Archive for the 'Recalls' Category

Recalling the Meaning of Recall

Published February 14, 2013 Recalls Leave a Comment

When the CPSC issues a product recall, we are using the loudest megaphone we have to alert consumers of the need to take action.  Consumers know what the term “recall” means: that recall blog imagethere is a safety problem with a product and there is a responsible party who will correct that problem with a repair, replacement, or refund, the options our statute provides. However lately, we have been redefining the term “recall” to mean something rather different from what all of us understood it to mean.

For example, we have devised the concept of the “recall to warn,” which uses our recall mechanism to get businesses in touch with their customers to provide a warning, possibly  offering a warning label for consumers who wish that. Using the term “recall” is unnecessary to convey the message, and dilutes the word’s strength. But if this usage were not enough of a departure, we have added another flavor to the recall menu: a “recall to inspect.” We recently issued such a “recall” for an infant sleeper regarding mold growth.

Note well: This is not mold that was on the sleepers when they left the factory. Rather, we’ve had reports that the sleeper’s soft base and covering can grow mold if not properly cleaned after getting soiled. The thrust of our “recall” was to ask purchasers to check their products, clean up any mold, and keep the products clean. I don’t necessarily object to alerting consumers to the need for hygiene; I object to our using the recall device to do so.

Recalls suggest a product’s design or manufacture has a problem and consumers need to get the product fixed or return it. This case does not fit those criteria. The risk of mold growing in or around damp cloth is neither unique to this product, nor a flaw.  The “remedy” the consumer was offered through this recall was a reminder to clean the product thoroughly if it gets damp and dirty.  An instruction to clean a soiled product is not a manufacturer-delivered remedy like a return, a refund, or a repair.

This isn’t just semantics. When parents see headlines about recalls of baby products, they worry a manufacturer’s mistake could harm their children. They expect they’ll need to contact the manufacturer for a fix to the mistake—a repair kit, a new unit, or their money back. When consumers see this doesn’t fit their expectations for a recall, they may feel that our warning doesn’t match the label attached to it—that we cried, “Wolf!” At the next recall, they may assume it, too, is just a reminder about good habits and disregard it or file it away as something to check when they get around to it.

I understand and share the desire to make sure this information gets out, but doing so in a way that risks blunting our sharpest tool does not help consumers. If people are unaware of the risk of mold when this or any product is not properly cleaned, maybe we have a role to play in changing that. But that role is not “recalling” a product. Recalls are not warnings, and they are not inspections; they are recalls.

Setting the Record Straight: the Crib Rule

Published August 3, 2011 Children's Products , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , CPSIA , Lead , Recalls , Retailers , Small Business , Testing Leave a Comment

The Chairman has recently made several pointedly hostile, but grossly inaccurate, statements that warrant correction. One of the most egregious is her accusation that with our new crib rule, I have sought to put the interest of “a few retailers” over the interests of children. What utter nonsense!

This agency has always viewed children as a special constituency and has a long history of working to assure a safe sleep environment for them. That work intensified in 2007 when, as acting chairman, I established a cross-cutting, multidisciplinary team to do a comprehensive look-back at incidents involving children’s sleep environment to better determine hazard patterns. In 2008, while I was still chairman, the agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking informing the public that we were developing a new mandatory crib standard and seeking information. We were doing this work at the same time that the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) was working to develop its new voluntary crib standard, and CPSC staff joined in that effort as well. ASTM issued its standard in 2009, and that provided much of the basis for the 2010 CPSC mandatory standard. The agency proposed to adopt the ASTM standard with two changes in mid-2010 and finalized the mandatory standard in December, 2010, to go into effect 6 months later. All this work was done with the full support of all the Commissioners.

So where is the problem that the Chairman alludes to? While I support what is in the new crib standard, I am very troubled by the chaotic manner in which we implemented it. Because we did not do a cost-benefit analysis that looked at regulatory impacts and alternatives, we did not even know that this was a major rule – having an impact on the economy of over $100 million – until literally days before the Commission was about to vote on the final rule. (The crib rule is only the second major rule in the history of the agency.) Only at that point did it become apparent that this rule would do major damage to the child care industry, which would be required to replace every single crib in every single child care center in this country. The hotel industry also told us that they would have to stop making cribs available to guests because of this rule. In response, we delayed the effective date for these two industries for two years – a date that was arbitrarily chosen by the Commissioners with no data behind it. For everyone else, it would be illegal to make or sell a crib that did not comply with the new standard (even if that crib did meet the 2009 ASTM standard) after June 28, 2011.

