<![CDATA[Consumerist: toxic]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: toxic]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/toxic http://consumerist.com/tag/toxic <![CDATA[ It's been a few weeks without a BPA story, ... ]]> It's been a few weeks without a BPA story, so here goes: Four parents in Ohio have sued Evenflo, Avent America, Handicraft, Playtex Products, and Novartis for using bisphenol A in their baby products. They're seeking class action status. [Washington Post]

]]>
Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:28:26 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5018428&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ First BPA Class Action Lawsuit Announced! ]]> con_vulturesgoafterbpa.jpgIt begins! A woman in California, no doubt under the expert legal advice of people who only have her best interests at heart, has filed a lawsuit against Nalgene alleging that they "knew, but downplayed risks, that a toxic substance in its popular... plastic sports bottles could leach into the bottles' contents and sicken consumers." The woman says she used Nalgene bottles for herself and her two daughters for years.

"They address the issue of BPA in their bottles (on their Web site); they cite the (Food and Drug Administration) stating that they see no problem with it. The problem is they didn't cite the many other studies that show there is a risk and there is a great concern about the issue," attorney Harold Hewell, who represents Felix-Lozano, said.

The lawsuit does not describe any physical ailment suffered by the plaintiffs and seeks unspecified damages.

"Nalgene sports bottle maker sued over toxic claims" [Reuters]
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:34:05 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=383854&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Canada May Become First Country To Classify BPA Toxic ]]> con_waterbottlebottom.jpgCanada is about to become the first country to declare bisphenol-a (BPA)—used in baby bottles, drink containers, and as a liner in cans—a toxic chemical, reports the New York Times. An anonymous source has said that the work by Canada's chemical review program to list BPA as a toxic chemical "was complete and was recently endorsed by a panel of outside scientists." The announcement is expected any time between today and the end of May.

In the U.S., the current status of BPA is "needs more research," The American Chemistry Council says research proves "there are no serious or high-level concerns for adverse effects of bisphenol-a on human reproduction and development," but we don't trust any organization that has "American" and "Council" in their name.

"Canada Likely to Label Plastic Ingredient 'Toxic'" [The New York Times]
(Photo: ToastyKen)

]]>
Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:39:26 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=380221&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Charges Filed Against Importers Of Toxic Toothpaste ]]> con_squozentoothpaste.jpg On Tuesday, the city of Los Angeles and the FDA charged the heads of two U.S. importing companies with 14 counts each of "receiving, selling and delivering an adulterated drug," for their roles in importing and distributing over 70,000 tubes of toothpaste containing diethylene glycol (DEG) instead of glycerin. "Each count carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine."

From the Washington Post:

The companies are liable for distributing the tainted product even if they had no direct knowledge of the risk because they were negligent in not ensuring the toothpaste was safe, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Jerry Baik said.

Ghermezi said he had not seen the charges but was shocked by the filing. All the adulterated toothpaste was voluntarily pulled from shelves and from his Vernon, Calif., company's inventory eight months ago and destroyed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month, he said.

"Everything we had was destroyed by the FDA," Ghermezi said. "I thought the file had been closed."

Ghermezi said he supplied the toothpaste to Vernon Sales, also based in Vernon. He said his company never knowingly sold adulterated toothpaste and thought the product had FDA approval.

"We didn't know of the ingredients of the toothpaste," he said. "We don't [have] any intention of hurting people."

What's the appropriate level of punishment for unwittingly importing tainted products? Is it reasonable to ask a U.S. importer to test products for safety and/or monitor production quality overseas? Is this too harsh, or do the prosecutors have evidence of deliberate negligence? We're waiting to see more details of the case before feeling sympathy or vindication.

(Thanks to dsavlin!)

"Charges filed against LA importers over toxic Chinese toothpaste" [Chicago Tribune]
"Criminal Charges Filed Over Poisonous Toothpaste" [Washington Post]
"Los Angeles City's Chief Prosecutor, Along With FDA, Files Criminal Charges Against Two Local Companies For Toxic Toothpaste Import " [RTT News]

RELATED
"Man Who Discovered Tainted Toothpaste Located, Interviewed"
The saga of the tainted toothpaste on Consumerist
(Photo: Janmi_)

]]>
Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:04:54 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=365174&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Toys Are Super Dangerous! ]]> con_thespiritoftoys.jpg We can probably all agree that there haven't been enough tainted-toy stories this year, so the Wall Street Journal is reporting that tests on about 1,200 toys by consumer and health organizations have revealed that about a third contain not just lead but "other potentially harmful chemicals, including mercury, cadmium and arsenic." Oh, they must be talking about the new Bratz Heavy Metal dolls, R'senic and Mercurie.

