Fireworks safety tips for Independence Day

There's really only one tip we need to give you when it comes to fireworks: Leave it to the pros. Using fireworks on your own is both dangerous and, in many parts of the country, illegal. In 2006, according to figures from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, there were 11 deaths and over 9,000 injuries associated with fireworks. Children under 15 accounted for 36% of the injuries; one four-year-old boy died when he and his older brother set off fireworks in their front yard, igniting a nearby gas tank.

The risks aren't just limited to Roman candles and rockets. Sparklers, which many people assume are safe, can burn at 2,000°F (hot enough to melt gold) and have been identified as the most common cause of firework-related injuries among children under 5. During 2006, the CPSC recorded over 1,000 sparkler-related injuries, including 200 eye injuries.

If you insist on doing it yourself, never allow young children to handle fireworks or sparklers. Check with local police to see what devices are legal to use in your area. Several states, including New York and New Jersey, ban all consumer fireworks, including sparklers. Check the CPSC full list of state laws. And, of course, legal doesn't mean safe. According to the CSPC, illegal products cause only about 2% percent of firecracker injuries. Also, be sure to check for recalls. This month, there have already been two fireworks recalls announced.

You can find more tips on fireworks safety at ConsumerReports.org. However, if you follow our first piece of advice, you can skip the rest, and have a fun — and safe — Fourth of July.

FDA warning on Chinese fish highlights problems with inspections

Another day, another disturbing announcement about Chinese products. The latest is a big kettle of fish — literally. On June 28, the Food and Drug Administration announced a ban on all farm-raised shrimp, catfish, eel, basa (which is similar to catfish) and dace (which is similar to carp) from China. 

The reason: “Current and continuing evidence that certain Chinese aquaculture products imported into the United States contain illegal substances that are not permitted in seafood sold in the United States,” is how the agency’s assistant commissioner for food protection, Dr. David Acheson, succinctly announced it. 

Specifically, through targeted sampling from October 2006 through May 2007, the FDA repeatedly found that farm-raised seafood from China contained antimicrobial agents not approved for use here: nitrofuran, malachite green, gentian violet and fluoroquinolone. The first three have been linked to cancer in laboratory animals; the last may increase antibiotic resistance. 

The FDA is taking the action because it said it was concerned about long-term exposure to these antimicrobials. Thus, it is not seeking a recall or advising consumers to destroy or return any of these products.  The federal watchdog agency couldn't summarily recall the fish even if it wanted to; with the exception of infant formula, the FDA doesn't have mandatory recall authority over food products; only the company can. The agency will only allow future imports if companies prove their products are free of these chemical residues. 

Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, commends the FDA for taking this action.  “Strong action is clearly warranted based on the FDA’s alarming findings of broad-based contamination problems with antimicrobial agents and harmful additives that aren’t approved for fish production in the U.S.,” said Urvashi Rangan, senior scientist and policy analyst with Consumers Union. 

Unfortunately — and we’re beginning to sound like a broken record here since we’ve said this before and know we’ll be saying this again — the latest FDA announcement also highlights the problems involved in policing a nation’s food supply, especially as food imports increase. 

The FDA says it is currently inspecting only about one percent of all food imports and about five percent of fish imported from China, due to stepped-up monitoring. Needless to say, the FDA needs to do more. And it “needs to do far more testing, including testing of farmed fish from other Asian countries such as Vietnam, India, and Indonesia,” said Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives for CU. 

We urge Congress and the White House to give FDA the funding it needs to beef up its inspections — as well as the power to issue mandatory recalls. 

In the meantime, the FDA action serves as a bold reminder that consumers have to become ever more vigilant about the food they eat. Rangan said. “Consumers should not buy the fish if they have any questions about its country of origin.” We agree with the FDA that the use of the antimicrobials poses a long-term health risk, but there certainly is no need to expose yourself to even small quantities of such chemicals for even a short period of time. 

Previously: 

• Can you trust Chinese-made products?
• Thomas & Friends recall: 1.5 million trains and accessories for lead
• Toothpaste trouble: what you need to know now
• Tainted animal feed: Why the government's approach isn't working

Can you trust Chinese-made products?

In the late 1950s, Mao Zedong sought to make China an industrial power by encouraging peasants to ignore their farms and build backyard iron smelters. The nationwide project was an abject failure, and a cause of a major famine. Nearly fifty years later, China has become an industrial powerhouse beyond Mao's wildest dreams. But that success is now threatened by an ever-growing list of safety problems with Chinese-made products. First it was pet food contaminated with melamine. Then toothpaste containing diethylene glycol. Two weeks ago: a huge recall on Thomas & Friends toys coated with lead paint. Earlier this week, we learned about unsafe tires that need to be recalled. Can we no longer trust products made in China? 

