Product Safety | www.reinerinjurylaw.com

Target Recalls Child Booster Seats

Posted under: Product Recall, Product Safety — tslaughter @ 8:30 am

August 6, 2009. Today Target Stores issued a recall of 43,000 Circo Booster Seats that they sold between December 2008 and June 2009. The booster seats have defective seat belts that can unexpectedly release, allowing the child or infant to fall from the chair and be injured. Eight injury events have been reported.

The plastic seat is blue with a green trim. The defective seat belt and buckle are white. Model numbers are available at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety website.

If you or family members have such a booster seat, please stop using it immediately. Target will accept the return of the item for a full refund.

The attorneys at Reiner, Simpson & Slaughter keep a watchful eye on recall notices issued by manufacturers and the government, particularly with respect to child safety, and post these notices from time to time on our website, to keep consumers in Northern California informed.

Comments Off

Hydroxycut Fat Burning Supplements Recalled

Posted under: Product Recall, Product Safety — tslaughter @ 9:50 am

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a consumer warning advising anyone taking Hydroxycut diet supplements that serious health problems have been reported with their use, and to stop use them. The products’ producer, Iovate Health Sciences Inc., of Oakville, Ontario, has agreed to recall Hydroxycut products from the market.

Hydroxycut has been advertised as America’s #1 weight loss formula. Even in light of the recent recall of nearly all of its Hydroxycut products, the company’s website insists that the ingredients of the Hydroxycut were scrutinized with extensive “medical, scientific and toxicological literature review,” and analyzed by experts from the “leading independent scientific firm specializing in “toxicology and product safety for the nutritional and pharmacutical industry.” Of course, none of these studies have been disclosed.

The FDA warning reports that 23 serious health problems “ranging from jaundice and elevated liver enzymes . . . to liver damage requiring liver transplant,” have been identified. One death from liver failure has occurred. Other health problems include seizures, cardiovascular disorders, muscle damage and kidney failure.

Sensational.com, the largest encyclopedia of dietary facts, recently reviewed the Hydroxycut product and questioned its effectiveness. The three main ingredients listed in the product, Hydroxagen Plus, Hydroxy tea, and Chromatech, were not known to the reviewing staff. The ingredients that could be identified were “not that impressive” and “have no clinical history of any weight loss success.”

Once again, American consumers are blitz with an advertising campaign touting the virtues of a “dietary” formula for weight loss, only to find that the product has little clinical support, and probably little effectiveness. Balance this with the dangers to health that the product poses, greater scrutiny should be exercised before the product is ever allowed to hit the market place.

The product liability attorneys at Reiner Simpson & Slaughter keep a watchful eye on products that are determined to be dangerous or are subject to recall. If you or a loved one has been adversely affected by the product discussed in this post, we would be happy to hear from you to see if we can help. There is no charge for this consultation.

Comments Off

Toymaker Mattel Pays $12 Million in Lead Paint Case

Posted under: Product Safety, Recalled Toys — tslaughter @ 9:54 am

On December 15, 2008, Mattel Inc., the world’s largest toymaker agreed to pay $12 million to 39 U.S. states to settle claims that it had distributed toys manufactured in China with lead paint. Mattel also agreed to comply with newly enacted Federal laws restricting lead paint content immediately. As quoted by Bloomberg.com, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal stated, “This settlement should help stem the tsumani of toxic toys threatening to swamp playrooms and playpens, poisoning children.”

We applaud this settlement but still maintain that the government is not going far enough. The vast majority of these lead contaminated toys are manufactured in China and other Asian countries. Mattel is being held accountable in this country for toys it simply distributed. Mattel will likely stop purchasing toys from those manufacturers, or force them to stop using the paints. However, there does not appear to be any regulatory voice in these foreign lands, so the products will continue to “swamp” our market under non-brand names. Until every participant in the stream of commerce to this land, including the foreign manufacturers and distributors, are held fully accountable for the dangerous products that they sell in our markets, we will remain mired in the swamp. The government should look to legislate this protection, in coordination with the involved foreign nations, so that consumer safety is advanced, rather than manufacturing impunity.

