We saw a display of Mr. Obama's team in action this past week as McDonald's was cornered into a national recall of a safe product. How did it happen? Did our government rise to the occasion, or simply resume its descent into the abyss?
"
Americans want to be safe. And they expect their federal government to protect them. So that is what I'm here to do." Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, NPR Report “
Under Obama, Agencies Step Up Rule-Making”
Posts
10 comments:
It is difficult enought to follow the current laws, how in the world are we to follow conceptual laws? Who's conception should we use? Which agency position are we to manage by?
I have asked my six legislative representatives (two business locations) to explain the legal basis for the CPSC position in this one. Every business person following this blog should be doing the same, right now. I know I cannot manage to imaginary laws, I doubt that any of you can either.
Very well said Micheal.
As someone who is supposed to guide her company along the road of reduced liability, I am terrifed of this turn of events. You are right, when worry and emotion override law and logic, there is no way to be proactive. It is very difficult to make recommendations to our supply chain when I cannot anticipate what the next "toxin du jour" will be.
Rick, a thought that occured to me.
Any idea what age children normally begin to use glasses instead of plastic cups? I would think it's after the age they would be mouthing the outside of the glass.
One other comment. This looks like it's only the beginning of a new wave of the precautionary safety push. I'm starting to see a big push from bloggers supporting the Safe Chemicals Act and the one I read last night on Huffington Post had this gem.
""Reducing exposure to unnecessary synthetic chemicals is practical precaution -- the new, responsible lifestyle in an age of chemical ubiquity. And, just as our increasing understanding of chemical risks compels us to take precautions as parents, this knowledge should also be applied to our government regulations. Smart policy uses forethought because, as the old adage goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The environmental, economic, and health crises we continue to face only serve to reinforce that fact we need to place more emphasis on prevention. I'm hoping that the recently introduced Safe Chemicals Act can be one piece in an array of new policies that will start infusing the wisdom of forethought into government regulation. Not because we are worried, but because we are responsible."
So remember they aren't worried they are just being responsible. Then you click the link to his website and you are greated with a nice fear mongering video about the dangers lurking in your home and yard.
Ben, first of all, this product is SAFE. The CPSC acknowledges this in writing, although you are apparently supposed to ignore their quotes in the press. Wink-wink, nudge, nudge. Soooo, if it's safe, it doesn't need regulation. Sorry, Barack, but life isn't better with more regulation. We are living your dream.
Anyhow, I think we should figure out when cadmium is bad and when it isn't. In my view, since we are a living cadmium experiment and have been for many decades, the absence of identifiable victims (besides lab rats) is telling. I am referring to the ABSOLUTE ABSENCE OF VICTIMS. This "crisis" is the fault of one AP reporter, the product of his junk science, vivid imagination. I cannot identify the problem.
As for your other point, you are spot on. The next battle (perhaps the underlying problem in the CPSIA, actually) is Henry Waxman's dream of "reforming" the Toxic Substances Control Act. He wants to change it into a REACH-style law, where Mother Government takes responsibility for making sure we are always safe.
There was once a time when European-style legislation used to elicit snorts in this country. Now, the very fact that the Europeans have written self-destructive legislation that is damaging their economy has become a JUSTIFICATION for copying them. They are our "beacons".
Lemmings do this, too.
Just to clarify I'm not disagreeing that the glasses are safe. I have one in my house.
My thought was based on the news video in your post. The reporter interviewed several mothers of very young children asking if their kids would mouth the outside of the glass. I was trying to pinpoint whether kids young enough to mouth objects would be given breakable glasses.
Ben, frankly, I hate to go in that direction, despite your irrefutable logic. The basic paranoia here derives from a fear of cadmium atoms. Parents fear not only licking but simply touching. Cadmium "contamination", in the form of 10 or 20 cadmium atoms that might come off on kids hands. This is the source of the spasms of fear. You can't argue logically with irrational fears - these folks revel in their general fear of the unknown.
This is the new field of "junk science", Ph.D.s in this field are able to determine that these cadmium atoms are deadly because cadmium "causes" bone softening and other horrific maladies. In the field of junk science, it doesn't matter that none of us have ever encountered "bone softening" - it only matters that it sounds really scary. Practitioners of junk science are also able to utterly ignore ALL other sources of cadmium in our lives, as though elimination of the Shrek glasses takes care of the "problem". Life is simple for junk scientists.
Of course, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't thank our Heavenly Father that we are being prorected by Inez Tenenbaum and the CPSC. I feel so safe . . . .
Am I the only one missing the irony that for the "long term health of our children" we just might want to consider recalling the FOOD at McDonalds? Just a thought...
I find that the frenzy over the imagined threats just don't match up with the reality of how healthy US kids are compared to kids in the developing world (where they might share cups with the whole family and are still hoping for reliable clean water) or even with a couple generations in the past.
Each of my parents had a sibling who died in childhood. Go back another generation and you were often losing several family members or whole families to epidemics like cholera.
Having lost the perspective of what real dangers to life and health exist in the world, we seem to be expending the same energy that developed polio vaccines into "protecting our children" against threats that are relatively low risk, if not unsubstantiated and largely imaginary.
McDonald's will probably bounce from this (although I almost hope that CPSC does it again often enough to get the McDonald's legal smack down team focused their direction). But I'm glad that the food and clothing that my kids wear isn't dependant on income from the unfairly targeted glass company. I shudder to think of how many orders they're having cancelled.
According to a managing chemist at the leading European test house, the issue of cadmium on glasses is not exposure during use but exposure during recycling, during which process the cadmium is heated and a chemical reaction is created which produces dioxin, possibly the most toxic substance known to man. Of course this begs the question of whether ALL glasses should be checked for cadmium. Furthermore, the chemist does not understand why this is an issue at all for us as the EU dealt with this problem a long time ago with understandable and easy to follow regulation.
Post a Comment