Archive for the ‘product recalls’ Category

UPDATE: Window Blinds: Why are children still dying?

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011

UPDATE – October 20, 2011:

A few months ago, this blog highlighted the issue of dangerous window treatments. In the original article, I discussed how difficult it was for parents to know whether the window treatments in their home were safe and the relatively small cost it would take for manufacturers to make kids safer. So the unfortunate reality is that despite the ongoing safety concerns and injuries and even deaths due to window blind cords, manufacturers persist in making and selling dangerous blinds and shades that have cords that are accessible to children. This week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced another recall of so-called Roman shades and roll-up blinds. These products have cords that allow a child to become strangled if they get their neck caught between the cord and the fabric or if the child accidentally wraps the cord around their neck. While the recall says that injuries have not yet been reported based on this product, these products are of the same type as many where injuries and deaths have been previously reported. It leaves me to wonder at what point the government or some external force will provide enough pressure on the manufacturers to stop creating and marketing dangerous blinds to the public? As my original post explained the cost savings in manufacturing blinds this way is not extreme, but the costs are huge to families when children are hurt. Furthermore, these products are being sold, at least in this case, at discount stores to families who are likely buying what blinds they can afford without any knowledge of the potential danger.

 

Photo: www.flickr.com/photos/stvcr/

For several years, there have been periodic news reports about major recalls involving window blinds. Window blind manufacturers have also provided a number of different types of safety elements on their blinds. These have included breakaway plastic pieces on the bottoms of the cords and other sorts of “safer” ways to deal with the cords involved in the use of the blinds. How many of you believed that these recalls and changes meant that new blinds or blinds that had not been subject to any recalls were safe?

As a parent, I thought that I was fairly up-to-date about this issue.  I had replaced all of the Roman style blinds in one room in my home with cordless blinds before my daughter was born. I had purchased another type of cordless blind system for the playroom. In the one remaining area with older style blinds, I had carefully checked to make sure that the cords were not tied into a loop and that they were cleated-up high so that no additional cord was accessible at child-height. Then, I basically went on living my life without thinking too much more about it.

Well, a recent New York Times article changed that for me. The article details the injuries and deaths of several children. These children were all severely injured or killed by window blind cords. The disturbing part to me, however, was that many of the parents had taken what I would have considered to be major precautions. They had baby-proofed their homes. They had tied-up the extra cords. Yet still, the boys and girls mentioned were hurt or killed by either the interior cords of the blinds and/or by climbing up and getting tangled in the supposedly secured/safe blind cords.

What a disturbing wake-up call. I certainly walked around my house last night with a different idea of child safety. But, as I mentioned, I know that a cordless type of blind exists.  So, why is this not the safety standard?

The New York Times article explains:

Now, prodded by a Missouri mother whose daughter was strangled in a window blind, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has asked manufacturers to devise a way to eliminate the risks from window cords or perhaps face mandatory regulations. Critics of the industry complain that manufacturers have dragged their feet on addressing safety hazards for decades, making minor tweaks or putting the onus on parents to shorten cords or buy tie-down devices. Until recently, regulators have done little to crack down, they say.

In response to the commission’s latest push, the industry, working with a task force of regulators and consumer advocates, says it will come up with a fix by the fall.

But the negotiations have gotten off to a rocky start. Like some other regulatory battles that involve consumer safety, this one comes down to a sobering question: how much should manufacturers, and ultimately consumers, be required to pay to prevent the maiming or death of a child?

When I read this, I imagined that it came down to this question because the cost of making all window blinds cordless was prohibitive.  The article even states that “… cordless blinds are more difficult to manufacture than corded blinds and can cost considerably more in stores, by some estimates, twice as much.” However, when you examine further, it seems that the cost of cordless blinds might not really be much more and certainly not prohibitively expensive.

The article goes on to say that James G. Onder, a St. Louis lawyer who represents parents whose children have been injured or killed by blinds, “…said manufacturers have repeatedly testified in depositions that the additional cost of making a cordless blind is $1 to $2.” If this is accurate and cordless blinds can be made for $1-2 more per blind, then why are children dying?

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a press release in March 2011 that said that:

About half of the deaths of children who strangle in window cords have not been reported, according to an article in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association and co-authored by a staff member of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

The study found that 49 percent of the total number of window cord strangulations in the United States were not being reported to the CPSC. The study estimates that total number from 1981 to 1995 was 359. These figures mean that nearly one child is strangling in window cords every two weeks. Almost all of these deaths (93 percent) are children three years old and under.

What does it say if window blind manufacturers are selling cordless blinds for twice as much in stores, when they only cost an additional $1 or $2 additional dollars to make? What does that say about the cost of safety? What message does that send to the parents of the child who dies approximately every 2 weeks from window cord strangulation?

If the window blind manufacturers are not going to make safer blinds of their own, should they be regulated? What about the continued marketing of a product that proclaims to have safety features but is not as safe as it can be for children? Is it worth the risk?

Medical Technology and Patient Safety: EMR’s, COW’s, iPads, etc. – are they really doing the job? Blog Series – Part I

Monday, March 28th, 2011

Medical Technology - source: Siemens.com

This is the first installment of a series of posts on issues relating to new advances in medical technology and how they may affect patient health and safety – not always for the good. Unless you live in a cave or just don’t care, you must have noticed news reports about how the medical industry is awash in the creation and implementation of new technologies. Presumably these new medical tech toys and gadgets are intended to advance the timely, enhanced, cost-effective delivery of healthcare with the end point being improved patient care and patient safety. The question is – do they always do that or can they, in fact, be tools the lead to patient injuries and – at times -even death?

I recently came across a posting by Dr. William L. Roper, MPH, CEO of the University of North Carolina Health Care System, which was in essence a transcript of a speech he gave at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in Washington, D.C. on March 23, 2011. Among his other vast accomplishments, in the spring of 1986, he was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate for the position of administrator of the federal Health Care Financing Administration, with responsibility for the Medicare and Medicaid programs nationally. For the previous three years, he served on the White House domestic policy staff.

I bring Dr. Roper’s recent remarks to your attention since they are the inspiration for this series of blogs. While Dr. Roper’s address did not specifically address topics such as EMR’s, COW’s (still wondering how a cow fits into this topic? Stay tuned!), and the like, the following selected excerpts are the seeds of thought for the present series:

I have the job of leading an academic medical enterprise, and am challenged by the task of putting lofty ideas into practice at the local level. I remain very committed to the effort, but we are daily challenged to put the best ideas into practice.

The Institute of Medicine, under Sam Their’s and then Ken Shine’s leadership, played a very important role across the decade of the 1990s, defining “quality” in health care, and pointing to problems in quality and patient safety. Bill Richardson led a multi-year IOM initiative that included the groundbreaking report, To Err is Human in 2000, and then Crossing the Quality Chasm in 2001.

These reports were a clarion call for action – especially making the point that a systems approach was required to deal effectively with these issues.

While Dr. Roper’s speech was, in large part, an historical analysis of progress in the Medicare healthcare delivery system, it is also a well-versed commentary on the so-called advances in medicine for patient care and safety. Why else have so many toiled for so long in trying to find system-failures and methodologies for eradicating those failures and thereby improving the delivery of safe, efficient and effective healthcare?

Dr. Roper and so many other dedicated healthcare professionals are faced daily with the same issue – “…challenged by the task of putting lofty ideas into practice at the local level . . . [W]e are daily challenged to put the best ideas into practice.” Put another way – at least for me – taking public healthcare policy and practices and making a better widget.

As these lofty concepts were debated, published and analyzed, technology streaked along with its new bells and whistles at what some might call an amazing – almost mystifying – pace. Did you really envision yourself 25 years ago sitting with your iPhone or iPad and scouring the world’s news, chatting with your friends and followers on the other side of the planet, watching the latest streaming video of March Madness or sharing every random thought you have on Twitter or Facebook?

What has technology done to improve healthcare?

The answer, in short, is – some amazing things and some not so amazing things have taken place in terms of technological advances in healthcare. Unfortunately, as we will explore in this series, some of these technological advances have led to some catastrophic results for patients. One need look no further than how the medical institutions rushed to implement the newest, shiniest and “best” radiology machines and through their haste left in their wake scores of maimed and dead patients. We reported on this investigation by NY Times reporter, Walt Bogdanich  in Eye Opener, over a year ago.

Just over the course of the last year or so, our firm has been involved in case after case in which this issue of medical technology and patient care/safety keeps rearing its ugly and devastating head. We will share with you (leaving identifying information obscured as we are required to do) tales of just how medical technology can impact – positively and (unfortunately) negatively patient health and safety. We’ll analyze and discuss our views on just how well medical technology and its implementation (more the latter) have, in our view, negatively impacted – all too often – patient health and safety. We invite you to follow along as we consider the good, the bad and the ugly of medical technology such as EMR’s, COW’s, iPads and the like. Please join us and share your comments along the way.

Some related posts to get you started:

The Radiation Boom – Radiation Offers New Cures and Ways to Do Harm

FDA Unveils Initiative To Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging

At Hearing on Radiation, Calls for Better Oversight

Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging

The Story of How a New York Times Reporter – Walt Bogdanich – Has Made a Real Difference in Medical Device Radiation Safety

DARVON AND DARVOCET WITHDRAWN FROM U.S. MARKET – WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF YOU ARE TAKING THESE MEDICATIONS?

Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

Last week, the manufacturer of Darvon and Darvocet, Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, agreed to withdraw these drugs from the market in response to FDA requests.  The FDA has also requested that generic drug manufacturers also stop marketing propoxyphene-based pain killers like Darvon and Darvocet. These drugs were withdrawn from the U.K. market almost six years ago. About a year and a half ago, the European drug agency also placed a ban on propoxyphene-based pain killers. An estimated 10 million Americans are taking propoxyphene-based drugs.

Although propoxyphene was always associated with a number of complications, the FDA’s request was prompted by new studies revealing the drug’s serious cardiovascular side-effects. The FDA was petitioned on a number of occasions to pull propoxyphene off the market. The latest petition came from the public interest group Public Citizen in 2006.  The FDA submitted the petition to an expert advisory committee that voted in favor of withdrawing the medication in 2009 (14 to 12 ).

The FDA did not request that the medication be removed from  the U.S. market in 2009. Instead, it requested that the manufacturer of the drug, Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., conduct research to study the effects of the drug on the heart. This new research revealed that people taking propoxyphene (Darvon, Darvocet and  the like) can develop abnormal or fatal heart rhythm.  These findings prompted the FDA to request the withdrawal of the medication. Propoxyphene is also associated with the following cardiovascular complications:

  • Tachycardia
  • Cardiac/respiratory arrest
  • Congestive heart failure
  • Myocardial infarction
  • Hypotension

Some other side effects include:

  • Drug overdose/toxicity
  • Drug dependence/withdrawal
  • Anxiety
  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Drowsiness/ dizziness
  • Hives
  • Difficulty breathing
  • Chest tightness
  • Swelling of the face, mouth, lips or tongue

The Public Citizen group has claimed that about 2000 people in the U.S. have died as a result of propoxyphene in the last six years. The good news for those taking Darvon, Darvocet or a similar drug is that the cardiovascular side effects of these drugs are not cumulative. Therefore,  the risk of developing cardiovascular problems should go away once the drug is stopped.

If you are taking Darvon or Darvocet, DO NOT stop taking the drug until you talk to your doctor. Sudden interruption of the medication can lead to serious withdrawal symptoms.  If you are taking propoxyphene-based medications, contact your doctor immediately so that you may be transitioned to a safer pain killer.

Photo: pharmer.org

Product Safety: 24,000 Defective external defibrillators (AED) recalled – 4 products by Cardiac Science involved

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

How often have you passed a device hanging on a wall in an office building, a mall or an airport, that has a sign such as the one pictured here or a similar signage telling you that this device is available to use so you might save someone’s life if their heart goes into an abnormal rhythm?

If you are still wondering what an AED is, our friends at Wikipedia provide this information:

An automated external defibrillator or AED is a portable electronic device that automatically diagnoses the potentially life threatening cardiac arrhythmias of ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia in a patient, and is able to treat them through defibrillation, the application of electrical therapy which stops the arrhythmia, allowing the heart to reestablish an effective rhythm.

AEDs are designed to be simple to use for the layman, and the use of AEDs is taught in many first aidfirst responder and basic life support (BLS) level CPR classes.

Well – that’s what they are supposed to do! Turns out, there are a whole lot of these devices out there that are simply defective.

On July 19, 2010,  Cardiac Science Corporation, considered a global leader in automated external defibrillator (AED devices), announced their plan to replace 24,000 defective AED devices in the United States.  This comes after significant FDA pressure that began in November 2009.

The FDA first published a MedWatch Safety Alert  following multiple complaints of devices failing to deliver electric shocks in emergency situations, and also failing to internally detect a device failure/problem during routine safety checks.  The FDA then followed in March 2010 by issuing a formal Class I recall followed by an expanded scope in April 2010.  A Class I recall is the most serious public notice and applies to devices that have a reasonable probability of malfunctioning and causing serious adverse health consequences.

The product models involved include Cardiac Science Powerheart, CardioVive, Nihon Kohden, and the GE Responder External Defibrillator manufactured between August 2003 and August 2009.  The FDA has listed the specific models involved on their website.

At present time, 24,000 AED devices in the US will likely not work if needed in an emergency situation as defined by a Class I recall. The FDA reported the devices may fail to deliver shocks; fail to identify life threatening ECG rhythms needing shock delivery; fail to identify lead placement problems; fail to filter background noise that may interfere with ECG analysis and delivery of a shock.

Four months after the FDA Class I recall notice, on July 19, Cardiac Science Corporation detailed their plan to replace the 24,000 devices.  While no specific time frame was detailed in the public statement, a priority based plan to repair or replace the defective devices was presented. Devices issued to police, fire, and ambulance services will be addressed first.  Once this is accomplished, hospitals, medical clinics, dialysis centers, and assisted living facilities will be addressed next.  According to the FDA, Cardiac Science will be responsible for contacting all users and setting a replacement schedule.  However, there is no plan to replace devices that were issued into the general public domain. Instead, public purchasers of any listed defective products need to contact the company or go online (www.cardiacscience.com/aed175) or call (877-941-0844, reference ID4331134) to receive an updated software component.  Cardiac Science urges the public to replace the software as soon as possible.

Non-USA purchased devices for first responders, hospitals, clinics, dialysis centers, assisted living facilities, and general customers will also only receive the software replacement. The company boasts distribution of products in over 100 countries.

The FDA recommends that all users not listed in the priority replacement plan including home users, public access defibrillation programs, and facilities with only one AED device do the following:

  • Obtain and install the software components as soon as possible.  The FDA cautions, the software upgrades may not detect some failures.  However, still try to use the device as the unit may likely be able to deliver the necessary therapy.
  • If the device indicates service is needed, then contact the company to repair or replace the device.  Use an alternative AED device in the meantime.

In the 4th paragraph of their public statement, Cardiac Science listed the impact on earnings.  The company estimates spending $28.5 to $33.5 million dollars over the next 12 months.  They have extended the company line of credit to fund the recall, so the public and investors can be reassured of the company’s ability to manage the recall.

The FDA urges all who experience any problems with AED devices to report the problems promptly through their online MedWatch, Safety Information and Adverse Reporting program. Be sure to include the make, model, and serial number of the device; the initial and final condition of the patient; and a description of the device problem. Healthcare providers should follow their institutional policy/procedure for FDA reporting.

The public should have major concerns about shopping malls, airports, planes, and trains, etc.  that rely on these devices.  Persons in these settings usually are less trained and less experienced in using such devices.  In all likelihood, they would be less likely then first responders to know what to do in an emergency situation with a defective malfunctioning device.  Based on the press release, the company has not issued new training guidelines.  This recall has also not been picked-up by the national/international media, so how will global general users know a major recall is in process? Spread the word. Ask your building manager if they are aware of the recall and  have them check their AED and confirm whether or not it is on the recall list of these devices.

It is simply mind-boggling how it has taken so long for this information to get out and how long it took for the recall to be made. Whatever the price, these devices need to be corrected or removed without any further delay!

Do you have “Recall Fatigue”?

Saturday, July 3rd, 2010

Early in my foray into blogging, I thought tracking and reporting on recalls would be a worthwhile project. I did the usual setting-up of RSS feeds, email notification of updates and the like. As time passed and my inbox filled with new recall after new recall, I began to wonder – is this really worth it? Is anyone really paying attention to these seemingly endless postings about a defective this and a life-altering that? After a few months, I decided that maybe we should only be reporting on the important recalls. Well, what’s important? Is it the crib that severs limbs or kills babies? Is it the food product that poisons a host of people? Perhaps it’s that nice pull-over for toddlers that can choke them. Of course, that piece of clothing that can burst into flames has to make the list.  Week in, week out – they came rolling in and out on the blogosphere some went. I started identifying less and less of these recalls as newsworthy, but I’m not sure why I did that. One reason was clear – no one seemed to be reading what we posted on the recalls – well maybe a hit here or a hit there.

Then on Friday I came across an article in the Washington Post that brought a good deal of clarity to the apparent disinterest of the public and our readers to product recalls – “recall fatigue.”

Lyndsey Layton, a staff reporter for the Post, must have wondered about the same issues bothering me – thus her article entitled “Officials Worry About Consumers Lost Among the Recalls.” I commend it to your reading. Putting the recall overload into perspective, she writes:

McDonald’s asked customers to return 12 million glasses emblazoned with the character Shrek. Kellogg’s warned consumers to stop eating 28 million boxes of Froot Loops and other cereals. Campbell Soup asked the public to return 15 million pounds of SpaghettiOs, and seven companies recalled 2 million cribs.

Then comes the most telling line – “And that was just a fraction of the products recalled in the United States last month alone.”

Ms. Layton reports that “one recent study found that 12 percent of Americans who knew they had recalled food at home ate it anyway. After Hasbro recalled the iconic Easy Bake Oven in 2007 because about two dozen children had gotten fingers stuck in the door, the toymaker received 249 more reports of injuries over the following six months. One 5-year-old girl was so seriously burned that doctors had to partially amputate a finger.”

Are Americans just bleary eyed, immune, overwhelmed in today’s endless stream of information? Do stories of recalls like the Toyota fiasco so dominate the news that we lose sight of the less publicized recall stories? What is it that would let a parent ignore the dangers to their child from a life-threatening or maiming recalled product? Do they just not know about it? That may be true for some, I would imagine, but how does that answer the mind-boggling statistic cited by Ms. Layton that 88% of Americans who knew they had recalled food products in their home – ate the food anyway?! What percentage of parents knew they had a dangerous crib and let their child sleep in it anyway? You know that the vast majority care deeply for their child’s safety. So how on earth could they simply ignore the danger warnings?

Ms. Layton suggests the problem is twofold: “Some people never learn that a product they own has been recalled, and others know they have a recalled product but don’t think anything bad will happen.”

Craig Wilson, assistant vice president for quality assurance and food safety at Costco says, “We call it the Chicken Little syndrome. If you keep shouting at the wind — ‘The sky is falling! The sky is falling!’ — people literally become immune to the message.” He believes the system in place simply doesn’t work.

The “system” – in case you were not aware – includes a government maintained website, http://www.recalls.gov, offering information about all kinds of recalls, and consumers can subscribe for e-mail alerts about specific products. That’s what we subscribed to and which we still track. Check it out for a week or two (hopefully longer if you can get over the ‘fatigue factor’). You’ll see what we are talking about – you’ll be amazed at the number of product recalls. Oh, just in case you don’t have time to boot-up your desktop or laptop, a new mobile version for your smartphone was just announced.

Whether it’s information overload, the ‘it won’t happen to me” syndrome, the “Chicken Little syndrome – people simply need to start paying more attention! Sure – you can say, what are the odds that this will happen to my family? Well – when it happens to YOU or YOUR FAMILY, the odds just became 100%.

What is the best – or at least a ‘better’ way to get people to pay attention and take heed of these warnings? Any psychologists or maybe people with just good common sense have any good ideas? Do you care about product recalls? Do you want to hear about them more often or less often? Since we are an internet and TV society – is this the way to go? Maybe flash warnings like we get for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods? Oops – the remote control’s fast forward might kill that approach.

So what is the answer? Is there an answer? Should we keep blogging on these recalls? I’m not sure anymore. Ms. Layton’s article makes me at least wonder – if one person gets the message and one life is saved or one person not maimed – maybe it is worth it. On the other hand, if we report on it, are we adding to “recall fatigue”?


Over Two Million Cribs Recalled…What About Yours?

Friday, June 25th, 2010

Earlier this week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) made a sweeping recall announcement regarding drop-side and other types of cribs:

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), with the cooperation of seven firms, is announcing voluntary recalls of more than two million cribs to address drop-side hazards and other hazards that affect the safety of young children. The recalling firms are providing consumers with free repair kits to immobilize the drop sides or other remedies. Do not attempt to fix these cribs with homemade remedies.

We previously highlighted crib recalls in several blogs on our website. This recall also includes some fixed-side cribs.  There are authorized repair kits available from the manufacturers involved.  They include: Child Craft (this firm is out of business, according to the CPSC), Delta Enterprise Corp., Evenflo, Jardine Enterprises, LaJobi, Million Dollar Baby, Simmons Juvenile Products Inc. (SJP).  Consumers should contact these companies directly for more information.

The recall notice from the CPSC also discusses their efforts to make cribs safer overall:

“Cribs should be the safest place in the home for infants and toddlers,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. “CPSC is committed to addressing the hazards with cribs and to restoring parents’ confidence that their child will have a safe sleep.”

CPSC continues to actively investigate various cribs for potential drop-side and other hazards as part of a larger effort by the agency to rid the marketplace and homes of unsafe cribs. CPSC staff is also working on a new mandatory standard to make cribs safer, which is targeted for completion in 2010.

The CPSC goes on to state that “incorrect assembly or age-related wear and tear” may cause drop-side crib incidents.  In addition, the CPSC recommends that a crib more than 10 years old should not be used as “many older cribs do not meet current voluntary standards and can have numerous safety problems.”

If you have precious little ones at home, please check your cribs and follow the proper instructions from the CPSC and companies involved.

Recall: McDonald’s Shrek Glasses – how unsafe are they?

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Children across the globe have fallen in love with Dreamwork’s Shrek since it premiered in May of 2001. With the upcoming release of the latest film, Shrek: The Final Chapter, McDonald’s has joined in the promotion efforts.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the McDonald’s Corporation has sold a series of four Shrek glasses as memorabilia for the film, which was released into theaters May 21, 2010. However, the glasses are now reported to be unsafe.

Friday, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said the designs on the glasses, which were sold for about $2 since the beginning of May, contain cadmium, which can pose health risks with long-term exposure.

The McDonald’s Corporation is recalling nearly 12 million glasses that have been sold nation wide. The promotional glasses were manufactured by a local New Jersey company, ARC International North America Incorporated.

At this time, no injuries have been reported; the McDonald’s Corporation has recalled the products with an offer for a full refund.

McDonald’s says the glasses met federal standards when tested by an independent third-party laboratory but decided to recall the items “in light of the CPSC’s evolving assessment of standards for cadmium in consumer products.”

The Consumer Product safety claims that the glasses do not pose a serious threat to children as the levels of cadium are only slightly elevated in comparison to the standards the Commission is currently in the process of developing.

Product Safety Alert: Children's Giraffe Blanket Recalled Due to Choking Hazard

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Approximately 44,000 giraffe blankets have been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), due to the balls on the top of the horns detaching, and posing a choking hazard to small children.  The giraffe blankets are sold exclusively at Target Stores.  The full details on the recall can be found by clicking here.  

The recall states that, thankfully, no injuries have been reported, as of this publication.  The product is imported by Rashti and Rashti out of New York, and details on the recall can be found on their website, as well.  As the CPSC recall notice states “Consumers should immediately take the recalled blankets away from children and contact Rashti & Rashti for a full refund.”

Even though no injuries have been reported, let’s keep it that way! Follow the recommendations even if your child may cry for a bit when you take away their ‘security blanket.’ A sad but safe child sure beats the alternative.

Allergic to Dairy? Read Before Eating Those Sunflower Seeds!

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

Ryt-Way Industries, LLC, a food packaging company, is immediately recalling some of the sunflower seed products that they have packaged, as they contain undeclared dairy ingredients.  The recall, which includes products that have been distributed nationwide, is a voluntary recall, and is being done in conjunction with the FDA:

Ryt-way Industries LLC of Lakeville, MN is voluntarily recalling select BIGS ® Original Salted & Roasted Sunflower Seeds because they may contain dairy ingredients that were not declared on the packaging.  The product is packaged in 5.35oz plastic bags with BEST BY Dates of 30MAY2011 and 31MAY2011 with an individual bag UPC code 896887002196.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to dairy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

It was discovered that the sunflower seed packages at issue, as manufactured by BiGS, do not disclose the presence of dairy within them.  Ryt-Way goes on in their announcement to instruct consumers that are allergic to dairy how to handle this situation, should they be in possession of these recalled items:

Consumers who are allergic to dairy and who have purchased the recalled products are advised not to consume the product and are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact 1-877-722-7556

So, if you are allergic to dairy and/or have a sensitivity to dairy products, and love those sunflower seeds, please check your home for these recalled products.  As the weather gets warmer and we try to snack on “healthier” items to get that “younger figure back for summer”, don’t let this recall pass you by!

Infant Safety – drop-down crib hazard; CPSC issues recall

Tuesday, May 11th, 2010

In February of this year, we reported on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) commitment to crack-down on the defective crib issues that have resulted in multiple deaths of infants on our blog site.  A report just released by the CPSC, which involves a comprehensive review of crib-related fatalities since January 2000 revealed the tragic statistics:  32 deaths since January 2000 and hundreds of related instances related to drop-side detachments in cribs:

In addition to the 32 deaths the CPSC staff associated with the drop-side detachments, CPSC has received an additional 14 reports of infant fatalities due to entrapment in cribs that could be related to a drop side. The information obtained was insufficient for staff to conclusively determine whether or not the drop side was involved. Of the 32 deaths that were analyzed, some occurred in cribs where the drop side detached without caregivers noticing the detachment, while some other deaths occurred after a consumer tried to repair the detached drop side, but the repair ultimately failed.

As a result, the CSPC is issuing a voluntary recall of ALL drop-side cribs, effective June 1, 2010. There will be new improved mandatory standards for cribs as well.  The CPSC announcement also provides cautions regarding older cribs and reminds parents to not use cribs with broken, missing of loose parts.

Let’s hope these new standards save infants from injuries and death!