Comments Off

Should China Comply with U.S. Standards for Food and Drug Safety?

Posted under: Product Safety — tslaughter @ 11:03 am

A fascinating article published by the Council on Foreign Relations today offers insight into the market forces and regulatory malaise in China that may explain the recent explosion of contaminated food and drug products that have dominated the news. As a background, the article reports that U.S. foodstuff imports from China have grown 140 percent from 2002-2007. China is now a “major supplier of seafood, canned vegetables, fruit juices, honey, and a variety of processed foods to the United States.” Media reports of widespread contamination of Chinese milk products, pet food and pharmaceutical ingredients may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently sent an envoy of FDA employees to assist the Chinese government in creating a framework for product safety oversight, the “top-down” approach of the regulating agencies appears to have little affect at the local level. As the article points out, local officials are “often in cahoots with factory managers,” making them less willing to enforce centrally mandated standards.

The business model which apparently pervades the country is described as an “ultracompetitive business environment.” Manufacturers or producers that use good business practices, or adhere to high quality and safety standards, are seen as working at an economic disadvantage. Economic advantage is seen as only possible if the rules are broken or ignored.

Another issue pertains to the widespread, non-aggregated nature of the food export industry in these countries. In contrast to the United States, China’s food production derives from nearly one million small food processing factories. Under these circumstances, and combined with the ultra-competitive business atmosphere, it is nearly impossible to gain adherence to strict quality control standards, or to minimize contaminants such as pesticides. Food products with pesticide levels higher than U.S. standards permit are often hitting our shelves.

As our posts have often argued, one way of enforcing U.S. or international standards against Chinese or other foreign manufacturers and producers is to impose a product liability system similar to that employed in most states of the United States which establishes strict liability on not only the manufacturer, but all distributors and sellers within that product’s line of distribution. This would prompt more self-policing as companies would act out of their own self-interest in refusing to move products to market that were not guaranteed safe.

Today there is growing concern among American consumers that they are “at the mercy” of these foreign producers. The natural response to this is to avoid the products that are produced off-shore. Because of the increasing prevalence of these products, however, such avoidance may be an inreality. Unfortunately, under the current scheme it would appear that unless something disastrous happens, such as huge outbreak of illness or death, the poor manufacturing and producing standards being employed by these foreign companies will continue to “fly beneath the radar.”

Comments Off

Should We Know if Our Foods Have Been Radiated?

Posted under: Product Safety — tslaughter @ 12:22 pm

According the the Associated Press, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will issue new regulations soon that will allow farmers and producers to irradiate spinach and iceberg lettuce in an effort to kill E.Coli, listeria and salmonella. Several large producers have already indicated a willingness to subject the food to radiation. Industry experts claim that today’s technology will introduce sufficient radiation to kill these germs without affecting the product’s appearance, shelf life or nutritional value. Apparently, many meat producers have been utilizing irradiation to combat E.Coli for years.

As consumers, we will have to rely upon the technological and scientific expertise of those in the food industry. Should the newly irradiated foods be labled?

Comments (0)

National Toy Safety Bill Before Congress

Posted under: Product Safety — tslaughter @ 2:16 pm

The Associated Press reported that both the House and Senate have reached an agreement on legislation to establish national standards on toy safety respecting lead and phthalates (hazardous chemicals in plastics), and requiring mandatory testing of children’s products. The bill also provides increased funding to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for enforcement of these standards.

The new legislation appears aimed at the wealth of defective and lead-laden toys that have hit American stores from China and other foreign manufacturers. It requires that the toys be tested by third party facilities, and that manufacturer’s labs be open to the CPSC. It also directs CPSC to develop a searchable database of reports of product related injuries, illness, death or risks.

