Professor
07-19-2007, 02:06 AM
Lawmakers propose ban on imported toys unless items pass safety tests
By Patricia Callahan (pcallahan@tribune.com)
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 18, 2007, 7:27 PM CDT
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) on Wednesday proposed a ban on all imported toys and other children's products unless the importers can prove the goods pass safety tests by independent labs.
A response to a Tribune investigation of hidden hazards in children's products, the legislation introduced Wednesday is the first of what are expected to be two Durbin bills toughening the oversight of the safety of kids' products.
Durbin soon plans to introduce a second bill that would reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency that polices the safety of 15,000 types of consumer goods. That measure would empower the safety commission to alert the public about dangerous products when firms refuse to recall them – something the agency can't easily do now.
Current law includes a provision that protects manufacturers' reputations by forcing the commission, known as the CPSC, to notify a company of any negative comments it plans to make about a brand-named product and give that company 30 days to challenge the statements.
As a result, the agency ends up negotiating every word of a recall alert with the product's maker. The Tribune investigation found the negotiated recall notices can be confusing and – in the case of Magnetix, a construction toy tied to one death and dozens of life-threatening injuries – mislead consumers and retailers as to which models are dangerous.
Durbin's proposal would cut the time manufacturers can comment to 10 days and allow the agency to announce when companies aren't cooperating or refuse to recall products that pose imminent health hazards.
"At many points in the process, the manufacturer can slow down or stop the ability to recall a product," Durbin said. "Magnetix was a classic example of the failure of this agency."
In addition, Durbin's CPSC reform plan would impose civil fines on retailers that knowingly sell recalled products and would increase the penalties to $20 million from $1.25 million for companies that fail to report product defects linked to injuries or deaths
As for the legislation regarding imported products that was introduced Wednesday, labs certified by the CPSC would test imported products for children ages 5 and under and certify they meet both voluntary and mandatory safety standards.
In stressing the need for a ban on dangerous imports, Nelson cited a Tribune analysis of 30 years of recalls on kids' products that contained lead-based paint, a neurotoxin. That analysis found the overwhelming majority were Chinese imports. Likewise, Magnetix toys were imported from China.
__________________________________________________ ________
Durbin's proposal would cut the time manufacturers can comment to 10 days and allow the agency to announce when companies aren't cooperating or refuse to recall products that pose imminent health hazards.
I don't understand this part. What is the difference between the company and the manufacturers? Does one company design them and one makes them?
By Patricia Callahan (pcallahan@tribune.com)
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 18, 2007, 7:27 PM CDT
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) on Wednesday proposed a ban on all imported toys and other children's products unless the importers can prove the goods pass safety tests by independent labs.
A response to a Tribune investigation of hidden hazards in children's products, the legislation introduced Wednesday is the first of what are expected to be two Durbin bills toughening the oversight of the safety of kids' products.
Durbin soon plans to introduce a second bill that would reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency that polices the safety of 15,000 types of consumer goods. That measure would empower the safety commission to alert the public about dangerous products when firms refuse to recall them – something the agency can't easily do now.
Current law includes a provision that protects manufacturers' reputations by forcing the commission, known as the CPSC, to notify a company of any negative comments it plans to make about a brand-named product and give that company 30 days to challenge the statements.
As a result, the agency ends up negotiating every word of a recall alert with the product's maker. The Tribune investigation found the negotiated recall notices can be confusing and – in the case of Magnetix, a construction toy tied to one death and dozens of life-threatening injuries – mislead consumers and retailers as to which models are dangerous.
Durbin's proposal would cut the time manufacturers can comment to 10 days and allow the agency to announce when companies aren't cooperating or refuse to recall products that pose imminent health hazards.
"At many points in the process, the manufacturer can slow down or stop the ability to recall a product," Durbin said. "Magnetix was a classic example of the failure of this agency."
In addition, Durbin's CPSC reform plan would impose civil fines on retailers that knowingly sell recalled products and would increase the penalties to $20 million from $1.25 million for companies that fail to report product defects linked to injuries or deaths
As for the legislation regarding imported products that was introduced Wednesday, labs certified by the CPSC would test imported products for children ages 5 and under and certify they meet both voluntary and mandatory safety standards.
In stressing the need for a ban on dangerous imports, Nelson cited a Tribune analysis of 30 years of recalls on kids' products that contained lead-based paint, a neurotoxin. That analysis found the overwhelming majority were Chinese imports. Likewise, Magnetix toys were imported from China.
__________________________________________________ ________
Durbin's proposal would cut the time manufacturers can comment to 10 days and allow the agency to announce when companies aren't cooperating or refuse to recall products that pose imminent health hazards.
I don't understand this part. What is the difference between the company and the manufacturers? Does one company design them and one makes them?