Recalls in March 2010

The firm has received five reports of overheating. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled jackets and vests are designed to work with the Ardica Moshi Power system. The Moshi Power System is marked with Ardica. The pouch below the collar of each garment is marked "Ardica Heat Power Charge." Each jacket and vest also has a power switch next to the logo on the front. The following models are affected by this recall: Ardica Enabled Mountain Hardwear Radiance Jackets, Refugium Jackets and Sitka Dutch Oven Vests. The Mountain Hardwear jackets have the Ardica name and logo on the right sleeve.

The jackets and vests were sold at sporting goods and outdoor equipment retailers from August 2009 through February 2010 for between $230 and $425. They were made in China.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled jackets and vests, and contact Ardica for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Ardica Technologies toll-free at (877) 884-1921, 24 hours a day, seven days a week or visit the firms Web site at www.ardica.com.

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

More than a year after its outbreak, the infamous peanut butter-linked salmonella epidemic lives on, if only in the courtroom.

A class action filed on Monday accuses food giant Kellogg of failing to warn consumers that its snack foods were possibly contaminated with salmonella, thereby putting its customer base at risk of serious illness.

The suit alleges that, despite Kellogg's constant claims that its products were healthy, nutritious, made with only quality ingredients and safe, the snacks were manufactured using processes and quality-control measures that were grossly inadequate for purposes of ensuring that [they would] not be contaminated. The plaintiffs claim that Kellogg misrepresented its snacks as safe in order to reap significant financial rewards that it otherwise would not have obtained.

As is true for much of the January 2009 recall, the suit's allegations can be traced back to Peanut Corporation of America, the now-defunct company at the center of the outbreak. According to the suit, PCA provided Kellogg with peanut paste for a number of its products, including peanut butter-flavored cookies and cracker sandwiches. Kellogg recalled a handful of snacks in January, and twice expanded the recall to include a larger variety of products.

PCA was implicated in the outbreak after federal inspectors discovered that the corporation shipped peanut products that tested positive for salmonella. A subsequent inspection at PCA plants in Georgia and Texas uncovered a number of health code violations, including leaky roofs, mold, rodent droppings and live cockroaches.

The suit notes that, in issuing the recall, Kellogg urged consumers who bought the recalled products to destroy them and further stated that 'consumers with questions or concerns about their health should contact their doctor, and that the company maintains a page on its website entitled 'Peanut Butter Products Recall Information' on which it also urges consumers who bought the recalled products to destroy them and instructs consumers with questions or concerns about their health to contact their doctors.

But the plaintiffs contend that these measures don't go far enough, since they only offer relief to Class members who manage to learn of the recalls and meet the unreasonable conditions Kellogg has imposed.

Judging from the complaint, lead plaintiff Anthony Benavides doesn't appear to have actually gotten sick from the Austin brand peanut butter crackers at the center of the suit. According to the complaint, Benavides was misled into purchasing and spending money on the products, and received something other than what was represented, a product he did not seek. The suit says that Benavides was injured in fact since he lost money or property because of the company's alleged deception.

Whether that theory will pass legal muster is up for debate. In many situations, consumers can claim economic injury even when they haven't been visibly affected by a corporation's negligence -- owners of recalled Toyotas, for example, can point to the negative effect the flap has had on their cars' resale value. Whether that logic can be applied to crackers potentially subject to a recall -- but that didn't actually make anyone sick -- remains to be seen.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it may add BPA to the agencys list of chemicals of concerns and require testing of its impact on the environment.

Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it had some concerns about the health impacts BPA had on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.

BPA is used in many consumer products, including baby bottles, plastic water containers, metallic food and beverage cans, cash register receipts, medical equipment, and dental sealants.

Animal studies have shown the chemical can cause reproductive and developmental problems and may also affect the endocrine system, the EPA said. Other studies have linked BPA exposure in humans with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and reproductive issues.

Some scientists have also told ConsumerAffairs.com that children and developing fetuses are especially vulnerable to potential adverse health effects from BPA exposure.

