July 25, 2007

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Via email:
Via fax: (212) 556-3622.

CC:      Bill Keller, Editor  -  
Gretchen Morgenson, Reporter --  

Dear Editor:

Your July 15 article on the MAGNETIX toy recall unfairly and inaccurately criticized MEGA Brands for its response to the hazard that can result from children swallowing multiple magnets.

The record shows that MEGA Brands notified the Consumer Product Safety Commission immediately when we became aware of an incident in December 2005 and did everything the CPSC required in response to the hazard. We went above and beyond the Commission’s requirements by developing a magnet ingestion warning and an information booklet, and redesigning the product and packaging.

In MEGA Brands’ 40-year history, this is the first toy recall the company has experienced.  MEGA Brands is dedicated to making products that inspire creativity and fuel children’s minds with endless possibilities. Of equal importance is our commitment to making quality and safe products that parents and gift givers can trust. We care deeply about children and family.  This philosophy has guided MEGA Brands throughout the years and will continue to direct us in the years to come.

The most serious inaccuracy was The New York Times’ allegation that MEGA Brands placed new warning label stickers on recalled models. In fact, the stickers were placed in the U.S. on older packaging that contained newly redesigned rods. We took this step to ensure that the newly designed sets with the new magnet ingestion warning label were made available to consumers as quickly as possible.

I believe I can safely speak for everyone in the company when I say we were deeply offended that you would create and publish a photo of a skull and crossed bones made out of our newly redesigned product. It was a clear attempt to sensationalize your story, especially in light of everything we have done to address this issue.

MEGA Brands took an aggressive approach to eliminating the hazard beginning in December 2005 and extending into the first half of 2006. These actions included:

• Immediately implementing design enhancements to MAGNETIX, including sonic welding of panels, 100% inspection, gluing magnets into rods and elimination of 3+ labeling in favor of 6+ labeling after it assumed operational control of Rose Art on January 1, 2006.

 

• Independently developing a magnet ingestion warning label and safety education booklet, and improved MAGNETIX design with five-part rod design and new materials for panels.

Your article cites “documents” that the CPSC gave to Congress that allegedly say MEGA Brands was uncooperative. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, we cannot respond specifically to the documents because the U.S. government has not released them to us (although it is clear someone gave them to your reporter.)

If we were given access to the documents, we believe we would be able to affirmatively refute any allegations that MEGA Brands was uncooperative. We can demonstrate that MEGA Brands provided information about complaints and injuries to the CPSC as soon as we obtained it.

We were not made aware of the 1,500 consumer complaints that Rose Art had received about the toy until after the acquisition and once we had scoured the company’s files and electronic documents. By that time, in addition to the recall, we had implemented design enhancements, were creating a magnet ingestion warning and were in the process of completely redesigning the product.

The New York Times reported that MEGA Brands missed a deadline to respond to a Commission subpoena. MEGA Brands can document that it asked for and was granted an extension of time and did respond fully by the deadline.

For the record, other allegations have been published that falsely claim MEGA Brands knew of the magnet ingestion hazard before December 2005, citing three other injury cases. These assertions are not borne out by the facts of these three cases.

• We received no response when we followed up on one of the cases and later learned that the incident was NOT MAGNETIX related.

 

• A letter about another case was received by our predecessor company  three days after the sale closed in July 2005 while it was being managed by the previous owners. It was not forwarded to MEGA Brands’ home office until after the March 31, 2006 recall.

• A third letter alleged an injury from ingestion of a single magnet and only asked for insurance information. The letter provided absolutely no indication of the hazard of ingesting more than one magnet.

 

We were deeply saddened to learn of the young child’s death in Seattle. We know that there is nothing we can say or do that will lessen that family’s sorrow. What I can do is make a personal commitment on behalf of MEGA Brands, that we will do everything in our power to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.  A fair assessment would show that we acted quickly and correctly, and the actions we are taking  are effective in responding to the hazard.

Respectfully,

 

Marc Bertrand
President and CEO, MEGA Brands Inc.

PS: Here is a condensed version of the letter for publication:

Your July 15 article on the MAGNETIX toy recall unfairly and inaccurately criticized MEGA Brands for its response to the hazard that can result from children swallowing multiple magnets.

The most serious inaccuracy was The Times’ allegation that MEGA Brands placed new warning label stickers on recalled sets. In fact, the stickers were placed in the U.S. on older packaging that contained newly redesigned rods.
 
In MEGA Brands’ 40-year history, this is the first toy recall we have experienced. The recalled products were made by Rose Art Industries, which MEGA Brands acquired in July 2005, but only assumed operational control on January 1, 2006.

MEGA Brands notified the Consumer Product Safety Commission immediately when we became aware of the one incident in December 2005 and did everything the CPSC required in response to the hazard. We went above and beyond the Commission’s requirements by developing a magnet ingestion warning and an information booklet, and redesigning the product and packaging.

When the CPSC recommended a recall, we agreed to the terms, worked out the logistics and launched the voluntary recall in only 10 days.