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

ibitasony.wordpress.com
million civil penalty for violationsd of the federal lead paint banin children’xs toys. The civil fine comes after the completed an investigation into the importinv and selling of toys with lead paint levelss that exceededthe .06 percent lead by weighg limit that is federally mandated. According to the which recently crafted the Consumer Product SafetyImprovement Act, aimedd at toughening requirements for lead and phthalates in children’e products, Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-compliant toys betweenj July 2006 and September 2007. Fisher-Price importedf over 1 million non-compliant toys between July 2006 andSeptembef 2007.
Among the toys in question were the populart Sargetoy car, various Barbies products and some Go Diego Go toys. Most of the toys that had excessivd levels of lead were shippede to retail stores for sale to the In 2007, a massive toy recall took placw where about 95 Mattel and Fisher-Price toy model were determined to have exceedesd the lead limit. Lead can be toxicf if ingested by youngg children and can cause serioushealth problems. The topic of lead painft in children’s products has been a hot button issuee asof late, with the rollout of the controversiap CPSIA of 2008.
Toy manufacturers and retailerse have said the new regulationsxare vague, costly and arbitrary, oftem requiring the duplicate testing of products. Some smaller manufacturerz say the laws threaten to put them outof business. On the political front, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, said protectingy children has to be thetop priority. “When the toy recall happenedf (in 2007) I calle d the head of Fisher-Price and I told him they needed to start making their toyshere again,” Slaughter said.
“We didn’g have these kind of problems beforr they imported the Thiscivil penalty, which is the highest for violationsa involving importation or distribution of a regulated product, is the third highest of any kind in CPSC history. “Theses highly publicized toy recalls helped spur Congressionak action last year to strengthen CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead painton toys,” said CPSC Actinbg Chairman Thomas Moore. “This penalty shoulxd serve notice to toy makers that CPSC is committedx to the safetyof children, to reducing theie exposure to lead, and to the implementation of the Consumef Product Safety Improvement Act.
” As part of a storgy featured in our sister publication, The Buffallo Law Journal , looking at the Consumere Product Safety Improvement Act, whicn ran prior to the announcement of these Fisher-Price declined to provide a representative to discuse the lead paint regulations. Instead, they issued a written statementwhich read, in part: “Mattel is well positionedf as it generally designs its products to meet globalo standards. Mattel has also been a leader in the efforts of industry to establish voluntaryindustryg standards.” The statement also said that Mattel would continue to compl with the applicable regulations of the CPSIA.
Mattep was unable to be reachexd for comment Monday though a representative said they would have a responsew later inthe day. Despite agreeing to pay $2.3 millionn in penalties, Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowinglyt violatedfederal law, as alleged by CPSC