recommend that Congress s
[W]e recommend that Congress set a goal of funding the CPSC at least to reach 700-plus employees, [which] the agency had when its doors opened in 1974. Consumers Union commends the toy industry, including retail giants such as Toys “R” Us, for embracing the idea of third-party testing and inspecting, and for welcoming the federal regulatory involvement in making testing and inspec- tion mandatory.
Greenberg also took the opportunity to press for a proposal backed by her organization to protect consumers from unsafe Chinese-made products.
On July 18 of this year, Consumers Union . . . [proposed] eight steps that should be taken to help safeguard the health and safety of American consumers from the onslaught of unsafe Chinese-produced consumer products and foods. That list included the following steps:
1. Provide increased resources to government safety agencies to prevent unsafe prod- ucts from crossing our borders.
2. Hold suppliers, importers, distributors, as well as manufacturers accountable for bringing unsafe products to the market by requiring preshipment inspections and testing to ensure product safety.
3. Develop U.S. government–administered, third-party safety certification programs for all products.
4. Develop a product traceability program for country-of-origin labeling for both food and consumer products as well as for all components and ingredients.
5. Require that importers post a bond to ensure they have sufficient resources to recall their products should they prove dangerous or defective.
6. Give all agencies with enforcement authority the power to levy meaningful civil penalties for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers who fail to comply with regulations, and criminal penalties for those who knowingly and repeatedly jeopardize public safety.
7. Authorize mandatory recall authority for all government agencies.
8. Require all government agencies to publicly disclose information pertaining to safety investigations and reports of adverse events.
She later added a comment on recall effectiveness:
Recall notices rarely reach the very people who most need it—parents and care- givers. There is no law requiring manufacturers to try to find purchasers of the product or to notify parents or day care centers if a product proves dangerous and must be recalled. Further, there is no requirement that manufacturers advertise a product recall in the same way they advertised the product in the first place—toys with lead paint and magnets, high chairs, cribs, strollers, infant swings, and carriers often continue to be used for months or years after they have been recalled. In an effort to improve recall effectiveness, consumer groups petitioned the CPSC, asking that the commission require simple registration cards on products intended for use by children. While not a panacea, registration cards are one way to facilitate recalls.
The president and CEO of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), S. Joe Bhatia, also spoke before the Senate Committee. ANSI is a private nonprofit organization that coordinates the development of voluntary standards to protect consumer safety in a wide range of industries; it collaborates internationally with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Bhatia testified,
Standards are important for everyone because they influence the design, safety, manufacturing, and marketing of many products worldwide. Standards are not only developed in response to injuries, hazard, or other identified safety risks, but more often in a proactive manner to prevent injuries from known hazards. . . .
This hearing is necessary not because there is an issue with standards. It is necessary because some suppliers—particularly those who are exporting products to U.S. soil—are not complying with the rigorous standards and regulations that have been established to keep our citizens safe.
Products manufactured in accordance with U.S. toy safety standards provide greater protection to our children. Testing and inspection systems must be strengthened so that compliance with these standards can be verified before unsafe products get into this country. . . The system must be efficient, consistent, and sustainable. It must focus on improv- ing how products are evaluated and assessing who is conducting the evaluations. . . .
ANSI wants to help reassure consumers that the products they find on the shelves of their local retailer have been tested and found to be safe—regardless of country of origin. In order for the Institute to accomplish the objective:
• Standards and conformity assessment resources that are already in place must be used more efficiently;
• Government and industry need to work at a single purpose to identify gaps in the current systems of testing and inspection of products imported to the United States;
• New human and financial resources must be brought to bear to strengthen existing systems and fill any identified gaps.
Toy Industry Association
Carter Keithley, president and CEO of the Toy Industry Association—an industry asso- ciation representing companies that provides 85 percent of the toys sold in the United States—also testified. He said,
At the outset, I would like to note the U.S. has among the strictest, most com- prehensive toy safety systems in the world. U.S. toys have, for years, been ranked among the safest of all consumer products in the home. In fact, many nations around the world emulate the U.S. system and understand our toy safety standards to be the premier standards. This is not to say there is no room for improvement. It is our mission to continuously search for new ways to further strengthen our safety systems and standards. . . .
As we entered the summer months and up until as late as last week, toy recalls were in the headlines daily. These recent recalls clearly demonstrated our safety system needed to be strengthened. Although, as I stated, we have some of the best standards in the world, we were left wanting in assuring the application of the standards. This lack of assuring application of standards left our companies, the industry, and most importantly our children exposed. . . .
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.
