Remember how a bunch of Mattel toys were recalled

Q3JR4

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-27-10 03:43 PM
Original message

Remember how a bunch of Mattel toys were recalled

in 2007? The U.S. government passed a law mandating independent third party testing for all toy companies...unless the Consumer Product Safety Commission looked at your on site labs and decided that they were adequate to the task of testing your toys (a so called "Firewall" provision that Mattel paid $1.5 million lobbying for).

Well, well, big surprise. "On Friday ...the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted unanimously to approve Mattel's request to use two more of its own company laboratories for the third-party checks on its toys."

So, let's get this straight shall we? Because of shoddy work from Mattel and their safety lab tests, the U.S. government passed a law mandating that all toys be tested by third party labs, but gave the CPSC the ability to opt certain companies out of the law and Mattel is one of those companies?

I remember reading, back in the day, that the law would be tailor made for Mattel at the expense of the small retailers who would have to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the money required for independent testing. It turns out that many small mom and pop shops are paying through the nose for independent lab checks while Mattel--the company that the media told us CAUSED the mess--gets a pass.

Your corporate controlled government at work.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_go_ot/us_toy_testing_mattel">More.

Q3JR4.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Arctic Dave

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-27-10 03:59 PM
Response to Original message

1. Funny how corporations are about outsourcing until it comes to oversite.

Hmmm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

spanone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-27-10 04:00 PM
Response to Original message

2. ain't that america

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Q3JR4

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-27-10 04:28 PM
Response to Original message

3. Yep, yep.

If I had children I wouldn't buy toys from Mattel.

We as Americans can still vote with our wallets.

They can't force us to buy a product that we don't want. Unless, you know, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/health/policy/25view.html">they can.

Q3JR4.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Orsino

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-27-10 04:32 PM
Response to Original message

4. Goldman-Sachs-Mattel. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OhioChick

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-27-10 04:34 PM
Response to Original message

5. Speaking of Mattel...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x532283

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

janet118

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-27-10 04:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. Especially re-sale or consignment stores for babies . . .

I know of one new business that was shut down because they couldn't test all the used toys and clothing (buttons, zippers) and risked fines that would have bankrupted them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Q3JR4

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-28-10 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. I hadn't thought of it from that angle,

but it's not that big of a surprise.

Q3JR4.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Toucano

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-28-10 12:38 AM
Response to Original message

8. If only I were a bear, I would be growling at this.

but what can a toucan do?

Well, some can type. Some loser toucans, that is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LiberalAndProud

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-28-10 12:40 AM
Response to Original message

9. My granddaughter hates Mattel with unsurpassed passion.

They killed the Bratz.

Seriously, this is an example of why some folks hate government. This policy is just stupid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Q3JR4

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-29-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Especially when you consider that

a bunch of small mom and pop places were yelling about the provision hurting their bottom line.

Sort of like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act">Marlboro Monopoly act of 2009. Make a law that imposes "regulation" on a specific group of interests, while giving those companies who give you the most money a specific pass on the enforcement of the law.

Buy your own congress and s/he will, while telling their constituents the exact opposite and http://www.gop.gov/">getting them http://www.democrats.org/">to believe it, work toward your interests at the exclusion of all others.

Q3JR4.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 12th 2024, 08:20 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.