Florida-based toy importers charged with conspiracy

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) is making an impact on importers.  Not only has this law tasked toy importers with strict new testing requirements and more specific chemical restrictions (lead and phthalates), but it has also increased the penalties for those who break the rules.

This week the Miami Herald reported that two Florida importers were arrested and charged with conspiring to import toys that violated the U.S. lead (Pb) and other banned substances requirements.

The corporations involved:

• LM Import-Export
• Lam’s Investment Corporation
• LK Toys Corporation

 The Individuals charged:

• Jung Lam (age 55)
• Kit Yeung (age 37)

Apparently this is not their first brush with the law. According to the United States Attorney’s Office, Lam and Leung have  “conspired to distribute children’s toys that posed risks of choking, aspiration and ingestion.” Those cases included lead limit, small part and counterfeit product violations. The defendants are also suspected of falsifying information on custom declaration forms.

CPSC Sets Date for Phthalate Testing Requirement

Does your child’s huggable, cuddly soft plastic baby doll contain a hidden hazard? According to many consumer product safety advocates, Congress, and the nation’s top consumer safety authority, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), it may.  For years concerns have been brought up as to the possible health risks associated with prolonged exposure to “phthalates.”

Phthalates are chemicals used during the manufacturing process to add flexibility to some kinds of plastics.  There is some evidence that the most commonly used phthalates may have a long-term use health hazard for children. While there has been much controversy regarding the validity of the risk analysis and the science behind this concern, in 1999 the European Union (EU) placed a temporary ban on DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIDP and DNOP in children’s products.  In July 2005, the EU made that ban permanent and became the first safety organization to ban phthalates in toys and mouthable toys.  Since that time, many U.S. states have jumped on the bandwagon and banned the use of phthalates in children’s tableware, bottles and mouthable toys.

Three years ago, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 (CPSIA) which, among many other restrictions, included a new federal restriction on the use of phthalates.  Using the available research, the limit set by the CPSIA was 0.1 percent.  A product that was found to have more than 0.1% of any one of these six phthalates would be considered to be in violation of the law.

In February 2009, it became unlawful in the United States to manufacture, import or sell certain children’s toys and childcare articles that contain six specific phthalates. CPSIA also mandated that manufacturers have the products tested at a third party testing lab to demonstrate compliance to this new regulation.  Due to the complex testing method, lack of available testing labs, and the time required to re-design manufacturing processes to accommodate for the removal of these phthalates, a stay of enforcement has been in place on the testing requirement portion of the new law.

Last week the CPSC voted unanimously to extend the stay until December 31, 2011.  The vote means that children’s products and childcare articles manufactured on or after that date will be required to have third-party testing documentation showing compliance.  For domestically produced items, the paperwork must be in place prior to placing the product on the market.  For imported items, this testing paperwork must be in place prior to importation of the product into the United States. Manufactures that are found to be in violation of this new federal law could be subject to fines.

To narrow the scope of the testing, CPSC has agreed that only those parts of the product that could potentially contain phthalates (plastics), and only those parts that are accessible to the child are subject to testing.  Manufacturers are encouraged to follow the guidance document published by CPSC in 2009 to determine which materials are subject to this testing.  

Of interest is that the State of California’s Proposition 65 also has a restriction of another phthalate, DnHP, in children’s products that can be mouthed. Many manufacturers are working to eliminate all seven of these phthalates in their soft plastic toys and childcare articles.  

One comment on this restriction:  When manufactures are restricted from using one material, they are often forced to use new materials that could have the same or potentially worse long-term harm.  Since phthalates had been used for decades prior to this concern being raised, it is possible that the substitute chemicals used may one-day undergo the same scrutiny that these seven phthalates have gone through. 

Children's Product or Home Decor?

Sometimes I am truly amazed that I am still alive!  Growing up, I played on fallen trees in the forest behind our Pennsylvania home; I was carted around the county fair on a flimsy folding stroller; My favorite game included marbles; I drank out of plastic baby bottles probably laden with BPA; I know I chewed on the lead paint in my brothers die cast cars; and as a teenager, my bedroom door was decorated with a hippie–inspired pink and purple bead curtain.  Any one of those things alone would send CPSC, Consumer Reports and many Prop 65 prosecutors into a feeding frenzy!

Today the Consumer Product Safety Commission essentially told Target stores that they can’t market bead door curtains to children under 12 years of age. 

The strands of beads can be unintentionally manipulated during normal use to form a loop that could entangle or strangle a child.  There have been no deaths, but Target has received three customer reports of endangerment. The youngsters were 6, 9 and an unknown age, and all three suffered scratches and cuts from the beads grabbing onto their necks as they walked through the curtains.

The real problem was with how the door curtains were marketed.  The packaging demonstrated that there clearly was a known hazard.  The label reads: "Not for use in areas with children under 5 years of age. Plastic ornaments may pose strangulation or entanglement hazard. Not for use near cribs or playpens." The assembly guide also warned customers not to tie the bottom of the beaded curtains into loops.  The artwork on the packaging shows the curtains being used on a doorway that obviously was decorated like a young girl’s bedroom.

There is a lesson to be learned here.  If the beaded curtains had been clearly marketed for adults, and it was the parent who decided to put the beads over their child’s door – would a recall have been required in the event that scrapes and cuts had occurred on the children?  It was the manufacturer’s presentation of intended use in a child’s doorway that was at issue here.

