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

kapitonragomo.blogspot.com
million civil penalty for violations of the federap lead paint banin children’s toys. The civil fine comess after the completed an investigatiobn into the importing and selling of toys with lead paint levels that exceededthe .06 perceny lead by weight limig that is federally mandated. According to the CPSC, whicb recently crafted the Consumer Producr SafetyImprovement Act, aimedx at toughening requirements for lead and phthalates in children’s Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-complian toys between July 2006 and September 2007. Fisher-Price importecd over 1 million non-compliant toys between July 2006 andSeptember 2007.
Amon g the toys in question were the popularr Sargetoy car, various Barbie products and some Go Dieg Go toys. Most of the toys that had excessivse levels of lead were shipped to retaip stores for sale tothe public. In 2007, a massive toy recal took place where about 95 Mattepland Fisher-Price toy models were determined to have exceeded the lead Lead can be toxicd if ingested by young children and can cause seriou health problems. The topic of lead paint in children’z products has been a hot button issue asof late, with the rollout of the controversialk CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturers and retailera have said the new regulationzare vague, costly and arbitrary, often requirin the duplicate testing of products. Some smaller manufacturers say the laws threatem to put them out of On thepolitical front, Rep. Louise D-Fairport, said protecting children has to be thetop “When the toy recall happened (in 2007) I callex the head of Fisher-Price and I told him they neededs to start making their toys here Slaughter said. “We didn’t have these kind of problemz before they importedthe toys.
” This civil which is the highest for violationw involving importation or distribution of a regulater product, is the third highest of any kind in CPSC “These highly publicized toy recallsa helped spur Congressional action last year to strengthen CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead paint on toys,” said CPSC Actin g Chairman Thomas Moore. “This penalty should serve notice to toy makers that CPSC is committed to the safetyof children, to reducintg their exposure to lead, and to the implementation of the Consumer Producrt Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a story featured in our sister publication, The Buffalo Law Journal , looking at the Consumer Product Safet y Improvement Act, which ran prior to the announcement of thesd fines, Fisher-Price declined to provide a representativw to discuss the lead paint regulations. they issued a written statementwhicnh read, in part: “Mattel is well positioned as it generalluy designs its products to meet globall standards. Mattel has also been a leaded in the efforts of industry to establishn voluntaryindustry standards.” The statement also said that Mattel would continue to comply with the applicable regulations of the CPSIA.
Mattelp was unable to be reached for commentfMonday morning, though a representative said they woulds have a response later in the day. Despitw agreeing to pay $2.3 million in Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowingly violatefdfederal law, as alleged by CPSC staff.