Toys”R”Us Offers Discount for Turning in Old, Unsafe Baby Products

February 4th, 2010

Image of a Recalled Play Yard

Unsafe and recalled children’s products are, unfortunately, a big problem for today’s parents.  WeMakeItSafer research estimates that 214 million potentially dangerous children’s products have been recalled and remain in circulation and could be in use currently.  (See the Children’s Products Recall Report for more recall statistics.)  To offer parents some relief, from now until February 20, Toys”R”Us, Inc. is promoting its “Great Trade-In” event to help replace unsafe baby products with new ones.

Bring used baby products to Babies”R”Us and Toys”R”Us locations nationwide and, in exchange, get 25% savings on the purchase of a new item from select manufacturers.  Toys”R”Us, Inc. spokeswoman Katie Reczek said the company disposes of the used items it receives.  This ensures that products cannot be put back into circulation.  Toys”R”Us consulted with product safety organizations, who gave the company this advice regarding disposal.

Stores are accepting these used items:

  • Cribs
  • Car seats
  • Bassinets
  • Strollers
  • Travel systems
  • Play yards
  • High chairs
  • Toddler beds

Because all used items are going to be destroyed, Toys”R”Us is not prepared to help you determine if your used item has been recalled. With each recall, however, various remedies are provided.  Use our Product Recall Search to find photos of recalled products and search easily by the brand name of the product you own.  Our recall product page will tell you, for example, whether you should contact the company for a free repair kit or whether you could return it to the store where you bought it.

CPSC Postpones Testing and Certification Requirements for Some

January 8th, 2010

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently voted to extend the stay of enforcement of certification and testing requirements for certain children’s products.  The stay is extended differently depending upon how the CPSC viewed the ability to comply and whether the CPSC is still in the process of issuing requirements and rules.  For some children’s products, the stay will not be extended.  As before, companies are still required to comply with the new safety regulations; the stay only applies to third party testing and certification.

Because of the recent meeting and vote, there will not be another vote to lift the stay on or prior to February 10, 2010.  To understand why the stay was originally put in place read our earlier blog post about the January 2009 stay and what it means to manufacturers and retailers.

Lead-Content Testing and Certification Stay Extended One Year
The CPSC commissioners voted to extend the stay of enforcement on testing and certification requirements for lead content in children’s products one more year until February 10, 2011.  This is in contrast to the earlier deadline proposed in the staff briefing package, which called for the stay to be lifted August 10, 2010.1  Despite the August date in the briefing package, the Commissioners settled on a later date after the lead content vote was delayed one day and decoupled from other issues.

Chairman Inez Tenenbaum said she voted to extend the stay on lead content testing and certification to February 10, 2011 “in order to allow component testing adequate time to develop and to give our stakeholders adequate notice of new requirements.”  On Commissioner Nancy Nord’s blog, she wrote that the stay was needed “because the deadlines set out in the CPSIA were wildly unrealistic and their enforcement would have resulted in even more chaos in the marketplace than we have already seen over the past year, without increasing safety.”

This stay does not alter the fact that products must comply with lead limit rules, it only relates to certification and testing requirements.  As stated in our earlier article explaining the Lead and Phthalate Bans, as of August 14, 2009 products intended for children twelve and under cannot contain lead (in paint or otherwise) in excess of 300ppm (parts per million) and for paint or surface coatings (on children’s product and, for example, furniture) products cannot contain paint in excess of 90ppm.  There are some exceptions, like for electronics components, such as cathode ray tubes, and some electronics components of children’s products.

Bicycles Testing and Certification Stay Extended Six Months
For both children’s and non-children’s bicycles the stay on third party testing and certificates will remain in effect until May 17, 2010 due to insufficient testing capacity at accredited labs.  The stay may be extended again for bicycles if manufacturers and labs request additional relief by April 1, 2010.

