Print

Mail

wiki links

Consumer mag eats humble pie after flawed test

By Katharine Seelye
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, NEW YORK
Sunday, Mar 25, 2007, Page 9

"When we got into this, we didn't realize how complex it was. We've been doing front-on crash tests since 1972. But it turns out side-impact tests are quite a different animal."

Jim Guest, president of Consumers Union

Consumer Reports, widely respected for its independent assessments of consumer products, has long steered clear of consulting with industry and manufacturers. As a further shield from being compromised, it accepts no advertising.

But on Tuesday, the magazine said that its quest for independence had kept it from reaching out to experts who might have helped it avoid one of the biggest mistakes in its 71-year history.

In January, the magazine reported that 10 of 12 infant car seats it tested had failed simulated crash tests -- a report it retracted two weeks later.

A review of the incident by two outside specialists found that the magazine's problem stemmed mainly from its decision to develop and run its side-impact tests without extensive consultation with other experts.

The magazine said in a statement that it had not consulted outside experts in part "because of the organization's longstanding policy of limiting contact with government and industry to avoid compromising the independence of its judgment."

That decision, the magazine said, "ultimately proved to be a mistake." Consumer Reports had reported in January that side-impact tests showed 10 of 12 car seats performed poorly in tests conducted at 38mph (62kph), but that they were actually conducted at 70mph.

The report infuriated the car seat manufacturers and left parents confused about whether they should buy the seats, which can be expensive. The magazine retracted the report two weeks later and sent letters and e-mail messages to 6 million subscribers to apologize.

Jim Guest, president of Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, said in an interview on Tuesday that in the future, the magazine would consult with a broad range of experts, including those from industry, for establishing protocols for complex tests, but it would still make its final assessments on its own.

The magazine has drawn on industry experts in other cases, he said, but did not see the need to do so with the side-impact tests on infant car seats.

"When we got into this, we didn't realize how complex it was," he said of the tests. "We've been doing front-on crash tests since 1972. But it turns out side-impact tests are quite a different animal."

In an article to be printed in its May issue, and available on Tuesday on its Web site (www.consumerreports.org), the magazine said that an independent review found that the magazine had stumbled into "methodological errors with misleading results."

The independent review also found that there was a miscommunication with the outside laboratory conducting the test. They said the magazine had asked for tests for side damage caused by a car going 38mph. But the lab had interpreted the request as tests for the struck vehicle as if it moved at 38mph after being struck, a velocity that could be caused only if the original car were going 70mph.

The article on the Web site said that the mistake was never detected, despite continuing contact between the magazine and the lab.

"Our engineers did not have deep knowledge of side-impact sled simulations and relied largely on the expertise of the lab," the article said. "Several safety experts we interviewed are sharply critical of Consumer Reports for not spotting the problem before publication."

The magazine said it was taking responsibility for the error. It said that in the future, it would disclose when it used outside labs and would double-check the results when they seemed unusual.

Evenflo, which makes one of the car seats that the magazine had initially said should be recalled, would not discuss the effect of the flawed report on sales.

In a statement, the company commended Consumer Reports for withdrawing its "not acceptable" rating and its request for a recall.

The magazine said it had no lawsuits stemming from the flawed report and that subscriptions had not fallen off but had increased.

Eric Dezenhall, a crisis communications specialist in Washington, lauded the magazine's handling of the erroneous report.

"Not only did they take redemptive action and are changing their policy," Dezenhall said, "it seems they had external reviews from independent parties who did not whitewash the situation."　
This story has been viewed 1115 times.