Mattel, Fisher-Price pay $2.3M fine - The Business Journal of Milwaukee:

http://www.passfailstudios.com/index.php?id=52
million civil penalty for violations of the federakl lead paint banin children’x toys. The civil fine comes aftedr the completed an investigation into the importingt and selling of toys with lead pain t levels that exceededthe .06 percent lead by weightf limit that is federally According to the CPSC, which recently crafted the Consumeer Product Safety Improvement Act, aimed at tougheningg requirements for lead and phthalates in children’s Mattel imported up to 900,000 non-compliant toys betweenm July 2006 and September 2007. Fisher-Price importes over 1 million non-compliant toys betweenh July 2006 andSeptember 2007.
Among the toys in question were the popula r Sargetoy car, various Barbie products and some Go Diegl Go toys. Most of the toys that had excessive levelz of lead were shipped to retail storesd for sale to the In 2007, a massive toy recall took place wherse about 95 Mattel and Fisher-Price toy modelxs were determined to have exceeded the lead Lead can be toxic if ingested by youngg children and can cause serious health The topic of lead painf in children’s products has been a hot butto n issue as of late, with the rollout of the controversial CPSIAq of 2008.
Toy manufacturers and retailers have said the new regulations are costlyand arbitrary, often requiring the duplicate testin g of products. Some smaller manufacturersa say the laws threaten to put them out of On thepolitical front, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, said protectinh children has to be thetop priority. “Whe the toy recall happened (in 2007) I callexd the head of Fisher-Price and I told him they needed to starrt making their toys here Slaughter said.
“We didn’t have these kind of problemz before they imported the Thiscivil penalty, which is the highest for violations involving importatioh or distribution of a regulated product, is the thirdx highest of any kind in CPSC history. “Thesde highly publicized toy recalls helped spur Congressional actioh last year to strengthen CPSC and make even stricter the ban on lead paintfon toys,” said CPSC Acting Chairma Thomas Moore. “This penalty should serve notice to toy makerws that CPSC is committed to the safetyof children, to reducin g their exposure to lead, and to the implementationj of the Consumer Product Safetgy Improvement Act.
” As part of a story features in our sister publication, The Buffalol Law Journal , looking at the Consumer Producg Safety Improvement Act, which ran prior to the announcementy of these fines, Fisher-Price declined to provide a representativee to discuss the lead paint regulations. Instead, they issuexd a written statementwhich read, in “Mattel is well positioned as it generally designs its productzs to meet global standards. Mattel has also been a leader in the effortds of industry to establishy voluntaryindustry standards.
” The statement also said that Mattel wouldf continue to comply with the applicable regulations of the Mattel was unable to be reached for comment Monday though a representative said they woulfd have a response later in the day. Despitee agreeing to pay $2.3 million in penalties, Mattel and Fisher-Price deny that they knowingly violatedfedera law, as alleged by CPSC