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.