During the spring of 2011, we began to hear rumblings of trouble with respect to this rule. CPSC began accrediting labs only in late spring because the labs were having trouble doing the tests we required. Supply issues were starting to pop up. Although the scant economic analysis we had done prior to issuing the rule told us that retailers would not be impacted by it, we started to hear from retailers that the assurances they had received from manufacturers about the availability of retrofit kits for current inventory were not being met. (By the way, CPSC rushed to put out its guidelines on accepting retrofit kits only 72 hours before the crib standard was to go into effect.) In the late spring, we did a “quick and dirty” survey of five retailers and found at least 100,000 non complying cribs in inventory. We then heard from an association representing smaller retailers requesting an additional three months before the crib standard went into effect for retailers. At the same time we heard from the leasing industry also asking for a delay in the effective date.

The reaction of the various Commissioners is instructive. Commissioner Northup and I believed that the modest additional time the small retailers requested was reasonable, if the cribs in inventory complied with the new 2009 standard and were not the drop-side cribs that had created much of the concern. Among other things, this short extension would allow for retailers to get the retrofit kits manufacturers had promised so that they did not have to “trash” perfectly good cribs. While the majority of my colleagues were fine with giving the leasing industry an 18-month extension, they refused to give a 90-day extension to small retailers. Apparently the majority thinks that children in child care, in hotels and in leased cribs (regardless of whether they are drop side cribs or what the crib’s condition of repair is) do not warrant the extra protection, but a short extension so that thousands of perfectly good cribs do not have to be destroyed is not warranted. That is reasoning that I do not agree with.

It is unfortunate that the Chairman believes that anyone who does not agree with her is automatically “anti-consumer.” It is unfortunate that the Chairman sees “obstructionism” when constructive dissenting views are offered. It is unfortunate that the Chairman selectively interprets both facts and words and unfairly impugns her colleagues. Mostly, it is unfortunate that the Chairman cannot work with us to fashion rules that protect American families without imposing job-killing requirements on those same American families.

Click here for more information on the Chairman’s false accusations.

Drawstrings on Kid’s Upper Outerwear: Officially Out

Published June 29, 2011 Children's Products , Congress , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , CPSIA , Recalls Leave a Comment

Today we made it clear that we consider certain children’s upper outerwear garments involving drawstrings to be substantial product hazards.  This vote is important and has been a long time in coming.

It is important because the agency has received reports for years about entanglements and strangulations involving drawstrings.  When an  industry voluntary standard for drawstrings, ASTM F 1816-97, was published in 1998, it led to a dramatic reduction in fatalities and yet we continued to receive incident reports. 

This vote is a long time in coming because the agency should have moved sooner to make clear the agency’s position.  In 2006, we posted a letter on CPSC’s website to the manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children’s upper outerwear, citing the fatalities that had occurred and urging compliance with the industry standard.  Yet from 2006 to 2010, we participated in 115 recalls of non-complying products with drawstrings.  While traveling in Southeast Asia last year, I heard from manufacturers and testing labs the request for the agency to clarify through rulemaking exactly what the law is.  In May 2010, we published a proposed rule that would deem these children’s upper outerwear garments to be substantial product hazards.  Since then I have continually urged my colleagues to finalize this rulemaking as quickly as possible so that manufacturers, importers and retailers were finally put on notice that we consider these products to be a substantial hazard.

 Today’s vote makes it clear: we have no tolerance for drawstrings endangering children on their upper outerwear. And I am glad to have helped bring this one across the finish line.

When it Comes to Small Business, Don’t Look at What We Say; Look at What We Do

Published June 8, 2011 Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , Jobs , Recalls , Small Business , Uncategorized 11 Comments

We have all heard talk around the agency about the need to address the particular concerns of small business as we implement the regulations mandated by the CPSIA.  Well-intentioned talk means nothing if the agency’s actions don’t match the words.  Recently, I talked with an individual who ran a very small business making sling-type infant carriers.  The company is now out of business.  Here is the story I was told. 

Several years ago, a child died after being carried in the company’s product.  The agency did an in-depth investigation of the incident but did not find a causal link or a reason to take further action and so notified the company.  In 2010, the company was re-contacted by a representative of the agency who stated that we were reinvestigating all infant deaths in slings.  According to the business owner, the CPSC representative told her that a recall of her product was likely but we needed to do an investigation first.  In the meantime, she was told to immediately stop sale of the product until the investigation was completed.  In response, the company pulled down its website (it being primarily a web-based business) and immediately stopped sale of all its sling products.  A date was scheduled for a CPSC representative to come to the company to observe the destruction of the company’s product but the agency backed off until the recall became official.  Weeks went by with no further word from the agency.  The website remained shut down.  The company finally received an email stating that no recall would, in fact, be done.  The time between the initial contact and the email closing the investigation was approximately 8 months. 

