Recalls in November 2009

By James Limbach
ConsumerAffairs.com

November 24, 2009 Owners of certain Toyota Tundra vehicles are advised to remove spare tires mounted underneath the body of the vehicle. In an advisory, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says excessive corrosion due to "road salts" can cause the rear cross- member of the vehicle frame to fail and allow the spare tire to fall onto the roadway at any time, creating a road hazard for other vehicles.

Toyota has just announced a recall of these vehicles, but NHTSA recommends that owners remove the spare tires even before taking the vehicles to the dealers to be remedied.

In addition, the corrosion may also cause damage to the rear brake lines and lead to brake system failures.

Corrosion does not appear to be an anomaly with these trucks.

• Kenneth K. of Candia, N.H., writes ConsumerAffairs.com that his 2000 Toyota Tundra TRD 4x4 extended cab truck is "being eaten away by rust, causing parts to break and even fall off. Now the extensive frame rust has caused parts to fall off, and break."

• Thomas of Ronkonkoma, N.Y., owns a 2000 Toyota Tundra extended cab truck. He tells ConsumerAffairs.com, "The whole under side of the truck is rusting.I owned a 1968 Chevy that had less rust then this truck has."

The safety recall involves 110,000 Toyota Tundras for model years 2000 through 2003 that are registered in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. These states typically use chemical de-icers, such as road salts, to treat the roadways in winter weather.

Toyota will contact owners of all affected vehicles and ask that they bring the vehicles to a local dealer to be inspected and remedied. Based on the extent of the corrosion, Toyota will either apply a corrosion-resistant compound to the affected area or replace the rear cross-member if necessary. In the event that the rear cross-member cannot be replaced, Toyota will develop a remedy for those vehicles.

Toyota also says it will notify owners of model year 2000 through 2003 Tundras registered outside of the recalled states and perform the same inspection and repair if the owners desire.

Until the recalled vehicles are brought in, NHTSA urges owners to remove the spare tires to prevent them from falling onto the roadway. NHTSA also advised to avoid being under the spare tire or rear cross-member while removing it. If the spare tire is moved to the truck bed or to another location in the vehicle, owners should make sure that it is properly secured.

November 20, 2009
Evenflo is recalling some of its First Choice infant restraint systems because a label was left off. The label contains instructions about registering the child seat so that consumers can be notified if the seat is recalled, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The recalled seats are Model 3604098, manufactured between January 16 and September 29, 2009.

A label was inadvertently left off this product that contains certain required information about contacting Evenflo to register the car seat in case of a recall, information about contacting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for recall information, as well as a statement certifying that the car seat complies with the safety standard and is certified for use in aircraft.

Evenflo will mail the required labels along with placement instructions to registered owners free of charge. The safety campaign is expected to begin during November 2009. Owners may contact Evenflo toll-free at 1-800-233-5921 between 8am and 5pm EST.

November 18, 2009
Grand World is recalling more than 640,000 "Bobby Chupete" pacifiers because they fail to meet federal safety standards. The pacifier mouth guard is too small, posing a choking hazard to infants and toddlers.

This recall involves Bobby Chupete pacifiers. The pacifiers have a ring-shaped handle and heart-shaped mouth guard with two ventilation holes. The nipple is made of latex. Bobby Chupete and a picture of an infant are printed on the pacifiers packaging. The pacifier was sold in aqua, red, white or yellow colors.

The pacifiers, made in China, were sold at various retail stores nationwide from November 2004 through July 2009 for about $1.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away from infants and toddlers and contact Grand World for a refund or a replacement pacifier.

For additional information, call Grand World collect at (718) 326-7786 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firms Web site at www.grandworldinc.com.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

By Truman Lewis
ConsumerAffairs.com

November 11, 2009
Barely one week after Consumer Reports found unexpectedly high levels of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) in name-brand food products, a federally-financed study says the substance appears to cause erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems in men. A study released last month linked exposure to BPA during pregnancy to hyperactivity and aggression in girls.

BPA, a synthetic version of estrogen, is used in everything from plastic baby bottles to canned food linings and has been detected in the urine of 93 percent of the U.S. population. It has been linked to a wide array of health effects including reproductive abnormalities, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.

The latest study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, was conducted on male workers at four factories in China, is the first to study the effects of BPA on human males. Previous studies have used mice and rats, a point often seized upon by industry-backed critics who have claimed there is no evidence of ill effects on humans.

"Critics dismissed all the animal studies," said De-Kun Li of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, which conducted the study with funding from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, The Washington Post reported. "Now we have a human study and this can't just be dismissed."

