The CPSC put out its report today concluding that the 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard may come into force on August 14, 2011 because it is technologically feasible. To quote:
"Based upon this analysis, the staff could not recommend that the Commission make a determination that it is not technologically feasible for a product or product category to meet the 100 ppm lead content limit for children’s products under section 101(d) of the CPSIA."
This applies to EVERY product and EVERY product category.
You are now OFFICIALLY SCREWED and may begin throwing out inventory. Don't expect Congress to help you out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I found this quote interesting. Certianly flies in the face of what the consumer groups would have you believe and back's up some of your blog postings.
"Based on staff’s review of available information and public input during the public hearing and
comment periods, the use of lead for functionality, such as casting, machining or forming of
metal parts, or for other purposes requires lead concentrations much higher than the 300 ppm
lead content limit. Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or
near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). Therefore, staff
does not believe that children’s product manufacturers intentionally design or make products or
components with the maximum allowable lead content because lead concentration near the
maximum limit would have no benefit or purpose to the product or the manufacturer."
Technologically feasible...?! and that's all that matters?!
Well, how about 10ppm, is that technologically feasible?
How about 0ppm, just move to another planet. Is that tecnologically feasible?
oh, properly not yet, but then again, there will always be some other politically correct sick excuses to run this twisted CPSC by some ethically very questionable minds in a ever more real Democratic party way.
Re. Ben's comment, while it may clear a few of us from the dosing charge, the staff's opinion ignores trace amounts of lead that might appear in recylable materials, e.g., that which might be otherwise used to create insulation on electric wiring. It's a pity that we won't be able to use recylable materials anymore.
While the staff essentially concludes that the 100 ppm limit is feasible, there are some interesting points to make. First, they cannot quantify the costs of that compliance but recognize there will likely be costs. Second, they essentially admit there are no benefits to the 100 ppm limit. In addressing the American Academy of Pediatrics' comments (Tab C, page 38), the staff admits: "In fact, the staff does not have data showing that children's products containing up to 300 ppm will result in excess exposures to lead." Even in the briefing package (p.9) staff admits this fact: "while staff does not have data on potential lead exposure from products that have lead content less than 300 ppm, but more than 100 ppm, staff expects that the overall contribution of such products to lead exposure in children is minimal." (So much for Henry Waxman's suggestion that delaying this provision and subjecting it to analysis creates an "unsafe toy act.")
In sum, there are significant costs and no discernible benefits, but under the CPSIA factors, the staff and CPSC can't say 100 ppm is not technically feasible.
Rick,
Can you give us your opinion on the potential for them to decide to make the 100 ppm limit prospective instead of retroactive?
Claire, House Republicans are working hard on a CPSIA Amendment. Right now, the Dems have it (effectively) blocked, but the Republicans are still working to find a solution. I believe the 100 ppm provision will be clarified legislatively to confirm its prospective application. With the report by CPSC Staff confirming the non-existent health issues presented by 100 ppm (or 300 ppm) lead content, and with the acknowledgement by the FIVE CPSC Commissioners that the 100 ppm standard should be prospective, there is no reason for anyone in Congress to oppose this provision. Industry groups are also pushing this issue HARD.
That said, there is also no reason to presume that Congress will behave rationally or responsibly. Why should the CPSIA be any differen than national debt?! Still, this is an easy one - even a dysfunctional Congress oulgght to be able to get this done.
Cross your fingers . . . or write your Congressman.
So a zipper manufacturer, presumably testing real world product, runs an interlaboratory test that raises a red flag; and they discard that result by saying that they found unenumerated deficiencies in that test. Further, they make the statement that NIST standard references do not show this problem.
It sounds like it would be prudent for the government to replicate this interlaboratory test on real world articles before discarding that red flag.
Post a Comment