In related news, more than 200 environmental and public health groups protested outside the GlobalChem Conference in Baltimore Tuesday and challenged chemical manufacturers to support federal changes that would protect the public from BPA and other potentially dangerous toxins.

The EPA said its decision to scrutinize BPA is a sign the agency is worried about the possible health and environmental risks posed by the chemical.

We share FDAs concern about the potential health impacts from BPA, said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPAs Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Both EPA and FDA, and many other agencies are moving forward to fully assess the environmental and health impacts to ensure that the full range of BPAs possible impacts are examined.

Action plan

The EPA, however, is not taking any regulatory action at this time to stop the use of BPA. Instead, the agency announced the following action plan regarding the chemical:

• Adding BPA to the chemical concern list because of its potential effects on the environment. This would identify BPA as a substance that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment because of its potential for long-term adverse effects on growth, reproduction and development in aquatic species;

• Requiring information on concentrations of BPA in surface water, ground water, and drinking water to determine if the chemical may be present at levels of potential concern. The EPA said its especially concerned about levels that could harm environmental organisms, pregnant women, and children;

• Requiring manufacturers to provide test data to help the agency evaluate the chemicals possible long-term effects on growth, reproduction, and development in aquatic organisms and wildlife;

• Using EPAs Design for the Environment (DfE) program to encourage the reduction of BPA exposures. One of these activities, to be initiated in April 2010, will address thermal and carbonless paper coatings used in such applications as cash register receipts, a use where preferable alternatives to BPA may be readily available, the EPA said;

• Continuing to evaluate the potential disproportionate impact on children and other sub-populations through exposure to BPA from non-food packaging uses.

A trade group for chemical makers downplayed the EPAs action plan and its concerns about BPA.

It is important to recognize that EPA is not proposing any regulatory action regarding human health, said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). We look forward to a productive exchange with EPA on this action plan, and working to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in a way that allows EPA to better prioritize chemicals for review.

Cooley said many studies have shown that BPA does not pose any environmental risks at its current levels.

BPA is one of the most thoroughly studied chemicals in commerce and comprehensive scientific assessments recently conducted in Europe and Japan have affirmed that BPA is not a risk to the environment at current low levels, he said. Numerous studies have found that BPA rapidly biodegrades, does not bioaccumulate and, if detected at all, is present in the environment only at trace levels that do not cause harmful effects.

Dooley also pointed out that other U.S. regulators, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have determined that BPA is safe and have not banned the chemicals use.

HHS and FDA recently reaffirmed that BPA has not been proven to cause harm to infants or adults, and other regulatory bodies around the world have determined that the science supports the safety of BPA, he said.

But HHS officials in January said recent studies raised concerns and doubts about the safety of BPA.

In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration conducted a review of toxicology research and information on BPA, and, at that time, assessed that food-related materials made with BPA on the market were safe, HHS said. But recent studies have reported subtle effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals.

While BPA is not proven to harm children or adults, HHS added, these newer studies have led federal health officials to express some concern about the safety of BPA.

Canadian authorities have already announced plans to ban BPA in baby bottles as a precautionary measure, the EPA said. The country is taking these steps even though science indicates exposure levels are below potential health levels, the EPA said.

Outdated laws

Meanwhile, environmental and public health groups protesting in Baltimore today urged chemical makers to back legislative changes that would improve the countrys outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The groups argue the chemical industry is more interested in improving its image than revamping the antiquated law that governs our countrys chemical policies.

The chemical industry knows it needs to respond to the increasing scientific evidence linking toxic chemicals to disease, and consumer demand for safer products, said Andy Igrejas, national campaign Director for the Safer Chemicals, Health Families (SCHF) coalition. The group represents more than 11 million health care professionals, environmental health advocates and concerned parents around the country. But reforming TSCA is not just about improving PR for the chemical industry its about genuinely protecting public health.

In the next few weeks, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) are expected to introduce reforms to the TSCA.

Environmental and public health advocates have urged Congress to overhaul the law, saying it fails to protect consumers from potentially dangerous chemicals.

