Overview
Before delving into the air purifier reviews of Consumer Reports Magazine and consumerreports.org a little overview of their practices is in order.
Consumer reports is a federal tax exempt non profit (501 3- c) company with over 163 million in revenue and over 5.1 million subscribers, most of which now come from it’s internet subscription service. It has been known for many years, or has claimed, objectivity and accuracy in serving the public. Of course being tax exempt, yet a highly profitable organization, the public pays for both the subscription and the taxes.
Consumer Reports does not accept advertising to maintain their non-profit status as independent reviewers. In today’s day and age I don’t know if non-profits, which do bring in as much money like they do, are in the best interest of the country – given the economic hardships.
On the other hand I have used them over the years to gather info about my choices in cars and electronics. Although today I am more inclined towards the internet and the many free reviews (Amazon, cnet, etc.). The magazine, and online site, is probably a bit dated. Being in the air purifier business I always watch for the Air Purifier Consumer Report Review Issue, although I’ve been mostly disappointed in their reviews and testing. But to be fair they test thousands of items.
Air Purifier Rankings
While Consumer Reports Magazine (CRM) and Website (consumerreports.org) was once the #1 name in product reviews they have fallen far behind the online world, replaced by Amazon and other customer review avenues. However I still look to them on occasion when I am buying a product for additional information. I always buy (or go to the library) whenever their air purifier review comes due.
The last Air Purifier Consumer Report Review was several years ago (oddly enough it still had several models that are now considered outdated). If not for the copyright I would post it – but you can find it at the library, or subscribe for 26 online for the year.
Consumer Reports Responds
In both 2003 and 2005 their review made a scathing review of the two top TV air purifiers – the Oreck air purifier and the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze. The Ionic Breeze at the time was the #1 selling model in the world. The problem at the time was Ozone, and the fact that these two models produced enough ozone to be potentially harmful to lungs and airways. They also noted that several leading allergy and asthma foundations were offering both models their “seal of approval”.
Here’s where Sharper Image made a huge mistake. They decided to attack Consumer Reports in court to defend their Ionic Breeze. They should have let it go, because time would have probably let the controversy pass. Although I would add that they did produce high levels of ozone, so perhaps there wasn’t any controversy at all. Sharper Image, and it’s Ionic Breeze lost in Federal Court after the technical aspects were reviewed.
But it didn’t stop there. The Federal Government started looking at the Ozone issue and pretty soon Sharper Image’s ionic Breeze was pulled off the market for health reasons. Sharper Image, dependent on the Ionic Breeze to stay afloat, went bankrupt. So even though the Oreck Air Purifier also produced ozone (in smaller amounts) they escaped the wrath of the government.
Their Questionable Rankings
Most air purifier reviewers have their bias, I do, but many of us with years of experience have been baffled by many really poor models that Consumer Reports has continued to rank high. In fact some of those models, like the Friedrich Air Purifier , produce a lot of ozone – the very thing Consumer Reports rallied against and claim that it doesn’t. Yet it is ranked as the best models (May 2005). Odd. Very odd. (I own the Friedrich and take it apart in my review below. It’s big and ugly as well, more suited for industrial use than in a home)
Other models known for their effective allergy and allergen ability using HEPA filters rank very low. One such model is the IQAIR which, although very expensive, are proven effective for health conditions like asthma. Maybe the price lowered it’s rank, but there are many really, really cheap models ahead of it.
Friedrich – Consumer Reports #1
Because of the ozone problem Consumer Reports actually went to the extreme of ranking air purifiers by ozone levels rather than by true performance in 2005. Their #1 ranked Friedrich C-90A (see my video review below) came in #1 yet you’ll see by my particle test that it doesn’t do a very good job, it’s also expensive at 450, and loud despite their high marks. Plus it’s big and ugly. I just don’t get it?????
Particle Test on Friedrich
Air Purifier Consumer Report Review Comparisons
Conclusion
The more I went through the Air Purifier Consumer Report Review List of models the more problems I found which completely went opposite to the particle tests and decibel tests I have shown in my video reviews. If anyone has any knowledge of why Consumer Reports is so weak in this area please send me an email. I don’t get it!
I was even going to post the list of rankings from the most recent Air Purifier Consumer Report Review but I’m just so dissapointed in their reviews and rankings after the Friedrich (their #1 for unknown reasons) that I decided to go fishing instead…