We've begun expanding the ZRecs Guide to include a number of major brands of infant toys, and Fisher-Price is one of them. Astute users of the Guide may notice that every single Fisher-Price product listed is currently flagged with a Low confidence rating, which is the way we show that we are not at all convinced that a product is safe. Sometimes we assign Low confidence ratings because companies have lied to us in the past, because we have received contradictory information from company contacts, or because they just won't tell us anything at all.

Special treatment for a major past offender

The AP reported today that Mattel has received approval from the Consumer Product Safety Commission to use even more of its labs to self-certify Mattel toys' compliance with federal safety standards, rather than using third-party testing labs as all other companies in the known universe are now required to do. This is an expansion of a special - nay, unique - privilege they first granted the company last summer. That move led us to lower our confidence in Fisher-Price teethers then in the Guide to "Low," and when we added more Fisher-Price products this past winter, we stuck with the designation.

Considering that Mattel's 2007 toy recalls provided a massive boost for children's product safety reform, thanks to which our children are now supposedly protected from hazardous levels of lead in toys and other kids' stuff thanks to increased testing requirements and tightened restrictions, this is quite a corporate win. Fox, henhouse. Enjoy.

The conflict of interest

The CPSC states that they have empowered Mattel to conduct its own testing because its facilities are awesome. This is bogus. The problem with company-conducted testing is the clear conflict of interest and the potential for corruption of either specific test results or of the testing process itself.

Imagine that a major Mattel competitor were offered the opportunity to have their toys tested in Mattel's totally rockin' product testing facilities. How many do you think would find this an acceptable alternative to independent, third-party testing by an outside lab that was not in the business of selling toys? None, I'd wager. Does that mean they're paranoid? No. It means they don't operate with blinders on, which is exactly what the CPSC is doing in accepting Mattel's proposal. To assert otherwise is pure politics, and an insult to consumers' intelligence.

Our solution

Unless and until the CPSC gets its act together and holds Mattel accountable for third-party testing, all Fisher-Price products - as well as products by any other subsidiary or brand of Mattel that cannot demonstrate to us that they are committed to independent, third-party lab testing for their products - will be flagged as Low confidence. For consumers who rely on our guide for information about whether we consider a product to be safe, it's the best red flag we can wave for products for which we lack proof of known hazards, but which cannot demonstrate to our satisfaction that their products are safe for your children.

If this breakdown of a basic system of checks and balances is ever extended to other companies (and if others, heartened by Mattel's success, were to invest in significant testing facilities, they'd have every right to petition for - or sue for - equal treatment), we'll take the same precautionary approach with their products in the ZRecs Guide.

So when you see that we've assigned a "Low" confidence rating to the chemicals of concern listed under a bath toy, infant toy, or teether, the reason may be that it's a company or brand owned by Mattel. And if you like to have a reasonable degree of confidence in the things your baby puts in his or her mouth or that your child uses in the bathtub (two exposure conditions we pay special attention to), we recommend any of the many brands and companies that are required to have their products tested by third parties - more and more of which you'll find in the ZRecs Guide in the days and weeks ahead.

Luv n' Care recalled all current Nuby liquid-filled teethers in the U.S. this week due to the discovery of potentially harmful bacteria in some Nuby teethers. (You can read the recall notice here.) Images of these teethers were not provided in the recall notice, which were instead identified solely by their UPC code - a relevant means for stores to identify unsold items which could be returned to the company for irradiation and redistribution, but not for consumers who have items in use in their home.

When we contacted Nuby yesterday to ask them how consumers could identify the recalled products, we were told they could match the UPC codes to item numbers on the Nuby website.

As it turned out, these item numbers were not published in product descriptions or in any other place on the Nuby website, but were shown in the URLs (web page addresses) of the pages featuring individual items. No mention is made of this method of identifying the recalled products, and no information about the recall is available on the Nuby website.

We have used the tagging method we discovered in Nuby's URLs to collect images of most of the recalled products, and are presenting them here to help consumers identify products included in the recall. We are also hoping to identify those not currently listed on the Nuby website, for which we have no identifying images.

If you have any of the teethers shown in the image slideshow below, ZRecs advises you to remove them from use and return them to the retailer who sold them to you or to Nuby. In either case, you should expect a full refund for products included in this FDA-announced recall. If you can help us identify any of the teethers noted here only by their UPC code, please comment on the photo in our Flickr set or email us at zrecseditors (at) gmail (dot) com.

Specifically recalled teethers

Other Nuby liquid-filled teethers

You may have a Nuby liquid-filled teether that is not shown above. We found the following liquid-filled teethers on the Nuby website that appear to have UPC codes that do not match any included in the recall, according to the guidance we were provided from Nuby. Since the recall notice states that "all Nuby Gel Filled Teethers" were being recalled, we would advise consumers who have even these liquid-filled teethers to stop using them and attempt to return them to a retailer or the company for a refund, citing the title of the recall notice as evidence of their claim.

The FDA announced earlier this week that Luv n' Care was voluntarily recalling all Nuby liquid-filled teethers due to test samples being found to be contaminated by two types of bacteria. As always, there's more to the story.

ZRecs readers may hear echos here of a Canadian recall of 125,000 Nuby teethers in June. We don't announce all U.S. children's product recalls on Z Recommends (you can get those from the CPSC or sign up to get notifications here via Twitter) but this one seemed different. In addition to our general curiosity about how these U.S. and Canadian recalls might be related, the Food and Drug Administration's recall notice left us with some unanswered questions. So we spoke with management at Nuby's parent company, Luv n' Care, to get the details.

Canada's standard for liquid-filled teethers is more stringent than those applied in the U.S.. Our neighbor to the north requires the water in teethers to be sterile, i.e. to be free of all bacteria. U.S. (FDA) standards use two alternative tests - one to ensure that the preservative added to the liquid in teethers kills any bacteria that is introduced to the liquid, and another to test the liquid itself for the presence of certain strains of bacteria that are considered dangerous enough to be banned. In other words, there are certain bacteria that can be found in a teether in the U.S. and still be legally sold.

Health Canada recalled 125,000 of Nuby's teethers distributed in that country for failing their own standard, i.e. containing bacteria, period; in that case, Bacillus cereus, explaining that the bacteria was not thought to be dangerous to the general population, but could cause "stomach pain, vomiting, and diarrhea" in those with a compromised immune system.

After the recall was announced, the FDA contacted Luv n' Care and asked them to have some tests performed. Teethers were tested from two "batches" (according to company executive Joseph Hakim, the number of products in a "batch" varies, but can number in the thousands). In the samples tested from one batch, they found one type of bacteria, Bacillus subtilis. In samples from the other batch, they found Bacillus circulans. Both of these appear to pose the same level of risk as the strain found in the Canadian case.

These weren't the bacterial strains the FDA was looking for, and they were, technically speaking, permissible, but Luv n' Care opted to issue a recall of some 30 batches of liquid-filled teethers - everything on the U.S. market at present - and will take back older liquid-filled teethers as well. The FDA's language on the threat posed by this bacteria mirrored that of the Canadian recall.

Mr. Hakim confirmed for Z Recommends that the teethers subject to both the Canadian and U.S. recalls were produced in the same overseas factory. He stated that Luv n' Care would be looking at their manufacturing practices, and that the company would probably irradiate all of the recalled merchandise it received from stores (the stuff that hadn't been sold yet), so it could then be shipped back out to be sold.

We'll be flagging Nuby liquid-filled teethers in the ZRecs Guide, where product listings seemed destined to evolve into a historical record of recalls and other safety notes as well as offering product descriptions and ratings. Expect these changes in the Guide over the course of the next week or so.

Health Canada has issued a recall of nearly 125,000 Nuby liquid-filled teethers - the Icy Bites Teether and Fun Pals Animal Teether - sold between May 2008 and May 2009, as well as over 7,000 Playgro "Toothy Teethers" (not sure those are even sold in the U.S.). The teether models involved in this recall are shown above, and we've noted the recall in the ZRecs Guide listings for each of these products, as well as adding a "viable bacteria" category of hazard for teether listings.

We have no word yet regarding whether this situation meets criteria established for a U.S. recall, but figured parents would want to know. The recall notice provides model numbers you should be able to check to see if teethers you own are part of the contaminated batch.

From Health Canada's recall notice:

Health Canada requires that infant teether fillings must not contain any living micro-organisms. Testing by Health Canada of these 3 teether products has revealed that the liquid filling of the teether is contaminated with the bacteria Bacillus licheniformis (in the case of the Playgro teether) or Bacillus cereus (in the case of the Nuby teethers). These bacteria generally do not cause illness. However, the bacteria can affect children with weakened immune systems, causing stomach pain, vomiting, and diarrhea, if the teether is punctured and the liquid from the teether is ingested.

In 2006 The First Years recalled six teether models in the U.S. that were contaminated with bacterial strains Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas putida.

For the ZRecs Guide, we will begin flagging teether models that have incidences of bacterial recalls and label these as having a "low" confidence level of posing the risk.