Ten days ago, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced another
in a series of well-publicized recalls of Chinese-made goods:
children's art sets containing crayons, markers, pastels, pencils,
water colors -- and lead -- distributed by Toys "R"
"Consumers should immediately take the products away from
children," warned a news release from the federal government's
watchdog for thousands of household items. "The CPSC is committed
to protecting consumers and families."
But 13 months earlier, in July
2006, the CPSC, without a press release or corresponding media
attention, authorized a Los Angeles company to export to Venezuela
16,520 art sets that violated the same CPSC standard protecting
children from dangerous art supplies. The following month, the agency
authorized a Miami company to export to Jamaica 5,184 sets of wax
crayons that also violated the standard.
Though recalls coordinated by the CPSC of Chinese-made goods have made
headlines recently, for decades the federal agency has allowed
American-based companies to export products deemed unsafe here.
Those products can present an even greater danger in a country that
has only a handful of government employees devoted to consumer
protection, said R. David Pittle, a former acting CPSC chairman who
spent 22 years as a senior vice president for Consumers Union.
"If the United States doesn't have very many inspectors, how many
do you think there are in Honduras or Jamaica or Trinidad or
Bulgaria?" Pittle asked.
Using the CPSC's database of exports of non-approved products and
hundreds of pages of documents obtained through the federal Freedom of
Information Act, The Bee found that between October 1993 and September
2006, the CPSC received 1,031 requests from companies to export
products the agency had found unsafe for American consumers. The CPSC
approved 991 of those requests, or 96 percent.
Agency spokesman Scott Wolfson said the CPSC is simply following
export notification law "as Congress spelled it out for us."
But CPSC Commissioner Thomas Moore strongly objected to the
"Our agency, through our governing statues, cannot claim much
moral superiority over the Chinese, or any other foreign country, when
it comes to our own export policy," Moore said in a list of his
legislative proposals submitted to Congress in July. "Our export
policy is based on a desire to see U.S. manufacturers be able to
compete in foreign countries in terms of price and marketability, not
"... It is somewhat hypocritical of us to berate any other
country for not requiring their manufacturers to abide by the myriad
U.S. mandatory and voluntary product safety standards."
The CPSC database did not identify how many of the approved exports
were products made outside the United States that simply were returned
to their manufacturers and how many made here or elsewhere were
actually exported for sale in other countries. The data also represent
just a portion of all products violating CPSC standards exported from
the United States to other countries.
Under current law, companies have to seek CPSC approval when they
export products that violate mandatory standards or bans. But only
about 13 percent of CPSC standards are mandatory.
The agency is under a congressional mandate to first pursue voluntary
standards, which lack the force of law, and companies exporting
products that violate voluntary standards are not required to notify
CPSC before exporting.
The largest number of requests to the CPSC to export banned goods came
from California companies, which accounted for about one-third, or
338, of the total during the period reviewed by The Bee. The vast
majority of the California requests came from the Los Angeles
One Stop Customs Brokers of
Los Angeles, the company that applied to ship the art materials to
Venezuela for another Los Angeles company, Kico Toys, told The Bee
that the materials had landed in California by mistake. Customs broker
Randy Tang said officials with Kico Toys told him the art sets should
have gone directly from China to Venezuela.
Days before the Kico Toys
request, Tang's company applied to CPSC on behalf of S H Toys Inc. of
Los Angeles to ship 15,120 banned toy trains, buses and other toys to
the Caribbean. The CPSC agreed and notified the Embassy of Grenada,
but Tang said those toys never were exported.
At S H Toys, a woman who identified herself as the owner and would
give only her first name, Lisa, said her company decided not to ship
the toys because of safety concerns. Incorporation documents identify
the company's owner/president as Lisa Tran.
