Mattel to handle their own testing

[#1]

Hi I haven't been around lately but I came across this and I think you'll find it interesting to say the least.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/safety/2009/08/cpsc-allows-mattel-to-oversee-its-own-inspections-toy-recalls-lead-magnets-small-parts.html

[Former_Member]

Why am I not surprised?

[Former_Member]

I will have to agree with amyblandford on portions of what she says. Much like law firms construct "Chinese Fire Walls," keeping certain attorneys from viewing specific files, I would agree that this is not *necessarily* bad, and may actually (at least financially) benefit the company and, as a direct result of reduced costs, the consumer. Too bad they couldn't have had these labs here in the U.S. It behooves Mattel to act as a good corporate citizen in order to maintain their brand reputation.

That said, it doesn't look good. And appearances can be extremely important in maintaining that reputation.

FuzzyLumpkin makes an excellent point. Where the third-party lab operates independently and is paid by the job, they have no vested interest in the general welfare of the company as a whole. How often do you hear the phrase "independently tested" used to instill a sense of confidence in a product?

Abuses can happen, at any point in the chain.

[Former_Member]

FuzzyLumpkinCrochet says:
"and- there's nothing inherently more reliable about 3rd party testing anyway."
_____
I disagree. Third Party testers have no vested interest in whether or not the items pass. Company employees do. While Mattel may not be going into it with the notion of "getting away with something", it could be very easily abused later on. And without third party testing, there is nothing to stop them.
.......

It also could depend on whether Mattel (for example) owns the factories they use. I don't know if they do or not.
Where I work, we don't. Technically, we purchase the products we import at the point that they're loaded on the boats to come across the ocean. Up until then, they're the factory's problem. If a product fails testing because it wasn't made to our specifications, the factory bears the cost of remaking and resubmitting the product and paying all additional fees until it passes.

So you're right- if anything, it could be in the tester's best interest to be really super picky, so somebody has to pay for more tests! But if the importing corporation isn't bearing the burden of that, they don't care either, except for getting really annoyed when shipping deadlines are missed because of it.

Component testing, by the way, almost eliminates this problem! :-)
(shameless plug for component testing.)
We also do our own auditing of the factories before we'll do business w/them, to make sure there aren't any environmental and/or human rights issues. There are no guarantees, unfortunately, but it's usually a good indication that they're paying attention to doing things right in other aspects of their business too. (I'm not personally involved with that, but I think it's really important. I don't want to work here if what we do is hurting anybody.)

[Former_Member]

my reason for even bringing up what I did-
I hate seeing everyone get so upset over that things that don't make sense, so hopefully it kind of helps to know that they're trying to get it to make sense?

The feeling here (or- the immediate assumption that the article intended for everybody to jump to) seems to be that the people who caused the problem have been let off the hook, and the people who didn't cause the problem are left paying for it. But that's kind of an "apples to oranges" argument.

Etsy folks really are unaffected by what Mattel is allowed to do under CPSIA.
What's hurting the "little guys" needs to be fixed by allowing them (us) to rely on suppliers' test results and good record-keeping, so anything faulty can be traced back to the source. Getting worked up about Mattel just isn't helping anybody. :-(

[Former_Member]

and by the way- the company I work for- it's NOT Mattel!
:-)

...I'm going away now...

[Former_Member]

I have nothing against Mattel.

Here's what bugs me, and maybe I'm not understanding things correctly: Doesn't the law state that testing needs to be done by an independent 3rd party lab?
If it does, is the CPSC going to change other parts of the law (like regarding component testing)...haven't they been saying that they can't?

Maybe I'm just so confused at this point that I can't even think straight.

[LaurieRyan]

I agree sugar, that law reads just that and the fact that mattel is using their own labs should not be allowed at all
isn't mattel one of the reasons for this new law? the stuff they imported from china?

[Former_Member]

Great wisdom to ponder Amy . I see all your points.