Certain Other Products Stay Extended for Unknown Period
The following children’s products will have a stay of enforcement on third party testing and certification in effect while the CPSC continues to review labs and rule on further regulations:

  • Baby walkers
  • Bath seats
  • Caps and toy guns
  • Carpets and rugs
  • Children’s sleepwear (the stay does not extend to guarantees under the Flammable Fabrics Act)
  • Children’s toys and child care articles with banned phthalates
  • Children’s toys subject to ASTM’s F-963 toy safety standard
  • Clacker balls
  • Durable infant products
  • Electrically operated toys
  • Vinyl plastic film
  • Wearing apparel (the stay does not extend to guarantees under the Flammable Fabrics Act)
  • Youth all-terrain vehicles (ATVs)
  • Youth mattresses

The following non-children’s products will continue to have a stay of enforcement on general certificate of conformity (GCC) requirements in effect until further notice:

  • Carpets and rugs
  • Vinyl plastic film
  • Wearing apparel

The stay may be lifted for these products on a rolling basis.  If the stay extension is predicated on current lack of accreditation requirements, as is the case for youth ATVs and youth mattresses, importers and domestic manufactures will have 90 days to comply upon the publication of such requirements.  Additionally, importers and domestic manufacturers are reminded that any testing and certification still is required for the above products to the extent that such testing and certification were required prior to the CPSIA, or for which accreditation requirements had been established before the stay of August 9, 2009.

Various Products Stay NOT Extended
In addition to any testing and certification that was required prior to the CPSIA, third party testing by a CPSC recognized laboratory and certification will be required for the following children’s products manufactured after February 10, 2010:

  • Bicycle helmets
  • Bunk beds
  • Dive sticks
  • Rattles

A general certificate of conformity (GCC) that shows CPSC compliance will be required for the following non-children’s consumer products manufactured after February 10, 2010 (in addition to any certifications related to preexisting requirements):

  • Architectural glazing materials
  • ATVs
  • Candles with lead wicks
  • CB antennas
  • Cellulose insulation
  • Cigarette lighters
  • Contact adhesives (subject to ban on “extremely flamable”)
  • Fireworks
  • Garage door openers
  • Household furniture subject to lead paint regulations
  • Lawnmowers
  • Matchbooks
  • Mattresses
  • Multipurpose lighters
  • Paint
  • Portable gas containers
  • Products subject to regulations under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA)
  • Refrigerator door latches
  • Swimming pool slides
  • Unstable refuse bins

Watch the briefing and meeting held on December 16, 2009.

  1. The briefing package no longer appears available on the CPSC website.  The ballot vote sheet appears to have replaced the briefing package, using the same web address. If we are able to locate a copy of the original brifing in the future, we will include a link here. []

CPSC Approved Interim Enforcement Policy for Component Testing

January 5th, 2010

According to Chairman Inez Tenenbaum’s December 17 statement, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) “voted unanimously to approve an interim enforcement policy that allows component testing as a basis to demonstrate compliance with the new lead paint and lead content limits” to help solve the certification issues around the new lead limits, especially for small businesses.  The policy went into effect on December 16, 2009.

Commissioner Robert Adler’s statement
said this policy “will address the largest set of concerns raised by the manufacturing community regarding testing and certification.”

The CPSC press release says domestic manufacturers and importers have a choice to either test and certify the entire, final product OR test and certify each individual component.  Similarly, a domestic manufacturer can rely on certificates obtained by its parts suppliers as long as those certificates meet all specifications and the associated tests were conducted by a CPSC recognized lab.  Similarly, a retailer or seller that has  received certificates based on component testing from its suppliers can rely on them in the same way that they would a certificate based on testing of a final product.

The Federal Register notice titled “Interim Enforcement Policy on Component Testing and Certifications of Children’s Products and Other Consumer Products to the August 14, 2009 Lead Limits” includes further stipulations. The manufacturer or importer that certifies the compliance related to lead paint or lead components of a children’s product would have to ensure:

  • Appropriate and sufficient samples are given to the lab and conform to related requirements.
  • Each batch of paint or each component associated with the product can be traced to the specific component manufacturer.
  • All test reports underlying the certification are included with the certificate.
  • In the case of lead content (not paint), the components must be drawn from a random sample from the batch used to make the final product.
  • All paints or components are identified with various attributes listed for each.