Here are some startling statistics: The number of Chinese-made products that are being recalled in the U.S. has doubled in the last five years, helping to drive the total number of recalls in this country to an annual record of 467 last year. Chinese-made products account for 60 percent of all consumer-product recalls, and 100 percent of all 24 kinds of toys recalled so far this year. Even China’s own government auditing agency found that 20 percent of the toys made and sold in China had safety hazards. 

As consumer products companies continue to move their manufacturing from the U.S. to contract factories overseas, we shouldn't be surprised by an increase in recalls of foreign-made goods; in some ways, it's simply a reflection of the growth of such products in the overall market. And we've Rated many products made in China and other developing countries as highly as those produced domestically. Still, we need to keep unsafe goods from crossing our borders and hold manufacturers more accountable for producing unsafe goods in the first place. 

Product registration cards can save lives

Most of you have probably never heard of Danny Keysar. Unfortunately, many safety advocates have. Danny was a 16-month-old boy who died in 1998 when a portable crib in his childcare center collapsed around his neck. Although the crib had been recalled five years earlier, word of its danger had not reached Danny's parents, his caregivers, or the state inspector who visited the licensed childcare facility just eight days before Danny's death.   

What happened to Danny Keysar could have been prevented if there had been a better way for the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the manufacturer to get the word out about the recall. Currently, they rely primarily on media reports of press releases. Only the largest recalls get mass media attention, and most product recalls don’t get noticed by busy parents. As a result, the effectiveness of most recalls is dismally poor, leaving too many unsafe products still in use. 

Hence, the The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act (HR 1699), a bill that's now pending in the House of Representatives. It would require durable juvenile products such as cribs to come with product registration cards to make it easier for manufacturers to contact owners of the product in the event of a recall.    

Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires product registration cards for all child safety seats, the CPSC has no similar requirements for the products under their jurisdiction. Some juvenile product manufacturers voluntarily provide product registration cards for strollers, high chairs, and the like, but they often ask for personal information, which, even though providing it is optional, can be a deterrent to consumers. 

The CPSC once considered requiring registration cards for certain products, but rejected the idea because the cards are generally ignored by the public. It’s true that most consumers don’t return the cards, but effective consumer education campaigns and easy-to-complete cards can boost the return rate. By providing postage-paid registration cards with lawn mowers sold through dealers, Toro Corp., for example, hit 75 to 80 percent return rates. That compares to 35 to 40 percent for mowers sold through mass retail outlets. The return rate for the non-postage paid card is 10 to 20 percent. 

Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, testified in support of HR 1699 —  one of four child-safety bills discussed in a hearing by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection — earlier this month.   

Although product registration cards are not the perfect solution for enhancing recall effectiveness, they can help. We hope lawmakers will support this bill. Until they do, we suggest that you complete any warranty or product registration cards on any products you buy to increase your chances of learning about recalls. It’s not necessary to provide personal information other than your name and address. To stay on top of some current recalls, you can also go to recalls.gov and sign up for the email alerts offered by the CPSC, FDA and USDA. 

See also: 

• The trouble with recalls 
• HR 1699 
• Kids in Danger

Ladder-related injuries are climbing

According to one of our editors, whenever he uses a ladder his wife says a prayer. A recent study shows that appealing for a little help from above, in addition to taking all the right physical precautions, might make sense — at least until the industry can find ways to make ladders safer. 

The study, published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that ladder-related injuries have steadily increased some 27 percent per 100,000 people over 1990 figures, based on data the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) tracked through 2005. The study estimates that nearly 162,000 people were treated in emergency rooms for ladder-related injuries that year. Some 10 percent of ladder injuries required hospitalization, a rate that’s about double the average for all consumer product-related injuries.   

From CPSC reports, the study's authors determined a number of notable factors and trends among ladder-related injuries. They're worth considering the next time you prepare to climb a ladder. 

• Men suffered 76% of the injuries.   
• Fractures were the most common injury. 
• Not surprisingly, severity of injury increased with age and height climbed. People age 76 or older were almost three times more likely to be hospitalized from a ladder-related injury. Climbs over six meters more than tripled the hospitalization rate.

The rise in ladder-related injuries probably results from a range of factors, among them: more DIY activity, little training on safe ladder use, more complicated designs, and more challenging ladder activities (such as reaching those high clerestory windows). Our own testing rated 13 models of taller multi-use ladders unacceptable because they posed some safety problem in their design, and several models have been recalled in recent years for manufacturing defects. 