Nevertheless, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) -- which represents the chemical industry -- was quick to discount the findings.

This study of occupational exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) among male factory workers in China provides interesting new information, although its relevance to average consumers who use products containing minute amounts of BPA is limited, at best," said Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., of the ACC's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group. "Based on the significant differences between occupational exposure and consumer exposure, the studys authors state, the findings from this study probably do not apply to populations that are exposed to low levels of BPA." he noted.

600 workers

Researchers followed more than 600 workers over a five-year period and compared their sexual well-being with that of male workers in other Chinese plants where no BPA was present. They found that men handling BPA were four times as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely to have difficulty ejaculating.

Researchers said they did not have to wait long to see the results of BPA exposure. Within just a few months of starting to work at the factories, the study's subjects began to develop sexual dysfunction.

While exposure levels in the Chinese group were as much as 50 times what an average U.S. male faces, Li said the findings nevertheless raise questions about the safety of exposure at lesser levels.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) last week said it would spend $30 million to examine the safety of BPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to release its own findings from an ongoing study within the next month.

A recent EPA study found that exposure to low levels of BPA had no effect on a range of reproductive and behavioral activities measured. But the FDA's scientific advisory board has cited more than 100 studies linking BPA with health effects and the Obama administration has pressed agencies to take a "fresh look" at the issue.

FDA panel

An FDA special scientific advisory panel reported in late 2008 that the agency's basis for setting safety standards to protect consumers was inadequate and should be reevaluated. A congressional subcommittee determined in 2009 that the agency relied too heavily on studies sponsored by the American Plastics Council. The FDA, now under the leadership of Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is expected to announce soon its reassessment of BPA safety. Bills are currently pending in Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers.

Consumers who are concerned might be able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate, their dietary exposure to BPA by taking the following steps:

• Choose fresh food whenever possible.

• Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula.

• Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens.

November 5, 2009
About 10,000 Young Artist Easels are being recalled because the chalkboard surface coating contains high levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard.

This recall involves a children's art easel which has a chalkboard surface on one side and a white board surface on the other side. The item number is AA13301 and the UPC number is 082435133010 which can be found on the original packaging.

The easels, made in China, were sold at art supply stores nationwide and online from July 2004 through June 2009 for about $75.

Consumers should immediately take these recalled easels away from children and contact the firm to receive a free replacement chalkboard panel.

For additional information, contact MacPherson's at (866) 319-5335 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.art-alternatives.com/recall.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

November 5, 2009
About 282,000 Adventure Playsets are being recalled in the U.S. and Canada. The plastic coated lumber on the horizontal ladder (monkey bar/swing beam) can weaken over time due to rotting of the whitewood (spruce, pine and fir species), resulting in a fall hazard.

All recalled swing sets have a horizontal ladder that acts as both a monkey bar and swing beam, and an end latter coated with cranberry or green plastic. The replacement kit includes the horizontal ladder and the vertical end truss support pieces. More photos below.

Adventure Playsets has received more than 1,400 reports of rotting ladders involving 16 injuries that resulted in nine emergency room visits. The injuries include two arm fractures, lacerations, scrapes, and bruises to children younger than 8 years old. Most of the reported injuries occurred when the swing came out of the monkey bar/ swing beam that had rotted.

This recall involves wooden play sets with swings, slides and ladders. Each set has an overhead monkey bar ladder that acts as both the monkey bar and swing beam, and an end ladder coated with cranberry or green plastic. The instruction manual has the name 'Adventure Playsets' and one of the following model numbers printed on the cover.

The Bellevue,Tacoma and Durango swing sets were previously recalled due to detaching frames and a fall hazard.

The playsets, made in the U.S., were sold at Walmart, Toys R Us, Academy Sports, Menards, and Mill stores nationwide, and online at Walmart.com, ToyRUs.com, Willygoat.com and through the DMSI catalog from January 2004 through December 2007 for between $300 and $600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the swing sets and contact Adventure Playsets to receive a replacement kit.

For more information, contact Adventure Playsets toll-free at (877) 840-9068 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.adventureplaysets.com. Consumers can also email the firm at custservice@adventureplaysets.com

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Industry mouthpieces cranked up a predictable response to a Consumer Reports study that said the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) can be found in a diverse assortment of canned foods including those labeled "organic," and even in some foods packaged in "BPA-free" cans. Who's right? The National Institutes of Health (NIH) plans to spend $30 million to find out.

