Consumer News: TJ Maxx's return policy is more forgiving than you think — but watch for these catches

Research suggests low-calorie sweeteners may not affect health or sweet cravings

• A review of recent European research found no evidence that non-sugar sweeteners negatively affect weight management or several health markers.

• Researchers also found no evidence that consuming sweeteners or sweet-tasting foods changes people's preferences for sweet foods.

• The findings offer reassurance about sugar substitutes, but they don't mean every sweetener has the same effects or that more research isn't needed.

Sugar substitutes are found in many everyday foods and drinks, from diet beverages to sugar-free snacks. Known as non-nutritive sweeteners (NNSs), these ingredients provide a sweet taste with little to no energy, making them an option for people looking to reduce their sugar intake.

But questions remain about whether these sweeteners affect weight, metabolic health, or our desire for sweet foods. Some health recommendations have advised against relying on them for weight control, while other professional groups consider them a useful way to cut back on sugar.

A new review published in Nutrients examines evidence from three major European research projects to better understand how these sweeteners may affect health and eating habits.

The findings from all three major European consortia point in the same direction and add important weight to the broader evidence on non-nutritive sweeteners and sweet taste, researcher Eva Marija Cad said in a news release.

Collectively, they suggest that we can reduce sugar intake while retaining sweetness and the enjoyment it brings in our diets.

How did researchers study sweeteners?

Researchers reviewed findings from three European research consortia: SWEET, SWITCH, and Sweet Tooth. Rather than conducting a single new experiment, the team brought together results from randomized controlled trials, which are designed to help researchers understand whether an intervention directly causes a particular outcome.

The studies included short-term and longer-term research examining the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners and different levels of dietary sweetness.

Researchers looked at several outcomes, including body weight, body composition, blood sugar regulation, cholesterol, blood pressure, liver health, gut bacteria, and preferences for sweet foods.

Some studies examined what happened when people replaced sugar with non-nutritive sweeteners, while others explored whether changing how much sweetness people consumed affected their health or eating behavior.

What did the review find, and what does it mean for consumers?

Across the studies, researchers found no evidence that non-nutritive sweeteners or higher dietary sweetness negatively affected body weight, health markers, or preferences for sweet foods.

In one yearlong SWEET study, participants who included sweeteners in their diets maintained somewhat greater weight loss than those who avoided them. A separate 52-week SWITCH trial found slightly greater weight loss among people drinking sweetened beverages than those drinking water, although the difference was not considered clinically meaningful.

Researchers also found no consistent negative effects on blood sugar, insulin, blood pressure, cholesterol, liver enzymes, or appetite. One study identified a modest change in gut bacteria, but it was not accompanied by worsening heart or metabolic health markers.

The review also found no evidence that sweeteners make people crave more sweetness or eat more overall.

However, the findings have limitations. Many participants were overweight adults, and some studies took place in structured weight-management programs. The researchers also noted that longer-term effects and effects in children and teenagers remain unclear.

A common concern is that replacing sugar with non-nutritive sweeteners might lead to a stronger preference for sugary sweet foods or stimulate appetite, researcher Graham Finlayson said in the release. Across these controlled studies, that prediction was not supported.

Sweeteners are not a weight-management strategy by themselves, but they can provide a useful way to reduce sugar while retaining sweetness within a broader healthy diet.

New research suggests walking pace and daily step counts may offer different ways to support long-term health

• Walking at a faster pace may be associated with lower mortality risk, even among adults taking fewer than 5,000 steps a day.

• People walking more slowly but accumulating 5,000 to 7,500 daily steps also showed lower mortality risk.

• The study found that 7,500 to 10,000 daily steps were associated with the lowest overall risk of death from any cause.

Getting more steps in each day is a common fitness goal, but could the speed of those steps matter, too?

A new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine explored how walking pace and daily step counts work together in relation to the risk of premature death.

The researchers wanted to understand whether people could potentially support their long-term health through different combinations of walking more and walking faster. That could be especially useful for adults who find it difficult to reach traditional step-count goals or maintain a brisk pace.