Basic ladder design has changed little in hundreds of years, but a few new designs have created problems of their own. The telescoping model and some folding types, for example, depend on hinges and locks that can fail altogether and pinch or possibly even amputate fingers if you're not careful. Consumers Union is recommending changes to the voluntary ladder safety standards to make ladders safer. In the meantime, see our latest story on ladders for tips on safe use. 

Related: 

• Ladders: Some can extend your risk 
• Tips for safer ladder use

How to fireproof our furniture, not the whole planet

As the Consumer Product Safety Commission recently reminded us, a new mattress flammability standard will go into effect on July 1. And as it does, we feel compelled to ask: have we been preventing fires in ways that contaminate ourselves, our homes, and the environment with hazardous chemicals? 

Several studies published in Environmental Science and Technology add to the growing evidence that polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), a common group of flame retardants, are moving from mattresses and upholstery to indoor air, drinking water, the food chain, and our bodies.   

American blood and breast milk have some of the highest average measured amounts of PBDEs in the world. That’s probably because we’re exposed to large quantities of these flame retardants in electronics, foam furniture, and cars with PBDE-treated plastics and upholstery. 

The compounds are so persistent in the environment that they’re showing up in arctic polar bears (who already have enough to worry about what with the ice cap melting). The most persistent compounds are also the most toxic. Studies in lab animals suggest that PBDEs can affect thyroid function, fetal and child development, fertility, and liver function. Some PBDE compounds have been classified as potential carcinogens. 

That doesn’t mean we need to give up on stronger fire-protection standards. The Association of State Fire Marshals estimates that upholstered furniture accounts for some 20 percent of all fire-related deaths each year, killing 10 people a week. 

There are effective alternatives to PBDEs, and manufacturers here and in Europe are beginning to turn to them as federal and state governments initiate phase outs or bans of certain PBDE compounds. Some scientists are already seeing an impact, finding lower levels of PBDEs in air samples from spaces whose furnishings use alternative flame retardants. 

As often happens in this country, state regulators lead the way. The new mattress rules were based on California's stronger mattress flammability standards. Recently, Washington State tentatively voted to ban deca-brominated diphenyl ether (DBDE) by 2011. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has effectively banned two PBDEs and is considering doing the same with DBDE. 

But the EPA is waiting to act on DBDE until the CPSC issues a standard for furniture other than mattresses, and there’s no telling when that will happen. It’s been 13 years since the CPSC initiated rulemaking on furniture flammability, and they’re still studying the issue. 

We’re looking to the CPSC to break the logjam and achieve effective fire protection at the federal level that doesn’t threaten human and environmental health.

See also:

• New mattress-flammability standard to go into effect 
• Mattress-flammability standard approved 
• Tougher fire-safety standard for mattresses

More disturbing news about contaminated imports

The New York Times and the Washington Post this week unveiled yet another disturbing chapter in the ongoing saga of contaminated medicinal ingredients imported from China. 

According to the papers' investigations, the recent toothpaste contamination in the U.S. and the tainted cough syrup that killed at least 100 people in Panama are the latest in a long line of often deadly incidents involving contaminated glycerin, a common ingredient in a host of products. Countless people, mostly children, died when they ingested contaminated medicines in Argentina, Haiti, India, and elsewhere. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration tried to identify the source of such incidents abroad over the past decade, but the trail turned cold when they reached the second or third broker to handle the tainted glycerin. Unable to identify and eliminate the source, government officials watched and waited for a tide of contaminated products to wash up on our shores.

Fortunately, it doesn't appear that the contaminated glycerin made it into U.S. products. That doesn't minimize the need for a system that monitors product safety and traces products through the chain of commerce back to the source, holding officials at each point accountable for product quality. Well developed and effectively applied, that process would protect consumers from more than contaminated products at the drug store; it would also go a long way toward keeping lead-tainted children's toys and jewelry (like the recently recalled Thomas & Friends toys) off store shelves. Like the FDA officials who tried to follow the trail of contaminated glycerin, CPSC staff and jewelry manufacturers have been unable to identify the factories in China that keep pumping out lead-tainted products and to impose financial and legal consequences.   

We wonder why manufacturers and our own regulatory agencies don't insist on a system that enables them to identify and avoid these tainted troughs and deal only with factories that have a proven track record. How aware are they of the source of their products? If manufacturers can't have confidence in or control over the quality of products and ingredients being made for them, how can American consumers? 