When Congress adopted the TSCA in 1976, for example, it "grandfathered" in the 62,000 chemicals on the market at the time. Since then, the EPA has regulated only five of those chemicals and required testing of slightly more than 200.

But three fundamental differences between how the chemical industry and public health groups want to revamp the TSCA have recently surfaced, according to the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalition.

The coalition said public health advocates want the following reforms made to the TSCA:

• Public disclosure of safety information for all chemicals in use. This requirement will both identify and keep harmful chemicals out of commerce and identify safer chemicals that can replace the dangerous ones, the SCHF said;

• Prompt action to phase out or reduce the most dangerous chemicals;

• Deciding safety based on real world exposure to all sources of toxic chemicals. Currently chemicals are too often assessed without taking into account that, in the real world, people are exposed to multiple chemicals from multiple sources, including air, water, food, and consumer products, the SCHF said. Public health advocates believe that, when assessing safety, EPA must take into account the sum of all exposures to a chemical and to other chemicals that cause the same or similar health impacts.

The coalition said the chemical industry only wants these changes made to the TSCA:

• Limited testing of a handful of chemicals, which public health advocates say would leave consumers in the dark about safety hazards. Only these priority chemicals would be subjected to further information requirementsand then only on a case-by-case basis, the SCHF said. By not requiring at least basic information up front for all chemicals, the industry's proposal would fail to identify all problem chemicals on the market;

• More lengthy and costly studies of chemicals already proven to be dangerous;

• An assumption that the public is only exposed to one chemical at a time, and from one source at a time. This approach not only fails to consider the full extent of chemical exposures; it wont tell us how most chemicals are used or how we are exposed to them, the SFHC said.

Highest priority

The president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council said today that he welcomes talks with environmental and public health groups about improving the TSCA.

Our highest priority is public health and safety, said the organizations Cal Dooley. Americans deserve to have confidence that the products they buy are safe for the uses for which they were designed.

Paramount to the success of a comprehensive legislative proposal is the ability to discuss ideas and concepts in a transparent fashion and allow for meaningful discussion by all key stakeholder groups, he added. Todays conference is another step in the right direction.

Dooley also said his organization is not unilaterally opposed to legislative action to improve the TSCA and protect the publics safety.

While TSCA has been protective of public health and the environment, we recognize that more can be done to harness the advances made in science and technology over the past three decades, he said. We are committed to developing a new comprehensive chemical management law that puts the safety of the American consumer first, while ensuring the innovation that will lead to the development of essential new consumer products and high-paying American jobs.

A copy of the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalitions statement on this issue is now posted on the groups Web site.

This recall involves boys black hooded jackets with a belt and an elastic drawstring at the neck. North Sportif is printed on the jackets belt. The recalled vest is black and blue and is reversible. The vest has a drawstring around the waist. The garments were sold in sizes small (8-10) and medium (12-14). Both garments have a tag on the neck that reads North Sportif Urban Expedition.

The jackets and vests, made in China, were sold exclusively at: Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from October 2002 through January 2010 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the garment to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to Burlington Coat Factory for a refund or credit.

For additional information, contact North-Sportif collect at (212) 643-9730 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, visit the stores Web site at www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com

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

This recall involves Brightway heavy duty outdoor extension cords and Brightway indoor household extension cords and power strips. Model numbers involved in the recall are R2600 through R2615 (outdoor extension cords), EE6 through EE20 (indoor extension cords) and MP6DG (power strips). Brightway is printed on the cords. Model numbers are printed on the products packaging.

The items were sold at hardware and discount stores nationwide from August 2009 through October 2009 for between $1 and $20. They were made in China.

Consumers should immediately stop using the extension cords and power strips and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Howard Berger at (800) 221-6895 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, visit the firms Web site at www.hberger.com.

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

The recalled girls' jackets have drawstrings at the waist, sold in sizes 1 to 8 and the names and corresponding style numbers are: Lily #91549, Rose # 91552, Daisy #91555, Posey #91558. The style number is printed on the tag inside the neck of the jackets.