Now personally I would never have considered door curtains as a children’s product, but the CPSC has been broadening their definition of what constitutes a children’s product since publishing their final interpretive rule for defining a children’s product.  These guidelines were created as a result of the total confusion caused by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). They were meant to clear the gray haze left by the CPSIA, in which a children’s product was defined broadly as “a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.”  In fact it created more questions than providing answers.  

What do you think?  

• When does home decor become a "children's product?'  
• What totally unsafe, but completely carefree activity did you participate in as a child, and live to tell about? 

Product Safety from Both Sides of the Product

In 2007, Mattel Toy Company and their Chinese sub-suppliers made a $2.3 million mistake. They didn't follow their own in-house quality assurance steps.  They failed to check  the lead levels in the paint used on some toys they produced in China and sold in the USA.  The result was a recall of millions of toys with lead levels above the allowable limits.  Some say they got arrogant, others say they got lazy, still others were sympathetic to the monumental task of product testing and supply chain documentation. Whatever you believe, it happened.  But the ensuing tsunami effect of that mistake is really quite amazing.  If this can happen to a giant like Mattel, what about the smaller companies importing toys and children products for sale in the states?  And so the witch hunt began. Instantly, all China toy manufacturers were labeled as sub-par.  All toy suppliers and manufacturers became villains of the worst kind.  Trust had been broken and accusations were flying around like a leaves in a wind storm.  


Enticed by the low costs, toy manufacturers dove head first into China without really understanding the intricacies or consequences of the cultural differences. Assumptions of understanding each other were made, and in the end - those assumptions became weapons of destruction for many USA toy companies and their Chinese manufacturers. To avoid the stigma of the "Made in China" label, many manufacturers are looking for new suppliers in Malaysia, Indonesia or VietNam. However, many of these factories are just learning the ropes in toy production and USA consumer/retailer expectations. As in China, the pressure to produce the very best quality goods for the very lowest US dollar puts any factory at risk of succumbing to corner cutting.  If history tells us anything,  it's that the learning curve in any new factory is long and while they are learning,  product safety issues could begin to surface here in the USA.  

In response to this perceived invasion of unsafe toys, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in August 2008.  This historic new law carried inside it so many new regulations, testing and certification requirements that over two years later we are still weeding through the details.  


New lower lead limits for paint and substrates were mandated on all toys, children's products and furniture.  Restrictions on the amount of specific chemical softeners (phthalates) that could be used in PVC and other plastics were called out. The once voluntary toy safety testing (ASTM F963) became a federal requirement for all toys intended for children under 12 years old.  Tracking marks are now required on products and their packaging. For each product they produce, manufacturers will be required to maintain documentation on the design, materials, risk assessment, testing, suppliers and sub-suppliers.  In-house Reasonable Product Testing Programs must be documented and maintained. 


The CPSIA was vague and inclusive.  In fact it was so inclusive that sadly many small businesses that could not afford the extensive new processes and additional testing costs have succumbed to its effects.  Hand-crafters, stationary & art material suppliers, small toy retailers, and publishers have all been added to the obituary list.  Testing labs and manufacturers of all sizes were scrambling to figure out how to meet the February 2011 testing & certification deadline set by CPSC last year.  

On February 1, 2011, CPSC voted to extend the Stay of Enforcement on testing and certification for CPSIA lead in paint and substrates.  The new December 2011 deadline gives manufacturers one quick breath of relief, but the pressure is still on the have these tests completed and documented within the next 10 months.


For consumers it likely feels as if the implementation of this new law is taking too long.  From the outside it appears that manufacturers have been given one extension after another, and very little is being done to improve the safety of the toys on the store shelves.  But from inside the walls of a manufacturer, there have been daily discussions & changes over the past two years geared toward implementing the CPSIA requirements.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent in labor, process designs, testing, documenting, developing product history files and auditing supply chains.  Keep in mind that the great majority to toy manufacturers already have quality control processes in place. The CPSIA meant that they needed to redesign many of their internal systems to meet the new requirements.


At the risk of sounding dismissive, I am not really convinced that all this has resulted in safer toys overall. I definitely think it has raised the expectation of the consumer, and the responsibility of the manufacturers to be vigilant about testing their products and auditing their supply chains. Providing the safest products possible for our children is without a doubt the end goal.  But some consumer advocacy groups use media frenzy to build up unrealistic consumer expectations of safety.  Where a child plays with a toy or a stick or a cardboard box - the potential for injury is present. Parental responsibility and supervision has been eliminated from the equation in so many cases.  


I am a parent, and a grandparent.  I want my kids to grow up healthy without hidden mechanical or chemical hazards putting them at risk.  Chemical hazards, like lead, need to be regulated and carefully managed at all levels of manufacturing.  But adding layer after layer of testing, documentation, and certification regulations does not necessarily serve to make a safer product. Providing clear expectations and guidance to manufacturers is critical. 


Some in the product safety industry fear that our regulatory system is so broken, repair seems impossible.   Parents want safe toys.  Manufacturers want clear guidelines that help them assure the safety of the products they produce without driving up the cost to the consumer.  Importers/Retailers want a testing program with which they can comply without going bankrupt.  President Obama's direction on regulatory reform asked our US government agencies to look at our systems to see where we can avoid excessive, inconsistent and unnecessary regulations.  Perhaps that is a first glimpse at recognizing the mess we've made, and the first small step toward finding a solution.

For an excellent look at the challenges of manufacturing in China, read Angela Valdez's article on The Impact of Economic Slowdown on US Supply Chains.