Manufacturers do have quality assurance systems in place, but those essentially voluntary programs don't appear to be effective in an environment like China, where manufacturers seem to go in and out of business at a rapid rate, and facility managers and executives turn over frequently. Government programs are equally inadequate. Firms in some countries face almost none of the scrutiny that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gives to U.S. facilities. According to the Washington Post, the FDA conducted only 200 inspections of Indian and Chinese plants versus 1,200 in U.S. facilities, even though by some estimates as many as 20 percent of finished over-the-counter drugs and 40 percent of active ingredients come from those countries. Our colleagues who work on international food and drug policies say that current trade agreements don't allow our government to block imports from a particular country solely on the grounds of a bad track record. 

We wonder how the voluntary systems, billed in the '90's as a more effective alternative to "command and control" government regulation, could allow so many links in the chain of commerce to break at once. Limits on FDA budgets contricting oversight have no doubt played a role. We'd like to see a return to more control and greater confidence that our children won't die from a spoonful of cough syrup.

Previously:

• Toothpaste trouble: what you need to know now
• Tainted animal feed: Why the government's approach isn't working

Benzene in beverages: still a risk?

Last year, amid lawsuits against beverage companies and reports that the Food and Drug Administration had found benzene (a known carcinogen) in some soft drinks, we ran our own tests on several drinks and found levels ranging from 7 to 30 parts-per-billion (ppb) in some samples of four products: Crystal Light Sunrise Classic Orange, Fanta Orange and Pineapple sodas, and Sunkist Orange soda (the federal standard calls for 5 ppb or less in drinking water; there is no standard for soft drinks). 

What's changed since then? For one thing, supermarket market chain Safeway Inc. has agreed to reformulate soft drinks made with ingredients that can potentially form benzene, according to a recent settlement.  Coca-Cola, a former defendant, agreed to settle last month. Other companies including PepsiCo, Sunny Delight, Shasta and Polar have not, and remain defendants in similar lawsuits.

We continue to call on the FDA to restrict benzene in all beverages to the limit set for drinking water and require manufacturers to take steps to prevent benzene formation by changing the products’ formulation or manufacturing process. Until that happens, consumers should avoid beverages that combine benzoate salts (listed as sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate) with vitamin C (ascorbic acid), which can set the stage for benzene formation. If you do buy beverages with that combination of ingredients, store them in a cool place and out of direct light.

Previously:

• Greener Choices: Safeway settles benzene soft drink suit 
• Benzene in soft drinks: Lawsuits highlight possible presence of carcinogen in beverages

The more things change ...

The fear of many mothers that cheap toys, such as are found in the 5-and-10-cent stores, are painted with poisonous lead paints is probably groundless. Tests made by Consumers Union on a large number of toys purchased in Woolworth, Kress, and Kresge stores showed no lead in the paints used in any of these toys. The metals of which many small toys are made, however, are not equally innocent of hazard to young children. 

Sound familiar? Other than the names of the merchants — and the fact that our testers didn't find lead paint on the children's toys they reviewed — the paragraph above could have been drawn from today's headlines. However, the statement actually appeared in the very first issue of Consumer Reports, published in May 1936. 

Unfortunately, concerns about lead paint on toys that we were able to confidently dismiss over 70 years ago are real issues today, as illustrated by the recent recall of 1.5 million Thomas and Friends trains and accessories. And the other problem we raised in 1936 — that the metals used in toys could contain hazardous materials such as lead — remains a very serious matter. In the past two years alone, there have been over two dozen recalls involving over 160 million pieces children's jewelry due to lead poisoning risks. In 2006, a 4-year-old boy died of lead poisoning after swallowing one such piece of jewelry.

Some products we tracked in our early years, like vacuum-tube radios and detachable shirt collars, have long since been relegated to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, lead in products made for children remains as much an issue today as it did nearly three-quarters of a century ago. 

Previously: 

• CPSC calls for tighter limits for lead 
• CPSC moving closer to tighter lead jewelry rules 
• More lead recalls as CPSC moves ahead on limited ban

Magnets in toys attract scrutiny from CPSC, Congress

Yesterday was magnet day — or more specifically, danger-of-magnets-in-toys day. In Washington, the Consumer Product Safety Commission held a forum to discuss ways to reduce the risk of injury that tiny magnets can pose to small children and others. Meanwhile, in Chicago, two powerful Illinois Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Bobby Rush, held a field hearing to discuss the same topic.  Durbin, Senate Majority Whip, and Rush, the chairman of the House energy and commerce subcomittee on consumer protection, took CPSC chairman Nancy Nord to task for not acting more promptly to recall toys that contain magnets.

