Carol,
You had a lot of contact with ConsumerAffairs and you NEVER were pushed to do anything. They were the only ones at the time willing to listen.
If the website wasn't credible, let's ask how this happened back in September 2007:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/pet_food_recalls75.htmlWal-Mart Attacks Lab Tests that Found Lead, Chromium in Pet Toys
Threatens legal action to silence independent lab's reports
ConsumerAffairs |September 19, 2007
"Late Monday afternoon, Melissa O’Brien of Wal-Mart's corporate communication division, sent us an e-mail saying Wal-Mart disputed ExperTox’s results. She also said we would be hearing from her company's lawyers.
"She said ExperTox “severely misinterpreted” the findings.
“"After reviewing these test results provided to us today on the pet products in your story . . . the results of these tests actually prove the products are VERY safe,” O’Brien wrote. “If these measurements are in fact the results, as you have reported, they have been severely misinterpreted by the director of ExperTox’s lab, if he is reporting these levels to be ‘high’ or dangerous.
“"To the contrary by this lab's own report, these levels are considered very low and actually much lower than what is acceptable by regulatory bodies in the U.S. and Europe for products, including children's toys,” she said.
"O’Brien referred to what’s called the ASTM F-963 – or the Standard Consumer Safety Specification on Toy Safety. She said that has a limit of 90 parts per million for accessible lead in toys.
"She also said the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has a limit of 600 parts per million for the total lead in surface coating.
“"By comparison, the highest concentration of lead found in any of the ExperTox tests is a very low 907.4 parts per million -- nearly 100 times less than the ASTM limit for toys and more than 600 times less than the CPSC limit for surface coatings.”
"Wal-Mart, she said, uses independent labs that specialize in consumer product testing and data analysis to avoid what she called such “misinterpretations.” She did not name any of those labs, however, and did not repeat her pledge that Wal-Mart would test the pet toys in question.
“"The conclusions drawn in this article appear to have been based on incorrect interpretations of the data, and based on the opinions of a person (who is) not an expert in consumer product testing,” said O'Brien, who did not stiuplate that she has any scientific credentials.
"O'Brien demanded the story be withdrawn and threatened legal action if it was not."
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/pet_food_recalls76.htmlIndustry Responds to Reports of Lead in Wal-Mart Pet Toys
'Poison is poison,' toxic metals specialist warns
Wal-Mart calls out its spin doctors
ConsumerAffairs| September 20, 2008
"Instead of following the lead of other toy industry players by redoubling its inspections,
Wal-Mart called out its publicists and spin doctors from Edelman, which calls itself the "world's leading independent global PR firm," to try to discredit Lykissa and to try to intimidate ConsumerAffairs.Com.
Wal-Mart, through its Edelman mouthpieces, also backed off an earlier pledge to re-inspect the toys."Meanwhile, Wal-Mart has gone on the defensive and attacked ExperTox’s findings. Melissa O’Brien, who identified herself as representing Wal-Mart's corporate communications department, said the lab “severely misinterpreted” the findings and demanded ConsumerAffairs.com retract the story. Other news organizations said O'Brien told them she worked for Edelman." http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=49505&Nid=24192&p=82937Pro-Wal-Mart Travel Blog Screeches To A Halt
October 12, 2006
"What do you call a
phony blog that's actually a front for a huge corporation? A "flog"?
"
A pro-Wal-Mart blog called "Wal-Marting Across America," ostensibly launched by a pair of average Americans chronicling their cross-country travels in an RV and lodging in Wal-Mart parking lots, has been reduced to a farewell entry. One of its two contributors was revealed to be Jim Thresher, a staff photographer for The Washington Post.
"The blog, launched Sept. 27, was profiled in this week's issue of BusinessWeek, which exposed the site as a promotional tactic engineered by Working Families for Wal-Mart (WFWM), an organization launched by Wal-Mart's public relations firm Edelman. WFWM paid for the RV and all travel expenses, rerouted the trip's original plan, and plastered a logo on the RV's side. Though a banner ad announced WFWM sponsored the site, it did not divulge Wal-Mart paid for the couple's RV, gas, food and other expenses." The people with credibility problems here are W-M and Edelman, not ConsumerAffairs.
