Consumer News: It’s official — Walmart, Target, Kroger, and Wegmans are changing how they price groceries

Amazon is selling a popular NeeDoh toy by invitation, and other hot holiday gifts could be next

• Amazon is making shoppers request invitations: The hard-to-find NeeDoh Teenie 10-Pack is available through an invitation-only purchasing system.

• Getting selected isn't guaranteed: Shoppers must request an invitation, watch their email, and complete their purchase within 72 hours if chosen.

• Other hot Christmas toys could be next: While no expansion is confirmed, shoppers should know regular retail prices and avoid overpriced resale listings.

Remember the days when buying a hot Christmas toy meant getting up early, standing in line, and hoping the store hadn't sold out?

Amazon is now using a different approach: You might have to request permission to buy one.

The latest example is the NeeDoh Teenie 10-Pack, a collection of colorful, squishy sensory toys that has become very difficult to find as the holiday shopping season heats up.

Instead of simply clicking "Add to Cart," shoppers must request an invitation and wait to see whether Amazon offers them a chance to buy. It's a system worth understanding now, especially if you have a child or grandchild asking for one of this year's hottest toys.

How Amazon's invitation-only shopping works

The process is fairly straightforward:

• Find the eligible product on Amazon. Instead of a normal purchase button, youll see a "Request Invite" option.

• Request an invitation. This doesn't mean you've purchased the item or secured a reservation.

• Watch your email. If youre lucky enough to be selected, Amazon will send you a link via email with instructions to complete your purchase.

• Don't miss the deadline. If you get the email, youll have exactly 72 hours to purchase the toy.

Amazon doesn't disclose exactly how it chooses which shoppers receive invitations. The process isn't necessarily first-come, first-served, and requesting an invitation doesn't guarantee you'll get a chance to buy.

Interestingly, Amazon says theyre doing it to ensure that genuine customers get the opportunity to buy them and so they dont all go to resellers looking to make a quick profit.

Why NeeDoh toys are suddenly so difficult to find

NeeDoh isn't a new toy. The squishy sensory products have been around for years, but social media has helped turn them into one of 2026's biggest toy crazes.

Some stores have experienced rapid sellouts, purchase limits, and customers lining up for restocks. The shortage has also attracted resellers charging substantially more than regular retail prices.

That makes invitation-only sales appealing to shoppers who would rather wait for a legitimate opportunity to buy than pay an inflated price on a resale marketplace.

Other hot toys that have gone invite only on Amazon recently include:

• Pokmon TCG 30th Celebration Elite Trainer Box $59.99

• NeeDoh Squishmas Advent Calendar $29.99

• NeeDoh Nice Cube Swirl $9.99

Could other popular Christmas toys get the same treatment?

Possibly, although there's no confirmation that Amazon plans to expand invitation-only purchasing to specific additional toys this holiday season.

The conditions that make these products attractive are already developing as Target's 2026 holiday toy list emphasizes sensory toys, collectibles, surprise-unboxing products, and popular licensed characters.

And retailers are seeing particularly strong interest in squishy toys and other inexpensive collectibles that can become overnight sensations on social media.

If another toy suddenly becomes impossible to find, an invitation-based sale is how retailers could manage their limited inventory. But dont assume every popular toy will be sold this way.

Four ways to avoid overpaying for a hot Christmas toy

1. Check the regular retail price first. Don't assume a higher price means a product is more valuable. Look at the manufacturer's website or established retailers to understand what it normally costs.

2. Check smaller local stores. Independent toy shops sometimes receive inventory that isn't available at major online retailers. Call ahead and ask about upcoming shipments or waiting lists.

3. Be skeptical of resale listings. Scammers often take advantage of toy shortages by advertising products they don't actually have. Avoid sellers demanding gift cards, wire transfers, or payment outside a marketplace's checkout system.

4. Have a backup gift ready. If your child's must-have toy is unavailable, consider a similar product rather than paying several times its regular price. For sensory toys, alternative squishies or thinking putty may deliver much of the same appeal.

New research highlights the potential long-term health and financial costs of ultra-processed foods

• A new analysis estimates that diets high in ultra-processed foods could be associated with nearly $360,000 in additional lifetime costs.

• Many Americans may underestimate how much ultra-processed food they eat, with just 9% able to correctly identify these foods.

• Experts say shoppers can make more informed choices by comparing food labels, recognizing common ingredients, and making small, affordable grocery swaps.

That $2 box of mac and cheese might seem like a budget-friendly dinner, but the true cost of ultra-processed foods could add up over time.