Because this was a very small internet-based business with one type of product, it was not able to last with no sales through the prolonged investigation and was forced to close.  The employees lost their jobs and the company owner was forced to default on an SBA loan which she had obtained to expand her business. 

This incident raises a number of important issues.  For example, if we have not determined that a product contains a defect or is a substantial product hazard, are we justified in recalling it, based only on the fact that it is associated with a death or serious injury?  When is it appropriate to “require” a stop sale during an investigation?  Obviously, the answers to these questions need to be made on the basis of the facts in each individual case.  As the circumstances of this case demonstrate, an across-the-board inflexible rule does not make the most sense.  This incident also illustrates the need for the agency, once it opens an investigation, to manage that investigation to conclusion in an efficient manner. 

At the end of the day we did not find a problem warranting a recall with this particular product.  I suspect this small business person did find a problem with our work product. 

Consumer safety is not advanced by such a result.  And all the words about wanting to help small business will not give these people back their jobs.

Recalls: Are they Good or Bad? Answer: Yes

Published March 24, 2011 Congress , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , Recalls 1 Comment

As Congress discusses the CPSC’s budget, some are warning that we must maintain or increase our budget in order to avoid a repeat of 2007, the so-called “year of the recall.” To make this point, agency officials recently have pointed out that as our staffing fell, recalls rose – the implication being that this increase in recalls indicated a lapse in safety. I challenge this assertion.

Until the passage of the CPSIA, the recall was the agency’s primary enforcement activity and it continues to be one of the most important tools in our arsenal. In 2007, when we saw lead paint violations from two of America’s iconic brands, the agency undertook an immediate and aggressive enforcement campaign to assure that the lead paint law was being strictly complied with. This enforcement emphasis showed troubling lapses in quality assurance programs of some global manufacturers and, of course, led to the lead paint recalls of 2007. However, preventing violative products from coming into the country is always better than recalling them after import and the CPSIA gave the agency additional tools to stop violative products from entering the country. It is incorrect to say that the 2007 recalls indicated the agency was not doing its job or that a decrease in resources caused an increase in recalls.

Recall statistics can be used to demonstrate just about anything. For example, during 2007 and 2008, the agency was criticized in many quarters, including by a number of Members of Congress, for doing too many recalls. Yet, Representative Jan Schakowsky wrote in a 2002 edition of Mothering Magazine (which recently stopped its print operation because of CPSIA) that she was “relieved” to see the “CPSC announcing recalls of infant products.” A representative of the organization “Kids in Danger” was very critical of a past chairman of this agency for, among other reasons, a dip in recalls in 2004, asserting this decline indicated that the agency was not doing its job. While this same organization criticized the agency in 2008 for too many recalls, it just published a press release stating the 2010 increase in recalls of children’s products indicated that our “actions…have had a measurable and definitively positive impact on children’s product safety.” In other words recalls are either bad or good depending on what point you are trying to make.

As readers of this blog know, I strongly support recalls when done right, and do not believe that every recall the agency does has merit. However, it’s time we all got off the kick of using recall statistics to push a particular point of view. They show we are doing an essential part of our job. Let’s leave it at that.

RECALL vs. WARNING: What’s in a Name?

Published February 24, 2011 CPSC , Recalls 2 Comments

An interesting debate has been going on inside the agency over an issue that many people outside the agency might think is merely semantics.  The issue is when the agency is warning the public about a product, why do we insist on calling that warning a recall?  A recall suggests to most people that some concrete corrective action will be taken—the options the statute gives us for corrective action are repair, replacement or refund.  However, a warning involves none of these.  In one recent action, we put out a unilateral warning to the public about a product but called that warning a recall.  In another, we negotiated a voluntary “recall” of a product that consisted of allowing consumers to contact the company to get a warning label, if they wish to have one. 

In the first instance, involving falling stadium light poles, we issued a “recall to repair.”  However, as the last paragraph of the press release notes, the owner of the light pole is advised to have the repair done themselves since the company is out of business—in other words, no recall at all.  My concern is that the use of the term “recall” suggests that someone out there—presumably the company selling the product—has the responsibility for correcting the problem.  In the light pole case, this was not true and people could well have been confused or mislead by our press release. 

