All products must pass be safe for the consumer to use; if they are not, they are breaking health and safety regulations and are negligent for any accidents or suffering that occurs. So, what’s the recent news on this?
Go Go Hamsters; the must have toy for 3-10 year old this Christmas? Well, according to recent news, health and safety concerns have been raised regarding the material used in the manufacturing of these cute robotic critters that has sparked allegations that toy is potentially dangerous (source).
According to reports, Mr Squiggles’ fur and nose contain a metalloid antimony which according to GoodGuide inspections measures to high for safe use, at 93 parts per million in the fur and 106 parts per million in the nose. So, what’s that mean then? According to the report, the maximum allowable is 60 parts per million, meaning the toy contains well over the acceptable allowance.
The chemical is thought to be a human carcinogen, and exposure to it has been linked to nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and even cancer!
Despite the allegations, the Christmas craze for the play sets has not dented consumer confidence with more than 600,000 being sold in Britain alone, and rationing of one set per customer in major high street retailers to keep them in stock. Managing Director of Character Options, Jon Diver, has stated that they are confident that Mr Squiggles and all of the Go Go Hamster toys are completely safe and have passed independent laboratory testing.
GoodGuide has since admitted that the testing they use is not actually the official methodology used in official standards.
The toy’s maker Cepia LLC has insisted in a statement that the product is safe and has passed the required rigorous testing, and has disputed the allegations from GoodGuide with 100% confidence that the toys are completely safe.
Although in this instance there appears not to be a major issue, product problems and subsequent recalls are not unheard of. So what are the stories behind product recalls, and how effective are they? And what’s the link to China… ?
OK, so we’re going back a few years now, but you may or may not remember the toy giant Mattel issuing a formal apology following health and safety lapses that sparked a mass recall of a staggering 21 million Chinese made toys in 2007 (source).
Mattel boss Robert Eckert appearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee stated Mattel are “by no means perfect” and are “committed to upholding safety standards”, but acknowledged that its Chinese producers had not been monitored closely enough. They subsequently audited all of their suppliers and closely monitored all shipments from Asia.
Senator Sam Brownback made a compelling statement that “Made in China has now become a warning label.”
Several recalls have dented consumer confidence on many goods imported from China, and pressure has being placed on the major players in the industry to up their game in health and safety testing procedures.
You may also remember that around the same time Toys R Us reportedly recalled thousands of crayons originating from Chinese manufacturers due to health and safety concerns. China agreed with the US to ban the use of lead in toys exported to the US.
And what about the Chinese made sofa fiasco? These cases are still cropping up following a harmful substance used in transit of the sofas caused mass dermatological reactions and sparked hundreds of law suits against the major sellers in the industry.
Recent articles we at The Injury lawyers have authored have covered health and safety concerns for chemicals used in a baby bottle (Chemical cause for baby bottle ban) and the mass recall of a Vicks Sinex product found to contain traces of a potentially harmful bacteria (Vicks Sinex recall/).
Manufacturers and sellers of goods have a legal duty of care to ensure their product can not cause the user to come to harm. If you have been injured or suffered due to a faulty, dangerous, or in any way defective product, speak to an expert independent personal injury solicitor today and find out where you stand.
On a slightly separate note, following on from my article in mid November covering the story of the teenager badly burned due to the negligence of an unstaffed automated tanning salon (www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/sunbed-safety-questioned), the owner James Hadley has been given a community order of 90 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay £6000 in costs!
