Archive for December, 2009

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

Monday, 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

Thursday, 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

Tuesday, 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

Monday, 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.”