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

jabire2389.blogspot.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federaol lead paint banin children’s toys. The civip fine comes after the completed an investigatiojn into the importing and selling of toys with lead painf levels that exceededthe .06 percentr lead by weight limit that is federally According to the which recently crafted the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, aimed at tougheningh requirements for lead and phthalates in children’ws products, Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-compliant toys between July 2006 and Septembere 2007. Fisher-Price imported over 1 million non-compliant toys between July 2006 andSeptembe 2007.
Among the toys in question were the popular Sargetoy car, variousx Barbie products and some Go Diego Go toys. Most of the toys that had excessivwe levels of lead were shippede to retail stores for sale tothe public. In a massive toy recall took place where about 95 Matteland Fisher-Pricse toy models were determined to have exceeded the lead Lead can be toxic if ingested by young childrebn and can cause serious health problems. The topiv of lead paint in children’s products has been a hot buttoj issue asof late, with the rolloutr of the controversial CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturers and retailers have said the new regulationaare vague, costly and arbitrary, often requiringf the duplicate testing of products. Some smaller manufacturers say the laws threaten to put them out of On thepolitical Rep. Louise Slaughter, said protecting children has to be thetop “When the toy recall happenecd (in 2007) I called the head of Fisher-Priced and I told him they needed to startt making their toys here again,” Slaughte r said. “We didn’t have these kind of problems before they importerdthe toys.
” This civil penalty, which is the highesf for violations involving importation or distribution of a regulatedc product, is the third highesg of any kind in CPSC history. “These highlhy publicized toy recalls helped spur Congressional action last year to strengthenj CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead painfon toys,” said CPSC Acting Chairman Thomas “This penalty should serve notice to toy makers that CPSC is committed to the safety of children, to reducing their exposure to lead, and to the implementatioj of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a story featured in our sistet publication, The Buffalo Law Journal , looking at the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which ran prior to the announcement of thesde fines, Fisher-Price declined to provide a representativee to discuss the lead paint regulations. Instead, they issued a writte statementwhich read, in “Mattel is well positioned as it generally designsx its products to meet global Mattel has also been a leader in the efforts of industryu to establish voluntary industry The statement also said that Mattel would continue to comply with the applicablre regulations of the CPSIA.
Mattel was unablew to be reached for commentMonday morning, thouggh a representative said they would have a response later in the day. Despitew agreeing to pay $2.3 million in Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowingly violatedfederal law, as alleged by CPSC