Third party testers could be bribed (its possible)...so not 100% safer either. Perhaps by testing in-house, Mattel will totally stake their reputation on producing non poisonous products from now on. Super tough on monitoring all factory productions.

:-)

[Former_Member]

LaurieRyan if I remember right Mattel is the MAIN reason for CPSIA. Most if not all of the lead tainted toys that were recalled were made by Mattel or its subsidiary Fisher Price.

Personally I think EU certified toys should be exempted, if I remember right the EU toy safety rules are stricter than ours.

[Former_Member]

Mattel has been granted an exclusion from the law by our congress!
Big business behind doors wheeling and dealing!
BOYCOTT Mattel products!!!!!

[Former_Member]

We need to contact the CPSC and keep contacting them to allow component testing especially for small businesses like ours. I for one do not have the finances to test as they will be requiring, however all the things I use in my items have already been tested. They should allow that to meet the requiremnts of their law. Also remember to vote the scoundrels out of office that are in the senate and house.

Here is the link for the contact page for the CPSC:

http://www.cpsc.gov/about/contact.html

[Former_Member]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a lot of the Chinese imports are being allowed to use their own labs and their own lab results. Go figure.

[Former_Member]

I will say it again...thank you Amy for raising some fine intelligent points. (((Hugs)))

[NDTPhoto]

I have been following the CPSIA from a distance for a while now, this Mattel scenario doesn't surprise me. I will also have to assume that there will be watchdog groups doing independent testing on Mattel, etc. to make sure their in-house testers aren't fixing the game.

I haven't read the fine print of the bill, does it exempt small businesses doing under a certain amount of volume from testing? It seems as though the craft world would be nearly impossible to regulate/enforce, and would only be done via the suppliers of materials to the crafters.

If the buttons, fabric, paint, etc. from your suppliers has been through CPSIA testing why should the assembled product be subject to another round of tests? I have a love/hate relationship with the government and I am going both ways on the CPSIA. Are the horror stories we hear similar to the misinterpreting of the 'Obamacare' debate? I have a gut feeling that people assume the worst whenever the government does anything nowadays.

I still believe the government IS the people, as a collective, they will never represent each of our individual views 100% down the line, but over time we as individuals will be the beneficiary of our collective government.

[Former_Member]

ndtphoto, there are NO exemptions for size of business or volume. There are some exemptions for types of materials used (certain fabrics, metals, woods, etc.). Many manufacturers are not testing buttons, etc., because the CPSIA covers items intended for children and those items are designed for general use. What you describe is component testing; something that Congress didn't allow for in the Act.

amyblandford's posts above explain very concisely that having a firewalled laboratory isn't necessarily or inherently bad. And I don't honestly believe Mattel is a *bad* company (and we should be wary of painting all businesses as E-V-I-L, since it's business that generates income in the US). I agree, the CPSC's decision doesn't look particularly good. And I probably won't buy anything made by Mattel anytime soon, on principle.

I don't believe that horror stories for the CPSIA are misinterpretations (nor do I believe that health care debate is being misinterpreted). In fact, working through the issues/fighting the CPSIA has reduced my faith that government can work. If they can't get a 60-some-odd page bill read and debated and worked out in such a manner that the law will be workable and to the benefit of all/most, can I trust them with 1000+ pages they neither wrote nor read?

I'd rather work with a private company with a profit motive than a government with a power motive any day of the week.

[NDTPhoto]

Private companies have a power motive via profit. Much more than the government. There always will be 'representatives' that are serving their own best interests, not their constituents, but I still believe that the government as a whole represents the citizens (or can be made to if it starts straying too far as I feel it has in recent years)

[Former_Member]

That is true. However, you have a choice whether to allow the private company to have that power through purchase power. Those contracts are entered into for mutual benefit. You also have the right to sue private companies in the case of injury; we cannot sue our congressmen or president. While we do have the power to elect our officials, once they're in office they can exercise power over us through legislation and regulation, whether we would choose that ourselves and regardless of mutual benefit.

