Consumer Reports’ Car Seat Crackup: This Isn’t the First Time
The magazine just did the baby seat-testing equivalent of the rigged Dateline NBC hit piece on GM pickup trucks back in the 1980s:
Consumer Reports Takes Back Negative Report on Infant Car Seats
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Consumer Reports magazine backed off Thursday from its recent negative report on infant car seats, saying test crashes were conducted at speeds higher than it had claimed.
The magazine reported Jan. 4 that most of the seats it tested “failed disastrously” in crashes at speeds as low as 35 mph. In one test, it said, a dummy child was hurled 30 feet.
Consumer Reports said Thursday it had received information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showing that the speeds at which its side-impact tests were conducted were higher than the 38.5 mph reported.
In fact, the NHTSA said the crash tests were conducted under conditions that would represent being struck at more than 70 mph — twice as fast as the magazine claimed, said NHTSA administrator Nicole Nason.
Folks, not much of anything will typically survive a 70 mph crash.
It’s probably not fair to call it a pattern, but Consumer Reports has been caught before passing on erroneous test results. Back in 1998, it definitely picked on the wrong company, whose response to bogus test results wasn’t, uh, tame:
(from CR’s original reporting)
“More than half the cat foods and more than one-fourth of the dog foods - including some “superpremium” types - fell significantly short in at least one of the nutrients in guidelines set by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). Among the concerns: low levels of potassium, required for certain metabolic processes and nerve transmission, and of calcium, necessary to build bones. “[From “Feeding Fido (and Fifi, Fluffy, Max…)”, February 1998].
(following month correction resulting from strenuous objections by The Iams Company, then an independent company, now a part of Procter & Gamble)
“Our tests of pet food (February 1998) showed nutritional imbalances in 39 products… After the issue was released, The Iams Company, maker of both Iams and Eukanuba brands, showed us compelling data questioning our test findings of low levels of potassium in some of their products. We retested the products from The Iams Company. Those results demonstrate that each Iams product met the nutritional standards for potassium, and that our initial test results were incorrect.” [From “Correction: Pet food tests”, March 1998].
(further correction resulting from objections by other pet food providers)
“Our February report on dog and cat foods focused in part on whether major brands deliver all the necessary nutrients for the health and well-being of a pet… However, our report and Ratings contained errors stemming from mistakes in the measurement of some minerals and a fatty acid. As we promised last month, we have retested all the products described in the February report as being nutritionally unbalanced.” [From “Correction: Pet food retest”, April 1998].
Though this is of course not provable, I would not be surprised if, like corporations that attempt to please the advocates of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and then unsurprisingly lose their bearings (see UK oil giant BP and its soon-departing CEO John Browne), Consumer Reports is paying the price for not sticking to what it does best by engaging in policy-arena editorializing in favor of nationalized health care and ever-more-stringent government regulation.









