The wife and I went shopping yesterday and visited a large distributor of dangerous and deadly products in America-the Wal-Mart toy section. We all know of course, about Mattel's massive recall. Outsourcing of labor and cost has evidently paid off with cheap and dangerous products that come back to the business. Toys that are made in the U.S.A. are hard to come by, though domestic companies are seeing a big demand for their products, proving that cost and labor is not the only economic indicator that consumers can/should base purchasing decisions on. This will definitely be an interesting shopping year, especially with recalled toys still being sold in certain areas. PBS is also reporting that a common item used in plastic products such as baby bottles is toxic and causes cancer. The science behind it is pretty solid. Add to the mix of Nancy Nord and her business friendly attitude, and you have the ingredients to a perfect storm. The result is a dangerous system whereby cheap and and dangerous products are sold, albeit, under the noses of a gutted and toothless federal regulatory agency. Nord's lapdog like management is akin to letting the wolves have their way with the henhouse. It's particulary galling when the wolves paid for the highest hen to travel to industry events. I'm certain they did it out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Questiosn for debate:

1.)What is to explain the cause and systematic problem of toxicity in our commonly usedp products and goods?

2.)Should Nancy Nord resign? How has she gone after business or how has she not?

3.)Is the present Consumer Products Safety Commission a lapdog or a watchdog? Which should it be and how can it be changed to protect the common good?

4.)Is low cost the only economic value which we should base our economy on? Why or why not?


Bonus question
5.)Do you plan on buying foreign made toys for your children, nieces/nephews, or other young relatives?

An understaffed and under funded Consumer Products Safety org. The head testified that they are currently in a bunch of old beat up and out of code building in DC. Meanwhile our overpaid elected officials pour billions down the “earmark” sinkhole to get reelected.



Ya lets do that and let’s get every Congress person who did exactly the same this to resign as wel - LOL



With their resources it is impossible to get the job done without the industries regulating themselves. Mattel simply did not specify the paint correctly. They are paying a high price and this is as it should be.


Yes. But regulations need to be enforced and you cannot do that with a handful of people. Bad products don’t just come from China and low price is not always the determining factor.


I will not buy Mattel toys - ever.

Another day, more sacrifices upon the altar of low prices and globalization.

Two children killed after eating Chinese made toy parts.

If terrorists had dreamed this up, we wouldn't hear the end of it. Since it comes from corporations, it's business as usual evidently.

First off, I would remind people here that many of the recent recalls have been initiated by the manufacturers/retailers of those respective products. Mattel/Fisher-Price has been particularly active and public in the review of many of their own products manufactured overseas. It hasn't taken the government to drag them kicking and screaming into court to force a recall. When problems with product safety began to surface, those companies responded not only with the minimum effort required, but also embarked on pro-active investigations of their own in the manufacturing practices employed by their foreign vendors. Mattel and Fisher-Price didn't achieve the success they have over the years by selling dangerous toys to kids. And, they better than anyone understand that these unsafe products will ruin their company if they allow it to continue. Nobody from the government has to tell them that.

1.)What is to explain the cause and systematic problem of toxicity in our commonly usedp products and goods?

I would suspect it has to do with sub-standard/inferior quality standards in over-seas manufacturing facilities. I know in one of the earlier cases of lead paint Mattel's investigation determined that one of their overseas vendors had sub-contracted with an unauthorized company without Mattel's knowledge. Mattel's response was to recall the items, terminate the contract with their vendor and strengthen their on-site inspection procedures and requirements. I'm not sure quite what else they could do at that point.


2.)Should Nancy Nord resign? How has she gone after business or how has she not?

No, she shouldn't resign. I'm not sure what is meant by "going after business". It seems to me that if a company has reacted responsibly and cooperated in a recall of a dangerous product, there's no reason for the government to "go after them". There is little that the government can do to a company that the consumer market can do in spades. Consumer loss of confidence in the quality and safety of the Fisher-Price product line does infinitely more damage to the company than anything the government could ever do.


3.)Is the present Consumer Products Safety Commission a lapdog or a watchdog? Which should it be and how can it be changed to protect the common good?

I don't think it's either a lapdog or a watchdog, nor should it be. I think it should be, and attempts to be a cooperative partner with business and consumers to ensure the highest safety standards possible. Perhaps it has some organizational problems that haven't kept up with the increasing global marketplace and it might be a good idea to address those.


4.)Is low cost the only economic value which we should base our economy on? Why or why not?

No, and it's not and it never has been. I've referenced Fisher-Price several times in this post because as a parent who has raised my own children, I am extremely familiar with their products. Back in the days when I was purchasing toys for my kids, if it said "Fisher-Price" and looked like a cool toy, I bought it. The cost was secondary. That's because when it came to safety and quality, Fisher-Price was the gold standard. You just can't buy that kind of consumer confidence, you have to earn it by producing and marketing quality and safety. I knew it as a parent and a consumer and you better believe the CEOs and managers at Fisher-Price knew it, and know it too. Sure, they're in business to make money and there's nothing wrong with that. But in order to make money they have to be able to sell their products. If their customers lose confidence in the safety and quality of their products, Fisher-Price can just close their doors and kiss it goodbye. They know that better than anyone.