At least 18 of the export requests reviewed by The Bee were from the
San Francisco Bay Area, and one company, All That Glitters, once
located on Second Street in San Francisco, accounted for eight of
On April 12, 1996, a CPSC news release announced that All That
Glitters Inc. was the target of the government's first criminal
prosecution of corporate officers under the federal Flammable Fabrics
Act. The release said company owners David and Gail Daly had pleaded
guilty in U.S. District Court to a criminal charge of willfully
violating federal law and violating CPSC flammability safety
The company was accused of selling chiffon skirts, blouses and scarves
that did not meet standards protecting the public from "highly
flammable wearing apparel," according to the release.
"Mr. and Mrs. Daly's willful misconduct placed consumers at risk
from serious burn injuries," then-CPSC Chairwoman Ann Brown was
quoted as saying. "These guilty pleas underscore our tough stance
against any individuals who ignore their safety obligations."
Still, before and after the Dalys' guilty pleas, the CPSC approved
four requests by All That Glitters to export scarves and other
clothing, which, according to CPSC, violated the same American
flammability standards. Letters seeking permission to export to
Romania, Brazil and Panama were signed by company owner David
The CPSC approved four other requests by the company in 1994 and 1995,
but detailed records of those were not available.
Reached on Thursday, Gail Daly said she and her husband started
exporting the clothing after the CPSC investigation began in late 1994
or early 1995. The investigation, which eventually forced the company
to close in 1998, started when a disgruntled former employee reported
them, Daly said.
"That was why we were looking for other places to send them
because we couldn't sell them in the United States," she said.
"I don't think they (CPSC) care what goes to other
CPSC approved one of the All That Glitters requests, to ship 693 of
the scarves from San Francisco to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, just two
months before announcing the guilty pleas. It approved the export of
15,170 rayon chiffon dresses, skirts, blouses and scarves to Zona
Libre Colon, Panama, more than a year after it announced the
Shipment of 1,500 scarves and other pieces of clothing made in India
and bound for Bucharest, Romania, was approved in October 1995, and
two months later shipment of more than 20,000 scarves and pieces of
clothing was approved for Bahia, Brazil.
Among the 4 percent of export requests denied were several destined
for Canada or Mexico. CPSC records show that the agency was concerned
the banned products could cross the borders and re-enter the United
States and that the agency approves exports to Canada and Mexico only
when the products are being returned to the manufacturer.
"We're very concerned about them coming back over the border into
the country," said Wolfson, the CPSC spokesman.
On Sept. 7, 2005, Great Lakes Products Inc., of Indianapolis filed two
requests to ship products containing isobutyl nitrite, used as a
fragrance in such things as room odorizers. CPSC denied the shipment
to Canada, but approved the request to ship between 14,400 and 28,800
bottles of room odorant containing the same banned chemical to the
Isobutyl nitrite, used in inhalers known as "poppers" to
enhance sexual arousal, was banned in the United States in 1988
following allegations of medical side effects, including the spread of
Attorney Walt Sanders, a vice president for a Washington-area lobbying
firm who spoke on behalf of Great Lakes Products, said the products
were produced in the United States for export.
"If Great Lakes wants to sell these products to any country in
the world that will accept these products, they're free to do so, as
long as they don't sell them in the United States," Sanders
Consumer experts consider America's policy of exporting products it
doesn't want sold here bad public relations. But attempts to end the
practice have been met with resistance.
Pittle, the former CPSC acting chairman, said he tried unsuccessfully
to get the commission to prevent the export of non-approved
"To me it's like a no-brainer that the children of the consumers
in another country will feel the pain of a dangerous product just like
they would here in the United States, so I don't think it's OK to dump
this stuff in another country," said Pittle, who also served as a
CPSC commissioner from 1973 to 1982. "Small parts with toys that
can lodge in kids' throat. I think that's probably universal no matter
where you go. It's global."
Robert S. Alder, a legal adviser to CPSC commissioners and now a
professor of entrepreneurship at the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, suggested the agency's export policy could end up harming
"Twenty-five years from
now when Romania or some of these other countries have really turned
up their economies and they're sort of looking to see where they want
to do business," he said, "are they really going to be that
interested in doing business with a country that was dumping stuff in
their countries that would not have been safe to sell in the United
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.