publications | about us | on campus | jobs | alumni | cmap | straphangers campaign | fuel buyers group

Executive Summary

For several years, we have reported that toys are safer than ever before, thanks to decades of work by product safety advocates and parents and the leadership of Congress, state legislatures and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Yet, as many have noted, 2007 has been described as the "year of the recall." Millions of toys, including famous playthings like Thomas the Tank Engine and Barbie, have been recalled in 2007. Many of these toys have been from leading manufacturers like Mattel, and most were imported from China. Most of the recalls have been for hazards previously identified in this reportãexcessive levels of toxic lead, dangerous small magnets and choking dangers.

These troubling events have reminded Americans that no government agency tests toys before they are put on the shelves. These events provide a warning that as parents and other toy-givers venture into crowded malls this holiday season, they should remain vigilant about often hidden hazards posed by toys on store shelves. The dramatic wave of toy, food and other consumer product recalls has spurred intense attention from policymakers to the problems of consumer safety generally and the limits of the long-neglected Consumer Product Safety Commission specifically. The CPSC is the nation's smallest safety agency, yet it is responsible for 15,000 different productsã from chain saws to escalators and from kitchen appliances to toys. Its current actual budget ($63 million) is less than half of what its 1974 startup budget ($34 million) would be today if merely corrected for inflation ($140 million). It has only one toy tester at its decrepit Maryland laboratory; worse, only 15 of 400 total staff (down from a 1980 peak of 978) are on duty full-time as port inspectors. That problem is magnified because customs inspectors and others that had buttressed this tiny force have been re-tasked since the tragedies of September 11, 2001.

In addition to expanding the agency's budget, policymakers should give the CPSC more tools to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable and speed recalls, to ban toxic lead except in trace amounts and to greatly improve import surveillance. The holes in the product safety net can, and must, be repaired to restore the confidence of parents and other toy-givers that the gifts that they purchase will bring pleasure, not worry. The 2007 Trouble in Toyland report is the 22nd annual New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) survey of toy safety. This report provides safety guidelines for parents when purchasing toys for small children and provides examples of toys currently on store shelves that may pose potential safety hazards. We visited numerous toy stores and other retailers to find potentially dangerous toys and identify trends in toy safety. This year, we focused on four categories of toys: toys that may pose choking hazards, magnetic toys, toys that are excessively loud, and toys that contain lead and other potential toxics.

Loopholes in Toy Safety Regulation

NEAR SMALL PARTS
Even when companies comply, current regulations do not address all choking hazards posed by toys. While the choke test cylinder eliminates most objects small enough to enter a child's lower throat and air passages, it does not eliminate all objects that can block the airway by obstructing the mouth and upper throat. Children continue to choke on toys that do not technically violate the CPSC regulations. In September 2006, CPSC and Playskool voluntarily recalled about 255,000 Team Talkin' Tool Bench toys following the deaths of two young children. A 19-month-old West Virginia boy and a 2-year-old Texas boy suffocated when three-inch plastic toy nails sold with the tool bench toys became forcefully lodged in their throats. Many toys with parts similar in size and shape to these toy nails remain on store shelves without choke hazard warning labels.

We call on CPSC to:

• Enlarge the small parts test tube to be more protective of children under three.
• Consider extending the ASTM specification for toys with spherical ends to apply to toys intended for children under six years old instead of under 18 months.
• At minimum, take into consideration special labeling for toys shaped like the toy nails that caused the two children to suffocate.

ONLINE SHOPPING
A new factor complicating toy safety is the growing popularity of online toy retailers. The convenience of online toy stores draws increasing numbers of consumers each year, yet these stores pose special difficulties for consumers. The CPSC has yet to require online retailers to include choke hazard warnings for toys with small parts on their websites. In 2005, we surveyed 37 online toy retailers and found that two-thirds do not include any choke hazard labeling on their websites, even when the toy requires such labeling on the packaging.

In consideration of proposals to strengthen the CPSC, policymakers have proposed that Internet toy retailers be required to prominently display choke hazard warning labels next to toys that require such labeling on their real-world or "brick-and-mortar" packaging.

INEFFECTIVE TOY RECALLS
Even though CPSC announces recalls publicly through the Internet, national television, toy stores and pediatricians' offices, many consumers still do not find out about recalled toys. Worse, not all recalls result in removal of dangerous products, some, such as the recall of one million cribs this year, result only in "repair kits" being mailed to consumers who request them; others merely required that the company agree to stop making a dangerous product, but not remove existing stock from shelves. For obvious reasons, companies do not like publicizing that they sold a defective product. CPSC has recorded extremely low return rates on its recalls of toys and consumer products. The agency does not know if consumers who do not return the toys just throw them away or never heard of the recall in the first place. CPSC's hands often are tied as well. CPSC can say little about ongoing safety investigations; after a recall is announced, CPSC often cannot disclose anything that the recalling company does not want released to the public. Firms can even sue the CPSC to block disclosure. In some recalls, not all stores remove recalled products from their shelves. Most major retailers using computerized scanners can catch recalled products at the register, but stores relying on older registers, such as dollar stores, may allow consumers to purchase recalled items. Finally, many consumers may not know if they even own the product being recalled.

The failure of toy manufacturers to label their products ‚ not just the packaging ‚ with contact information or even the name of the manufacturer makes identifying recalled products difficult if not impossible. Manufacturers, on the other hand, rarely have any way of contacting consumers who have purchased their products. Few consumers fill out "warranty" cards provided with some products, because the questions asked are so clearly intended for marketing purposes, giving consumers legitimate privacy concerns. We support the Consumer Federation of America in its call for Consumer Registration Cards. In 2001, CFA petitioned CPSC, asking the agency to require all manufacturers (or distributors, retailers or importers) of children's products to provide a Consumer Registration Card that allows the purchaser to register information through the mail or electronically. The cards would allow manufacturers to contact consumers about recalls or safety actions taken by the CPSC or the product's manufacturer. The petition specified that the cards would collect only enough information to contact the purchaser (name and address or email address) and nothing for marketing purposes.

POLICY CHANGES NEEDED
The CPSC needs greater authority to issue recalls and it needs more tools to make recalls effective. Manufacturers and retailers have too much power over not only what safety information can be disclosed to the public and when, but also the sort of corrective action they agree to take in a "voluntary" recall. In addition to expanding the agency's budget, policymakers should give the CPSC more tools to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable and speed recalls, to ban toxic lead except in trace amounts and to greatly improve import surveillance.

Policymakers are considering numerous proposals to expand the recall authority of the CPSC, to limit corporate control over safety disclosures to the public, to improve recall effectiveness by requiring warranty cards on certain durable products, to extend choke hazard warnings to the Internet and to improve traceability of recalled products. >