Jump to:
ZRecs Home |
Z Recommends |
PRIZEY |
The Tranquil Parent |
Punnybop |
The ZRecs Guide to Safer Children's Products
Get Z Recommends posts and links delivered free via -
-
As seen in
How long is too long to wait to recall a product with a known hazard?
By Jeremiah | January 13, 2010 | 6 comments / Comment now
Last week, the CPSC announced the recall of a children's book published by St. Martin's Press that included a piece of vinyl that contained dangerous levels of lead. While the recall was the first in what will likely be a long list of novelty children's books coming under CPSC scrutiny for their incorporation of sketchy plastics, what really caught our eye about it was a note in the recall notice that indicated that the CPSC had been alerted to the product's lead levels by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). Digging deeper, we discovered that US PIRG had reported their findings in a report published on November 24, 2009 - a full month and a half before the recall was announced.
Meanwhile, Target is continuing to "investigate" the Green Baby onesie ZRecs, in collaboration with the Center for Environmental Health, identified in November as containing nearly four times the legal limit of lead in its tagless label - putting it in direct contact with a baby's skin. The California Attorney General notified Target of the finding and Target stopped selling it while promising to investigate the matter themselves. (The Washington Post, in an otherwise excellent article on "citizen regulators," erroneously stated that Target had recalled the onesie. The Post ran a correction this week.) Target representative Beth Hanson confirmed in an email to us a week ago:
We inquired further regarding the timeline such an investigation might take, and Hanson declined to provide any estimate or any additional information about Target's review process. But it's hard, on its face, to accept that it should take this long for an issue like this to be resolved. The longer a company like Target waits, the greater the distance between purchase and notification, the greater the exposure children face, and the fewer returns the company is likely to get when the product is ultimately (presumably) recalled. The disincentives to conduct a timely recall are real and obvious.
The CPSC is also looking into this case and we are confident it will be resolved eventually. But how long can a company like Target make consumers wait before they cast even greater doubt on the commitment to safety the company claims to set as such a high priority?
More on onesie hazards to come.
Meanwhile, Target is continuing to "investigate" the Green Baby onesie ZRecs, in collaboration with the Center for Environmental Health, identified in November as containing nearly four times the legal limit of lead in its tagless label - putting it in direct contact with a baby's skin. The California Attorney General notified Target of the finding and Target stopped selling it while promising to investigate the matter themselves. (The Washington Post, in an otherwise excellent article on "citizen regulators," erroneously stated that Target had recalled the onesie. The Post ran a correction this week.) Target representative Beth Hanson confirmed in an email to us a week ago:
- Upon receiving the information from the California Attorney General's office about this product, Target issued a voluntary market withdrawal. This product has been removed from sale in our stores and we continue to investigate the issue.
- Once a market withdrawal has been issued, we hard lock all items at the point of sale. A “hard lock” means that should a guest attempt to purchase a withdrawn product while we are in the process of removing it from the sales floor, the product will flag our cashiers with a “do not sell” message at the register.
- It is important for all of our guests to know that Target is committed to providing high quality and safe products. We realize that product safety is top of mind for our guests. We continue to partner with our vendors to ensure that the best products are in our stores and online at Target.com.
- Since this is an ongoing investigation about this particular product, we are unable to provide further specifics.
- Guests who have purchased the withdrawn product can return it to any Target store for a full refund.
We inquired further regarding the timeline such an investigation might take, and Hanson declined to provide any estimate or any additional information about Target's review process. But it's hard, on its face, to accept that it should take this long for an issue like this to be resolved. The longer a company like Target waits, the greater the distance between purchase and notification, the greater the exposure children face, and the fewer returns the company is likely to get when the product is ultimately (presumably) recalled. The disincentives to conduct a timely recall are real and obvious.
The CPSC is also looking into this case and we are confident it will be resolved eventually. But how long can a company like Target make consumers wait before they cast even greater doubt on the commitment to safety the company claims to set as such a high priority?
More on onesie hazards to come.