This is a major step forward in the field of toy safety. However, until manufacturer’s and every one up the line of distribution are held financially accountable for the injuries their toys cause, it is unlikely that wholesale changes will occur. It is the financial incentive that causes manufacturers to utilize cheaper products, cheaper labor, and relaxed safety standards. It is only when that financial incentive is reversed that significant and permanent changes will be made. See our prior post.

Comments (0)

Are Sunscreens Delivering as Promised?

Posted under: Product Safety — tslaughter @ 1:30 pm

Summer’s here in Northern California. Redding has more sunny days per year than 98 percent of cities in the entire country. It’s time to “stop and slop” on your favorite sunscreen. But, are these products really protecting us from the sun? Which products perform as promised?

An eye-opening study on the effectiveness and safety of sunscreen products has just been published by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a cosmetic safety advocate. This study concludes that 4 out of 5 sunscreens available in America afford inadequate protection from the sun or contain potentially unsafe chemical ingredients. The EWG also found that the “Leading brands were the worst offenders: None of market leader Coppertone’s 41 sunscreen products met EWG’s criteria for safety and effectiveness, and only 1 of 103 products from Banana Boat and Neutrogena, the second- and third-largest manufacturers, are recommended . . .”

The study evaluated 952 brand name sunscreens to determine if their claimed SPF (Sun Protection Factor) corresponded with adequate protection for both UVB and UVA sunrays. UVB is a category of ultraviolet light rays sometimes referred to as “tanning rays.” These rays penetrate only the top layer of skin, the epidermis, and change the color of the pigmentation. UVA rays, on the other hand, were initially thought to be the “safer” tanning rays as they did not appear to damage the epidermis. This prompted recommendations for the use of tanning booths which utilize UVA rays. Science has since determined that UVA rays are actually more damaging. UVA rays penetrate the epidermis to the underlying dermis, the “true skin,” composed of collagen and elastin protein-enriched tissue invigorated by blood vessels and nerve endings. UVA damage to the dermis has been linked to early skin aging, redness and wrinkling, immune system suppression and possibly skin cancer.

Consumers of sunscreen are typically drawn to products with high SPF believing that these products protect them from sunburning and ultraviolet damage. This study reveals that high SPF sunscreens are effective as to UVB rays, and protect against sunburns, but many fail to provide sufficient protection against UVA rays. The study criticizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for not establishing standards for UVA protection to be followed by the manufacturers.

The study also criticizes marketing terminology which the EWG believes mislead the public as to the efficacy and safety of the products. It finds that such claims as “protects” against the “sun’s rays; sun’s harsh rays; sun’s harmful rays; and burning rays” give customers a false sense of security and a sense that all of the sun’s damaging rays are being filtered out. Claims that the sunscreen protects against “skin aging; wrinkling; premature skin againg; photoaging; lip damage; freckling; uneven coloration; and skin damage” are considered “unsupportable” health claims.

The EWG is critical of the FDA for not providing uniform standards regarding the ratings of SPF with respect to UVA exposure, identification of potential toxic chemical exposure, and truth in labeling. The article points out that the FDA has been purportedly endeavoring to come up with these standards for over 30 years, and has missed a Congressional Mandate to provide them in 2006. The article attributes the FDA’s failures to the influence of the sunscreen industry.

In the end, the consumer is still left to wonder which sunscreen would be most effective for their purposes. Fortunately, the EWG study provides many charts showing product performance and which products the study recommends. We recommend you link to the study before you purchase your next bottle of sunscreen.

Comments (0)

Blog

August 14, 2009

Target Recalls Child Booster Seats

May 1, 2009

Hydroxycut Fat Burning Supplements Recalled

December 22, 2008

Toymaker Mattel Pays $12 Million in Lead Paint Case

October 17, 2008

Should China Comply with U.S. Standards for Food and Drug Safety?

August 22, 2008

Should We Know if Our Foods Have Been Radiated?

July 31, 2008

National Toy Safety Bill Before Congress

July 1, 2008

Are Sunscreens Delivering as Promised?