Buyers Beware - Why Wirecutter & Consumer Reports May Be Bad for Your Health

TLDR? Click here to see our video response.

As more and more of us look to the internet to get advice on the consumer electronic devices we purchase, the obligation on review sites to be honest and accurate must increase. Purchasing decisions can have consequences, especially when those decisions have the ability to affect our wellbeing. As a manufacturer of new air purification technology in the marketplace, we are no strangers to reviews. In fact, we welcome them, but what we don’t stand for, is when reviews give misleading advice to consumers based on inaccurate and flawed testing.

Two industry review sites have risen as leaders in the review space for consumer electronics: Consumer Reporters, an industry legend, and more recently, Wirecutter, a gadget review site known for it’s ‘Best Of’ reviews and affiliate model, where it makes its revenue from purchases bought via links and recommendations on its site.

Both Wirecutter and Consumer Reports tested Molekule Air, one of our air purification devices, late last year and issued reports on their findings. Both openly state that they do not have the ability to test our technology properly, yet both chose to publish reviews that encourage important purchasing decisions based on flawed, inadequate and old age industry tests that ignore vast swaths of pollutants in the air we breathe. In our view, this is grossly irresponsible and sets a dangerous precedent for trusted online review sites.

Here is what Consumer Reports states on their own website regarding PCO and UVGI air purification technology, which Molekule is essentially a safe, faster, and more effective version of:

And here is what Wirecutter stated to their readers when asked about testing our technology, and then later deleted, despite not updating their own testing criteria:

Wirecutter’s review also admits that while Molekuke’s PECO technology is “completely distinct” from HEPA, it used the exact same procedures to test the device:

We spoke at length with both publications multiple times before and after they reviewed our product in order to help them understand our new technology and how it works. We even flew to New York to speak with Tim Heffernan from Wirecutter in person. We also briefed Consumer Reports’ editorial team multiple times, including its Chief Scientific Officer, James Dickerson.

We offered both publications access to the proper lab space, equipment, technology, and experts to adequately test our device (under their supervision), but they have both thus far declined. We don’t know why, but it is concerning that publications concerned with the truth ignore the opportunity to understand new technology.

And importantly, we provided both sites significant third-party, independent testing on our technology that proves the efficacy of our device and claims, all of which is public and available on our website to consumers. You can view it here, and more is on the horizon. These tests prove that our technology can destroy a range of harmful pollutants not tested or reported by either publication. In fact, PECO technology is the result of 20 years of scientific research that has been published in multiple peer-reviewed academic journals.

In all interactions, we made it clear to these publications that the testing they use on air purifiers in the market today — a test known as a CADR test — is not an appropriate way to test the effectiveness, nor efficiency, of PECO technology.

CADR testing is very limited in scope and hasn’t been updated since 2006, meaning it doesn’t take into account new air purification technologies like PECO, or others. CADR essentially tells you how fast an air purifier can filter particles from air in a room. It can not, and does not, test for the destruction of pollutants, which is one of Molekule’s key differentiators. As air purifiers continue to be one of the fastest-growing markets in the world today, it is alarming that testing standards, and testing entities like Consumer Reports and Wirecutter, have not evolved.

You don’t have to just listen to us, though. You can read this report, titled ‘The Problem With Relying on ‘Wirecutter’ Reviews,” which clearly outlines the issues trusting a review site of this nature has, which includes omitted product details.

Or see this thread on Reddit, titled, Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks, in which dozens of users express how they’ve stopped buying recommended products from Wirecutter due to them not matching their personal experience with them.

As a science company, we welcome rigorous reviews, standards and testing. We openly host ALL customer reviews on our website, unedited under any condition. We feel that basing reviews on inadequate testing, while ignoring scientific facts, can result in misleading information being provided to consumers. This is irresponsible and potentially dangerous, and it’s exactly what Consumer Reports and Wirecutter are doing.

It is my sincerest hope that both publications address the issues we’ve outlined with their testing criteria and reporting, that they modify their air purification testing techniques for new and emerging technologies, and that consumers are able to get complete information in a time when truthful and accurate facts are becoming harder to come by.