TED Case Studies

Babies Pajama Killer



 
 

I. Identification

1. The Issue

This case involves the export of childrern's sleep wear from the US to other countries, even though they are banned in the US. It has been proven through out the years that this specific designed textile causes cancer on the long-term. dew to the danger and health risk involved US banned those pajamas; unfortunatly the companies went on producing "sleepwear" in Mexico until again it reached US.... and so it became a great issue.
 
 

2. Description

Wondering what pajama you should get your child?  Well beware, it might contain Tris!
Velsicol Chemical Corporation makes Tris; this chemical is a carcinogenic fire retardant banned from children’s pajamas in 1977.
 Over 240 million pairs of children sleepwear contained this frightful and deadly chemical, tests actually show that Tris (2,3-dibromoprophyl) phosphate causes kidney cancer in 300 of each million male children exposed to it, with an additional 60 cases per million girl children.  The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission  (CPSC) banned and forced manufacturers to stop any further production and take back those Tris-pajamas from the market.
 Unfortunately this caused another problem to approximately a 100 medium and small volume garment manufacturers who invested most of what they owned on the production of “sleepwear”.
The question was then, how to get rid of all those pajamas?  They neither can be sold nor thrown away….
Because of the toxic chemical that the garments hold, the government suggested that the cloth should be burned or used for wiping purposes.
 Many of the firms producing “sleepwear” were small-sized family-owned businesses. Lawsuits were their first step for gaining financial aid or support, but they got nothing.  Those firms then turned to the Federal government-which actually had required them to add Tris to pajamas, then banned their sale-but only some firms were safe, many luckless ended bankrupt.  The carcinogenic pajamas were everywhere now…. And shortly they became the hit advertisement, exporters took that advantage to obtain cheaper pajamas, sometimes 30% of the normal wholesaler price.  After this entire dilemma, most of the manufacturers that recovered were larger companies that did not actually need the money.  The other small firms were too occupied lobbying Congress for their doomed relief bill.  President Carter discussed that the bill would actually sustain an unwise precedent for paying industries that try to adapt a regulatory safeguard when they find out the product they have been using is hazardous. Carter also argued that such an act would result in a costly and time-consuming enactment.
Experts in trade issues estimate that tens of millions of Tris-treated pajamas were shipped out of the United States in 1977 and June 1978, when the CPSC slapped a ban on Tris exports.  The House Committee on Government Operations stated that the Consumer Product Safety Commission failed to develop a proper export policy that should have banned “the killer nightmare” in the United States. When Consumer Product Safety Commission decided a year ago that exports should be banned from the US, other countries around were ignored arguing that it doesn’t have the authority; which resulted harm for neighbor’s and dumping those pajamas back to US through Mexico and sometimes Canada or near towns. It was like a circle going no place but around, until recently the Consumer Product Safety Commission decided that those pajamas should be banned completely everywhere….  The House Committee still discussed this move to be too late and request action about this serious health-risking chemical to be a larger issue that should in their eyes is strengthened by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal & Drug Administration as well.
 It advises legislation that would the complete right for agencies to issue outright export bans on all kind of dangerous products while specifying guidelines to prohibit pajamas from being exported or imported anywhere around the world. Sadly more than 2.4 million pairs of pajamas had already been exported, so next time you decide to go shopping BEWARE.

3. Related Cases

4. Draft Author:

Rana Ridha

-Note Date:

22 March, 1999

II. Legal Clusters

5. Discourse and Status:

Agree: disagreement

Stage: Inprogress

6. Forum and Scope:

Forum: NAFTA

Scope: Regional

7. Decision Breadth:

Number of Parties Affected: Three

(USA, Mexico, and Canada)

8. Legal Standing:

Standing: Treaty

III. Geographic Clusters

9. Geographic Locations

a. Geographic Domain:

North America

b. Geographic Site:

North

c. Geographic Impact:

Mexico and USA

10. Sub-National Factors:

SUB-STATE: No

11. Type of Habitat:

HABITAT: TEMPERATE forest and plains

IV. Trade Clusters

12. Type of Measure:

Export ban (EXBAN)

13. Direct v. Indirect Impacts:

Direct Impact

14. Relation of Trade Measure to Environmental Impact

a. Directly Related to Product:

Yes

b. Indirectly Related to Product:

No

c. Not Related to Product:

No

d. Related to Process:

No

15. Trade Product Identification:

PRODUCT TYPE: CHILDREN SLEEPWEAR

16. Economic Data

17. Impact of Trade Restriction:

18. Industry Sector:

Non-Durable Manufacturing: Textiles and Apparel (TEXT)

19. Exporters and Importers:

Case Exporter: Mexico

Case Importer: USA

V. Environment Clusters

20. Environmental Problem Type:

21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species

Name:

Type:

Diversity:

22. Resource Impact and Effect:

Impact: high

Effect:Product

23. Urgency and Lifetime:

Urgency: N/A

Lifetime: N/A

24. Substitutes:

VI. Other Factors

25. Culture:

No

26. Trans-Boundary Issues:

No

27. Human Rights:

Yes

28. Relevant Literature