Bloomberg.com reported flaws linked to unintended acceleration, specifically, floor mates at risk of jamming accelerators and sticky gas pedals sparked the recall. Toyota paid $48.8 million in fines and the company president, along with other officials, was called before Congress.

According to Bloomberg, the panel reported Toyota “erred too much on the side of global centralization and needs to shift the balance somewhat toward greater local authority and control.” The flaws “hindered information sharing and contributed to miscommunication” and “delayed response time to quality and safety issues.”

Toyota’s operations in North America are divided into units responsible for sales, engineering and manufacturing; therefore, the panel concluded the company would benefit from a unified structure and greater local authority to make decisions.

The report highlighted Toyota’s disregard for vehicle complaints from outside sources. According to the advisors, the company initially treated consumer complaints about unintended acceleration “with a degree of skepticism and defensiveness.” Bloomberg reported Toyota “does not appear to treat feedback from external sources, including customers, independent rating agencies and regulators, the same way.”

Adviser’s emphasized examination of complaints is critical. “There are sometimes very important signals in all those noisy data,” stated panel member, Brian O’Neill.

Panel advisers noted Toyota also lacked a direct chain of managers responsible for safety issues. Toyoda said the recommendations have resulted in “meaningful steps” to Toyota’s North American operations more autonomy and make the company ever more focused on safety, reported Bloomberg.

The panel discovered several issues with Toyota’s operations; however, the review did not include evidence of any additional causes for unintended acceleration in Toyota and Lexus vehicles.

Although the panel did not identify additional causes for unintended acceleration, panel member Brian O’Neill said, “There’s still a serious debate as to whether these [electrical faults] were serious safety problems.”

In February, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration terminated an investigation of Toyota models after NASA said it found no electronic causes of unintended acceleration during a 10-month review.

Sean Kane, president of Safety Research & Strategies, said the NASA report showed “deficiencies” in Toyota’s vehicle electronics, reported Bloomberg. In an email, Kane stated, “NASA identified numerous failures in Toyota electronic that could lead to unwanted acceleration.”

The panel did not identify any problems “related to Toyota’s ability to fully integrate electronics and software or its methods for ensuring that changes in software don’t cause unintended consequences,” says Bloomberg.

The company’s oversight of suppliers and other prevalent issues will be studied by the panel for at least one more year, said Slater.

The U.S. Lexus recall includes the following models: 2006-07 GS 300 and GS 350, 2006-09 IS 250, and 2006-08 IS 350. According to Toyota, insufficient tightening of the fuel pressure sensor, which is connected to some engine fuel delivery pipes that have nickel-phosphorus plating, may cause the pressure sensor to loosen. This could cause fuel to leak past a gasket that’s used in the connection between the sensor and the fuel delivery pipe. It could also leak through the threaded part of the sensor.

To fix the problem, Lexus dealers will inspect cars for fuel leakage. If no leakage is found, they will tighten the fuel pressure sensor. However, if a leak is found, the gasket between the sensor and fuel delivery pipe will be replaced and the sensor will be tightened. There will be no charge for this, Toyota said.

The problem also affects 1.3 million vehicles in Japan and 10,000 in Europe.

Toyota maintains that so far, it has not received any reports of accidents due to this vehicle defect. It has, however, received 75 complaints of problems from North America and 140 in Japan.

The other recalls involve a bad fuel line that can crack and affects 141,000 vehicles, mostly models sold in Europe and New Zealand.

Teva said it has not learned of any side effects associated with underweight metronidazole tablets.

This recall involves one lot, or around 75 bottles, of Metronidazole Tablets USP, 250mg. Each recalled bottle, which contains 250 tablets, bears lot number 312566, and an expiration date of 05/2011. The affected tablets were shipped in May 2009.

Consumers who have lot 312566 in their possession are instructed to cease using the product and return it to their pharmacy. Wholesalers and retailers should cease distribution and examine their inventory immediately.

Metronidazole is indicated for the treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic trichomoniasis, and treatment of asymptomatic consorts, amebiasis and a variety of anaerobic bacterial infection.

The problem with the Britax Chaperone Infant Car Seats is that the harness chest clip can break, which in and of itself is a laceration hazard. But because the broken piece is so small, it also poses a choking hazard. There have been four reports of the chest clip breaking. Injuries from three reports included minor lacerations and scratches to arms and a finger; and one report involved an infant placing the clip in his mouth.

The recalled Britax Chaperone Infant Car Seats, which were manufactured in China, were sold at mass and independent retailers nationwide and on the Britax website from June 2009 to October 2010 for about $230.

This recall involves Chaperone infant car seats with model numbers E9L95P2 (Red Mill), E9L95P3, E9L95P5 (Cowmooflage), and E9L69N9 (Moonstone) manufactured between April 2009 and May 2010. The white serial label with the seat’s serial number, model number, and manufacture date can be found on the underside of the car seat.

Consumers should immediately contact Britax for a free repair kit, which includes a replacement chest clip. Registered owners have been directly contacted by Britax. Britax can be reached, toll-free, at (888) 427-4829 anytime, or at the firm’s website at www.britax.com.

JAKKS Pacific® Spa Factory™ Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain & Bath Benefits Kits were sold at Sam’s Club, Walmart, Target, and other stores nationwide from August 2008 through August 2010. They sold for between $13 and $50 and continue to be available in some stores.

The recall includes the following:

Spa Factory™ Bath Benefits™ Kit: Item Number 37836 and UPC Bar Code 22876-37836-6
Spa Factory™ Deluxe Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain: Item Number 37908 and UPC Bar Code 22876-37908-0
Spa Factory™ Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain: Item Number 37837 and UPC Bar Code 22876-37837-3
Spa Factory™ Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain: Item Number 54892 and UPC Bar Code 22876-54892-9
Spa Factory™ Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain: Item Number 54857 and UPC Bar Code 22876-54857-8

According to the CPSC, pressure from the buildup of carbon dioxide in the jars of Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies that come with the kits can cause the unvented lids to blow off, posing explosion and projectile hazards. The flying pieces also can cause property damage. Additionally, the mixture of water with the Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies can create citric acid. This acid can get into consumers’ eyes when the jars explode, posing a risk of eye irritation.

When the recall was first announced in January 2009, the CPSC had received 88 reports of exploding jars, including 13 injuries to children. Since that time, CPSC has received 12 additional reports of exploding unvented jars of JAKKS’ Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies, including 13 additional reported injuries. The new injuries include irritated eyes, irritated skin, and one eye injury from projectile jar lids.

Consumers should immediately take the toy’s jars and caps without vent holes away from children, dispose of any jar lids without vent holes, and contact JAKKS Pacific to receive free jar lids with vent holes. JAKKS can be reached, toll-free, at (877) 875-2557 between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday; at the firm’s website at www.myspafactory.com; or by emailing the firm at caps@jakks.net.

The recalled PreserVision® Eye Vitamin AREDS 2 Formula with Omega 3 Soft Gels are only available within the United States. This recall involves lot numbers 0923BK103, 0924BK103, 0924BK103A, 0925BK103A, 0926BK103A, 0927BK103A, 0928BK103A, 0929BK103A, 0930BK103A. The UPC Code is 24208 62584 and the expiration date is 08/31/2011. PreserVision Eye Vitamin AREDS 2 Formula with Omega 3 soft gels are packaged in 60 count bottles. The current dosage for the AREDS 2 formulation is two soft gels per day.

Bausch & Lomb initiated this recall based on some reports predominantly within a specific age group—age 70 and older—who reported difficulty swallowing or who experienced a choking sensation when taking the soft gel.

The voluntary recall is limited only to the United States and does not affect locations in Europe, the Middle East, or in Asia-Pacific regions. The PreserVision Eye Vitamin AREDS 2 Formula with Omega 3 is the only supplement affected in the recall; all other PreserVision and Ocuvite® supplements, soft gels and tablets, remain on the market.

Earlier this month, Bausch & Lomb recalled two separate recalls of ReNu Multi-Purpose Solution and ReNu MultiPlus multi-purpose solution in Europe and the Middle East. The first recall involved a single lot (AA120) of 120ML ReNu MultiPlus multi-purpose solution in Croatia, Dubai, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. According to Bausch & Lomb, it has received a small number of reports about sensitivity issues related to this lot. The company did not specify how many reports had been received.

The second action a limited number of lots of its ReNu Multi-Purpose Solution and ReNu MultiPlus multi-purpose solution in Europe and the Middle East. The company said the products did not “meet quality expectations.”

The Consumer Products Safeyt Commission (CPSC) is investigating a report of a four-month-old girl from Royal Oak, Michigan who died in a Nap Nanny® being used in a crib. According to preliminary reports, the infant was in her harness and found hanging over the side of the product, caught between the Nap Nanny® and the crib bumper.

According to the recall notice, infants can partially fall or hang over the side of the Nap Nanny® even while the harness is in use. This situation can worsen if the Velcro™ straps, located inside the Nap Nanny® cover, are not properly attached to the “D”-rings located on the foam, or if consumers are using the first-generation model Nap Nanny® that was sold without “D”-rings.

In addition, if the Nap Nanny® is placed inside a crib, play yard or other confined area, which is not a recommended use, the infant can fall or hang over of the side of the Nap Nanny® and become entrapped between the crib side and the Nap Nanny® and suffocate.

Likewise, if the Nap Nanny® is placed on a table, countertop, or other elevated surface and a child falls over the side, it poses a risk of serious head injury. Consumers should always use the Nap Nanny® on the floor away from any other products.

The CPSC and Baby Matters are aware of one other incident in which an infant became entrapped when the Nap Nanny was used in a crib, contrary to the product instructions. In that incident, the infant fell over the side of the Nap Nanny®, despite being harnessed in, and was caught between the baby recliner and the side of the crib. The infant sustained a cut to the forehead.

CPSC and the firm have received 22 reports of infants, primarily younger than five-months-old, hanging or falling out over the side of the Nap Nanny® despite most of the infants being placed in the harness. One infant received a bruise as a result of hanging over the side of the product.

The recall involves 30,000 Nap Nanny® portable baby recliners. The first-generation model of the Nap Nanny® can be identified by the absence of “D”-rings in the foam base. In second-generation models, the harness system has “D”-rings in the foam base and Velcro™ straps inside the fitted fabric cover.

The recalled Nap Nannys®, which were manufactured in the United States and China, were sold at toy and children’s retail stores nationwide and online, including at www.napnanny.com, from January 2009 through July 2010 for about $130.

Consumers with a first generation Nap Nanny® models, without “D”-rings, should stop using the recalled baby recliners immediately and contact the firm to receive an $80 coupon towards the purchase of a new Nap Nanny® with free shipping. Consumers with a second generation Nap Nanny® model, with “D”-rings, should immediately stop using the product until they are able to visit the firm’s website to obtain new product instructions and warnings. There, consumers will also view an important instructional video to help ensure the harness is properly fastened.

Consumers unable to view the video or new instructions online, should contact the firm to receive free copies by mail. For more information, contact Baby Matters toll-free at (888) 240-4282 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s website at www.napnanny.com/recall

The newly-revealed grand jury investigation is just the latest headache for Toyota this year. Since last November, Toyota has recalled about 8.5 million vehicles worldwide to resolve the floor-mat interference and sticking pedal problems that may lead to incidents of unintended acceleration. Some vehicles are subject to both recalls. Complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) attribute 93 deaths to sudden acceleration of a Toyota vehicle.

Earlier this year, Toyota agreed to pay a record $16.375 million fine levied by the NHTSA for concealing information related to a January recall of 2.3 million vehicles for sticky accelerator pedals. The company also faces more than 200 lawsuits resulting from the sticky accelerator and floor mat recalls.

According to The New York Times, Toyota had already received two other subpoenas this year, one from a grand jury in February for documents related to sudden acceleration and braking and one from the Michigan attorney general in March for information on recalls.

As we’ve reported previously, the NHTSA is already investigating a 2005 recall which involved defective steering rods. Toyota waited 11 months to issue a US recall, after it had already done so for trucks in Japan. The recall in Japan took place in October 2004; the US recall, involving 977,839 similar vehicles, took place September 2005. In 2004, Toyota told US regulators the problems were limited to vehicles in Japan.

Under US law, carmakers have five days to report safety problems to regulators.

Although it has not yet determined the timing, the NHTSA has reports of three deaths and seven injuries linked to the faulty steering rods on 4Runner SUVs and T100 and Hi Lux compact pickups, which involve 1989 to 1998 models.

It was not clear what defects, models or production years the grand jury was investigating, The Times said.

Since last November, Toyota has recalled about 8.5 million vehicles worldwide to resolve the floor-mat interference and sticking pedal problems that may lead to incidents of unintended acceleration. Some vehicles are subject to both recalls. Complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) attribute 93 deaths to sudden acceleration of a Toyota vehicle.

Earlier this year, Toyota agreed to pay a record $16.375 million fine levied by the NHTSA for concealing information related to a January recall of 2.3 million vehicles for sticky accelerator pedals. The company also faces more than 200 lawsuits resulting from the sticky accelerator and floor mat recalls.

The Wall Street Journal had written that a NHTSA analysis of dozens of data recorders from Toyota vehicles involved in sudden acceleration crashes had revealed that the “throttles were wide open and the brakes weren’t engaged at the time of the crash,” suggesting that the driver was hitting the gas pedal by mistake instead of the brake. The report cited anonymous sources.

ABC News is reporting that both the NHTSA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are refuting the Journal article. A top DOT official told the network that the Journal piece was “completely unsourced and misleading,” and that “no information in that article came from NHTSA.”

“Engineers at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are continuing to investigate the possible causes of sudden acceleration, along with the National Academy of Sciences and NASA,” said DOT spokesperson Olivia Alair told ABC News. “We will follow the facts and inform the public when our investigation comes to an end.”

According to the Web site Just-Auto.com, a spokesperson for NHTSA pointed to Toyota itself as the source of the article, which was published Tuesday.

“That story was planted by Toyota,” the NHTSA spokesperson told just-auto. “Toyota is the source – yes we know that for definite.”

Last week, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducted a hearing into the children’s medicine recall, which led to the revelation of Motrin incident. Documents released by the Committee showed that McNeil hired contractors to buy Motrin IB caplets under orders not to mention the term “recall” after learning in November 2008 that the drugs were not dissolving properly. A memo titled “Motrin Purchase Project” instructed the contractors to “on your schedule to locate and purchase” all of the Motrin eight-count packages. The document further instructed them to “‘act’ like a regular customer in making these purchases.”

Neither the public nor the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) was informed of the action. Once the FDA inadvertently learned of the Motrin project, McNeil recalled 88,000 packages of the drug in July 2009.

Now the House Committee wants to know more about that incident. In a letter dated May 28 and released yesterday, the Committee chair Edolphus Towns, D-NY, asked Johnson & Johnson to provide a “detailed description” about the hiring of outside contractors or employees used to remove products from stores. It also requests all records relating to the 2008 Motrin incident, as well as the names of the contractors used in the Motrin purchase effort.

Johnson & Johnson has been under scrutiny since April, when its McNeil Consumer Healthcare unit recalled more than 40 varieties of Tylenol Infant Drops, Children’s Tylenol Suspensions, Children’s Tylenol Plus Suspensions, Motrin Infant Drops, Children’s Motrin Suspensions, Children’s Zyrtec Liquid in Bottles, and Children’s Benadryl Allergy Liquid.

The recall was the largest involving children’s medicines in the history of the FDA, and involved 70 percent of the market for over-the-counter pediatric liquid medicines.

A memo prepared by Congressional staffers that was released last week revealed that between January 2008 and April 2010, the FDA received 775 reports of adverse events – including 30 deaths – involving the recalled drugs. After the recall, the agency received several hundred more complaints, including seven deaths, the memo said.

The FDA is still investigating some of the adverse event reports to determine if the events were related to a child taking one of the recalled medicines.