However, at least with a profit motive, I know where the company is coming from; it's somewhat obvious that they want my money. When someone wants to have power over you, even under the guise of protecting or taking care of us, it isn't necessarily up front.

[bobbinalong]

I haven't read all of this so I may be saying something someone else said. Got to thinking this morning about this subject. When you say the word "Mattel" is means something to all of us. We know it. In the past we have trusted it. They have a reputation to protect.

When you say the word "Bobbinalong", people would go "Who?". I know I am trying to make each piece of my shop safe. But rather than doing that, should I be thinking of my name, Bobbinalong, as safe - the whole thing. Letting the name stand on its own. I am only selling items that are safe. Acrylic yarn. No buttons, no zippers, etc. I have pulled the items, my tooth fairy pillows, that I cannot prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are safe. It is cotton fabric from Jo Ann's but I don't have a compliance cert. to back it up. Filled with polyester stuffing from there. All new materials. My ragdolls I stopped making because I didn't have compliance on the fabrics. The snaps are Dritz Brass. This just about broke my heart to stop making Happy Kids. I won't be able to afford the testing so saw no real point in going on.

I am sure Mattel is not singling out a product to tell us they are not sure about, or are going to stop making. They instead set up testing. Maybe we need to get to the point where each of us, in my case, Bobbinalong, just stands on its own name. I alone will know about the items I sell. I won't share what I have pulled. I also won't share which items I am certain about. I will accept the responsibility. What I sell is what I sell. It is my own brand name.

[Former_Member]

Hello, bobbinalong! You make a great point -- branding. We all work hard to build a trust with our customers and we care about our reputations. It is not any different with corporations. Indeed, the food supply began getting safer in the US not because of government intervention or regulation, but because one of the ketchup companies (I don't remember which) chose to put their NAME on it. Once there was a name and a reputation on the line (and, by extension, recourse), the quality had to be maintained.

I'm not giving Mattel a pass here (mistakes were made), but this aspect seems to get forgotten in the discussion and it is certainly a valid one. We should not think of businesses as evil corporations, but as corporate citizens.

[Former_Member]

I thought it had to be a 3rd party lab

[birdylegs]

I would like to believe that Mattel will be thorough in their testing because they are staking their reputation on it, but I'm not so sure. Did they actually experience any meaningful dip in sales after the string of recalls? I know the recalls themselves cost money, but did a significant number of people stop buying their products because they no longer trusted in Mattel?

I guess what is really so frustrating is that the company responsible for the laws that could potentially put many small craftspeople out of business is big and rich and powerful enough to develop their own labs to make their process cheaper and more efficient. Obviously it is difficult under any circumstances to compete with big business, but it's impossible when the CPSIA completely ties your hands.

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

ndtphoto says:
Private companies have a power motive via profit.

Why is this so evil? Aren't all of us selling on etsy trying to make a profit? If we aren't, why don't we just make whatever we make and hand it out on the street corners? Profit is not an evil word, nor is the concept. A business hires people because they make enough profit to do so. When the profit contracts, people get laid off. Profit is the difference between what comes in and what goes out. The difference, for whatever our family unit is, is called discretionary income. It's what we save, what we buy the new washer with, what we go on vacation with. Profit is a good thing, profit is not what the government is capable of doing. They are the leeches in the swamp. Government earns no money except the worthless paper they print, they produce nothing, they only consume money.

Big business can act wrongly when they bribe the government (contributing to reelection funds), but where are the morals of our elected officials that take the money and do their bidding? Could they say no? They don't because they are more corrupt, they have lied to us and sold out the trust that they swore to uphold. Henry Waxman is at the top of the list, in my opinion!

[Former_Member]

What a load! All we need is money people, didn't you know!? Grrr........

[MamasFeltFood]

I just can't believe that people are not trusting small businesses because of this law. That is so backwards!