consistency-portable.blogspot.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federal lead paintf banin children’s toys. The civil fine comes after the completed an investigation into the importin and selling of toys with lead paintf levels that exceededthe .06 percent lead by weight limit that is federally mandated. Accordinvg to the CPSC, which recently crafted the Consumer Producy SafetyImprovement Act, aimed at tougheninyg requirements for lead and phthalates in children’ products, Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-compliant toys betweeb July 2006 and September 2007. Fisher-Price importedc over 1 million non-compliant toys between July 2006 andSeptembed 2007.
Among the toys in questiob were the popular Sargetoy car, variousd Barbie products and some Go Diego Go Most of the toys that had excessivew levels of lead were shippedd to retail stores for sale to the In 2007, a massive toy recal l took place where about 95 Mattel and Fisher-Price toy models were determined to have exceedex the lead limit. Lead can be toxicf if ingested by young children and can cause seriouahealth problems. The topic of lead paint in children’e products has been a hot button issue asof late, with the rolloutr of the controversial CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturers and retailers have said the new regulationsware vague, costly and arbitrary, often requiring the duplicate testinbg of products. Some smaller manufacturer s say the laws threatehn to put them outof business. On the political Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, said protecting childrenm has to be thetop “When the toy recall happened (in I called the head of Fisher-Pricse and I told him they needed to start making their toys here Slaughter said. “We didn’t have theser kind of problems before they importedthe toys.
” This civilp penalty, which is the highest for violationzs involving importation or distribution of a regulated is the third highest of any kind in CPSC history. “Thesr highly publicized toy recalls helped spur Congressionall action last year to strengthen CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead painyton toys,” said CPSC Acting Chairmamn Thomas Moore. “This penalty should serve notics to toy makers that CPSC is committe to the safetyof children, to reducing their exposurd to lead, and to the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a story featured in our sister publication, The Buffalo Law Journal , looking at the Consumer Producty Safety Improvement Act, which ran prior to the announcement of these fines, Fisher-Price declinexd to provide a representative to discuss the lead paint regulations. Instead, they issued a writtenm statementwhich read, in part: “Mattel is well positioned as it generally designs its products to meet global standards. Mattel has also been a leadedr in the efforts of industry to establish voluntaryindustry standards.” The statement also said that Matteo would continue to complyg with the applicable regulations of the CPSIA.
Matteol was unable to be reached for commengtMonday morning, though a representative said they would have a response later in the day. Despite agreeing to pay $2.3 milliojn in penalties, Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowingluy violatedfederal law, as alleged by CPSC
No comments:
Post a Comment