A first-of-its-kind analysis estimates that diets high in these foods could carry nearly $360,000 in lifetime costs, raising questions about how everyday food choices may affect both health and finances. The findings also point to a gap in consumer awareness, with just 9% of Americans reportedly able to correctly identify ultra-processed foods.

ConsumerAffairs spoke with health economist Lindsay Allen, Ph.D., and Amys Kitchen CEO Paul Schiefer about what the findings mean for shoppers and how to better understand what's on their plates.

Methodology

The analysis, conducted independently by health economist Lindsay Allen, Ph.D., and commissioned by Amys Kitchen, compared Americans in the top 20% of ultra-processed food consumption with those in the bottom 20%.

Using a 2025 review of research on ultra-processed foods and health outcomes, Allen focused on five conditions with the strongest supporting evidence: type 2 diabetes, heart disease, colorectal cancer, depression, and Crohns disease.

The analysis estimated the associated lifetime costs, including medical care, long-term care, lost earnings, and the economic impact of a shorter life expectancy. Researchers modeled a 20-year-old maintaining the same relative level of ultra-processed food consumption throughout adulthood.

Key findings

Heres a look at what the survey found:

• Nearly $360,000 in estimated lifetime costs: People with diets high in ultra-processed foods faced an estimated $359,836 in additional lifetime costs compared with those whose diets were low in these foods.

• A shorter life expectancy accounts for most of the estimate: Approximately $338,419 of the total reflected the economic value of an estimated 10-month reduction in life expectancy. Another $21,417 was attributed to additional health-related costs, including medical care, long-term care, and lost earnings.

• Diabetes was the biggest contributor to health-related expenses: Type 2 diabetes accounted for 76% of the estimated additional health costs.

• The estimate remained substantial under different assumptions: Researchers ran the model 1,000 times using different assumptions, and the estimated lifetime cost exceeded $200,000 in 98% of simulations.

• Consumers may underestimate their exposure: A companion survey of 2,000 Americans found that respondents estimated ultra-processed foods made up 16% of their diets, while CDC data cited in the release indicates these foods account for about 53% of calories consumed by American adults.

Dr. Allen explained that these higher lifetime costs arise because higher consumption is associated with a greater lifetime risk of several chronic conditions.

For example, among every 100 people in the highest fifth, we would expect about 13 more cases of type 2 diabetes and about 11 more cases of cardiovascular disease than among 100 people in the lowest fifth, she said. Type 2 diabetes accounts for the largest share of the cost of illness, because it is common, it typically begins in middle age, and its costs continue for the rest of a persons life.

Misconceptions about processed foods

With under 10% of Americans surveyed saying they can identify processed foods at the grocery store, Schiefer pointed out some of the biggest misconceptions facing many shoppers.

The biggest is that any frozen or packaged food must be ultra-processed, he explained. Frozen is a way of keeping food, and it tells you nothing on its own about how the food was made, the quality of the ingredients, or the nutritional profile of the food.

Another is that a front-of-package claim like high protein or high fiber means a food isnt ultra-processed. Those nutrients can come with or without ultra-processed techniques, and the claim doesnt say which.

Another thing to look out for: just because something is cheap on the shelf doesnt mean there arent hidden costs.

Something that looks inexpensive at checkout can carry costs that show up later, which is what Dr. Allens analysis looked at, Schiefer said.

Making simple swaps at the grocery store

With grocery prices on a seemingly never-ending uptick, the thought of swapping out cheaper options can be daunting for many shoppers. However, Schiefer said that consumers dont have to change the whole cart at once.

Start by picking the three or four things you buy every week, like bread, pasta sauce, or a snack, and compare labels, he said. Look for a whole food ingredient list that you recognize and have in your own kitchen. Staples help, too. Frozen vegetables, beans, and oats are affordable and go a long way.

A lot of people are also cutting back on takeout and delivery. A good frozen meal at home covers that same I need something now moment, usually for less than ordering in.

New findings show why safe sleep practices and thorough death investigations remain important for families

• A CDC analysis of nearly 4,900 sudden unexpected infant deaths found that at least 73% involved unsafe sleep factors.

• Soft bedding, adult beds, and sharing a sleep surface were common circumstances in the cases reviewed.

• Researchers say safer sleep environments and more complete death investigations could help improve prevention efforts.

Putting a baby down for a nap or bedtime can feel like one of the most routine parts of parenting. But the environment where an infant sleeps can play an important role in their safety.

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) examined sudden unexpected infant deaths, or SUIDs, across the United States from 2020 through 2024. The term includes deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed, and deaths whose causes remain unknown.

The findings highlight a continuing concern: Many of these deaths involved potentially unsafe sleep conditions. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends placing babies on their backs to sleep, on a firm, flat surface of their own, without soft bedding.

