As companies
As companies continue to test current product to clear violative product from their supply chains, TIA has, with the approval of our member companies, set out to provide a long-term program to address the “assurance gap.” To that end, I would like to share the framework for our new mandatory testing program for toys sold in the United States.
The new mandatory program will
1. Require all toys manufactured for the U.S. market to be tested to U.S. standards;
2. Standardize procedures that will be used industrywide to verify that products comply with U.S. safety standards;
3. Establish criteria to certify that testing laboratories are qualified to perform testing to U.S. standards using industrywide protocols;
4. Require the development of testing protocols and certification criteria through the cooperation of all stakeholders and apply them consistently;
5. Necessitate that TIA work with Congress, CPSC, and ANSI to implement the legislation, rules, and protocols to ensure industrywide adherence.
It is the toy industry’s strong belief that with this new mandatory testing pro- gram our industry will be even better equipped to protect the integrity of our products and the safety of American children.
Toys “R” Us
Jerry Storch, chairman and CEO of Toys “R” Us, a toy and baby products retailer oper- ating in 35 countries, with 842 stores in the United States, testified,
As the recalls this year unfolded, it became clear to us that change was needed. Like many of you, we were frustrated by some of the large recalls earlier this year, especially by what appeared to be an unacceptably long time frame between discovery of a problem and the actual consumer recall. . . .
It is our belief that a combination of strong safety practices when toys are manufactured and reinforcing federal legislation can help provide the answer. We also believe a strong, well-financed Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is needed, rather than a patchwork quilt of potentially contradictory state legislation.
[W]e believe the recall process itself could be improved in two ways: First, we support legislation shortening the time frames during the period between identification of a problem and the eventual recall of that product. We are troubled by the possibility that we could be continuing to sell toys that some- one knows may have a problem, while we remain unaware until we receive word that a recall is coming—usually just a day or two at most before the recall.
Second, we believe that production code stamping of products and packaging would significantly help in tracing potential safety issues. It would make it easier for retailers and parents to identify recalled product, and avoid the guessing game when a mom or dad is trying to remember whether they bought the prod- uct before or after the recall date.
To our knowledge, based on the recalls this year, the problem was not that testing wasn’t happening, or that testing wasn’t being done properly, but rather that testing was not done frequently enough. Prior to recent events, toy makers would test the initial batch of a product, then periodically retest batches to make sure the factory was still complying. What appears to have happened in the recent cases is that someone replaced the compliant paint with noncompli- ant paint at an unknown point between tests. Therefore, while we have long required testing from our vendors, we are moving to require that our vendors submit to us certification of testing for each batch coming to Toys “R” Us, and we have been told many vendors are already moving to this practice. To rein- force this direction, we strongly support strengthening third-party testing requirements. Specifically, we advocate for legislation requiring accredited certification of testing facilities. It is a sensible way for all of us—including retailers and consumers—to know that the manufacturers have or use quality testing facilities.
Mattel also took its message to Capitol Hill. Robert A. Eckert, Mattel’s CEO, told the committee,
Like many of you, I am a parent. I, like you, care deeply about the safety of children. And I, like you, am deeply disturbed and disappointed by recent events. As to lead paint on our products, our systems were circumvented, and our standards were violated. We were let down, and so we let you down. On behalf of Mattel and its nearly 30,000 employees, I apologize sincerely. I can’t change the past, but I can change the way we do things. And I already have. We are doing everything we can to prevent this from happening again.
Eckert continued later in his remarks,
Obviously, we know that parents are looking to us to see what we’re doing to improve our system to make people live up to their obligations and meet our standards. We have acted quickly and aggressively by implementing a strength- ened 3-point safety check system to enforce compliance with all regulations and standards applicable to lead paint. . . .
I would like to conclude by reiterating my personal apology on behalf of Mattel and to emphasize our commitment to parents. The steps we have taken will strengthen the safety of our products. Parents expect that a toy carrying the Mattel brand is safe. Ensuring safety is crucial to the long-standing trust this company has built with parents for more than 60 years. There is simply nothing more important to Mattel than the safety of children.