Among these requirements, the product manufacturer would also have to ensure paints and components that were tested and certified are not later contaminated with lead from other sources before or during the manufacturing process.

The CPSC intends to issue rules addressing various aspects of component testing, at which time the interim policy may no longer be in effect.

WeMakeItSafer Releases U.S.’s First Set of Comprehensive Consumer Product Recall Statistics Reports

December 21st, 2009

CPSC Recalled Product Units 2004-2008 By Calendar Year

Use Google or any other search web site to help you find “recall statistics” and you get a very limited list of web sites that provide useful information. Searches for other keywords like “product liability statistics,” “product safety statistics” and “recall data” yield similar results.

The new 2004-2008 WeMakeItSafer recall reports include these interesting facts:

  • Although 2004 had the fewest recalls in this time period, it had the largest number of units recalled because of one anomalous children’s jewelry recall of 150 million units.¹
  • 61% of recalls are NOT for children’s products.
  • In almost every industry, the frequency of recall announcements occur with some display of seasonality.
  • Almost $7 billion worth of products in the Computers & Electronics category were recalled.

Who knew? Well, nobody knew because analyzing recall data to make meaningful conclusions has been almost impossible until now. At WeMakeItSafer, we spent the last three years cleaning and reorganizing Consumer Product Safety Commission recall data. We also use the recall data in conjunction with other data to provide valuable insights into how recalls are affecting businesses.

The recall data have been analyzed and segmented to make understanding complex recall data amazingly easy. Each report includes charts and discusses topics such as:

  • Recall effectiveness and implications for unrecovered recalled products
  • The overall dollar value of products affected by recalls
  • Prevalence of hazards that the recalled products could cause, for example lead poisoning, choking and falls
  • Timing of recalls over calendar years
  • The number of incidents reported (with and without injuries) relative to the timing of recalls
  • Much, much, more…

WeMakeItSafer has created seven comprehensive recall information reports:

  • Overall Recall Report: All Product Categories Combined
  • Children’s Products
  • Computers & Electronics
  • Hardware, Tools & Building Supply
  • Home & Garden
  • Sports, Outdoors & Recreation
  • Motorsport & Utility Vehicles

Whether you are a company executive trying to better understand recalls, an insurance professional assessing recall risk, a recall specialist looking to identify important market segments or an investor trying to assess the impact of recalls on businesses, these reports and our individual company reports will be crucial to your successful navigation of the recall landscape. We can also customize our research and reports according to your needs, giving you meaningful insight based on recall data.

For more information and to purchase reports, please go to our Recall Statistics and Reports page, or our Company Reports page. For specific questions, please contact us directly at Reports@WeMakeItSafer.com.

¹ WeMakeItSafer’s calculation of units is taken from numbers reported in recall announcements. These figures do not match numbers reported by the CPSC in annual reports. The CPSC has told WeMakeItSafer that it does not track the number of recalled units reported in announcements but has not yet responded to our request for explanation of the calculation methods for its annual reports.


CPSC Civil Penalties on the Rise Again

December 17th, 2009

In a recent Inform Me: News and Recent Recalls newsletter, we reported that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) entered civil penalty settlement agreements with 38 corporations for a total of $9.8 million in fiscal year 2009 (October 2008 – September 2009). The number of companies fined was higher than it has been in at least ten years, and total penalties were more than double those settled in 2008.

CPSC Civil Fines Fiscal Years 2000 to 2009

Fifteen companies each paid $100,000 or more, versus just six companies paying amounts over $100,000 in 2008. Because the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) allows for higher penalties, the settlement sizes are expected to increase in the future. In addition, because of the tougher regulations, we expect to see more companies in violation and, therefore, more fines. From 2003 to 2007, no more than ten companies faced civil fines in each year. That number rose to 23 in 2008 and, as noted, jumped again in 2009 to 38.