Certain toys had more than five times the standard safety level, including a Hannah Montana card-game case, which had a lead level of 3,056 parts per million, the Journal said.
How sad is it that when we first read this article, we thought to ourselves, "Is this really newsworthy at this point?"

"Many toys in test have dangerous chemicals: WSJ" [Reuters]
(Photo: chefjancris)

]]>
Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:02:56 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=330231&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Dangerous Sealant Recalled, Replaced By Just-As-Dangerous Sealant ]]> con_standnsealcan.jpg It's been more than two years since the CPSC first became aware of problems with the spray-on sealant Stand 'n Seal—it contained a chemical that can cause extreme respiratory problems in some customers, but was only partially recalled by the manufacturer and then replaced with another product with the exact same chemical—but the CPSC has yet to issue any fines to the company, writes the New York Times. It's yet another example of how an underfunded, underpowered CPSC fails to protect the public from reckless companies who swap ingredients, lie, and hide important data in order to protect their bottom line.

In 2005, the manufacturer replaced the active ingredient to something called Flexipel S-22WS, and a few weeks later, reports of problems began to trickle in.

Terri Keenan of Kyle, Tex., was one of those callers. Ms. Keenan used the spray in late May 2005 to seal tile in her kitchen and bathroom. Within an hour or so, she began feeling dizzy, thirsty and short of breath. Minutes later, she started foaming at the mouth; then she could not get up from the ground. Her husband rushed her to the hospital, where she remained for five days.
Although federal law requires manufacturers to notify the CPSC within 24 hours of determining that a product might be a health hazard, the company waited for a couple of weeks to say anything—and then, they blamed it on customers not being smart enough to use with proper ventilation (even though in-store advertisements for the product showed it being used in front of a closed window).

It took almost three months to wrangle a recall for the spray, and then the manufacturer simply included an additive to give it a stronger smell, but left the emergency-room chemical untouched.

Finally, in March 2007, Home Depot pulled all cans of Stand 'n Seal from its shelves and offered rebates to anyone who purchased either the officially tainted cans or the officially good—but still tainted—cans.

(Thanks to Zen!)

"Dangerous Sealer Stayed on Shelves After Recall" [New York Times]

]]>
Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:27:26 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=308304&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Toxic Lead Paint Prompts Recall of 967,000 Fisher-Price Toys ]]> Hey%20kids%2C%20don%27t%20eat%20me.jpgSorry kids, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Fisher-Price are recalling Big Bird, Elmo, Dora and 83 other types of fun toys that happen to be covered with toxic lead paint from China.

The recall affects 967,000 toys made between April 19 and July 6 of this year that bear a date code between 109-7LF and 187-7LF. Two-thirds of the affected toys were quarantined before they reached store shelves.

The recall is disconcerting because Mattel is seen by many as a role model for businesses using Chinese manufacturers:

Allmark said the recall was troubling because Fisher-Price has had a long-standing relationship with the Chinese vendor, which had applied decorative paint to the toys. Allmark said the company would use this recall as an opportunity to put even better systems in place to monitor vendors whose conduct does not meet Mattel's standards.
Owners of the toxic toys can exchange them for a voucher. A full list of affected toys is below, and pictures of the toys are available on Mattel's website.
33662 Elmo Light Up Musical Pal
33664 Big Bird Light Up Musical Pal
39038 Elmo Tub Sub
87946 Elmo Keyboard
90609 Elmo Collectible
90612 Zoe Collectible
90614 Big Bird Collectible
93068 Elmo Boom Box
93307 Press N Go Elmo
93492 Cookie Saxophone
93615 Splash Tub Puzzle

B7554 Count To Beat Elmo
B7987 Elmo In The Giggle Box
B9620 Dora's Talking House
C6908 Dora, Backpack, Perrito Figure Pack
C6909 Diego Figure Pack
C6911 Boots, Tico Figure Pack
G5112 Sing With Elmo's Greatest Hits
H2943 Grow With Me Elmo Sprinkler
H3344 Birthday Dora
H5570 Elmo & Pals (Elmo, Zoe, Bigbird)
H4628 Water Fun Tote
H8237 Blue 3 Pack Figures In Tube
H9124 Chef Dora
H9186 Giggle Grabber Ernie