The problem with small magnets is that they can fall out of toys and pose a hidden but serious hazard to children. If two or more magnets are swallowed, their mutual attraction through the walls of the intestines can cause severe blockage resulting in infection, blood poisoning, and even death. Since they often don’t pass through the digestive system, they have to be surgically removed. Scores of children have had to under go this delicate surgery; one died.

You may wonder why, all of the sudden, this has become such a big issue. After all, magnets have been used in toys for decades. The difference today is that manufacturers are now using “rare earth” magnets, which are much more powerful than the common magnets you might have on your refrigerator. The compact size of rare earth magnets makes them more suitable for building sets and other toys. But they're not just used in toys; they can also be found in jewelry such as earrings, push-pin replacements for bulletin boards, and even new powerful fridge magnets. Since rare earth magnets have increased in popularity, the numbers of ingestion incidents have jumped significantly.

And the risks don't just apply to toddlers. Yesterday, we were surprised to learn that incidents often involve teenagers, although most occur between the ages of 3 and 8. Playful kids often experiment with magnets, using them to squeeze soft tissue or skin, as well as their tongue. It’s easy to accidentally swallow these magnets. Younger kids may also mistake them for candy, since the can be the same shape as Smarties or other popular candies. 

Gas can safety gets a hearing

If there’s an easy, affordable, efficient fix for an obvious hazard, it shouldn’t be subject to as much political push and pull as we saw recently at a hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

At issue was a bill designed to make gasoline containers safer: the Children’s Gasoline Burn Prevention Act (HR 814). Our analysis of CPSC data shows that about 3 children under age 5 die and more than 2,000 are treated in hospital emergency rooms each year from a variety of incidents involving gasoline. Data show that some 27 percent of the injuries are from thermal burns; the majority are from poisoning and chemical burns. Despite the bill’s title, effective child-resistant closures would go a long way toward protecting young children from all of those types of injuries.

The bill would require that all gasoline containers designed for residential use have child-resistant closures. Although the 1973 Poison Prevention Act calls for child-resistant caps on toxic household cleaners and the like, gasoline cans are exempt since they’re sold empty. The industry does have a standard for childproof caps on gas cans, but compliance is voluntary. 

Some players in the debate, including minority subcommittee leader Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), suggested that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted to consider whether the “1,200 child injuries” that might be prevented are worth the extra cost of a childproof cap. 

We have no such qualms. We support the bill, though it’s not ideal. It would make the voluntary industry standard mandatory. That standard requires only 80 percent effectiveness to pass, which still puts some particularly determined or intuitive young children at risk. In addition, it’s limited to gasoline containers; portable kerosene containers, which don’t currently require child-resistant caps, aren’t included. Although the incident rate for kerosene containers is a fraction of those for gasoline containers, the hazards are the same.

The safest cans are those that are both childproof and spillproof. For more on spillproof cans, see our June 2006 article (we found one model worth recommending). 

Sally Greenberg, Senior Safety Council of Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, testified earlier this month along with Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director of U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Notably absent was Nancy Nord, acting Chair of the CPSC. Nord did submit written testimony.

Swimming pool and spa safety, raising limits on civil penalties for violating CPSC laws, and the need for registration cards for juvenile products, were also on the agenda. We’ll be commenting on all of them in this blog in the coming weeks.

While we’re waiting for the politicians to act, keep your old gasoline and kerosene cans — even those with child-resistant caps — well beyond the reach of children.

Toothpaste trouble: what you need to know now

The latest news about contaminated and counterfeit toothpaste may have you wondering if your dentist was playing straight when he told you to use the stuff (he was). Since we assume (or at least hope) you're going to keep brushing, here's what you need to know:

• Counterfeit toothpaste labeled as "Colgate" has been found in discount stores in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the toothpaste does not appear to contain fluoride, and may contain the poisonous chemical diethylene glycol (DEG).  Also known as "diglycol," DEG is used in antifreeze and as a solvent. According to the FDA, the counterfeit toothpaste can be easily recognized because it is labeled as "Manufactured in South Africa." In addition, the counterfeit packages examined so far have several misspellings including: "isclinically" "SOUTH AFRLCA" "South African Dental Assoxiation." Consumers who suspect they may have purchased a counterfeit product, can call Colgate-Palmolive’s toll-free number at 800-468-6502.
• MS USA Trading, Inc. of North Bergen, NJ, is recalling all lots of 5 ounce tubes of "Colgate," due to the potential for DEG contamination. The product comes in a 5 ounce (100ml) tube; "made in South Africa" is printed on the box. The recall includes the following brands: Regular, Gel, Triple and Herbal. Consumers who have purchased 5 ounce of "Colgate Toothpaste" in Regular, Gel, Triple and Herbal are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 201-869-0010.
• The FDA has found DEG in certain toothpastes imported from China.  According to the FDA, no poisonings from Chinese toothpaste have been reported in the U.S. However, the agency recommends that consumers discard any toothpaste labeled as made in China.

