Product recall policy lax in SA

Businesses have done as they please for a long time, ignoring consumers' needs

Fruit riddled with listeria bacteria. Defective bicycle brakes. Glass fragments in cough syrup. The list of product safety recalls in the US, UK, Europe and Australia is endless. Reporting systems abroad are certainly robust.

So why are things so different in South Africa?

For starters, we don't have the same kind of product safety authorities in place. But more critically, until June, we didn't have any recall guidelines either.

For years business has been able to do what it pleases, out of the spotlight. Despite claiming to have the customer's best interests at heart, many have shown an astounding lack of transparency around product defects.

Fortunately it's no longer up to them to decide what, when and how much consumers will be told. The new recall guidelines released by the National Consumer Commission have changed that.

In theory, at least.

The guidelines, published in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, require a supplier undertaking a safety-related recall to notify the commission, preferably before initiating the recall or within two days of it.

Depending on the defect, unsafe products are usually removed from the market or returned by consumers for a refund, replacement or modification.

Suppliers are bound to consult with the commission on the most appropriate strategy to mitigate a safety hazard and submit a recall strategy and public communication plan, outlining the method, frequency and specifics of planned notices.

All written notices must carry a product picture, a what-to-do section, and full contact details - including after-hours numbers, e-mail and website addresses. A notice must be placed prominently on the company website.

But at least two recent local recalls don't appear to have complied.

I first learnt of last week's Bumbo infant seat safety recall from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. Together with the SA manufacturer, it announced the recall of four million Bumbo seats in the US. Turns out there've been at least 50 "incidents" there since 2007 of babies falling from these seats while on a raised surface, 19 involving skull fractures. (These seats are not supposed to be used on raised surfaces.)

There've been another 34 incidents, including two skull fractures, where the seat was either on the floor or at an unknown elevation.

Either way, US parents were told to stop using the seat until they'd ordered a free repair kit, which includes a safety belt.

So why didn't the manufacturer think to alert consumers at home about this? First answer I got from Bumbo was that the recall didn't affect SA because there hadn't been any injuries here (hours later it admitted one injury).

When I asked if SA babies were less important than US babies, I was sent a formal statement saying the company would offer the "safety enhancement" in all countries where the seat was sold. After more prodding, an e-mail address for SA parents to order the kit was provided.

(See my Timeslive blogpost at bit.ly/NBsJEw)

A day earlier, Ford SA was quoted in various newspapers saying it was recalling 10000 Ford Figo and Ikon models, following a much larger Ford India recall. The affected SA cars were manufactured in India between January 2008 and February last year.

Ford India said there were problems with the power-steering pump hose, which could leak onto exhaust components causing smoke and, in extreme cases, fire. The cars could also have potential cracks in the rear torsion beam - part of the car's suspension - which could render the car inoperable.

Ford SA spokesman Rella Bernardes was quoted as saying replacement parts would arrive in the following two weeks and customers would be contacted. When I asked Ford SA for a formal statement, it said: "Ford is aware of potential concerns with select batches of Ford Figo models and will initiate the necessary customer service action as of late August. In the meantime, should customers have any concerns ... contact the helpline on 0860 011 022."

Surely not the kind of full disclosure envisaged by the guidelines?

Said Bernardes: "A structured recall programme is scheduled to commence within the next two weeks.

"This commitment goes beyond any compliance with legal guidelines.

"We are aware of the guidelines and will engage with the NCC in advance of the commencement of the recall programme."

So why ignore them?

"Ford has taken appropriate legal advice and is acting within the requirements of all current legislation," said Bernardes.

Ford would send registered letters to customers and contact those who had called in with concerns, she said, advising them to take their cars in.

Although no injuries have been reported, Ford knows of a "few" incidents involving both issues.

"As a gesture of goodwill, Ford shall be extending the warranty of affected vehicles to 60 months from the date the vehicle was first registered or to 150000km, whichever occurs first," said Bernardes.

Standard warranty is four years/120000km.

Bernardes referred to the recall as "voluntary and pre-emptive".

The guidelines don't allow the term "voluntary" to be used. Understandably so; there's nothing voluntary about having to fix a defect.

Sunday Smile

At Volkswagen dealer Barons Culemborg in Cape Town for solving a "frustrating" door seal water drip in reader Craig Steensma's Amarok Baseline. The successful modification will now be rolled out nationally for similar problems.

Sunday Snarl

At Bakos Brothers' latest clearance sale print ad, boasting 10 colour images, including those of couches, coffee tables and TV units. But in small print at the bottom of the ad, it says: "The pictures above might not be the actual item". Then why use them?