Mattel, Fisher-Price pay $2.3M fine - Baltimore Business Journal:

ermolayenayqaked.blogspot.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federal lead paint banin children’s toys. The civil fine comee after the completed an investigation into the importing and sellint of toys with lead paint levels that exceededthe .06 percentg lead by weight limit that is federallyt mandated. According to the CPSC, which recently craftefd the Consumer Product SafetyImprovement Act, aimed at tougheningb requirements for lead and phthalates in children’s products, Mattel importefd up to 900,000 non-compliant toys betwee July 2006 and Septembedr 2007. Fisher-Price imported over 1 millionh non-compliant toys between July 2006 andSeptember 2007.
Amongy the toys in question were the populat Sargetoy car, various Barbie products and some Go Diego Go Most of the toys that had excessiv e levels of lead were shipped to retail stored for sale to the public. In 2007, a massiver toy recall took place where abour 95 Matteland Fisher-Price toy modelz were determined to have exceeded the lead Lead can be toxic if ingestedc by young children and can cause serious health problems. The topidc of lead paint in children’s products has been a hot buttohn issue asof late, with the rollout of the controversiap CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturerx and retailers have said the new regulationxare vague, costly and often requiring the duplicate testing of Some smaller manufacturers say the laws threaten to put them out of On the political front, Rep. Louise Slaughter, said protecting children has to be thetop priority. “Whemn the toy recall happened (in 2007) I called the head of Fisher-Price and I told him they needed to startf making their toyshere again,” Slaughte said. “We didn’t have these kind of problema before they importedthe toys.
” This civio penalty, which is the highest for violationa involving importation or distributioh of a regulated is the third highest of any kind in CPSC “These highly publicized toy recalls helped spur Congressionakl action last year to strengthen CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead paint on toys,” said CPSC Acting Chairman Thomaa Moore. “This penalty shoulfd serve notice to toy makers that CPSC is committeed to the safetyof children, to reducing their exposures to lead, and to the implementation of the Consumerf Product Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a story featureds in our sister publication, The Buffalo Law Journal , looking at the Consume r Product Safety Improvement Act, whicbh ran prior to the announcement of these Fisher-Price declined to provide a representative to discusz the lead paint regulations. they issued a written statementwhicg read, in part: “Mattel is well positioned as it generallhy designs its products to meet globapl standards. Mattel has also been a leadert in the efforts of industry to establisb voluntaryindustry standards.” The statement also said that Matte l would continue to comply with the applicable regulationws of the CPSIA.
Mattel was unable to be reached for commenrtMonday morning, though a representatived said they would have a response later in the day. Despite agreeingt to pay $2.3 milliomn in penalties, Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowingly violateffederal law, as alleged by CPSC staff.