They were sold at various boutique and ski/sport retailers from July 2009 through February 2010 from $90 to $140 and were made in Vietnam.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the jackets to eliminate the hazard or return it to Sport Obermeyer, Ltd. for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Sport Obermeyer Ltd. at (800)778-5465 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (MT) Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at www.obermeyer.com.

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

A new analysis of more than 80 studies on Bisphenol A (BPA) has given scientists a global snapshot of humans exposure to this worrisome chemical used in baby bottles, metallic food cans, and other consumer products. And that picture isnt good, according to the authors study.

What we found is that even in developing countries a majority of people sampled have BPA in their bodies, said Laura Vandenberg, Ph.D., with Tufts Universitys Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology. And were talking about the form associated with harmful effects (in humans).

In her report -- published this week in the online journal Environmental Health Perspectives -- Vandenberg recommended that "precautionary principle be followed until further data on exposure of fetuses and children to BPA become available: the health of the public is at stake."

An organization that represents the chemical industry downplayed Vandenbergs study, saying her opinions are contrary to those of scientific experts who have reviewed the same information.

Multiple studies, however, have linked BPA exposure in humans with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and reproductive issues. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) even went on record earlier this year , saying it has some concerns about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.

Those concerns are scientifically documented, Vandenberg said.

Data from multiple sources indicates that the amount of BPA to which humans are exposed may cause adverse health effects, she wrote in her study. This has raised concerns among regulatory agencies all over the world.

During an interview with ConsumerAffairs.com, Vandenberg discussed on her studys findings and the potential effects of BPA exposure in humans.

So often, the idea that is thrown around is that once BPA gets into the body, its innocuous, she told us. But were looking at whats in peoples bodies and that is not true.

BPA is used in a variety of consumer products, including plastic baby bottles, reusable water bottles, metallic food and beverage cans, medical equipment, and dental sealants. Some studies have also detected the chemical in water, sewage, indoor and outdoor air samples, and dust.

Children and developing fetuses are especially vulnerable to potential adverse health effects from BPA exposure, Vandenberg said.

Pregnant women

If I could get our message to a sub-population it would be pregnant women, she said. Im not worried about the moms. Im worried about their fetuses. A lot of attention has been given to baby bottles and removing BPA from them. This might lead people to think that the problem is solved. But fetuses are not exposed to BPA from baby bottles. They are exposed to BPA from their moms.

During their review, Vandenberg and her colleagues analyzed more than 80 studies that measured BPA in humans. Researchers in those studies tested thousands of people around the world -- from various age groups and ethnic backgrounds for BPA in their urine, blood, and other body fluids and tissues.

We were like an oversight committee of all these studies, Vandenberg said. What we wanted to do was take that body of research as whole and ask if it was telling us something that an individual study cant tell us.

Their analysis revealed that many people tested had what Vandenberg called bad or active BPA. The scientific term is unconjugated BPA.

There is free, unconjugated, bad BPA in our bodies and in the bodies of our fetuses and neonates (newborns), she told us.

She elaborated on that point in her report, writing: Available data from biomonitoring studies clearly indicate that the general population is exposed to BPA and are at risk from internal exposures to unconjugated BPA." A biomonitoring study analyzes body fluids and tissues for exposure to various substances. These studies overwhelmingly detect BPA in individuals including adults, adolescents and children.

Vandenberg said her analysis also uncovered flaws with two toxiconkinetic studies used by such regulatory groups as the US Center for Evaluation of Risk to Human Reproduction (CERHR) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the dangers of BPA in humans.

During a toxiconkinetic study, scientists administer BPA into the body and determine how long it takes to leave, Vandenberg explained. You look at how it gets out of the body -- in the urine or feces.

Ignored studies

Scientists also examine what from the chemical is in when it leaves the body -- the less dangerous form that is metabolized or the bad unconjugated BPA.