The FDA has set up a web page that includes updates on this issue. For information about choosing the right toothpaste, go to ConsumerReports.org.

Thomas & Friends recall: 1.5 million trains and accessories for lead

RC2 Corp. is recalling 1.5 million wooden vehicles, buildings and other train set components from the popular "Thomas & Friends" series. Surface paints on the recalled products contain lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. The front of the packaging has the logo “Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway” on the upper left-hand corner. A manufacturing code may be located on the bottom of the product or inside the battery cover. Toys marked with codes containing “WJ” or “AZ” are not included in this recall.

What to do: Consumers should take the recalled toys away from young children immediately and contact RC2 Corp. for a replacement toy. For additional information, contact RC2 Corp. toll-free at (866) 725-4407 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Thursday and between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. CT Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at recalls.rc2.com.

We'll have more on this story — and the ongoing issue of lead in products for children — shortly. Watch this space for updates.

Previously:

• CPSC calls for tighter limits for lead
• CPSC moving closer to tighter lead jewelry rules
• More lead recalls as CPSC moves ahead on limited ban
• Marilyn Furer: Working to get the lead out of children's products

Kazuma replies: Meerkat 50 just a "toy ATV"

Last week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued an unusually strong warning about an all-terrain vehicle designed for children as young as six. The agency said the Kazuma Meerkat 50 put children at risk of injury or death because of multiple safety defects, including no front brakes, no parking brake and the ability to start the ATV in gear. (As we reported, the CPSC issued a warning, rather than a recall; the agency is currently without a quorum and thus unable to issue recalls without manufacturer consent.) 

At the time we wrote about the Kazuma Meerkat, we had not heard from the company that imports these vehicles, Kazuma Pacfic Inc. But now we have, in an email from company president Jason Tsai. His key claims: 

• The Meerkat 50 has been selling in the U.S. since 2000 and the company has not received any accident claims due to front brake, parking brake or gear indicator issues. 
• Tsai claims that CPSC officials told him the Meerkat 50 violated ANSI/SVIA-1-2001, a voluntary industry standard for ATVs, which, among other things, requires vehicles to have parking brakes. According to Tsai, the standard only applies to ATVs with engines more powerful than 70cc, which would exempt the 48cc Meerkat. The Meerkat 50 is really "a toy for kids to play on," not a real ATV, Tsai says. (Last year, however, the Specialty Vehicle Industry Association, the trade group that co-authored ANSI/SVIA-1-2001, referred to the Meerkat 50 and three other "new to the U.S." models as not being compliant with the standard, and posing a "serious safety risk to consumers.") 
• The ATV safety problem today is "overpowering," says, Tsai, with hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries every year, by "killer machines" that all have front brakes, parking brakes and gear indicators. A large part of the problem, Tsai says, lies with the high performance engines — 200cc or bigger — that "make drivers feel like Superman." According to Tsai, Kazuma Pacific's adult-size ATVs are "low performance" models more suitable to agricultural use than high-speed sports. Tsai believes the CPSC should require a license for any adult who wants to drive an ATV with a 200cc-or-bigger engine and appropriate training should be given first. 
• According to Tsai, at the time the CPSC contacted him last December, Kazuma's factory in China was already in the process of retooling to produce a new version of the Meerkat 50 that would address the agency's concerns. That new model, Tsai says, is now ready for export. (See image above, provided by Tsai.)

On learning of Tsai's email, CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese said the agency's press release "speaks for itself." Companies are always given an opportunity to review any release before it is issued and that procedure was followed in Kazuma's case as well, with ample time for the company to comment, Vallese added. 

We agree with Tsai that the government should also be more aggressive about safety issues that affect full-size ATVs, and we're encouraged by his statement that his company's new models address the CPSC's concerns. However, we stand by our assertion that ATVs made for children are dangerous products, and not "toy ATVs," as Tsai claims. The Meerkat 50 can reach a top speed of 20 miles per hour; six-year-old children should not be in control of a vehicle at that speed under any circumstances. 

