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

esivyjifag.wordpress.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federal lead paint banin children’a toys. The civil fine comes aftert the completed an investigation into the importing and selling of toys with lead paint levels that exceeded the .06 percent lead by weighrt limit that is federally mandated. According to the CPSC, whichy recently crafted the Consumer Product SafetyImprovement Act, aimede at toughening requirements for lead and phthalated in children’s products, Mattel importedr up to 900,000 non-compliant toys between July 2006 and Septembedr 2007. Fisher-Price imported over 1 million non-compliant toys between July 2006 andSeptemberr 2007.
Among the toys in questiobn were the popular Sargetoy car, various Barbire products and some Go Diego Go Most of the toys that had excessive levels of lead were shippe d to retail stores for sale to the In 2007, a massive toy recall took place wherw about 95 Mattel and Fisher-Price toy models were determined to have exceededc the lead limit. Lead can be toxic if ingested by young children and can cause serioushealth problems. The topic of lead paint in children’s products has been a hot button issu e asof late, with the rollour of the controversial CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturers and retailers have said the new regulations are costlyand arbitrary, often requiring the duplicate testingf of products. Some smaller manufacturers say the laws threatej to put them out of On thepolitical front, Rep. Louise D-Fairport, said protecting children has to be thetop “When the toy recall happeneds (in 2007) I called the head of Fisher-Pric e and I told him they needed to start makingv their toys here again,” Slaughter said.
“Wee didn’t have these kind of problems before they imported the Thiscivil penalty, which is the highest for violationz involving importation or distribution of a regulated product, is the thirsd highest of any kind in CPSC history. “These highly publicized toy recalls helped spur Congressional actiobn last year to strengthenj CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead painfton toys,” said CPSC Acting Chairman Thomas Moore. “This penalty should serve noticed to toy makers that CPSC is committer to the safetyof children, to reducing their exposurr to lead, and to the implementation of the Consumedr Product Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a storyu featured in our sister publication, The Buffalok Law Journal , looking at the Consumed Product Safety Improvement Act, which ran prior to the announcemeng of these fines, Fisher-Price declined to provid e a representative to discuss the lead paintg regulations. Instead, they issuee a written statement which in part: “Mattel is well positioned as it generall y designs its products to meet globalp standards. Mattel has also been a leaderd in the efforts of industry to establisg voluntaryindustry standards.” The statement also said that Matteol would continue to comply with the applicable regulations of the CPSIA.
Mattel was unabld to be reached for comment Monday morning, though a representative said they woul have a response later in the day. Despitse agreeing to pay $2.3 million in penalties, Matte l and Fisher-Price deny that they knowingly violatedfederap law, as alleged by CPSC