The two studies used by the regulatory groups suggest that humans are not internally exposed to BPA, Vandenberg said. But Vandenberg said those findings are unreliable. Those two studies are flawed in so many ways, she said. They are not telling us anything at all.

The studies, for example, relied on estimated levels of exposures to BPA instead of actual measurements of the chemical.

Besides using flawed data, Vandenberg cited another troublesome move by these and other regulatory group. In their previous risk assessments of BPA, they ignored the more than 80 studies that she and her colleagues analyzed.

Were preparing another paper that says those regulatory agencies have only listened to two studies that are highly flawed and ignored these other 80 studies, Vandenberg said. Thats not scientific.

The FDA, she said, ignored the findings of all 82 studies. They do not give scientific reasons for ignoring these studies.

The European Food Safety Authority ignored the 80 studies and only paid attention to the two that are flawed, she said. Thats worse than the FDA. An organization that represents companies in chemical industry said it doesnt give any credence to Vandenbergs study.

There is no new data in this article, and the information has been publicly available for some time, said Steve Hentges, Ph. D., with the American Chemistry Council (ACC). (The) opinions of these authors are quite contrary to the conclusions of recognized experts at scientific regulatory bodies from around the world who have analyzed the same data. The ACC said other studies have shown that BPA exposure does not pose a risk to humans.

Ten regulatory bodies around the world have assessed the science on BPA and have determined that BPA is safe for use in food contact products, the organizations Web site states. Scientific research shows that in humans BPA is quickly metabolized in the intestines and liver and is quickly eliminated from the body. It does not accumulate in blood or tissues. When it is ingested through contact with food, it is rapidly converted into a metabolite (BPA-glucuronide) that has no known biological activity.

Although the FDA has expressed concerns about the safety of BPA in humans, the agency has not banned the chemicals use. But it supports manufacturers plans to stop making baby bottles and infant feeding cup with BPA and to find alternatives for the chemical in the linings of infant formula cans.

The agency, however, is not calling on consumers to stop using these baby products.

FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure, the agency states on its Web site.

Questions to answer

Back in Massachusetts, Vandenberg said additional, long-term studies are needed on BPA exposure in humans and its potential health risks.

There are still scientific questions to answer, she said. We still dont know where all the BPA in our bodies is coming from. We assume most of it comes from cans and plastics, but we dont know for sure. The fact is that BPA is found in all kinds of environmental samples. I just read today that BPA has been found in beach sand and in ocean water.

Asked if the chemical should be banned, Vandenberg said: I mostly approach this from a scientific point of view. There is the strength of science in these 80 studies, which tell a story that every one of us is exposed to BPA. Its in our bodies, in the cells inside our bodies, and that is serious.

There are some who say that science supports a ban of BPA, she added. I firmly believe that we as individuals have a right not be poisoned.

What to do

Vandenberg said consumers can reduce their exposure to BPA by taking the following measures:

• Avoid canned foods or try to cut the number of canned food used by one a day;

• Eat fresh fruits and vegetables whenever possible;

• Reduce or avoid polycarbonate plastic containers. One study cited in Vandenbergs analysis found the urinary concentrations of BPA among a group of college students tested for one week increased 69% when they used polycarbonate bottles. These containers may be a significant source of BPA exposure to individuals in this age group and that interventions would help lower exposure levels, the report states;

• Avoid plastic products with the number 7 stamped on the container.

• Insist that companies disclose how much BPA is in their products. Its unreasonable to expect consumers to protect themselves from BPA if there are no labels to tell people how much BPA is in the product, she said.

Vandenberg and her colleagues received financial support for their analysis from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a research fellowship from the National Research Council Brazil.

A copy of the study, Urinary, Circulating and Tissue Biomonitoring Studies Indicate Widespread Exposure to Bisphenol A can be read on the Environmental Health Perspectives Web site.

This recall involves the Carolina Function Generator Kits that are mathematical function teaching aids. The kit consists of a yellow plastic lid, leg stands, base and whiteboard cards. The yellow lids have two slots labeled IN and OUT and are embossed with the name Carolina and Lid in raised letters.

