June 9, 2009

E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Version

If the so-called “Summer of Recalls” was the fuel that fed the creation the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the Magnetix case was a spark, revealing early indicators of widespread dissatisfaction with CPSC’s powers. In May 2007, about a month before that infamous summer’s first recall – by RC2 of 1.5 million toy trains for lead paint – then-Acting Chairman Nancy Nord appeared before a congressional hearing to suggest improvements to CPSC, including harmonizing powers found in its various statutes, speeding 6(b) response times, and increasing use of the authority to “rely upon” voluntary standards – all issues that arose in the development of the CPSIA.

Product Safety Forum is a free service of Product Safety Letter. Its mission is twofold: to promote frank and open airing of product safety issues and to provide advice and guidance from top experts in the field. Do you have an idea or article you think would make a great piece for Product Safety Forum, including commentary or reaction to this one? Then email Publisher Sean Oberle to discuss it. To read more stories, see the archives.

The hearing was prompted by a series of Chicago Tribune stories that drew negative conclusions about CPSC, specifically about its handling of the April 2007 expansion of the 2006 Magnetix recall and broadly about issues like the agency’s small budget and 6(b) restrictions. At the time, Product Safety Letter reported (5/21/07, p. 1):

“The outcome of the hearing remains to be seen, and CPSC observers are long used to ‘dog and pony show’ hearings at which grievances get aired, but with no follow-up action. Perhaps that will be the case here. However, this meeting was marked by two differences: attendance and length. Congressional subcommittee hearings, including those involving CPSC, frequently occur before a lone chairman with one or two members popping in momentarily for a statement or question. At this session, well over a dozen members attended, with many remaining for most of the 3½ hours – indeed, it took roughly an hour simply to get through the legislators’ opening statements in which they discussed their CPSC-related concerns and legislation.”

Thus, lawmakers already were primed to change CPSC, making them especially receptive to the publicity and media attention aimed at CPSC that summer. Indeed, the Summer of Recalls perhaps should be called the Summer of Recall Publicity. It did not involve increased numbers of recalls but increased attention to recalls. Overall recall numbers actually were down. According to data given to Product Safety Letter by the CPSC Compliance Office, the third quarter of fiscal 2007 (April to June) tied its fiscal 2006 counterpart with 116 recalls and the fourth quarter (July to September) showed a 21% drop from 171 in 2006 to 134 in 2007.

It was the types of products – such as toys – and the problems – such as lead paint and production control breakdowns in foreign factories, especially in China – that allowed the publicity to work. But had negative congressional and media attention not already been on CPSC due to the Magnetix case, those efforts would have been harder.