In the second case, we faced a hazard—babies strangling when products with cords are placed too close to a crib—that exists across product lines.  That hazard is not unique to a particular product.  Tragically, two infants recently died when they strangled on the cords of a popular video monitor.  In response to these deaths, the agency undertook discussions with the company about the appropriate way to address this risk.  The company eventually agreed to issue a “recall” to, among other things, provide consumers with a warning label that could be affixed to the product.  It is my understanding that very few consumers have taken advange of this “recall” and that a number who, upon hearing of a recall affecting their product and believing that there was some electrical or mechanical defect with the product, became quite annoyed when they learned that the recall was to give them the opportunity to get a warning label.  I wonder whether consumers would be better served by a thoughtful, aggressive educational campaign about the dangers of cords in a nursery rather than a “recall” of a specific product for a “remedy” that is of questionable value. 

The reason I was given for labeling everything involving a specific product as a recall is that this is the only way to get media attention—unless we call it a recall, no one will pay attention to us.  I question that premise.  I did a quick survey of some reporters who assured me that they were quite capable of parsing through our press releases and making their own decisions about what to cover and that our labels did not impact that process.  But for those owners of defective stadium light poles for whom the recall has no meaning and for those consumers rightly annoyed by a government recall so that they can get a label, they have to wonder is this the best that the government they are paying for can do.

Small Biz: Don’t Worry, Be Happy

Published April 12, 2010 Comment Request , Component Testing , Congress , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , CPSIA , Public Database , Recalls , Small Business 2 Comments

CPSC staff has determined that the publicly available database of consumer complaints required by CPSIA will have little or no economic impact on small businesses.

This finding was included in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) which was discussed by the Commission last week and on which we will be voting Thursday, April 21.  The discussion of this issue will be webcast (at 9 am EDT) on the CPSC website.  

The database is scheduled to be operational in March 2011, and will provide a readily searchable format for people to access reports of harm caused by consumer products submitted by consumers, plaintiffs’ attorneys, advocacy organizations and trade competitors, among others on a rather expansive list. We are planning a national education effort to encourage the public to report incidents of harm caused by consumer products. While we do not know how many reports we will get, it could be quite significant. 

Though the staff will review each submittal before posting, staff will not investigate each incident for accuracy.  Instead, manufacturers will be given 10 days to comment on the accuracy of reports identifying their products.  It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide proof of any inaccuracy.  I can see where inaccurate information may be posted and seen by consumers for an indefinite period of time before a correction is made, if a correction is ever made at all.  This would be a great disservice to consumers and could adversely affect the sales and use of a product.   

 Here is what the proposed rule says about how the data base will impact small businesses:

 because of their smaller sales volumes, small manufacturers are less likely to experience any impacts.  And, even if a small firm chooses to respond to an incident report, the amount of time to do so would not likely be more than a few hours . . .

Note that reputational harm due to an inaccurate report is not considered an adverse impact on business. 

I am not comfortable with the staff’s assertion that the new public database will not have an economic impact on small entities and discussed this point during our public briefing last Wednesday.  However, I’m not the expert; you are.

  •  Do you really think because your sales volumes are smaller, it is less likely that your products will find their way into this database? 
  • If someone files a complaint, it will only take a few hours to respond (and deal with the ensuing investigation by staff)? 

If you disagree with our staff that taking a few hours out of your business day to respond to inaccurate reports is of no consequence, then you need to let us know that.

When the Notice of Proposed Rule for the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database is printed in the Federal Register it will be posted on CPSC’s website and you will have an opportunity to comment.  Let us know what you think!

Baby Slings: A Warning and What to Do

Published March 12, 2010 Children's Products , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , Recalls 4 Comments

Today, the Commission is warning families and caregivers about hazards associated with the use of baby slings.  While forms of slings have been used for hundreds of years, they have become especially popular in recent years as a way to keep your baby close and connected to you.  Tragically, a number of babies have died while being carried in slings.  Therefore, the agency is warning the public about this risk and emphasizing the proper use of these products. 

This raises a problem that we grapple with at the agency on a regular basis—that is, how to sort through all the details of a tragic incident to determine if the product actually caused the death or the death was caused by something else while the product was being used.  We do not know the complete answer to this question with respect to baby slings. We do know, however, that slings can pose two different types of suffocation hazards to babies.  We also know many of the babies who died in slings were of a low birth weight, were born prematurely, or had breathing issues such as a cold. (see press release)

The other question we struggle with regularly is how much information do we need to make a general warning like the one we are issuing today.  We have an obligation to warn the public about risks, and tell them how to avoid those risks.  The agency is providing this warning so that families and caregivers can be made aware of incidents that we have received and are provided advice from the agency’s technical experts so they can make an educated decision about how to properly use these products.    

In the case of baby slings, information that we were considering a warning was publicly discussed several days before the warning came out without any detail about how parents and caregivers could avoid the risk.  Many news stories were written about the future warning that we would be issuing.  The concern is that this kind of situation can alarm parents without arming them with the needed information about the risk and how to avoid it.

