And then, after receiving repeated complaints that the hazard persisted long after the recall, the agency failed to follow up adequately, documents show.

Even if the slip-ups were a result of companies having concealed important evidence, the commission still has a responsibility to use its enforcement powers to investigate and, if appropriate, to issue fines. To date, more than two years after the commission became aware of the problems with Stand 'n Seal, no fines have been issued.

In my Senate testimony on the CPSC last week I emphasized that recalls don't always result in dangerous products being removed from the shelves. It isn't only that not every ma-and-pa store hears about the recall. That's a problem, but many others exist. Often, for example, companies refuse to agree to a recall, and stall for weeks or months. Then, they capitulate only to a corrective action, where old product stays on store shelves while new product is supposedly made safe. Or, consumers who complain are sent repair kits, but no on else is helped. Lipton's story goes on to talk about the recent Hasbro Easy-Bake oven debacle:

"A recall is not necessarily a recall, that is what it comes down to," said Stuart L. Goldenberg, a Minneapolis lawyer who represents a family whose child was injured using an Easy-Bake toy oven. The maker, Hasbro, alerted consumers about injuries to children's fingers from the ovens, first [February 2007] simply offering a repair kit, but then expanding to a full-fledged recall after dozens of additional injuries [in August 2007, and the "additional injuries' included a "partial amputation"] were reported. [Material in [brackets] added by me.]

Similar non-recall recalls include the 2006 Rose Arts/Mega Brands Magnetix "replacement program," later in 2007 expanded by the CPSC, but it was still only a replacement program.

Along with other consumer groups in the U.S. and Europe, we also anxiously await any announcement by the CPSC as to whether Mattel will be fined for its own magnet debacle. Polly Pockets were originally recalled in November 2006. The recall was expanded in August 2007, during the tsunami wave of Mattel recalls. Did Mattel withhold any information and all of a sudden come clean? Its Fisher-Price unit paid CPSC a big (sort of) fine this year: Fisher-Price Fined $975,000 for Failing to Report a Serious Choking, Aspiration Hazard with a Popular Children's Toy. And that was not the first time. And Mattel chief Eckert has been widely reported (Hope Yen of AP in USA Today) as having his own interpretation of CPSC rules requiring hazard to notification within 24 hours:

Under federal rules, manufacturers with a few exceptions must report all claims of potentially hazardous product defects within 24 hours. Mattel reportedly took months to gather information and privately investigate problems after receiving complaints from consumers. On Wednesday, Eckert said Mattel has been working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to "develop a new set of reporting protocols" but denied any suggestions of a feud with the agency.