Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - lead

Nine Companies Pay Penalty For Lead In Toys

Greg Webb — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:00:00 GMT

As punishment for violating the federal lead paint ban, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced nine children’s product manufacturers, importers and sellers, including Dollar General and Michael’s, have agreed to pay more than $500,000 in civil penalties. These penalties settle the allegations that the companies knowingly manufactured, imported, or sold toys and/or other children’s products with paint or surface coatings that contained high levels of lead. The high levels of lead found in the affected toys violated federal law due to the health risks lead poses in children.

In 1978, a federal ban was passed that prohibited children’s products from having more than .06 percent lead (by weight) in paints or surface coatings. The products involved in the settlement were recalled in 2007 and 2008, and include such items as pencil pouches, sunglasses, children’s metal jewelry, and Halloween baskets. Tests showed that the paint or surface coatings on these items contained lead in excess of .06 percent by weight. One firm even found products that contained surface coatings of nearly 60 percent lead.

It is unfortunate that these penalties are not higher. They amount to less than a slap on the wrist for these companies, whose conduct is unacceptable. Hopefully, most of the conduct was just grossly negligent, and not a true, wilfull violation of the law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Toy Manufacturer Agrees To Penalty For Lead In Toys

Greg Webb — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:55:29 GMT

OKK Trading, an American based toy importer, has agreed to pay a $665,000 civil penalty settlement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) after it was shown that the company imported and sold toys that violated many child safety standards, such as having high levels of lead. The CPSC announced that the settlement resolves the agency’s allegations that OKK Trading violated a thirty-year-old ban on lead paint in toys by knowingly importing and selling toys with excessive levels of lead from November 2007 to August 2008. The settlement also resolves several other allegations that it knowingly sold and imported games, toys, rattles, art materials and pacifiers that violated federal safety standards. In agreeing with the settlement, OKK Trading denies that it knowingly violated the law. The company further claims it received no reports of injuries or incidents involving the products covered by the settlement.

Earlier this month, the CPSC also announced that toy maker Mattel Inc. and its subsidiary Fisher-Price have agreed to pay $2.3 million for importing and selling toys with excessive amounts of lead. A CPSC spokesperson said the agency expects to announce more civil penalties against companies that violated the lead ban in order to hold companies responsible for all of the recalls that attracted so much media attention in 2007 and 2008.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Mattel and Fisher-Price Fined $2.3 Million for Lead Toy Hazard

Greg Webb — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:09:25 GMT

Mattel Inc. and its subsidiary, Fisher-Price, have agreed to pay $2.3 million in civil penalties to the United States for importing and selling toys with excessive levels of lead, and for violations of the federal lead paint ban. The CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) has provisionally accepted the penalty settlement. The CPSC announced on June 5, 2009, that the toymakers had knowingly violated a 30 year-old ban on lead paint in toys. Both Mattel and Fisher-Price deny knowingly violating the ban.

In 2007, approximately 95 different Fisher-Price and Mattel toys were found to have excessivle levels of lead. Lead that is ingested by young children can result in lead-related illnesses.

Mattel reportedly imported as many as 900,000 toys in 2006 and 2007 that had excessive lead, including the "Sarge" toy car and Barbie accessories.

Fisher-Price is alleged to have imported up to 1.1 million such toys in the same years, including the Bongo Band, GEOTRAX locomotive, and Go Diego Go Rescue Boat toys.

The civil penalty agreed to by the toymakers is the highest ever for the "importation or distribution in commerce of a regulated product".

Unfortunately, in this writer's opinion, this civil penalty, while a step in the right direction by the CPSC, and encouraging in that regard, is little more than a light slap on the wrist for Mattel and Fisher-Price. It is almost like paying a toll to proceed down the highway of profits over safety. This is further evidence for the argument to strengthen the CPSC's enforcement arm, and against preemption of any sort for state tort claims made by those legitimately injured by these defective toys.

For more information on this issue, please visit: www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09237.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

FDA Finds Baxter’s Advertisements Misleading

Greg Webb — Tue, 19 May 2009 08:00:00 GMT

U.S. regulators have warned that the promotions Baxter Inc. made for its product, Tisseel surgical sealant, were misleading; Tisseel is a spray used to stop bleeding during surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also believes many sales materials, such as brochures, overstated the sealant’s effectiveness and made unsubstantiated claims that it was superior to other competing products. The FDA has since asked the company to stop using misleading promotions and create a plan to disseminate information that would correct the previous false statements. Baxter is said to be working with the FDA to fix the problems.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

FDA Rules Regarding Internet Drug Ads Create Confusion

Greg Webb — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:00:00 GMT

Late last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent strong warning letters to fourteen major pharmaceutical companies that the companies’ search advertisements, or the short text ads that run beside Google results, have to include risk information about each drug or else be removed. The letter cited examples of Celebrex, Propecia and Yaz, which did not include the precautions that the agency required. The drug manufacturer Merck, for example, was reprimanded by the FDA for making its drug Singulair appear safer than has been demonstrated. Many feel this is sign of increased vigilance in the new FDA administration.

Until the letters were issued, drug companies assumed there was a one-click rule, which required them to publish risk information within one click of their ads, or on the page that the ad linked to. The companies argued that the FDA is ignoring the realities of internet marketing; there is no way they can include all of the required information in the ads because Google only allows ninety-five characters for search ads. While companies are changing their ads to comply with the warning, executives say the solution is worse than the problem; advertisements are now even more misleading. Representatives for the FDA, however, say if there is not adequate risk information, or you overstate the benefit of a drug, that is false advertising; risk information is required on every advertisement no matter the medium.

Drug companies changed almost all of their ads after receiving the letters because they do not want to be on the wrong side of the FDA, however, the sense in the industry was that the letters were just telling what they should and shouldn’t do as opposed to giving strict mandates. Online advertisements are now using generic-sounding brand names to redirect to a brand’s website. Propecia, for example, now redirects links through a website called “hair-loss-medication.com” instead of propecia.com.

These solutions have problems, however, in that consumers may think these sites are neutral when they are really redirected to a sales site. In fact, Google will only allow pharmaceutical companies to redirect this way. Consumers will also rarely see the official websites in the sponsored search results and will instead see links to Canadian pharmacies and other unregulated herbal offerings.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb