Dog toy recalled: About time, folks!
By Gina Spadafori
August 29, 2008
Hat tip to Therese at PetsitUSA, still first and most reliable on the recall beat:
Last week I blogged about a toy dog ball that had caused a dog, named Chai, to lose his tongue after the ball got stuck. Chai’s owners contacted the company, Four Paws, and they have issued a recall of the ball, the Four Paws Rough & Rugged Pimple Ball with Bell.
Here’s the rest.
Why did this take so long? Beats me. If you put out a potentially dangerous product, you should be in a hurry to get the word out and get that product off the shelves.
Now, maybe I’d credit this tardiness to “it’s just a dog” mentality, except for the recent case of a bassinet that killed an infant. The Simplicity company refused to call a recall because the company’s owners didn’t own the company when the problem product was made, and the problem has been fixed in a redesign.
So, yeah, sorry about that dead baby, but, well, not our problem.
Fortunately, the Consumer Products Safety Commission used its new powers yesterday to force a recall. From the Washington Post:
The directive came on the heels of a warning the CPSC issued to parents Wednesday night to stop using “close-sleeper/bedside sleeper” bassinets made by Simplicity of Reading, Pa. The CPSC acted after a 6 1/2 -month-old girl from Shawnee, Kan., was strangled to death Aug. 21 when she got caught in the bassinet’s metal bars. The agency said 900,000 of the bassinets are in circulation.
The CPSC said it issued the warning and turned to retailers to pull the bassinets because SFCA, the firm that bought Simplicity’s assets in April, refused to cooperate and issue a recall.
There are 900,000 of these bassinets out there? And this company’s new owners don’t give a rip? What is wrong with these people?
Look, any company can make a mistake, and any product can cause a problem. My problem is when companies don’t try to fix those problems, by not recalling product or by doing their best to hide news of a recall. Remember the late Friday night pet-food recall announcements?
Shame on companies that don’t react responsibly and immediately to protect our families, two-legged or four-legged. If I were a parent, it would be a cold day in hell before I’d trust my child’s life to a Simplicity product, given their attitude. And believe me, they’re on a pretty long of companies I won’t patronize, companies that need to clean up their acts and be responsible and reactive when problems turn up with products.
This is the Internet age, companies. You can’t hide from us anymore.
Thanks so much for posting this. It’s so sad what happened to poor Chai. Sad and senseless since the company knew about it and didn’t take action. (it happened to another dog a few years ago with the same toy). Four Paws, Inc. is owned by Central Pet Company which owns many brands including Nylabone.
I personally won’t be buying anymore products from these companies.
Comment by Jillian Koeneman — August 29, 2008 @ 7:20 am
I think SFCA, the new company, is probably refusing to take responsibility for fear of litigation. If they were to issue a recall, they may feel that infers liability to them. I bet their lawyers have told them not to do anything that might be interpreted as acceptance of liability/responsibility on their part. They are no doubt claiming that responsibility lies with the previous company.
Comment by Mary — August 29, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Did they only recall it because of the internet exposure that Chai’s story was getting? Because if so, that makes them look a bit like jerks who only care about PR, and not about safety…
Comment by mikken — August 29, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
When you buy a company, one of the things you factor in is Good Will. That has value and buyers pay for it. Why on earth would you buy and up and running company and not keep and enhance the good will. To not do so is just bad business. When people refuse to do business with you - you lose it all - money and good will. Good Will is like honor - blow it and you can never recover it.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Mary, I have no doubt you’re right, that legal liability factored into the decision. So now, instead of “just” getting sued, they’re going to get sued AND get lots of bad PR as heartless SOBs.
Doesn’t seem like a good deal to me.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 29, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Raises some interesting questions about when the first report of babies being injured was, whether it was before or after the sale of the company’s assets - who knew what and when they knew it.
With 900,000 bassinets out there you could have a lot of very expensive lawsuits. Juries react strongly to the death of children.
Comment by Mary — August 29, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Its about darn time!
Comment by Saint Lover — August 29, 2008 @ 7:11 pm