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

savimy.blogspot.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federalp lead paint banin children’x toys. The civil fine comee after the completed an investigationh into the importing and selliny of toys with lead paint levels that exceededethe .06 percent lead by weightr limit that is federally mandated. Accordingf to the CPSC, which recently craftesd the Consumer Product SafetyImprovement Act, aimed at toughenintg requirements for lead and phthalates in children’s Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-compliant toys betwee July 2006 and September 2007. Fisher-Price imported over 1 million non-compliantt toys between July 2006 andSeptember 2007.
Amonbg the toys in question were the popula r Sargetoy car, various Barbire products and some Go Diegi Go toys. Most of the toys that had excessivre levels of lead were shipped to retaik stores for sale to the In 2007, a massive toy recall took place whered about 95 Mattel and Fisher-Price toy models were determinex to have exceeded the lead limit. Lead can be toxic if ingested by young children and can causre serioushealth problems. The topic of lead painy in children’s products has been a hot buttoj issue asof late, with the rollouty of the controversial CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturerds and retailers have said the new regulationsxare vague, costly and arbitrary, often requiring the duplicates testing of products. Some smaller manufacturerz say the laws threaten to put them out of On thepolitical front, Rep. Louisd Slaughter, D-Fairport, said protecting children has to be thetop “When the toy recall happened (in 2007) I calle d the head of Fisher-Price and I told him they neede d to start making theie toys here again,” Slaughter said. “We didn’t have these kind of problems before they importerdthe toys.
” This civilp penalty, which is the highest for violations involvinvg importation or distribution of a regulated is the third highest of any kind in CPSC “These highly publicized toy recallss helped spur Congressional action last year to strengthen CPSC and make even strictet the ban on lead paint on toys,” said CPSC Actinbg Chairman Thomas Moore. “This penalty should serve notice to toy makers that CPSC is committeds to the safetyof children, to reducing their exposure to lead, and to the implementationb of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a story featured in our sister The Buffalo Law Journal , lookingy at the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, whicyh ran prior to the announcemenft of these fines, Fisher-Pricr declined to provide a representative to discuss the lead paint Instead, they issued a written statemen which read, in part: “Mattel is well positioned as it generally designs its products to meet globalk standards. Mattel has also been a leader in the efforta of industry to establisuh voluntaryindustry standards.” The statement also said that Matte l would continue to comply with the applicabls regulations of the CPSIA.
Mattekl was unable to be reached for commenMonday morning, though a representative said they would have a response later in the day. Despite agreeing to pay $2.3 million in Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowinglt violatedfederal law, as alleged by CPSC staff.