The CDC estimates that about 3,400 infants younger than 1 year die from SUIDs in the U.S. each year. Understanding the circumstances surrounding these deaths can help researchers and public health officials identify opportunities to prevent future tragedies.

How researchers examined nearly 4,900 infant deaths

For the report, researchers analyzed 4,861 cases recorded between 2020 and 2024 in the CDC's Sudden Unexpected Infant Death and Sudden Death in the Young Case Registry.

The registry collects detailed information from multiple sources, including child death review programs. Unlike standard death records, which may not explain the circumstances surrounding an infant's death, the registry includes information about sleep environments, medical examinations, and death scene investigations.

Researchers reviewed characteristics such as infants' ages, demographics, sleeping positions, bedding, and whether they shared a sleeping surface with another person. They also examined how deaths were classified and which investigative procedures had been completed.

The analysis covered 31 participating jurisdictions, representing approximately 40% of SUID cases nationwide. That means the findings provide an important picture of these deaths but do not represent every case in the country.

What the findings mean for parents and caregivers

Two-thirds of the deaths involved infants between birth and 3 months old. Researchers also found that 78% of infants had soft bedding in their sleep environments, 59% were sharing a sleep surface, and 75% were sleeping somewhere other than a crib, portable crib, or bassinet.

Overall, at least 73% of cases involved unsafe sleep factors. However, that does not mean every death was conclusively caused by an unsafe sleep environment. Some deaths remained unexplained, and the researchers noted that other medical or genetic factors may play a role.

Among the 919 deaths classified as explained suffocation with unsafe sleep factors, soft bedding was the most frequently identified mechanism. Nearly all cases included an autopsy and a death investigation, but important details were sometimes missing. For example, airway obstruction information was unknown or missing in a substantial share of cases.

For families, the findings reinforce the importance of following safe sleep recommendations: place babies on their backs, use a firm, flat, separate sleep surface, and keep blankets, pillows and other soft items out of the sleep area.

The researchers say better documentation and continued investigation of both sleep-related and medical causes could help public health officials develop more effective prevention strategies.

A new report examines contaminants in 100 products and what pet owners can do to make more informed choices

• Testing found lead in 99% of cat foods examined, with cadmium and arsenic also widespread.

• Fish-based foods had significantly higher mercury levels, while dry foods contained more lead.

• Reading ingredient labels and asking brands about their testing practices may help cat owners make more informed choices.

Choosing cat food can be overwhelming, especially when premium prices and natural-sounding labels make certain products seem like healthier options. But a new report from the Clean Label Project raises questions about what else might be in the food cats eat every day.

The organization tested 100 cat food products for more than 122 environmental contaminants and toxins. The results found heavy metals in nearly all the products examined, although the levels varied considerably.

That matters because cats often eat the same food every day for years. According to the report, repeated exposure to contaminants could create ongoing concerns over a cats lifetime. The findings also suggest that paying more or choosing a product with an appealing ingredient list doesn't necessarily mean it contains fewer contaminants.

How the cat food study was conducted

Clean Label Project purchased 100 products from 62 brands, including 31 dry foods, 40 wet foods sold in cans or pouches, and 29 air-dried or freeze-dried products.

An independent laboratory tested the samples for a range of substances, including four heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Researchers also examined chemicals associated with packaging, herbicide residues, and substances that can form during food processing.

The team used specialized laboratory methods to measure the contaminants and reviewed the ingredient lists to look for relationships between ingredients and test results.

To compare products fairly, the researchers adjusted contaminant measurements for calories rather than simply comparing equal weights of food. Wet food contains considerably more water than dry food, so comparing equal weights could make wet products appear cleaner simply because they are more diluted.

What the results mean for cat owners

Lead was detected in 99% of the products, while cadmium appeared in 96% and arsenic in 94%.

Fish and seafood products stood out for mercury and cadmium: they contained about 18 times as much as other products, even after accounting for whether the food was wet or dry, and also had approximately 2.5 times as much cadmium.

Dry food, meanwhile, contained roughly three times as much lead as wet or air-dried food. Researchers also found that products with more plant ingredients tended to have higher levels of the herbicide glyphosate.

Still, the results don't mean every product carries the same level of risk or that cat owners should eliminate fish from their pets' diets. Some fish-based foods performed well, and the study reflects the products and samples tested rather than every batch on store shelves.

For consumers, the report recommends looking beyond the first ingredient on the label, considering different protein sources, and asking manufacturers whether they regularly test finished products for heavy metals. A single test represents only one batch, so ongoing quality controls matter, too.

The findings offer a reason to ask more questions about pet food quality, rather than assuming that a premium price or an appealing label guarantees a cleaner product.