CPSC Gets Tough on Lead Paint Violators
Reprinted from The Safety Record, Volume 7, Issue 1, April 2010
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has leveled the second largest fine against a lead paint violator and prohibited the company from selling children’s toys and products in the U.S. until it creates a comprehensive safety plan.
In early March, Daiso Seattle LLC, of Seattle, Wash. and Daiso California LLC, of Hayward, Calif. agreed to pay $2.05 million in civil penalties, after the CPSC alleged that Daiso violated the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) by distributing children’s products with high lead paint and phthalate concentrations and toys with small parts for children under three years of age, without proper warning labels. Under the consent decree, Daiso agreed to a take a number of steps to ensure product safety in the future.
Daiso’s fine was just a hair under the highest penalty ever levied against a manufacturer by the CPSC for violating the old limits on lead paint in children’s products. In June, Mattel/Fisher Price agreed to pay a $2.35 million penalty. In total, the agency has imposed nearly $8 million in civil fines. Under these settlements, manufacturers are allowed to deny the CPSC allegations that they knowingly violated a 30-year-old law limiting the lead content in paint to .06 percent in paints and surface coatings. Nonetheless, advocates say that the settlements send a strong message to industry about the CPSC’s newfound intolerance for companies that import products that harm children.
“I feel there’s a renewed commitment to safety in these actions,” says Nancy Cowles, executive director of the advocacy group, Kids In Danger. “It won’t be a slap on the wrist – you won’t be able to ignore the requirements. You are actually going to have to pay fines. That injunction (against Daiso), they’ve never done that before. That’s an interesting part of the whole package.”
Under the consent agreement, Daiso must complete a number of steps before the CPSC will allow the company to resume selling children’s products. The company must conduct a product audit to determine which merchandise requires testing and certification; establish and implement product safety testing; retain an independent product safety coordinator; a third-party testing entity and toxicologist and/or an accredited testing laboratory; create guidance manuals for managers and employees on how to comply with product safety requirements; and establish recall procedures. Finally, the company has to demonstrate to the commission that it understands its safety obligations and is in compliance with all federal laws.
Since June, the CPSC announced that it had levied fines of more than $3.1 million against 13 children’s product manufacturers, importers and sellers to settle the federal lead paint ban. The settlements covered toys, children’s metal jewelry, children’s pens, metal water bottles, pencil pouches, sunglasses and children’s Halloween pails and baskets recalled in 2007 and 2008 that also violated the 1978 limits on lead in children’s products.
The companies are: RC2 Target Corp. of Minneapolis, Minn., $600,000; OKK Trading, of Commerce, Calif. $665,000; Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., $200,000; Excelligence Learning Corp. of Monterey, CA, $25,000; Cardinal Distributing Co. Inc., of Baltimore, Md., $100,000; Dollar General Corp., of Goodlettsville, Tenn., $100,000; Family Dollar Stores Inc., of Matthews, N.C., $75,000; Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., of Oklahoma City, Okla., $50,000; First Learning Company Ltd., of Hong Kong, $50,000; Michaels Stores Inc., of Irving, Texas, $45,000; A&A Global Industries Inc., of Cockeysville, Md., $40,000; Raymond Geddes & Co, of Baltimore, Md., $40,000; and Downeast Concepts Inc., of Yarmouth, Maine, $30,000.
These settlements reflect violations under the more lenient lead limits dictated by a 32-year-old regulation. Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, products sold to children must be manufactured under more stringent guidelines. In August, the allowable amount of lead in surface coatings of children’s products dropped to .009 percent. The commission has not yet enforced the new, tougher, lead limits under the CPSIA; the lead testing provision is currently under a stay, designed to provide temporary relief to manufacturers while they gear up to adhere to the new regulations.
Rachel Weintraub, Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel at Consumer Federation of America, called it “the dawning of a new CPSC.” She praised the commission not only for holding companies responsible for complying with the law, but for “creatively” imposing sanctions such as the injunction against Daiso.
Weintraub also pointed out that the CPSC recently broke with past practice, issuing a general warning to the public about the dangers of baby slings about two weeks before manufacturer Infantino LLC recalled more than 1 million baby slings. Infantino announced the recall on March 24, after three infant deaths were reported. The U.S. CPSC issued a general warning on March 12, “advising parents and caregivers to be cautious when using infant slings for babies younger than four months of age, based on a survey of incident reports from the past 20 years and open investigations into at least 14 deaths associated with sling-style infant carriers, including three in 2009.”
“The recall wasn’t ready to be announced, but they wanted to warn the public about baby slings, and that is not something that we have seen for a long time – using their ability to communicate hazards to the public,” Weintraub said.