The way I see it is that the act does in fact provide an onus on ensuring that a product is not hazardous to the health of consumers. So imports would be covered by virtue of the fact that the retailer of that product could be liable—and liable for a huge fine if they sold a hazardous product. That then puts the onus on them to ensure the product is safe. So we would hope that results in testing when there is any concern at all, and it would be a cost that is borne by the supply chain, rather than the public through government testing.
On June 2nd, 2009. See this statement in context.