improve over time.

Studies claiming plastic particles in blood, arteries and bottled water have also faced criticism, though authors have disputed those challenges.

Roger Kuhlman, a chemist formerly at Dow Chemical, called the growing doubts a bombshell.

This is forcing us to re-evaluate almost everything we think we know about microplastics in the body, he said. Many extraordinary claims are being made without ordinary levels of evidence.

Methods under scrutiny

A key source of concern is a technique called pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry, or Py-GC-MS, which involves vaporising samples and analysing the fumes.

Critics say chemicals released from fats and other biological material can be mistaken for plastics, especially if tissue digestion is incomplete. A January 2025 study concluded the method is currently unreliable for detecting some common plastics in human samples.

Dr Cassandra Rauert, an environmental chemist at the University of Queensland, said many reported concentrations are completely unrealistic and biologically implausible.

She added that while nano-sized plastic particles might cross biological barriers, current instruments cannot reliably detect them making some bold claims even harder to justify.

A July review in a German medical journal summed up the problem: At present, there is hardly any reliable information available on the actual distribution of microplastics in the body.