The CPSC has a public trust to protect consumers from unreasonable risk.  That trust includes providing warnings about proper use of products.  Ours is a twofold responsibility: when we give a warning, we should also give advice about how to deal with it.

Experience Counts

Published January 27, 2010 Certification , Children's Products , Comment Request , Component Testing , Congress , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , CPSIA , Jobs , Lead , Penalties , Recalls , Retailers , Risk Analysis , Small Business , Testing Leave a Comment

I received the following comment  on my recent blog “Conversations FOR Consumers”.   The commenter brings an interesting, real-life perspective to the discussion about third party testing, and I appreciate his taking time to comment. I would really like to hear from others who have real-life insights to share like this one. This kind of conversation is exactly why I started blogging. As Commissioners we don’t get to hear enough about how things like the third party testing requirement are working.  

One of my fellow commissioners, in a recent statement, dismissed the value of such anecdotal experience, stating that “the plural of anecdote is not data.”  I disagree with this attitude—it’s critical for us to hear from those who make and sell  products,  live with the regulations and laws coming out of Washington, and  who have to meet a weekly payroll to support jobs and families.  We need to hear your experiences and suggestions.  

Commissioner Nord,

I am a quality & compliance engineer for a small to mid sized family owned business in Virginia. We sell products in all of the major retail outlets in the US and Canada. Having experience working for a 3rd party consumer product safety laboratory and in the manufacturing sector, there are difficulties with the testing certification requirements in CPSIA, that certainly don’t add up.

Although my company has policies and processes in place, and relationships with factories that date back decades, our situation isn’t like most importers of Chinese produced goods. I am not one to point the finger at China and declare that all factories there produce hazardous products, because I know this isn’t true. However, I do understand the Chinese manufacturing culture and know first hand from past positions I have held, that if given the opportunity, many factories will “roll the dice” and ship merchandise that contains chemicals and elements regulated by CPSIA and other consumer product Act’s. Fortunately for me, I have a close knit group of factories, whose interest is in shipping safe and fully compliant products. It goes way beyond financial investment.

Where I do see the confusion is in the testing certification. On one side, components are allowed to be tested and proof of compliance available upon request. The other hand, full products are tested and proof of compliance available upon request. Either way, a test report from a CPSC approved 3rd party lab is only as good as the samples the lab received; it doesn’t always reflect what was actually shipped. Those factories willing to roll the dice will ship what they have or what is cheapest, if no one is looking. If there is no market enforcement, they will continue to do so until they are caught. This is precisely what happened with Mattel. Their factories weren’t policed prior, during or after production. They probably got away with shipping this merchandise with lead for years before the recalls.

I dont think 3rd party testing is necessarily the answer or proof that either the CPSC or Congress expects. The theory is a good one, but the execution and reliability of that theory aren’t a true reality. Of course, CPSC product procurement and testing, which results in recalls (mandatory or voluntary) and civil penalties, will have everyone scrambling to ensure a compliant product is shipped.

I think the mandates for compliance are possible; they can be met in every consumer product category, but the responsibility lies with the owner of that product; the person who imports and brands the product. They are responsible for implementing the proper systems and procedures far in advance of a production run, to ensure that no product is contaminated. No 3rd party test lab report will identify what “truly” goes on in a factory. Testing is not necessary to ship product, because it doesn’t always reflect what is actually inside of the container.

I appreciate the work you have done with the commission and I contiually look for your blog updates and have been present at several of your speaking engagements over the past several years. Keep up the good work Mrs. Nord, we appreciate you!

Enter your email address to subscribe to my blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 150 other followers

Let’s keep the conversation going on Twitter. You can find me at @NancyNord.

  • #CPSC certificate proposal, part of ~$1/2 bil/year for paperwork: where we are & where to go. Got ideas? Mine here: bit.ly/16hm2Eb 1 week ago
  • Happy to talk with AAFA: #CPSC is serious about our import safety strategy. Want to hear thoughts about it, plus our new rules & enforcement 1 week ago
  • Part 1110, part v: My colleagues' questionable certitude that we don't need to ask more questions about certificates. bit.ly/10xBVOG 1 week ago
  • Broken recordkeeping? Is CPSC making sense or making a mess when it comes to retaining compliance certificates? bit.ly/ZRYkK7 1 week ago
  • Should exempt from testing mean exempt from certifying to a test? We want to hear from you. Well, I do, at least. bit.ly/11TeQr6 2 weeks ago

Nancy's Photos

More Photos

  • 44,186 visits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers