Consumer Product Safety

Not to be left behind and not dependent on any other state action (Connecticut and Maine notwithstanding), a bill has been introduced (SB 1381) on February 21, 2014 that requires any food, with certain exceptions (more on that later), offered for retail sale in California to be labeled “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” in the California State Senate.

We recently published an article with Law360 providing an analysis on CPSC's proposed amendments to its 6(b) Regulation (16 CFR 1101) that we want to share with our readers.

CPSC Commissioner Ann Marie Buerkle announced today that Joe Martyak, her Chief Counsel, has accepted a position as Vice President for Communications with the Hawaii Community Foundation and will be departing the agency this month.

The European Commission likely will propose an amendment to the European Union’s 2011 Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive) before the summer.

As the February 4th commenting deadline for CPSC’s voluntary remedial actions rulemaking approaches, many companies and trade associations are pondering not only the wisdom of CPSC’s insertion of compliance programs into voluntary recall negotiations, but also how those compliance programs might evolve and take shape moving forward.

Although the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) authorized a budget of $136.4 million for CPSC in fiscal year 2014, Congress set the CPSC's authorization levels years before the recent budget climate took hold in Washington DC.

The CPSC has released the staff briefing package for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to amend its existing regulation interpreting the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

After Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (“CPSIA”) in 2008 and the major amendment to the CPSIA (Public Law 112-28) in 2011, the product safety world turned its attention and focus to CPSC regulatory action – and for good reason. 

“As Maine goes, so goes the nation” was a phrase that described Maine’s reputation as a bellwether state for presidential elections from 1832 through approximately 1936.

At the end of December, Dimmeys, a large Australian discount department store, was fined approximately $3 million dollars by an Australian court for violating Australia’s federal product safety laws for the fifth time.

While the headquarters location of a federal agency may not seem highly newsworthy, a recent report that the CPSC has signed a new 10-year lease to remain at its current location in Bethesda, Maryland is very welcome news to many people both inside and outside the agency.

As this blog has reported on numerous occasions, plaintiffs have brought claims challenging labeling of food products for mislabeling.  The labels challenged include the use of the term “natural”, “0g trans fat” and the infamous claim of misbranding relating to “crunch berries.”

We have previously blogged about the sometimes difficult decision that companies face when classifying their products as “children’s” or “general-use” products and the uncertainty of predicting whether the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) will agree with their classification.

A growing number of states are passing Green Chemistry laws, e.g.; California, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington State.  These laws present a challenge to manufacturers who distribute and sell products into the 50 states.

Since the inception of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), voluntary recall agreements between the agency and companies conducting a recall (commonly referred to as “corrective action plans”) have not been legally binding on the company conducting the recall.

Yesterday President Obama announced his intent to nominate Joseph P. Mohorovic as a Commissioner on the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If confirmed by the Senate, he would succeed former Republican Commissioner Nancy Nord whose term expired at the end of October.

Two months ago, our colleague Dan Herling cautioned on this blog about making unsubstantiated “Made in the USA” claims on consumer products.  He compared the Federal Trade Commission’s standard to California’s more stringent standard under Business & Professions Code 17200.

As readers of this blog are well aware, classifying products as “children’s products,” as opposed to “general use products,” has important ramifications under federal and state consumer product safety laws.

California’s District Courts have, of late, become the go-to jurisdictions for plaintiffs bringing ‘natural’ labeling lawsuits against national food manufacturers.

In February of this year, CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum announced that she would not seek a second term as Chairman of the agency.