Bonus question
5.)Do you plan on buying foreign made toys for your children, nieces/nephews, or other young relatives?

I really don't know, haven't thought too much about it since the only children I buy for directly now are grown (and expensive). For the younger relatives out of state, we usually send things like gift cards and let their parents worry about what to buy. But, kind of as a sidebar I will mention one area where we do pay attention to the origin of the product - food. Lately here in Southern California at least, the major food chains have begun to label their produce and meat products with a "country of origination" label. Salmon from Canada or the US, shrimp from the Gulf Coast or farm-raised in Indonesia for example. We pay attention to those labels and only buy from places we trust. I think they're safer and besides, when it comes to shrimp, you just can't beat a wild caught Gulf Coast shrimp.


Aquilla

1.)What is to explain the cause and systematic problem of toxicity in our commonly usedp products and goods?

This is simply poor QA. It's the reason we got regulatory agencies in the first place, because business will try to get away with funny little tricks that might cost lives if left alone. But so what if a few dogs are lost, a few people who brush teeth, a few kids? Shoot, the world's full of people. I am of course being sarcastic.

Somebody down the chain is to blame. Somebody up the chain is to blame. When stuff like this happens, it isn't because all involved were ignorant of the practices. It's because the people in the know got caught.

Buying stuff from China seems to be the big problem. So, what are the impacts on China if they sell us poison? Does anyone get punished? Or do the US importers stop importing and start manufacturing facilities here where there's acountability? Kinda makes you wonder about this whole global economy thing.

2.)Should Nancy Nord resign? How has she gone after business or how has she not?

It probably doesn't matter. The problem is bigger than just one person.

3.)Is the present Consumer Products Safety Commission a lapdog or a watchdog? Which should it be and how can it be changed to protect the common good?

I have no trust in any of our regulatory agencies. It's all about money these days. I suggest voting in people who believe that government can be effective.

4.)Is low cost the only economic value which we should base our economy on? Why or why not?

Well, we see the results of this attitude, don't we. Is it worth it? I think people are asking themselves that right now as the holiday shopping season approaches. Let's see, save a few bucks or risk the kids' lives? The answer looks pretty obvious to me.

It'll come down to quantity versus quality. The dog food thing caused a local organic dog food manufacturer to get lots of new business. Think it'll be the same with toys and any other junk imported from overseas. Then we better make sure the truth in advertising laws get enforced stringently because there'll be temptation to lie to make the sales.

That's just doing business. It's taking big risks, but apparently risk is an acceptable part of the thing too, especially when the risk goes to the customer.

That's hard to deny because it happens to have happened. As a result importers have lost customers and people are more concerned about oversight. Too bad lives had to be lost, but that's how this works. Sure it was loggerheaded to use lead paint and the other obvious things that go beyond the term, "mistake."

Government is never effective. If, by the way, anyone on the HILL gave a damn that would have staffed the agency better and monitored their performance.

The JOB of any monitoring agency is to monitor and they cannot do that without the resources. This agency has not had the resources, apparently, for decades.

Blame the Congress since these clowns from both parties pile the pork into every bill but cannot fund this type of effort.

Write your Congress person (I have) and tell the dope how unhappy you are with this situation.

I agree with you here. It is a further example as to why we need to end the senseless "race to the bottom" when it comes to outsourcing and free-trade. To get cheaper products, you have to cut corners, there's just no way around it. Make the products here.




The present system is not working and a drastic overhaul is in order. This is seriously starting to become a joke. Take a look at a simple timeline. It's clear that products are coming in that shouldn't be. The "safety net" has more holes than swiss cheese. Just recently, a study came out questioning the safety of using a certain chemical component, utilized in baby bottles and other common plastic products. Okay, so we don't know if the product is actually dangerous, it's just one study and perhaps it will shape out to be something along the lines of the whole alar scare. With that being said, why in the world isn't this found out before millions of Americans have this garbage put into products?

Yes, products are being recalled, however, it is not unusual for a recall to occur after the product has been on the market for over TWO years. Yes, they do need more employees and on that account, you are more than right. However, the person who runs the department

Ted:

There is one huge problem with your statement Ted. The problem is that Nancy Nord opposed a congressional bill which would've have doubled her budget, protected whistle-blowers, made documents public about recalls, as well as stiffened fines for dangerous products. In otherwords, her own agency would have new money and teeth to throw their weight around. Congress will put the money up, but the administration's business friendly attitude is in the way on this one.

This is the typical liberal misconception.