Violations of the federal lead paint ban topped the CPSC penalties charts in both 2008 and 2009. The largest civil penalty in 2008 was Reebok’s $1 million penalty for allegedly importing and distributing charm bracelets that contained toxic levels of lead, which Reebok recalled in 2006.  The largest settlement in FY ‘09 was Mattel’s $2.3 million penalty for products recalled in 2007 due to excessive lead, lead paint and small magnets.

Another hot button issue in 2009 was failure to report drawstrings in children’s outerwear. During the fiscal year, 20 firms settled with the CPSC over issues related to drawstrings. In April, the CPSC announced agreements with 14 firms, each firm agreeing to pay between $25,000 and $315,000.

In 2009, besides lead paint and drawstrings violations, several firms were fined for failure to report possible product hazards in a timely manner. In one such example, Mega Brands America Inc., formerly Rose Art Industries Inc., agreed to pay a $1.1 million civil penalty to settle allegations that the firm failed to provide the government with timely information about the Magnetix magnetic building sets. The CPSC Mega Brands press release said, “by the time Rose Art agreed to the recall of Magnetix in March 2006, the firm had received more than 1,500 complaints of magnets falling out of plastic pieces in more than 65 different models of Magnetix.”

Failure to inform the CPSC is not a new violation. According to the CPSC Recall Handbook published in 1999, companies are required to report to the CPSC within 24 hours of receiving or identifying information “that reasonably supports the conclusion that a product fails to meet a consumer product safety rule, standard, or ban, contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.”

Looking at some of the other notable penalty years, we find that, in 2005, the largest settlement was for Graco’s $4 million penalty to resolve CPSC charges that it failed to inform the CPSC in a timely manner about more than 12 million products that posed a danger to young children nationwide. And, in 2001, the largest settlement was for Cosco and Safety 1st’s $1.75 million penalty, also for failure to report. Both Cosco and Safety first are subsidiaries of Dorel Industries, Inc. Cosco agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle charges that it failed to report product defects with cribs, strollers, car seat carriers and high chairs. Safety 1st paid $450,000 to settle charges it withheld information about defects with its walkers and wipe warmers.

Civil penalties are negotiated settlements that result from CPSC’s enforcement activities. The CPSC cannot use these civil penalties funds, so enforcement activities do not affect the agency’s budget. Settlements take time, so the fines typically are not determined in the year in which the violation took place. In the magnet example above, the settlement was finalized in April 2009, but the related recalls took place in 2006 and 2007.

Read more stories like this by subscribing to our bi-monthly email on safety news and WeMakeItSafer developments. Most importantly, the email will include images of recently recalled products; a quick glance twice a month could save a life! To subscribe, please email InformMe@WeMakeItSafer.com.


Soda Can Pull Tabs Commonly Swallowed

December 15th, 2009

A new study conducted at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center looked at cases where kids, the majority of which were teenagers, have swallowed the soda can stay-tabs.  Swallowing pull tabs can lead to injury of the gastrointestinal tract and sometimes surgery is required.

“The identification of 19 ingested stay-tabs at a single children’s hospital suggests that such occurrences are not uncommon,” said Lane F. Donnelly, M.D the study’s lead author.


To Prevent More Deaths, CPSC Will Create Rules for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles

December 14th, 2009

In October, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to address safety hazards associated with recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs).  Comments are due by December 28, 2009.

What, exactly, is an ROV?  The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA), a not-for-profit organization sponsored by ROV makers, including Yamaha, Arctic Cat, Bombardier Recreational Products (BRP) and Polaris, describes ROVs in this way:

“Sometimes referred to as side-by-sides or UTVs, ROVs are motorized off-road vehicles designed to travel on four or more non-highway tires…

Fun, functional and definitely versatile, ROVs, or recreational off-highway vehicles, are a new breed of machine, attracting the attention of outdoor enthusiasts in ever-increasing numbers.”

