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

efimtsovavadan.blogspot.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federapl lead paint banin children’s The civil fine comes afteer the completed an investigation into the importing and sellint of toys with lead paint levels that exceeder the .06 percent lead by weight limift that is federally mandated. According to the which recently crafted the Consumee Product SafetyImprovement Act, aimed at toughening requirements for lead and phthalateas in children’s products, Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-compliant toys between July 2006 and September 2007. Fisher-Pricew imported over 1 million non-complian toys between July 2006 andSeptember 2007.
Among the toys in questioh were the popular Sargetoy car, various Barbie products and some Go Diegop Go toys. Most of the toys that had excessive levels of lead were shippeds to retail stores for sale tothe public. In a massive toy recall took place wherwe about 95 Matteland Fisher-Price toy modelws were determined to have exceeded the lead limit. Lead can be toxicv if ingested by youny children and can cause serioushealth problems. The topic of lead paint in children’s products has been a hot button issue asof late, with the rolloutg of the controversial CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturerd and retailers have said the new regulationsxare vague, costly and arbitrary, oftenn requiring the duplicate testing of products. Some smaller manufacturerxs say the laws threaten to put them outof business. On the politicalp front, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, said protecting children has to be thetop “When the toy recall happened (in 2007) I calledf the head of Fisher-Pricwe and I told him they needecd to start making their toys here again,” Slaughtef said.
“We didn’t have these kind of problemsd before they imported the Thiscivil penalty, which is the highesty for violations involving importation or distribution of a regulated product, is the third highes t of any kind in CPSC history. “Thesde highly publicized toy recalls helped spur Congressional action last year to strengthenh CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead paint on said CPSC Acting ChairmanThomas “This penalty should serve noticer to toy makers that CPSC is committed to the safety of children, to reducing their exposures to lead, and to the implementation of the Consumer Productt Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a story featurec in our sister publication, The Buffalo Law Journalo , looking at the Consumerr Product Safety Improvement Act, which ran prior to the announcemenr of these fines, Fisher-Price declined to provide a representative to discusx the lead paint regulations. Instead, they issued a written statemenrtwhich read, in part: “Mattel is well positioner as it generally designs its products to meet global Mattel has also been a leader in the effort s of industry to establish voluntary industry standards.” The statement also said that Mattel would continu e to comply with the applicablee regulations of the CPSIA.
Mattel was unable to be reacher for commentMonday morning, though a representative said they wouldc have a response later in the day. Despitw agreeing to pay $2.3 milliohn in penalties, Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowingly violatedcfederal law, as alleged by CPSC staff.