"We are extremely disappointed that Consumer Reports failed to provide its readers with the full story on BPA in canned foods," said Dr. John Rost, chairman of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. (NAMPA) said in a statement. "BPA-based epoxy coatings in metal packaging provide real, important and measurable health benefits by reducing the potential for the serious and often deadly effects from food-borne illnesses."

"This packaging enables the high temperature sterilization of food products when initially packaged and continuously protect against microbial contaminants. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) records, there has not been an incidence of food-borne illness resulting from a failure of metal packaging in the U.S. in more than 30 years," Yost said.

The new government study will examine the safety of BPA and could result in recommendations for further curbs on its use. Also, the FDA is expected to release the findings from its own ongoing study of BPA sometime in the next month, officials said.

We know that many people are concerned about Bisphenol A and we want to support the best science we can to provide the answers, said Linda Birnbaum, director of the NIEHS, in a statement.

BPA has been detected in the urine of more than 90 percent of Americans and animal studies have linked it with infertility, weight gain, behavioral changes, early onset puberty, prostate and breast cancer and diabetes. The New research will focus on low-dose exposures to BPA and effects on behavior, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, asthma, cardiovascular diseases and various cancers. Researchers will also see if the effects of BPA exposure can be passed from parents to their children.

Minds made up

But industry-leaning critics who rushed to attack the Consumer Reports study appear to already have their minds made up. In a strongly-worded statement, the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) called the Consumer Reports findings "false."

"Consumer Reports made so many factual errors in presenting its data on BPA in canned goods that no-one (sic) could have possibly read the actual research. Call for ban on chemical puts public at risk from deadly food borne pathogens," said Trevor Butterworth, who is the editor of the organization's Web site.

Butterworth, who has degrees in philosophy from Trinity College Dublin, regularly issues broadsides against press coverage that STATS deems unworthy, unbalanced or misleading. STATS is loosely affiliated with George Mason University, a Virginia state university whose main campus is in Fairfax, just outside Washington, D.C., where STATS has its office. The president of STATS is S. Robert Lichter, a GMU communications professor who holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University.

"Consumer Reports have come out with a purported investigation into the chemical Bisphenol A that shows scant familiarity with any of the risk assessments of the chemical. Given that BPA is used to prevent food spoilage in cans, and given that food spoilage can lead to bacterial infection putting people at risk from botulism, and given that there is no safe and effective alternative as yet for BPA, these errors and exaggerations and omissions are not trivial," Butterworth said.

STATS claims its goal is "to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies." However, its findings are nearly always presented in an adversarial, take-no-prisoners format that leaves little room for disagreement or scientific discourse.

"Consumer Reports seems to be oblivious to the extensive research on BPA carried out by the European Union, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others, all of which refutes the magazines claims about the chemical," Butterworth fumed.

Very specific

In fact, Consumer Reports was very specific in reporting what it did and did not find and noted throughout its report that there is continuing research into the effects of BPA, which has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners. Its report dealt largely with the concentrations of BPA found in various food products and did not claim to break new ground about the possible long-term effects of BPA ingestion.

BPA has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because of potential health effects. There are currently no federal restrictions on BPA in food packaging, although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is soon expected to announce the results of its most recent study.

Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA.

Several animal studies show adverse effects, such as abnormal reproductive development, at exposures of 2.4 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day, a dose that could be reached from a person eating one or a few servings daily or an adult daily diet that includes multiple servings of canned foods containing BPA levels comparable to some of the foods the magazine tested.

In keeping with established practices that ensure an adequate margin of safety for human exposure, Consumer Reports noted that food-safety scientists generally recommend limiting daily exposure to BPA to one-thousandth of that level, or 0.0024 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, significantly lower than FDA's current safety limit.

"The findings are noteworthy because they indicate the extent of potential exposure," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "Children eating multiple servings per day of canned foods with BPA levels comparable to the ones we found in some tested products could get a dose of BPA near levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies. The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date."

Consumer Reports noted that its tests convey a snapshot of the marketplace and do not provide a general conclusion about the levels of BPA in any particular brand or type of product tested and added that levels in the same product purchased at different types or places or in other brands of similar foods might differ from the test results.

The new findings by Consumer Reports show that BPA can be found in a diverse assortment of canned foods including those labeled "organic," and even in some foods packaged in "BPA-free" cans. The magazine's tests of a few comparable products in alternative types of packaging showed lower levels of BPA in most, but not all cases.