Certainly if you are looking for the lowest price you will go where labor (and materials) are the lowest cost. This then allows you to make a quality product at a low price – typical of American goods (and services). The JOB of the regulators is to “level the playing field” by having the same rules for all (like no lead in paint) and insuring that all follow the rules. You don’t have to cut anything therefore to get low cost, high quality products.


And your silly idea that “making the products here” would make them “better” is misguided. They would be very expensive and could have the same or similar problems, if, for example, one domestic supplier chose to paint his toys with paint he purchased from – say China – with lead in it.

And please remember that in the US as well as abroad – the biggest and worst offenders of the “rules” is government itself.






Ya who cares. Since when does Nancy make the laws? Do it right for god sake.

I more than agree with you here. However, you can't have the head of the agency flying at the expense of the companies that she regulates. Her predecessors didn't do that and they had a better degree of objectivity. Friendliness to those you regulate isn't a good thing. People need an attack dog on their side, not a corporate lap dog.




That's why you make it here lock, stock, and barrel. All domestic, no problem. Yes, the cost is high, but there is a greater cost than just dollars. I'd choose children over dollars any day of the week. Given that people shell out money for Hannah Montana concerts and shirts, I'd wager that they would pony up for safe products that don't harm or kill their children.



Care to cite an instance where the government caused harm through selling lead covered toys?

I agree that there needs to be more objectivity, i.e., fewer trips ala the people whose products you regulate, when it comes to government agencies charged with overseeing the safety of consumer goods, especially goods for children.

I do not think it misguided to suggest that if the products are produced here, where there is more standards enforcement and no language barrier, and where there are real consequences to non-compliance, they will be safer, with fewer exceptions than in China where the consequences of using lead paint or other unsafe practices are not seen or heard of until the foreign representative shows up with complaints and news of injuries to children.

Yes, there are problems associated with government, but there are also problems with corporate oversight, which would be the alternative. There are political if not legal repercussions when an elected or appointed official isn't doing his/her job.

Placing corporations on a pedestal can be just as harmful as demonizing them. Corporations can be every bit as inconsistent or injurious as any government agency, the difference being that they are better kept in line by the prospect that they can be sued for wrongful death or something lesser and lose their shirts over it.* It generally isn't a matter of conscience that keeps their penchant for expediency in proportion to their need to produce safe goods. The problem, of course, is that civil suits can be held up or dragged on for an obscene amount of time to wear down any successful plaintiff action. In criminal court, however, corporate entities can be held responsible for violations of the law.

I don't know that Nancy Nord should resign, but I'm sure not happy with her take on things. She should have accepted the money and gotten more personnel to perform the job they are charged to do. Within whose purview is it--the government or corporations--to ensure the safety of the citizens in a country, especially the children?

*Attempts are made to sue the government, too, obviously with mixed results.

I agree but this is common all through government. Congress pays back contributors and regulators are too close to those regulated. Its ludicrous – but common. Let’s fire here and get a replacement.
It would be quite simple to set up a procedure that dictated that products (like toys) be selected at random and checked completely. This would have let companies like Mattel know there was no way they could duck the law and get away with it.




This hurts the US and the developing world and is just bad policy. The right way to do this is to have a government that has regulations and verifies that the products meet them. Not rocket science – the reat of the world seems to do this ok – why can’t we.

So you are calling for more government regulation and oversight, right?



So you are callling for less government regulation and oversight, right?

You seriously have to wonder when companies will "get it" through their thick-noggins. Both Target and Toys 'R Us are still advertised Aqua-dots this weekend in their sunday mailer advertisement. Also did a bit of searching and found a respectable list of Made in America toys that won't kill, maim, or otherwise poison your child, unlike foreign toys.

This issue is an easy one Ted. Bring the toys in, inspect them. If they pass, they can leave the loading dock. If they don't, they are shipped back right on the spot with a big bill(a.k.a.-a fine)



Well Ted, it has to do with a person's principles and priorities. Getting an attack-dog pro-consumer person wouldn't be that hard. What you need is a ton of Ralph Nader like people who want to stick it to the company, and who would turn their noses up at the potential bribery offered by corporations. You can't have a corporation friendly lackey in any government position. You don't have government officials who are compromised if you bypass those people. Heck, Congress wanted to give Nord's agency more teeth and authority and she came out against it. How can anyone not say she should resign? Seriously folks. Yes, there are corrupt people in every sector of the economy. However, there are ones who would day in and day out, do the right thing. They just can't be found in congress.

Yes. The proper role for government is “regulation and oversight”. All they should be doing is monitoring the laws in place to verify compliance – conservatives are not imo against this.


Why have laws to protect us and then not enforce them?




No. All I am saying is when “government” monitors itself it often does a poor job. As in the DOE environmental disasters of a few decades back.



Right. And you don’t have to check every toy just do a “lot sample”. Or do what government is famous for – have the company do it and submit the results to the government – then do spot checks as well.

All of this is preferable to doing nothing.

Same goes for the domestic food industry that has done far more damage to us than the toys ever will.