Previously: 

• The CPSC's ATV non-recall: A dangerous precedent for a hamstrung agency 
• New data on ATVs: As dangerous as ever 
• On the path to safer ATVs 
• CPSC entering legal limbo; agency can still do recalls

Removing old paint can pose big hazards if not done right

We've recently seen several historic architectural treasures ravaged by fires that officials attributed to paint renovation projects, and, most likely, the inappropriate use of heat guns or open-flame torches to strip old paint.  The latest casualty was the Georgetown Neighborhood Library in Washington, D.C. — though contractors claim they were not responsible. In recent years, several Hudson River homes in neighborhoods near Consumers Union’s headquarters have also been severely damaged when homeowners and professionals alike failed to take necessary precautions. In one recent case, the fire came after years of hard, expensive efforts to meticulously restore historic architectural artifacts that went up in flames in a matter of minutes. Contractors at the time were removing the last bits of old exterior paint.   

Though paint stripping accounts for a small percentage of residential fires (open flames and torches were associated with about 5 percent of house fires that occurred in the U.S. last year; heat gun-related fires aren't tracked), it's certainly among the most preventable causes, challenging though it may be. Whether you use heat, chemicals, or elbow grease — or more likely, some combination of the three — stripping paint calls for an abundance of caution.   

First, consider whether lead paint may be present, most likely in homes built before 1978, when lead in paint was banned. If you have an old home, be sure and visit the EPA’s Web site to learn about lead paint hazards and how to manage them. Lead paint should only be removed by contractors who are certified to remove it safely, taking all the appropriate precautions to minimize contamination and exposure in and around the home. In particular, young children, pregnant women and pets should not be present when lead paint is being removed.   

Lead paint or no, follow our tips on hiring any contractor. Adequate protective equipment should be used, including gloves and respirators appropriate for whatever dust and fumes are generated. Fire extinguishers should be readily accessible, and anyone working should have access to a phone in case anything goes wrong. If you must use heat tools, choose an air heat gun over an open-flame torch, and use it carefully, on the lowest setting necessary for the job. Typical acrylic latex paint softens at around 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Never mix heat tools with chemical paint strippers and flammable solvents. Paint should not smoke, vaporize or burn, but simply soften to facilitate removal. Especially in old homes, fires can easily ignite in the walls and travel quickly to other parts of the house, so it’s important to stay alert for signs of warmth along walls and call 911 immediately in any case where fire is suspected. Above all, take your time. Pushing the process too quickly is often where the problems begin. 

Finally, be careful using ladders and scaffolding. Ladder-related injuries  in the home — which can be severe and life-changing — doubled from 1990 through 2005. You can find more information about ladder safety here.

Walk and roll with care

As summer vacation starts in earnest, a just-released study may give parents pause before they let their children use Heelys or other wheeled sneakers. This latest study raises more concerns, particularly about novice users, and underscores our previous recommendation: wearers should use protective gear, including a helmet, wrist guards, and knee and elbow pads.

The study, published in the June issue of Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was conducted by the trauma and orthopedic surgery department of Temple Street Children’s University Hospital in Dublin, Ireland. For 10 weeks last summer, the hospital tracked all roller-shoe injuries referred to the orthopedic department. Not included were more major injuries such as those treated in the ER or, at the other extreme, minor ones handled at home.

Over the 10 weeks, the department saw 67 children with roller-shoe injuries, about 8 percent of the department’s overall workload. Girls accounted for more than 80 percent of the injured. Twenty percent of all the patients were novices, trying roller-sneakers for the first time; a third of the patients had been on Heelys or comparable shoes no more than five times. None of the children used any sort of protective gear at the time of the injury, and only 12 percent were fully familiar with the user instructions.

Eighty-seven percent of the children had “upper-limb trauma,” mostly broken wrists.

The moral here, says the study, is that full protective gear should be worn at all times. We highly doubt that that advice will be taken seriously by kids. 

By the way, despite their parents’ intentions that the children stop using Heelys, a majority of the patients said they intended to continue to use them after making a complete recovery.

Previously: Stay on your toes while rolling on your heels

The CPSC's ATV non-recall: A dangerous precedent for a hamstrung agency

You'd think it would be a no-brainer for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to be able to recall an all-terrain vehicle specifically made for kids that lacks front brakes, has no parking brake and can be started in gear. 

But sad to say, that product — the Kazuma Meerkat 50 Youth All-Terrain Vehicle, which is designed for 6 to 11 year-olds — is not being recalled. And why that's so reflects the unfortunate state of affairs that now exists at the CPSC. The agency lacks a quorum: it’s been without a third commissioner since last July when former chairman Hal Stratton left. Six months later, in January, rules automatically kicked in that limit the agency's powers until the vacancy is filled. (President Bush did nominate a chairman, Michael Baroody, the head lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers, but Baroody withdrew his nomination last month after substantial opposition from consumer groups — including Consumers Union — and Democratic senators.) 

