Nord-ward: Recall Responsibility and the CPSC

by Maria Raha

As of November 26, 2007, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Bethesda, Md., had announced 122 toy and children’s jewelry product recalls for the year—excluding cribs, outdoor recreational items (such as swing sets and all-terrain vehicles), and assorted children’s furniture and clothing. According to the CPSC’s website, only six products were manufactured in countries other than China.

Many of the hazards leading to recalls were related to high levels of lead or lead paint in children’s toys and jewelry. Critics of the CPSC believe its acting chairman, Nancy Nord—appointed by the Bush administration in July 2006 when predecessor Harold Stratton resigned—is to blame.

Prior to her initial CPSC commissioner appointment in 2005, Nord held positions at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Commerce Committee, and the Federal Communications Commission. She has also held positions at Eastman-Kodak, the American Corporate Counsel Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In the wake of an escalating number of recalls in the last few months, critics have questioned the vigilance of CPSC appointees with ties to industry, particularly Nord, and members of Congress have called for her resignation. But, according to Julie Vallese, director of the CPSC’s office of information and public affairs, the responsibility for CPSC’s awareness of potential hazards lies with industry itself. Companies are obligated to report potential product problems or hazards within 24 hours, and the agency is responsible for determining whether products present a potential or immediate hazard to consumers. If a company fails to report potential problems to the CPSC, civil penalties (currently $1.85 million) are issued, she noted. The CPSC, then, relies on three sources of information on unsafe consumer products: The agency’s 85-100 field investigators, consumer complaints, and industry findings.

Further complicating culpability is the U.S. lead ban. It doesn’t extend to China, where 80 percent of U.S. toys are imported from, according to the Associated Press. Nord’s September 19, 2007 testimony to the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, however, announced China’s agreement to invoke “immediate action” banning the use of lead in the country’s U.S. toy exports. But recalls continue to roll out: At the time of writing, November’s toy and children’s jewelry announcements included 16 relating to lead and lead paint.

Also in November, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), Oakland, Calif., independently tested 100 toys “in a single week (between November 13 and 16),” and “nine percent [were] found with illegal lead levels,” according to CEH’s website. “We recognize that CPSC is woefully under-funded and understaffed,” noted CEH director Michael Green. “We are deeply troubled by evidence from CPSC’s own internal documents that demonstrates the extreme willingness of the agency’s current leadership to put industry’s convenience ahead of children’s health.”

Vallese responded, “[We seek] to do our testing under the letter of the law. … And that’s not the case with outside groups.” Vallese contended consumers are being misled by the test results of independent groups that have not followed federal guidelines for testing.

A Senate panel recently approved legislation that would revamp the CPSC and civil penalties in the interest of consumer and child safety. In early November, the Bush administration offered its own alternate plan for reform. The potential legislation will be the subject of future articles.