Unfortunately, as ROV popularity climbs, so has the number of injuries and deaths associated with their use.  ROV incidents have resulted in 116 deaths and 152 reported injuries since 2003 according to the CPSC ROV draft report and Injury and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and In-Depth Investigation. The CPSC expects these counts to increase as its investigations continue. In light of this, the CPSC met with the ROHVA in December 2008 to discuss voluntary industry standards that are being developed with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). So far, the CPSC has found these standards inadequate in addressing all of their safety concerns.

The ROHVA member-companies are well known for making other types of off-road recreational vehicles including ATVs, snowmobiles, motorcycles and utility vehicles. Yamaha has conducted eight recalls with the CPSC since 2001, with about 391,000 product units recalled or in need of repair. Arctic Cat has conducted 14 recalls since 2000 involving about 200,000 units. BRP has conducted 20 recalls since 2003 involving about 87,000 units. Polaris conducted 34 recalls since 2000 involving about 450,000 units recalled. (If you would like more information about these companies, WeMakeItSafer offers extensive analysis on company recall history and performance. For more information visit http://wemakeitsafer.com/CompanyReports.html or contact Reports@WeMakeItSafer.com )

Notably, the Yamaha Rhino has been involved in the death of 46 drivers and passengers, a fact that was reported in March when Yamaha recalled for repair and suspended further sales of three ROV models until repaired, according to the CPSC Rhino announcement. 145,000 vehicles were involved. A Bloomberg article reported that Yamaha is facing about 500 lawsuits over the Rhino in the U.S. and Canada.

Of the cumulative 76 recalls for the four companies, 58 (76%) had no reported injuries announced by the CPSC at the time of recall. Other than the March Yamaha Rhino recall, the CPSC reported 20 injuries or fewer with each of the 76 recalls.

One of the biggest ROV safety hazards relates to overturning. 69% of the accidents that the CPSC investigated “appeared to have involved overturning of the ROV, with no known collision event preceding the overturning,” according to the CPSC Report on Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles released in early October.

The report said tests of several ROV models indicated that vehicles may exhibit:

  • Inadequate lateral stability
  • Undesirable steering characteristics and
  • Inadequate occupant protection during a rollover crash

ROVs are new products that became available in the late 1990s. Safety standards haven’t been established for ROVs, and ATV and other vehicle standards do not apply because ROVs have several unique characteristics:

  • May have more than four tires
  • Maximum speeds are often greater than 30 mph
  • Steering wheel rather than a handle bar
  • Side-by-side passenger seating
  • Rollover protective structures
  • Foot controls used for the throttle and braking

As noted above, the CPSC invites comments from the public regarding the risks of injury associated with ROVs and ways in which these risks could be addressed. You can submit comments through December 28, 2009 at 11:59 p.m. ET at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on keyword “cpsc rov.”


More Pacifiers Added to Recall List

November 20th, 2009

Recalled Bobby Chupete Pacifiers

Sixth Pacifier Failed to Meet Federal Safety Standards This Year

Today, the CPSC announced a recall of “Bobby Chupete” pacifiers because of a potential choking hazard.  According to the CPSC, over 600,000 of these pacifiers were imported by Grand World Inc.  Although no connection is mentioned in the recall announcement, very similar pacifiers sold under the name, “My Baby Soother,”  were recalled last month, also due to a choking hazard.   The My Baby Soother version was distributed by T & L Trading.

In the My Baby Soother recall, the CPSC stated that “T & L Trading has refused to recall these pacifiers,” and therefore issued the warning itself, urging distributors and retailers who purchased the “My Baby Soother” pacifiers from T & L Trading to call the agency.   There were 16,500 pacifiers included in the T & L trading recall.