"The findings are noteworthy because they indicate the extent of potential exposure," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "Children eating multiple servings per day of canned foods with BPA levels comparable to the ones we found in some tested products could get a dose of BPA near levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies. The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date."

The Food and Drug Administration is soon expected to announce the findings of its most recent reassessment of the safety of BPA. The chemical has been linked to a wide array of health effects including reproductive abnormalities, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.

Consumers Union has previously called on manufacturers and government agencies to act to eliminate the use of BPA in all materials that come in contact with food and beverages. In the wake of CR's new finding, Consumers Union sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg reiterating its request that the agency act this year to ban the use of BPA in food- and beverage-contact materials.

Consumer Reports' tests convey a snapshot of the marketplace and do not provide a general conclusion about the levels of BPA in any particular brand or type of product tested. Levels in the same product purchased at different types or places or in other brands of similar foods might differ from the test results. CR tested three different samples of each canned item for BPA and found:

Green beans

Highest levels of BPA in our tests were found in some samples of canned green beans and canned soups.

• Canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake had the highest amount of BPA for a single sample in Consumer Reports tests, with levels ranging from 35.9 parts per billon (ppb) to 191 ppb. Progresso Vegetable Soup BPA levels ranged from 67 to 134 ppb. Campbell's Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup had BPA levels ranging from 54.5 to 102 ppb.

• Average amounts in tested products varied widely. In most items tested, such as canned corn, chili, tomato sauce, and corned beef, BPA levels ranged from trace amounts to about 32 ppb.

Given the significance of BPA exposure for infants and young children, CR tested samples of Similac Advance Infant Formula and Nestl Juicy Juice All Natural 100 percent Apple Juice. The findings revealed:

• Similac liquid concentrate in a can averaged 9 ppb of BPA, but there was no measurable level in the powdered version.

• Nestl Juicy Juice in a can averaged 9.7 ppb of BPA, but there were no measurable levels in the samples of the same product packaged in juice boxes.

Juicy Juice

"The BPA levels in our samples of Nestl Juicy Juice, at about 9 ppb, were not among the highest in the foods we tested. However, considering how many servings of juice young children may consume daily, a child still could exceed a level that Consumers Union thinks would provide an adequate margin of safety," said Dr. Rangan. Bypassing metal cans in favor of other packaging such as plastic containers or bags might lower but not eliminate exposure to BPA, but this wasn't true for all products tested.

• Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup in plastic packaging contained detectable amounts of BPA but at levels that were significantly lower than the same brand of soup in the can. StarKist Chunk Light canned tuna averaged 3 ppb of BPA, but BPA levels in the same brand in a plastic pouch weren't measurable.

• Bird's Eye Steam Fresh Cut Green Beans, frozen in a plastic bag, contained very low levels of BPA, about 1 ppb or less.

• However, in one item tested, the alternative packaging contained higher levels of BPA than the canned version. Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli in Tomato and Meat Sauce packaged in a plastic container with a metal peel-off lid had BPA levels 1.5 times higher than the same brand of food in metal cans.

"BPA-free"

BPA was found in some products packaged in cans that claimed to be "BPA-free."

• Although tests of the inside of the cans found that the liners were not epoxy-based, suggesting BPA was not used, samples of Vital Choice's tuna in "BPA-free" cans were found to contain an average of 20 ppb of BPA and those of Eden Baked Beans in "BPA-free" cans averaged 1 ppb BPA.

BPA, which has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners, has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because of potential health effects. But, there are no federal restrictions on BPA in food packaging.

Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA.

Several animal studies show adverse effects, such as abnormal reproductive development, at exposures of 2.4 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day, a dose that could be reached from a person eating one or a few servings daily or an adult daily diet that includes multiple servings of canned foods containing BPA levels comparable to some of the foods the magazine tested.

In keeping with established practices that ensure an adequate margin of safety for human exposure, Consumer Reports' food-safety scientists recommend limiting daily exposure to BPA to one-thousandth of that level, or 0.0024 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, significantly lower than FDA's current safety limit.

FDA panel

An FDA special scientific advisory panel reported in late 2008 that the agency's basis for setting safety standards to protect consumers was inadequate and should be reevaluated. A congressional subcommittee determined in 2009 that the agency relied too heavily on studies sponsored by the American Plastics Council. The FDA, now under the leadership of Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is expected to announce soon its reassessment of BPA safety. Bills are currently pending in Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers.

Consumers who are concerned might be able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate, their dietary exposure to BPA by taking the following steps:

• Choose fresh food whenever possible.

• Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula.

• Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens.