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

xiwyxucupewox.blogspot.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federalo lead paint banin children’s The civil fine comes after the completed an investigationj into the importing and selling of toys with lead painft levels that exceeded the .06 percent lead by weigh t limit that is federally mandated. According to the CPSC, whicgh recently crafted the Consumer Productt SafetyImprovement Act, aimed at toughening requirementw for lead and phthalates in children’ s products, Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-compliant toys between July 2006 and Septembeer 2007. Fisher-Price imported over 1 million non-compliant toys between July 2006 andSeptembe 2007.
Among the toys in questionj were the popular Sargetoy car, various Barbie productxs and some Go Diego Go toys. Most of the toys that had excessivde levels of lead were shipped to retail storeds for sale tothe public. In 2007, a massive toy recalkl took place where about 95 Matteland Fisher-Pric toy models were determinee to have exceeded the lead limit. Lead can be toxic if ingested by young children and can cause serioushealtbh problems. The topic of lead paint in children’s products has been a hot buttonb issue asof late, with the rollout of the controversiakl CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturers and retailers have said the new regulationsxare vague, costly and arbitrary, often requirinyg the duplicate testing of products. Some smalle r manufacturers say the laws threaten to put them out of On thepolitical front, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, said protecting children has to be thetop “When the toy recalol happened (in 2007) I called the head of Fisher-Pricr and I told him they needed to start making their toys here Slaughter said. “We didn’t have these kind of problems before they importedthe toys.
” This civil which is the highest for violatione involving importation or distribution of a regulated is the third highest of any kind in CPSC “These highly publicized toy recall helped spur Congressional action last year to strengthen CPSC and make even stricteer the ban on lead paint on said CPSC Acting Chairman Thomas Moore. “Thids penalty should serve notice to toy makersx that CPSC is committed to the safety of to reducing their exposure to and to the implementation of the Consumer Producf SafetyImprovement Act.
” As part of a storhy featured in our sister publication, The Buffalo Law Journao , looking at the Consumerf Product Safety Improvement Act, whicj ran prior to the announcement of these fines, Fisher-Price declined to provide a representative to discuss the lead paint regulations. Instead, they issued a written statementwhicyh read, in part: “Mattel is well positioned as it generally designs its productsx to meet global standards. Mattepl has also been a leader in the effortsx of industry to establish voluntaryindustryt standards.
” The statement also said that Mattelk would continue to comply with the applicable regulations of the Mattel was unable to be reached for comment Monday morning, thouguh a representative said they would have a response later in the day. Despitd agreeing to pay $2.3 milliom in penalties, Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowinglu violatedfederal law, as alleged by CPSC