As we try to piece this together, several questions come to mind:

  • Who manufactured the pacifiers? Is it the same entity in both recalls?
  • Was T & L Trading also an importer, or did it purchase pacifiers from Grand World Inc.?
  • Are there more distributors, more importers?
  • How many units did the manufacturer(s) make?

The CPSC is surely investigating this matter, and we will keep you posted as we learn more.

In addition to these two recalls, consumers should review the photos of other recent pacifier recalls.  There have been four other pacifier recalls in 2009 alone.  In January, 38,000 flashing pacifiers were recalled.  Although marketed as a toy for older children, if mistakenly given to an infant or toddler, the pacifier could cause serious injury or death.   In April, about 40,000 pacifiers imported by Healthtex were recalled.  These Zoo pacifiers have animal cartoon figures as handles.  In July, about 700 Jaloma pacifiers were sold in the New York and New Jersey area and were recalled because they have a mouth guard and ventilation holes that are too small.

One pacifier recalled in March under the Baby Necessities brand involved about 2,900 pacifiers.  Subsequently, the Los Angeles importer, OKK Trading, agreed to pay $665,000 in a provisional penalty settlement that resolved previous import and export violations, many of which resulted in recalls, but does not appear to cover this most recent pacifier recall.  In the settlement, the CPSC alleged that OKK Trading knowingly imported and sold pacifiers, which violated the prohibition on small parts and and various other children’s toys, rattles and games that were in violation of numerous federal standards including lead paint limits.

Check to make sure pacifiers you own have not been recalled at WeMakeItSafer.com. Then, sign up for WeMakeItSafer’s e-newsletter by sending an email to InformMe@WeMakeItSafer.com. Twice a month, you will receive images of recent recalls in your inbox.   A quick glance will ensure you remain aware and your family stays safe.


Safety Matters Is Moving to WeMakeItSafer.com

November 7th, 2009

For the past year I have been writing the Safety Matters blog for WeMakeItSafer, Inc., a company I founded to address problems with consumer product safety and recalls.  The support has been tremendous – 10,000 readers have stopped by to gain information on product safety laws, recall news and safety tips.

Now that WeMakeItSafer has grown from idea to reality, the time has come for the Safety Matters blog to move to its permanent home on the WeMakeItSafer.com site:  http://WeMakeItSafer.com/blog, where I and others at WeMakeItSafer will continue to follow the latest safety topics.

In my new, personal blog, “Cloning is Not an Option,” I will be writing about my life and experience as both an entrepreneur and a parent.  I know what you’re thinking – “Oh, great, another mommy blogger writing about life.”  That’s what I thought, too; which is why I have not had a personal blog until now.

So what’s changed?  Well, for starters, Safety Matters now is in good hands with my wonderful team at WeMakeItSafer.  But more importantly, I have come to realize there MUST be a need for MORE people who are building companies while raising a family to share their experiences.

Whether at a conference, a presentation, a partner meeting or a fieldtrip, I inevitably end up fielding questions about how it is possible to be simultaneously a mom and a professional – a CEO of a startup, no less.  The answer, “Get a cloning device.”  Since that isn’t a very helpful response, I have decided to share my experiences in a personal blog, in hopes that others will be able to learn from them.

I look forward to reading your comments and ideas on both blogs as we grow.

Posted by Jennifer P. Toney
Founder & CEO
WeMakeItSafer, Inc.

More Deaths Prompt Expanded Recall of Blair’s Chenille Clothing

November 1st, 2009

061109 Blair Robe

Check your closet and make sure your parents and grandparents check as well.  Blair LLC and CPSC expanded the earlier robe recall to include additional chenille garments, including jackets and sweaters.  Blair has received several reports of the chenille garments catching fire, including nine deaths, most of which involved seniors who were cooking at the time.

2009-11-01 Blair top

See all images for this recall.

With the recall expansion, about 300,000 articles of clothing have been recalled. All four of the clothing items were sold for $20 to $40.