For the most part, the lack of quorum hasn’t affected recalls because up until now companies have been voluntarily cooperating with the Commission when a safety issue arises, says agency spokesman Scott Wolfson. However, when a company fails to cooperate and/or take action to deal with a safety issue, the lack of quorum restricts the CPSC’s powers. 

That’s the case with the Meerkat 50. This week, the CPSC issued a press release saying the Texas-based manufacturer "has impeded CPSC’s efforts to protect the safety of children, by refusing to implement a corrective action plan for this ATV." 

Fortunately, although the agency can’t issue a recall, the lack of quorum has not kept the CPSC from publicly disclosing its concerns. In fact, the agency put out an unusually strong warning about the ATV model, saying "children are at risk of injury or death due to multiple safety defects with this off-road vehicle." The agency added that "the risk with these ATVs is severe because these vehicles are intended for children. In many cases, youth riders are just learning how to operate an ATV and may not have the experience necessary to help them avoid hazards associated with this product’s defects." 

The CPSC’s warning prompts us to reiterate our position about ATVs for kids: We don’t recommend buying them for children of any age. They are simply too dangerous.

According to the CPSC, at least 2,700 Meerkat 50 ATVs have been sold, for prices ranging between $525 and $825. And, unfortunately, because of the continued lack of an appropriate candidate to head the agency, they're still being sold, putting children at risk.

Related:

• CPSC Press Release: CPSC Warns Meerkat 50 Youth ATVs Defective and Dangerous

Previously: 

• New data on ATVs: As dangerous as ever 
• On the path to safer ATVs 
• CPSC entering legal limbo; agency can still do recalls 
• Baroody withdraws his nomination to chair CPSC

Tainted animal feed: Why the government's approach isn't working

The pet food contamination scandal has been going on for so long that it's already passed into popular lore, becoming the butt of jokes on David Letterman and various YouTube videos. But the underlying problems are no joke. The issue involves products contaminated with wheat flour doped up on chemicals called melamine, and cyanuric acid. 

The chemical ingredients were apparently added to pass the wheat flour off as more expensive, high protein vegetable products.    

The tainted wheat has turned up in pet food, hog feed, chicken feed, and fish food, causing an avalanche of warnings, investigations, and some recalls. (Most recently, an American manufacturer of shrimp food issued a voluntary recall on some of its products, amid concern that it could contain melamine.) Pets who ate the contaminated food suffered kidney toxicity. Deaths of some 16 cats and dogs have been linked to the contamination, and many more are suspected. 

The recalls also raise serious questions about the quality of meat and other products sold for human consumption, as some animals that ate the tainted feed made it into the human food supply. The FDA says any residues in human food would be very unlikely to pose a human health risk, though their assessment, just released May 25, is based on limited toxicity and exposure information. 

The pet-food experience encompasses about every concern we've ever raised about the inadequacies of our government's approach to safeguarding our food supply: globalization, import surveillance, ingredient and product traceability, animal-feed quality, truth-in-labeling, and recall authority and disclosure. Here's a brief on some of them. 

Marilyn Furer: Working to get the lead out of children's products

Marilyn Furer is a doer. In the early 1970s, when her 18-month-old daughter Julie was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes, the Illinois resident promptly founded that state’s first chapter of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to help raise funds for research and to educate parents and families. She’s been an activist ever since. 

Fast-forward some 30 years, to 2005, when Furer heard news reports that plastic lunch boxes could contain lead. On her next visit to her two granddaughters in Florida, then 7 and 9, she decided to test the five plastic lunch boxes in the house with a home-testing kit she bought at a local hardware store. The result: three had lead and were thrown away. 

About a year later, her newest grandson Jensen began wearing plastic baby bibs; he drooled so heavily that he was nicknamed “Waterfall.” Furer bought some plastic bibs at Wal-Mart hoping they would help him stay dry. Within a few days, however, she noticed Jensen was putting the bibs in his mouth, sucking them vigorously. Furer couldn’t believe that a baby product could contain lead, but nonetheless decided to test the bibs. “What the heck. You can’t be too safe when it comes to kids,” she said in a recent telephone interview.  She bought some new home testing kits, confident none would turn pink, the sign that lead is present. “To my dismay and disbelief, there were high levels of lead in these bibs,” she said.   

Initially, Furer thought she made a mistake or the testing equipment was faulty. She didn’t know where to turn, but found the group that initiated the lead lunch box tests, the Center for Environmental Health in California, and sent the bibs and the testing equipment to them.