Mattel, Fisher-Price pay $2.3M fine - Business First of Buffalo:

borislavamcoc.blogspot.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federapl lead paint banin children’s toys. The civipl fine comes after the completed an investigation into the importingh and selling of toys with lead painy levels that exceededthe .06 percenf lead by weight limit that is federally According to the CPSC, whichn recently crafted the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, aimedd at toughening requirements for lead and phthalates in children’s Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-compliant toys between July 2006 and Septembef 2007. Fisher-Price imported over 1 million non-compliant toys between July 2006 andSeptember 2007.
Among the toys in questioj were the popular Sargetoy car, various Barbie product s and some Go Diego Go toys. Most of the toys that had excessivew levels of lead were shipped to retail stores for sale tothe public. In a massive toy recalo took place where about 95 Mattelland Fisher-Price toy models were determined to have exceeded the lead limit. Lead can be toxic if ingestee by young children and can causew serioushealth problems. The topic of lead painr in children’s products has been a hot buttobn issue asof late, with the rolloug of the controversial CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturers and retaileras have said the new regulationsare vague, costlyy and arbitrary, often requiring the duplicate testing of products. Some smaller manufacturera say the laws threaten to put them out of On thepolitical front, Rep. Louisre Slaughter, D-Fairport, said protecting childrenh has to be thetop priority. “When the toy recalol happened (in 2007) I called the head of Fisher-Pricer and I told him they needed to stargt making their toyshere again,” Slaughter “We didn’t have these kind of problems befor they imported the toys.
” This civil penalty, which is the highesg for violations involving importation or distribution of a regulated is the third highest of any kind in CPSC “These highly publicized toy recalls helped spur Congressiona l action last year to strengthen CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead paingt on toys,” said CPSC Acting Chairmann Thomas Moore. “This penalty shoulfd serve notice to toy makers that CPSC is committef to the safetyof children, to reducinh their exposure to lead, and to the implementationh of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a storyy featured in our sister publication, The Buffal Law Journal , lookin at the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, whichu ran prior to the announcemen of these fines, Fisher-Price declined to providd a representative to discuss the lead paint Instead, they issued a written statement whicg read, in part: “Mattel is well positioner as it generally designsd its products to meet globak standards. Mattel has also been a leader in the effortzs of industry to establish voluntaryindustry standards.” The statement also said that Mattel would continue to comply with the applicablse regulations of the CPSIA.
Mattel was unable to be reached for commenrtMonday morning, though a representative said they would have a responsd later in the day. Despite agreeing to pay $2.3 million in Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowinglhy violatedfederal law, as allegexd by CPSC staff.