How researchers studied walking habits and mortality

Researchers analyzed data from the U.K. Biobank, a large research project involving adults in the United Kingdom. Participants wore wrist-based activity trackers for seven days between 2013 and 2015, allowing researchers to measure their daily steps and walking intensity.

The team focused on a measure called peak 30-minute cadence. In simple terms, this represents a person's average steps per minute during their 30 most active minutes of stepping throughout the day. Those minutes did not have to happen consecutively.

Researchers divided participants into four groups based on daily step counts: fewer than 5,000, 5,000 to 7,500, 7,500 to 10,000, and more than 10,000 steps.

They then tracked deaths through November 2022, examining both deaths from any cause and deaths related to cardiovascular disease.

The analysis included 64,743 participants for all-cause mortality and 70,075 for cardiovascular mortality. Researchers adjusted for factors including age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, sleep, and certain health conditions.

What the findings could mean for everyday walkers

The results suggest that people may have more than one way to incorporate walking into their routines.

Among adults taking fewer than 5,000 steps daily, a faster walking pace was associated with lower mortality risk. Meanwhile, people taking 5,000 to 7,500 steps daily showed lower risk even at slower walking speeds.

The lowest overall risk of death from any cause was observed among people taking 7,500 to 10,000 steps daily. Within that group, the lowest risk was associated with a peak walking cadence of approximately 100 steps per minute.

Across step-count groups, maintaining a pace of around 90 to 100 steps per minute was also associated with lower all-cause mortality risk.

However, the findings show an association, not proof that walking faster or reaching a particular step count directly prevents death. The researchers noted that unmeasured factors and underlying health conditions could still influence the results.

For consumers, the takeaway is that walking goals do not necessarily have to look the same for everyone. Both daily movement and walking pace may matter, offering different ways to build more activity into everyday life.

A new study examines how often children ages 3 to 5 receive weight-loss medications and what the growing trend means for families

• GLP-1 prescriptions for obesity among young children remain uncommon, despite a sharp increase in recent years.

• Researchers examined prescription trends among children ages 3 to 5 in the United States.

• The findings highlight the importance of understanding how these medications are being used in very young children.

GLP-1 medications have become a widely discussed treatment for obesity, but their use in young children is still relatively uncommon.

A new study from NYU Langone Health looks at how often these medications are prescribed to children and how those patterns have changed over time.

The medications, which include Saxenda, Wegovy, and Zepbound, can help with weight loss, blood sugar regulation, and appetite control. While clinical guidelines allow certain GLP-1 medications to be used for obesity in children as young as 8, researchers wanted to better understand how often younger patients are receiving them.

Our study offers the first national overview in young children of the use of GLP-1 drugs to fight the obesity epidemic in the United States and shows that while the absolute numbers of children under the age of 12 receiving GLP-1 treatment is still low, GLP-1 use is accelerating rapidly, lead investigator and obesity medicine specialist Babak J. Orandi, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

The careful use of GLP-1s remains a valuable tool in confronting the obesity epidemic among young Americans.

How researchers examined prescription trends

The research team used Epic Cosmos, a national database containing electronic health records from more than 300 million American patients. The database includes information from 2,067 hospitals and 47,100 health clinics that use Epic.

Researchers examined GLP-1 prescriptions for children ages 8 to 11 who had obesity but did not have diabetes. They looked at prescription patterns over time, including differences based on age, sex, and community income levels.

The study also examined the health conditions of children receiving these medications, helping researchers understand the medical circumstances surrounding their use.

What the findings mean for families

The researchers found that GLP-1 prescriptions among children ages 8 to 11 with obesity increased substantially, rising from 0.03% in 2019 to 9.3% in 2026. Over that period, 20,282 children in this age group received prescriptions.

Most children prescribed the medications had severe obesity, and 65.2% had at least one obesity-related health condition. Girls were more likely than boys to receive prescriptions, and children in higher-income communities were 55% more likely to receive them than those in lower-income communities.

Despite the sharp increase, the researchers emphasized that GLP-1 use among children under 12 remains relatively low.