J0338 Diego Talking Field Journal
J0344 Go Diego Go Deep Sea Rescue
J0346 Go Diego Go Talking Rescue 4 X 4
J5936 Giggle Grabber Chef Cookie Monster
J6537 Sesame Street Giggle Toolbelt
J6763 Royal Boots And Tico
J7983 Sesame Street Tub Pots & Pans
J9692 Dora's Talking Pony Place
K3414 Diego - Talking Gadget Belt
K3580 Fairytale Adventure Dora
K4140 Toucan Motorcycle Rescue

L3194 Surprise Inside Diego Eggs
L3488 Sesame Street Birthday Figure Pack
L3507 Sesame Street - Super Boom Box
L5202 Birthday Dora
L8905 Pablo & Pals
M0352 Dora Figures Diego & Bear
M0527 Sesame Street Giggle Doodler
M2051 Lets Go Rescue Center
33663 Ernie Light Up Musical Pal
34658 Elmo Stacking Rings
39054 Sesame Street Shape Sorter
90267 Ernie Splashin' Fun Trike
90611 Cookie Collectible
90613 Ernie Collectible
90745 Construction Playset
93107 Action Fire Engine
93308 Rev & Go Cookie Monster
93493 Elmo's Guitar
93780 Music And Lights Phone

B7888 Shake, Giggle & Roll
B7989 Silly Parts Talking Elmo

C6910 Swiper Figure Pack
G3825 Dora Talking Vamonos Van
G9717 Giggle Doodler
H3343 Cousin Daisy
H5569 Elmo & Pals (Elmo, Cookie, Ernie)
H4187 Dora Figures In Tube
H8236 Dora 3 Pack Figures In Tube
H8238 Sponge Bob 3 Pack Figures In Tube
H9125 Bedtime Dora
H9188 Giggle Grabber Oscar The Grouch

J0343 Go Diego Go Antarctic Rescue
J0345 Go Diego Go Mountain Rescue
J5935 Giggle Grabber Soccer Elmo

J6762 Queen Mami
J6765 Prince Diego
J9518 Sesame Street Giggle Drill
K0617 Twins Nursery
K3571 Go Diego Go Mobile Rescue Unit
K4139 Go Diego Go Dinosaur Rescue
L0305 Dora Figure

L3215 Sesame Street Elmo Jack-In-The-Box

L5813 Diego Tub Trike
M0351 Dora Figures Dora & Kitty
M0524 Go Diego Go Talking Gadget
M0732 Dora's Talking House
M2052 Fairytale Castle

Fisher-Price Recalls Licensed Character Toys Due To Lead Poisoning Hazard [CPSC]
Fisher-Price to Recall 967,000 Toys [AP]

]]>
Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:49:19 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=285115&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Thomas The Poisonous Tank Engine Recall Fallout Continues ]]> thomastankengine.jpgToday's New York Times has an interesting article about the process of assigning blame in the recent Thomas the Tank Engine recall debacle. Whose fault is it? The company that outsourced the manufacturing to China, RC2? The company that holds the rights to Thomas the Tank Engine, HIT Entertainment? Both? Neither?

From the Times:

Except for a small link on the Thomas Web site to RC2's recall announcement, HIT has otherwise acted as if it has nothing to do with the situation. Its executives haven't even said that they regret having been promoting toys with lead paint in them. They haven't said anything publicly.

When I suggested to the company's public relations agency, Bender/Helper Impact, that this might not be the smartest approach, the agency e-mailed me a two-sentence unsigned statement. It said that HIT appreciated the concerns of its customers and was working with RC2 on the recall, but that the recall was "clearly RC2's responsibility."

In effect, HIT has outsourced Thomas's image, one of its most valuable assets, to RC2. And RC2 has offered a case study of how not to deal with a crisis, which is all the more amazing when you consider that the company also makes toys for giants like Disney, Nickelodeon and Sesame Street

Here's HIT Entertainment's statement, (they also own the rights to Barney and Bob the Builder, by the way) issued via their PR firm:

We appreciate and understand the concerns of our customers who are affected by RC2's voluntary recall of select items from the Thomas Wooden Railway system.

Although it is clearly RC2's responsibility to carry out this recall, we are working closely with them to ensure that consumers are informed and advised, and that all the affected products are recalled swiftly.

So what do the you think? Whose responsibility is this? If outsourcing is done both to cut costs and defer responsibility if something goes wrong, are consumers OK with that? Are you holding the brand "Thomas the Tank Engine" responsible? Or not? Ultimately, it's your opinion that matters. What is it?—MEGHANN MARCO

A Lesson That Thomas Could Teach [NYT]
HIT Entertainment
HIT Entertainment's Recall Notice

]]>
Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:56:42 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=270657&view=rss&microfeed=true