The kits were sold through Carolinas catalogs and online at www.carolina.com nationwide and directly to schools from February 2009 through January 2010 for about $34. They were also sold with Math Out of the Box Kits for between $780 and $2,930. They were made in Canada.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled kits away from children and contact Carolina Biology Supply to obtain a free replacement kit. The firm is directly contacting purchasers of the educational kits.

For additional information, contact Carolina toll-free at (877) 316-1848 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, visit the firms Web site at www.carolina.com.

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

Lennox received two reports from installers of the log sets failing to light. No injuries were reported.

The recalled products are Lennox Superior brand VFGL Log Sets and VF4000, VF5000 and VF6000 fireplaces. Log sets are comprised of ceramic-fiber logs with a dual gas burner system and are designed to be placed in a wood-burning fireplace or a ventless firebox enclosure. Fireplaces are comprised of log sets, a ventless firebox enclosure and accessories. Each product has a metal rating plate attached to the grate of the log sets or to the frame of the fireplaces containing the units model number, serial number and other information. The following models are affected by this recall:

Included in this recall are units with serial numbers starting with 6408C through 6408M, and those starting with 6409. Units that had repairs made to the burner assembly between March 2008 and December 2009 are also included.

The units were sold by various fireplace and HVAC retailers and installers from March 2008 through December 2009 for approximately $540 to $775 for the log sets and $1,300 to $1,850 for the fireplaces. They were made in the U.S.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled log sets and fireplaces and contact Lennox for information about how to arrange for a free inspection and repair.

For additional information, please contact Lennox Hearth Products at (800) 826-8546 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firms Web site at www.lennoxhearthproducts.com.

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

Graco has received 464 reports of screws loosening/falling out and plastic brackets cracking causing the high chair to tip over unexpectedly. These tip-overs resulted in 24 reports of injuries including bumps and bruises to the head, a hairline fracture to the arm, and cuts, bumps, bruises and scratches to the body.

This recall involves all Harmony High Chairs. The Harmony high chair was manufactured from November 2003 through December 2009 and is no longer in production. The model number can be found on the label that is located on the underside of the foot rest.

The high chairs were sold at AAFES, Burlington Coat Factory, Babies "R" Us, Toys "R" Us, Sears, Target, Target.com, Walmart, WalMart.com, Shopko, USA Baby, and other retailers nationwide from December 2003 through March 2010 for between $70 and $120. They were made in the United States.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Harmony™ high chair and contact Graco to receive a free repair kit.

To order a free repair kit, contact Graco toll-free at (877) 842-3206 or visit the firm's Web site at www.gracobaby.com. For additional information, contact Graco at (800) 345-4109 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.

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

Graco has received 464 reports of screws loosening or falling out and plastic brackets cracking causing the high chair to tip over unexpectedly. These tip-overs resulted in 24 reports of injuries including bumps and bruises to the head, a hairline fracture to the arm, and cuts, bumps, bruises and scratches to the body.

This recall involves all Harmony High Chairs. The Harmony high chair was manufactured from November 2003 through December 2009 and is no longer in production. The model number can be found on the label that is located on the underside of the foot rest.

The high chairs were sold at AAFES, Burlington Coat Factory, Babies "R" Us, Toys "R" Us, Sears, Target, Target.com, Walmart, WalMart.com, Shopko, USA Baby, and other retailers nationwide from December 2003 through March 2010 for between $70 and $120. They were made in the United States.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Harmony™ high chair and contact Graco to receive a free repair kit.

To order a free repair kit, contact Graco toll-free at (877) 842-3206 or visit the firm's Web site at www.gracobaby.com. For additional information, contact Graco at (800) 345-4109 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.

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

This recall involves children's bicycle bells. The bells are red, black and white and has "I ♥ My Bike" printed on the top. The green and white packaging reads "bike bell" and "$1."

The bells were sold at Dollar Stores and Do It Best Hardware stores nationwide from August 2008 through August 2009 for about $1. They were made in China.