Browse Z Recommends
-
recent posts
Lego Games: Race 3000 Drowning doesn’t look like drowning Final results of our Pampers Dry Max testing ZRecs Q&A: Planetbox The PlanetBox: A lunch box for those inheriting our planet Help recognize bloggers who have made a difference A lovely teething toy: Plan Toys’ Baby Car The juice box lead scare: Parents as pawns (again) What we’re up to Great “first blocks” from recycled plastic
- categories
- blog archive
- blogs we read
Looking for something?
Search
The ZRecs Guide
1338 products, 253 brands, and counting...
Get ZRecs’ monthly newsletter
Learn about our privacy policy
More good stuff
Advertisements
Advertisements
Interesting, considering onesies are only worn by a child for around 3 months before outgrowing it. Are they waiting for the babies to outgrow them before they recall. Maybe then parents would just trash them IF they knew about the recall. But what about the parents that forget they even had it and sell it/donate it/pack it away for the next kid? This is ridiculous! I think recalls should be especially quick for an item like this.
Thanks for all the hard work you do for our children!!
Actually the recalled book also had lead, not phthalates, although I’m sure there will be those out there as well.
For some infant products, the wait isn’t months, but years. The crib that killed Liam Johns in 2005 wasn’t recalled until Fall 2007—and then only as the Chicago Tribune was preparing an investigative report on the crib’s hazards. People who have that recalled crib still don’t have what owners of this onsie have from Target—an opportunity for a refund.
It is common sense to think that once a product has been found to be hazardous and that finding confirmed, it will be recalled. But the real process has yet to catch up with the common sense approach.
Thanks for all your work in bringing safety information to parents.
@Nancy,
Thanks for catching that! Must have had phthalates on the brain yesterday. Fixed.
I agree that an opportunity for a refund is valuable, but at least a recall unequivocally publicizes that a product is dangerous and should not be used. A largely unpublicized willingness to honor returns of a hazardous item (remember when we used to be able to return anything to stores like Target for any reason?) seems like a poor substitute for a public announcement designed to reduce exposure and the chances of injury.
There must be better ways to increase awareness of unsafe products that have not yet been recalled. Do we need a shadow CPSC?
@Jessica: Yes, that is a particularly maddening aspect that I failed to mention. These items are used, at least in their first use, for a very short period of time. They are not worth much money. Yet they expose our children to an unacceptable and illegal level of risk.
I doubt any retailer would ever claim out loud that their responsibility to consumers ended at the point of sale. But Target’s actions in this case suggest that that is their feeling - that they have an imperative to NOT SELL something they suspect may be unsafe, but those that were sold before they knew about the hazard are a less pressing issue.
re: that blasted Aspen 3-in-1 crib that Nancy mentioned:
I’d just settle for SOME recourse other than “stop using it”. Bought the thing in 2008, after checking with the CSPC site. There was a mention of certain serial numbers/date codes and a mattress support, the one we bought wasn’t included. Shows up in a full on recall in 2009 for the drop-side rail. Target (where I bought it) won’t take it back, I have tried three different locations. I’ve even (shame on me but desperate mommies do desperate things) tried to take it back to BRU, as they sold it. No avail. Simplicity is “no longer conducting day to day business” but the CSPC recommends NOT using the crib. Um, purchasing a new one is not financially possible for us. So as of this moment, our only recourse has been some heavy duty screws anywhere that there is cheap-azz plastic hardware (hubsy is a carpenter). The mattress and the side rail on that blasted crib are going nowhere.
It is very frustrating to purchase a large dollar item, after doing a significant amount of research, and be told that there is a dangerous defect, and that you really have no recourse, thanks for playing.
We have that Big Rex book and I heard about the lead hazard several weeks ago. I put the book out of reach, but like the book so much I am thinking of just removing the red dot rather than returning the book for a refund. On the other hand, the book company should make good on defective and dangerous products, so maybe it’s my responsibility to return it?
Having worked on several recalls for clients, I can tell you the process can be very extended, although the CPSC under Obama seems completely different than the CPSC under Bush. And did you see the 64,000 ppm cadmium necklace I found at Target last week?? Wonder what will happen with that one?