The findings also raise questions about access. Researchers noted that the cost of these medications and access to pediatric healthcare could affect which families are able to obtain treatment.

They also stressed the importance of monitoring children over time to better understand the medications' long-term safety and effectiveness. Clinical trials involving children as young as 6 are underway, which could provide additional information for parents and doctors.

For families, the study offers a snapshot of a changing treatment landscape. While GLP-1 medications may be an option for some children with obesity, researchers say continued monitoring and further research will be important as their use grows.

Physicians and health policymakers alike have a responsibility to ensure, as use of GLP-1 medications continues to rise, that all young children with obesity who need these drugs have access to them and that these valuable and sometimes costly treatments become available to more than those who have access to health insurance and can afford to visit pediatric clinics, researcher Allan B. Massie, Ph.D., said in the release.

Some customers who already received $51 could eventually get another $149

• Amazon Prime refunds are getting bigger: Eligible customers can now receive up to $200, up from the previous $51 maximum.

• Millions more customers qualify: The expanded settlement includes some Prime members who used between 11 and 20 Prime benefits during a 12-month period.

• Already got $51? Don't ignore this: Some consumers who received the original maximum refund could eventually get another payment of up to $149.

Thought your Amazon Prime settlement check was a one-and-done? Maybe not.

A federal court has approved major changes to Amazon's $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), potentially putting substantially more money in the pockets of Prime customers.

The biggest change: The maximum refund is increasing from $51 to $200.

ConsumerAffairs reported in July that eligible Prime customers had until July 27 to claim refunds of up to $51 under the original settlement terms.

Now the FTC says Amazon hasnt met their minimum payout threshold on this settlement and millions of additional consumers will now qualify for automatic refunds.

The next round of automatic payments starts Oct. 1.

Why is Amazon sending refunds?

The refunds stem from Amazon's 2025 settlement with the FTC over allegations that the company enrolled millions of consumers in Prime without their consent and made the subscription unnecessarily difficult to cancel.

Amazon agreed to pay $2.5 billion to resolve the case, including $1.5 billion earmarked for consumer refunds and a $1 billion civil penalty.

Amazon has already distributed more than $845 million to consumers, according to the FTC. But a federal court has now approved changes designed to get more of the remaining settlement money into consumers' hands.

Who qualifies for a refund?

Under the expanded rules, you generally must meet the following requirements.

• You must be a U.S. Amazon Prime customer who signed up through one of the enrollment processes challenged by the FTC, or tried unsuccessfully to cancel online between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025.

• You also must have used no more than 20 Prime benefits during any 12-month period after enrolling. Prime benefits can include things such as Prime Video and Prime Music.

Previously, some automatic refunds were limited to customers who used fewer Prime benefits. The new rules expand payments to millions of additional consumers who used between 11 and 20 benefits during a 12-month period.

The best part for consumers is if you're eligible, there's nothing you need to do.

Amazon will send payments automatically by PayPal, Venmo, or mailed check. Payments must be accepted within 60 days.

Already received $51? You could get more

This is arguably the biggest change for consumers who followed the original settlement.

Under the previous terms, the maximum refund was $51. The revised settlement increases the total potential refund to $200.

If enough money remains in the consumer refund fund after the upcoming payments are distributed, Amazon will send supplemental payments of up to $149 to eligible consumers who already accepted an earlier payment.

Those additional payments are expected to begin by April 2027.

So if you already received $51, don't assume your Amazon Prime settlement money is finished.

Watch out for Amazon refund

Whenever millions of consumers are expecting money from a major company, scammers aren't far behind.

The FTC says it is not contacting consumers about these refunds. Its also worth noting that Amazon will never ask you to pay a fee to receive settlement money.

Make it your default to be suspicious of any unexpected calls, texts, or emails claiming you need to pay money, provide financial information, or act immediately to unlock your Amazon refund.

For legitimate automatic payments, eligible consumers don't need to submit another claim or pay anyone. So if someone says they can help you get your Amazon refund for a fee, that's a major red flag.