Consumers should immediately remove the bicycle bells and return them to the store where purchased for a refund.

For additional information, contact Do It Best Hardware toll-free at (877) 326-8954 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.doitbest.com.

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

The wooden office chairs have the following brand names, SKU numbers and purchase order numbers: Konrad models SKU #415413, and PO numbers 200360055, 200360056, 200360057, 400360062, 400360063, 400360064; and Loft models SKU #415414 and PO numbers 200360058, 200360059, 200360060, 200360061, 400360065, 400360066, 400360074, 400360075. The SKU number and description appear on the sales receipt and original shipping carton. The PO number is located on the underside of the chair itself.

The chairs, made in Thailand, were sold at Cost Plus/World Market stores and Web site nationwide from January to December 2009 for about $170.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Konrad and Loft office chairs and return them to any Cost Plus/World Market store for a full refund or exchange.

For additional information, contact Cost Plus Inc. toll free at (877) 967-5362 between 7 a.m. and 12 p.m. ET any day or visit the firm's Web site at www.worldmarket.com.

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

The firm has received five reports of the glass breaking and six reports of high flames. No injuries or property damage have been reported.

This recall involves DayNa Decker Botanika brand candles sold in 3-, 6-, and 16-ounce glass containers. The words "DayNa Decker" and Bacara, Bardou, Clementine, Indigo, Leila, Manzanita, Sierra, Taiga, Violetta, Viva, Yasmin, or Zelia appear on the bottom of the green glass container. Only Botanika candles with batch code 9J3, 9K1, 9L1 or 9L2 are included in the recall. Batch codes are printed on the bottom of the glass container.

The candles, made in the U.S., were sold at resorts, spas, gift shops and specialty stores nationwide from November 2009 through January 2010 for between $30 and $75, depending on the size.

Consumers should immediately stop using the candle and contact Lumetique to receive a full credit toward the purchase of a DayNa Decker brand product.

For additional information, contact Lumetique toll-free at (888) 872-0228 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.daynadecker.com.

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

There were two reports of consumers experiencing small fires during their initial charge. No injuries were reported.

The recalled Mobile Power Pack is a mobile device that receives an AC charge in a compact battery pack that will then give five DC charges to small electronic devices including mobile phones, MP-3 players, Blackberries, and PDAs. The power pack is black and silver and is rectangular in shape. The front of it has a small circular control panel. The front also displays the word "Tumi" engraved on a silver button located towards the bottom of the device. Style number 14362 is printed on the power pack packaging.

The power packs, made in China, were sold by Tumi retail stores, department and specialty stores nationwide and www.Tumi.com from August 2007 through March 2008 for $135.

If the unit has not been used and has never been charged, please do not try to charge it. Contact Tumi customer care for instructions on how to return the power pack and receive a free replacement power pack. If you have charged the unit previously without incident, you can continue to use the product.

For additional information, contact Tumi customer care at (800) 530-0069 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.Tumi.com.

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

This recall involves children's sweatshirts sold in sizes 4 through 7 and S (8) and M (10-12). The sweatshirts were sold in various colors and prints. The brand name Kani Gold or Road Block is printed inside of the garment on the neck tag.

The sweatshirts were exclusively at: Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from July 2006 through September 2009 for between $6 and $30. They were made in Indonesia, Egypt, China, Pakistan and Korea.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard. Consumers can also return the sweatshirts to Burlington Coat Factory or the Haselson for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Haselson toll-free at (800) 217-4478 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday, or visit the store's Web site at www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com.

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

If you doubt how interconnected the food industry is, just look at what happens when a tainted ingredient enters the supply chain.

In January a meat processor recalled a large quantity of Italian meats because of suspected Salmonella contamination. From the start, however, inspectors believed the source was not the meat itself, but an ingredient or seasoning.

Since then companies have recalled black pepper and hydrolyzed vegetable protein, or HVP, a common ingredient used most frequently as a flavor enhancer in many processed foods. HVP, it turns out, is used in a lot of food products, including soups, sauces, chilis, stews, hot dogs, gravies, seasoned snack foods, dips and dressings.

