Halloween costume withdrawn from Wal-Mart shelves

"Critics of ‘Naughy Leopard’ costume use spotty logic"

by

Jenne Osterheldt

September 27th, 2013

The Kansas City Star

Once again, adults have brought their jaded minds to the kids aisles. This “Naughty Leopard” toddler Halloween costume that everyone is clawing Wal-Mart about is less trick and more treat.

In reality, it’s nothing more than a Disney princess dress done up in black and fuchsia with a cat-eared headband. So what’s so controversial?

One word: naughty. For adults, that word means sexy. And once an image of the costume hit the Consumerist website, it went viral. By Thursday, Wal-Mart pulled the outfit and apologized.

Why? Because critics say the adjective “naughty” hypersexualizes little girls. They try to link it to the growing number of sleazy adult costumes.

As Shawnee mom Kelly Shea notes, how will these overwrought parents react when Santa asks if their kids have been naughty or nice?

Whatever happened to naughty meaning mischievous? Let’s be honest, part of Halloween’s fun is the chance to be the bad guy.

For every Dora, Minion and Captain America, you see vampires, witches and ninjas. Even Hello Kitty has a punk counterpart, albeit a cute counterpart.

“Even the Charlie Brown special has scary costumes,” says Kelly, 33.

My friend Nick, a Northland father, says people are looking for a scapegoat.

“It’s common knowledge that so many adult costumes are super-scandalous and also use the word naughty to describe them,” he says. “That being said, people love to find a reason to get worked up and say, ‘this is the reason our society is going down the tubes.’ Kids hearing their parents complain all the time is likely more damaging than anything a marketing executive could ever accomplish.”
In a very rare moment, I am siding with Wal-Mart. I don’t believe the intent was to deliver a sexy costume for toddlers. I do believe society has a problem with the hypersexualization of little girls — the toddler pageants, the tween supermodels hawking adult brands, the push-up bra bikinis. And that’s where the outrage should be directed.

“I’ve seen dance recital costumes that are more revealing and more suggestive than the leopard,” says Erin Gregory, 32, a Lee’s Summit mom. “My beef is more with tiny stripper costumes couched as dance recital costumes or dance competition attire.”
Erin’s daughter, 2-year-old Darby, is dressing up as a pirate this Halloween. And, Erin admits, the word “naughty” on that Wal-Mart costume did give her pause. Then again, she also sometimes calls her daughter “a naughty little monkey.” Context is important.

When you really think about it, this naughty leopard didn’t deserve a cat fight.

Wal-Mart in trouble again...environmental problems

Admission of full knowledge of ethical issues...

"...Kenneth Woodlin, Wal-Mart’s vice president for compliance, safety and asset protection,...sent more than 2 million pounds of pesticides to a Neosho, Mo., contractor, knowing the material would be distributed without proper registration or labels."

Arrogance?...

"The day’s admissions cost the company about $81.6 million in fines and penalties, an amount that the company said would “not be material to its financial position.”

"Wal-Mart pleads guilty in case involving pesticides sent to Missouri contractor"

by

Mark Morris

May 28th, 2013
   
The Kansas City Star

Retailer Wal-Mart resolved years of hazardous-waste complaints Tuesday with criminal guilty pleas in Missouri and California and the settlement of a civil lawsuit filed by federal environmental authorities.

The day’s admissions cost the company about $81.6 million in fines and penalties, an amount that the company said would “not be material to its financial position.” When combined with previous penalties and settlements from state actions in California and Missouri, the price of the company’s environmental missteps was more than $110 million.

In Kansas City, Kenneth Woodlin, Wal-Mart’s vice president for compliance, safety and asset protection, appeared in federal court to admit that the company had sent more than 2 million pounds of pesticides to a Neosho, Mo., contractor, knowing the material would be distributed without proper registration or labels.

Kansas City criminal defense attorney James L. Eisenbrandt, who represented Wal-Mart, said the company moved quickly to address the problems after it learned about them in 2008, including paying $3.4 million in cleanup costs in Neosho.

“One of the things I’ve learned about this client is once they are mobilized to take on a problem, they act and they act appropriately,” Eisenbrandt said.

U.S. Attorney Tammy Dickinson took a much sterner view.

“This tough financial penalty holds Wal-Mart accountable for its reckless and illegal business practices that threatened both the public and the environment,” Dickinson said in a written statement.

Wal-Mart pleaded guilty in Kansas City to a misdemeanor violation of the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and agreed to pay an $11 million criminal fine and contribute $3 million to a Missouri fund that pays for environmental education and inspections.

A company statement noted that the issues “took place years ago.” Phyllis Harris, senior vice president and chief compliance officer, said in the statement that Wal-Mart was “pleased that this resolves all of these issues raised by the government.”

The company had made good progress, she said.

“Wal-Mart has a comprehensive and industry-leading hazardous waste program,” Harris said.

Between July 2006 and February 2008, Wal-Mart shipped pesticides that had been damaged or returned by customers to Greenleaf LLC in Neosho.

Greenleaf then sold the pesticides and rat-killing products after removing or defacing the package labeling, a violation of federal environmental law.

In its plea, Wal-Mart agreed that it did not provide “proper oversight of the regulated pesticides sent to Greenleaf.”

“Greenleaf would collect some of the solid pesticides received from Wal-Mart and mix them together in large bins,” according to the statement of facts in the plea agreement. “This mixture of pesticides was offered for sale to customers in containers that were not labeled with the required registration, ingredients or use information for the pesticides.”

Greenleaf entered a similar guilty plea and paid a $200,000 criminal fine in August 2009.

Greenleaf also agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty.

The case opened when the Missouri Department of Agriculture inspected the Neosho facility in early 2008 and discovered that the company was selling or distributing 59 unregistered pesticides, according to Environmental Protection Agency records.

Greenleaf soon shut down its business operations in Neosho and Pineville, Mo., the EPA reported.

Wal-Mart also paid a $1.25 million settlement to the state of Missouri in March 2012 for alleged violations of the state’s Hazardous Waste Management Law.

In California, Wal-Mart pleaded guilty Tuesday to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act in both the northern and central federal court districts in that state.

Prosecutors said in court documents filed in San Francisco that until January 2006 the company had no program to train store employees on hazardous waste management and disposal practices.

“As a result, hazardous wastes were either discarded improperly at the store level, including being put into municipal trash bins, or, if a liquid, poured into the local sewer system,” according to a Department of Justice statement.

As part of its California plea agreement, the firm agreed to pay a $40 million criminal fine and a $20 million penalty that will fund community service projects.

The company also agreed to pay a $7.6 million civil penalty to settle a civil lawsuit filed by the EPA, requiring Wal-Mart to improve its handling and transportation of pesticides, hazardous materials and wastes.