US Product Recall System is Ineffective…Still?

Every year millions of people are
injured or killed in product-related accidents. 
In 2006 (the year before
recalls regained the spotlight) product-related incidents in the US alone
injured 33.1 million people and killed an additional 27,000.¹ That same year, in attempt to quell those numbers, the CPSC recalled 471
products, accounting for 124 million product-units.²  35% of those recalls were for children’s
products.³ While
implementing so many recalls may be helpful, as the numbers of injuries and
deaths show, the system is not as effective as it needs to be.

The recent passing of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) on August 14th takes steps toward
making consumer products sold in the US safer. 
Some of the new rules include:

• Bans (or near bans) on phthalates and lead in
  children’s products,
• Requirements for third-party testing on children’s products,
  and testing on all regulated imports,
• Increases in the number of mandatory safety standards, and
• Steeper fines for violations, now $100,000 – $15
  Million (previously $8,000 – $1.8M)

All of these are important
measures that should help to increase the safety of products sold in the
US.  But what about those products that
do slip through the cracks or are the result of honest mistakes – the products
that are later recalled?  

As the term implies, products
that are “recalled” are supposed to be retrieved from consumers and returned to
manufacturers, fixed or destroyed.  In
reality, relatively few recalled-products are ever recovered.  On average, manufacturers can only account
for about 20% of the recalled products that have already left their facilities,
leaving up to 80% in homes, schools, childcare facilities and offices around
the country.

The 2008 CPSIA does make some changes to Section 15, the portion of the 1972 Act governing recall procedures, in attempt to
improve recall effectiveness.  As
discussed more thoroughly in my previous blog, Brief Overview of US Product Recall System
- Old and New, changes include:

• Requirements to post recalls on websites of
  manufacturers, retailers, distributors and licensors,
• Notifications of recalls to State and local health
  authorities,
• CPSC discretion over the type(s) of remedy that may be
  offered in a specific recall, and
• Announcements of recalls on TV or radio, and in
  languages other than English, when the CPSC determines this could reach
  additional affected populations not otherwise reached.

The 2008 CPSIA also aims to increase recall effectiveness by
requiring manufacturers to include product registration cards with durable
infant and toddler goods such as cribs, strollers, high chairs, bath seats,
play yards and activity centers.  In addition, manufacturers will be required to stamp certain children's products with a permanent tracking number that will allow consumers to ascertain information such as when and where the product was produced.

While I think that each of these
measures is a step in the right direction, I am skeptical that they will have a
significant impact on recall effectiveness. 
For example, many companies already list recalls on their websites, but
consumers only click on the “Recalls” links when they suspect a
problem.  In other words, recall links
are most often visited by the 20% of consumers who already know about a
particular recall, not the up to 80% who don’t. 

Similarly, while requiring registration
cards seems like a good idea, cards currently only have about a 15-30% response
rate.  The new rules say that
registration cards must include a statement that customer information will only
be used to contact the customer in the event of a recall, which may increase
response rates, but it will be a long time before we know for sure.  Cards are not required for durable infant and
toddler goods until August 2009, after which the CPSC has up to four years to
determine whether the cards have been successful in increasing recall
effectiveness.  Only after such
determination will the CPSC consider requiring registration cards on other
children’s products. 

Whether the registration cards prove successful or not, they will only help protect the original owner of the product.  If the item is sold to another party or donated to charity, the original owner may not be able (or willing) to contact the current owner.

Similarly, while labeling children's products with a tracking ID will certainly make it easier for consumers to know whether their version of a particular product has been recalled, it still requires the consumer to know about the recall before they will check.

I do think including other
languages and reaching certain populations by TV or radio could be very
helpful, but will require exemplary implementation on the part of the
CPSC.  The circumstances around which
such communication will be required are not outlined in the 2008 CPSIA.  One cautionary note is that widespread media
advertising of recalls, if overdone, could actually reduce recall effectiveness
as consumers begin to tune out the barrage of announcements, a phenomenon
witnessed in the UK.

Perhaps paradoxically, as the
number of regulations designed to make products safer grow, we may see
an increase in the number of product recalls, especially at first while new
testing systems are being developed.  This only
makes getting the recall system right that much more important.  The steps taken through the 2008 CPSIA are good, but we still have a lot of work to do.

Reference Materials

Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008