The manufacturer of the affected product is Basic Food Flavors, Inc. in Las Vegas, Nevada. Only HVP manufactured by Basic Food Flavors is involved in this recall. Even so, the recall is leaving a very large footprint on the US Food Supply.

100 products and counting

More than 100 food products had been recalled by Friday and the Food and Drug Administration concedes the number could grow over the next few weeks. The FDA's recall page grows lengthier by the day.

Unfortunately, HVP is not the only tainted ingredient in the food system. While it has been associated with a strain of the germ called Salmonella Tennessee, some peppers have been named as the source of Salmonella Montevideo.

On Friday, the FDA said it has been actively investigating the supply chain of black and red pepper supplied to Daniele International Inc., of Pascoag, R.I.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 249 people have been infected with a matching strain of Salmonella Montevideo in at least 44 states and the District of Columbia. Analysis of an epidemiologic study comparing foods eaten by individuals who were sickened identified salami/salame as a possible source of illness.

Daniele International Inc. recalled a variety of ready-to-eat Italian-style meats after Salmonella was associated with its products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service has posted a complete listing of the recalled products.

Spice

As a result of the investigation, the FDA said a number of spice products are now being recalled by Mincing Overseas Spice Company, Dayton, N.J.; and Wholesome Spice Company, Brooklyn, N.Y. Both supply pepper to Daniele International Inc. Based on recent test results, Mincing Overseas Spice Company and Wholesome Spice Company are conducting new recalls.

Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. When salmonella contaminated some jars of peanut butter in 2007, the results were extremely serious.

Salmonella-tainted peanuts sold by Peanut Corporation of America were used in the best-selling Peter Pan Peanut Butter and Wal-Mart's house brand, Great Value. Beyond jars of peanut butter, the germs spread to other products that used peanut butter as ingredients.

Before it was over, ConsumerAffairs.com had received several reports of death from the tainted products, though officially, the CDC did not attribute a single death to the outbreak. Thousands of people got sick and the financial toll on ConAgra, the maker of Peter Pan, was enormous.

The firm has received 37 reports of nails being ejected sideways, including 15 reports of injuries. The injuries were primarily in the eye region, including five reports of partial blindness.

The coil nailers are used to project nails into drywall, wood or other materials. The model number is NV83A2 and can be found on the body of the product. Only those units manufactured between October 2002 and September 2005 are included in this recall. The manufacturing date can be identified by the serial number engraved at the end of the handle, the first digit representing the month (1 for January, 2 for February, 3 for March, 4 for April, 5 for May, 6 for June, 7 for July, 8 for August, 9 for September, O for October, N for November and D for December) and the second digit representing the year (2 for 2002, 3 for 2003, 4 for 2004 and 5 for 2005).

The nailers, made in Japan, were sold at Lowes, Home Depot, other home improvement and building supply stores and online at Amazon.com nationwide from November 2002 through March 2006 for between $350 and $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled coil nailer and contact Hitachi Koki U.S.A., Ltd. for a free repair.

For additional information, contact Hitachi Koki U.S.A., Ltd. at (800) 706-7337 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday or visit the firms Web site at www.hitachipowertools.com.

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

The firm has received seven reports of overheating, including five fires, three of which resulted in property damage to the microwave. Two of the incidents were in Canada. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled scarves have pockets and microwaveable heat packs composed of flax seeds. The scarves are made of polyester/cotton, and were sold in black and camel colors.

The scarves were sold at Bed Bath & Beyond stores, As Seen on TV retail kiosks in shopping malls nationwide, through direct response television and over the internet at www.thermascarf.com and www.asseenontvguys.com from October 2009 through January 2010 for between $20 and $25. They were made in China.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Therma Scarf and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. If purchased through the infomercial or over the internet, consumers will be contacted by Telebrands with instructions on how to obtain a full refund.

For additional information, contact Telebrands at (800) 777-4034 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET or visit the firms Web site at www.telebrands.com.

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