Showing posts with label Jewelry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jewelry. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
CPSIA - ECADA Manager's Amendment
Here is the Manager's amendment to the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA). [Essentially changes offered by Mary Bono Mack.] The changes apparently include changes in lead in jewelry (age limits), removal of testing requirement for inaccessible components for phthalates, removing toys from outdoor recreational products and adding "class of products" to functional purpose exclusion process.
Monday, April 4, 2011
CPSIA - Analysis of Pending House CPSIA Amendment (Sections 1 and 2)
[This is a long essay - I apologize. The subject is important.]
In anticipation of this week's hearing on the pending House CPSIA Amendment, I wanted to share my thoughts on the present draft.
But first, a little perspective:
The debate over the CPSIA amendment has propitious timing. Fate has provided us with a new vantage point on lead mania. In a sad parody of the junk science underlying the CPSIA, the EPA this week assured Americans that it's safe to feed mildly radioactive milk laced with bits of nuclear meltdown to infants. What?! In a March 30 press release (available on the EPA website), the EPA instructs us to keep it all in perspective:
"Results from a screening sample taken March 25 from Spokane, Wash. detected 0.8 pCi/L of iodine-131, which is more than 5,000 times lower than the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly. 'Radiation is all around us in our daily lives, and these findings are a minuscule amount compared to what people experience every day. For example, a person would be exposed to low levels of radiation on a round trip cross country flight, watching television, and even from construction materials,' said Patricia Hansen, an FDA senior scientist." [Emphasis added]
The CPSIA, on the other hand, is built around the idea that there is "no safe level for lead". The CPSC has uniformly rejected exemption requests on the grounds that there is no proof that the products won't emit ANY lead - meaning one atom. The CPSC staff has already acknowledged that there are no materials on Earth that can be relied upon to not emit a single atom of lead. I would call that "limited" options. Then again, perhaps space exploration will save us from this law . . . .
So the EPA blesses feeding milk infused with Japanese nuclear material to babies, but even a single atom of lead is intolerable to Congress and the CPSC.
Call me crazy, but they BOTH can't be right. And it's obvious who knows what they're doing in this case - it's the EPA.
It's time to drop the rhetoric and rebuild the CPSIA to provide appropriate protection WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED and strip everything else away. Period. The Emperor has no clothes.
Section 1 Definition of Children's Product: This open-ended section attempts to lay the groundwork for trimming the coverage of the CPSIA. Notice that the age limits are blank. This probably reflects internal divisions among the Republicans on how to set age limits or how to position this law for passage in the Senate and then into law.
Notably, an age limit of seven years of age passed the Senate back in 2008. That seems to be the default age that may get penciled in, simply because some people believe it may be easier to get that age limit through the Senate. I believe this is an untested hypothesis, unfortunately. The consumer groups are going to scream no matter what - they hate most of this amendment, and will make it tough on the lefties in the House and particularly in the Senate to support any rational trimming of these limits. Even seven years of age may find more than token resistance in the Senate. Of course, that does not mean we shouldn't push for the right age limits.
Were it up to me alone, I would probably pick a range defined as products SUITABLE FOR children five years of age or younger. Five years of age pretty much defines the outside limit of age inappropriate behavioral risks for normal children. Injury statistics and human factors analysis do not identify substantial risks above this age. [It provides a safe "margin of error", if one is actually needed.] I think the definition must eliminate the concept of manufacturer's "intent" because the state of mind of the maker has nothing to do with safety. The intrinsic attributes of the product are what defines risk. In addition, the fact that we must GUESS as to the state of mind of the manufacturer makes it an unworkable standard. An objective standard based on traditional notions of human factor analysis would work best.
Even more fundamentally, I question whether it is really the job of Congress to set these age limits. As we know, Congress has already made a big mess as the self-appointed substitute for the CPSC. Age limits for safety standards should be based on scientific inquiry, human factors analysis, risk assessment, and so on. It is presumptuous for anyone to conclude that Congress can do it better than the Ph.D.s at the CPSC. Of course, in this politicized environment, in which trust in the agency has been bruised beyond recognition, I am somewhat sympathetic to Republicans who feel more secure setting the rules in concrete. If, however, we want to get out of CPSIA hell, we need to restore order in the safety universe. The CPSC should be given responsibility for making these determinations on a MANDATED RISK ASSESSMENT BASIS.
I hate to go down the path of one sizes fits all age limits, myself. Is there ANY reason to set age ranges that apply equally to toys, books, t-shirts, dirt bikes and ATVs, CDs and DVDs and educational products? Of course not. Who should make this determination? The agency with the experience and the professional staff trained to make these judgments - the CPSC.
PLEASE NOTE - this is a critical part of this amendment. This section defines who is subject to this awful law and who is not. Don't misunderstand which provisions are driving this ship - this provisions controls your legal liability, your exposure to regulatory oversight, penalties, enforcement, government intrustion generally. Testing relief in this amendment MUST BE seen in the context of the limitations here.
With that thought in mind, I would remind my readers of the scarcity of evidence of lead injuries from children's products and of lead-in-substrate victims in general. I believe the entire basis of this law is a scam (or at a minimum, a hideous misunderstanding of the data) and CHALLENGE the zealots to PROVE a need for the suffocating regulation of lead-in-substrate in these products in these industries. If lead victims cannot be identified and their lead injuries explained, then there is no demonstrated need for the legislative hammer - no one will benefit (no one will be safer because they weren't in danger in the first place). The consumer groups and left wingers have had three years to trot out the victims. There are NONE. Shame on them for spreading fear. I say put up . . . or shut up.
Section 2 Application of Lead Limit:
Subsection (a) is a classic "kick the can down the road" compromise in which the 100 ppm lead standard will be implemented by the CPSC in four years, not three, pushing the prospective date of implementation out to August 2012. Not good enough, guys! The structure of this part of the law, requiring that the CPSC implement the new standard or a standard between 100 ppm and 300 ppm based on "technological feasibility" is a direct INSTRUCTION by Congress to the CPSC to reduce the standard. The CPSC arguably has no choice in the matter. [Now you know who to blame.]
You can see this issue discussed in gory detail in this snippet from my testimony on the 100 ppm in front of the CPSC Commission on February 16th. Commissioner Bob Adler asks me if I want him to BREAK THE LAW by not implementing the new standard. BREAK THE LAW, BOB!
This is no way to regulate, no way to govern a country! ALL references to the 100 ppm standard should be DROPPED from the law. As noted above, and in countless blogposts here, there are no identified lead victims from children's products - so how is lowering the lead standard at enormous cost and economic risk of benefit to ANYONE? The 112th Congress can do better than repeat the errors of the 110th Congress.
Should there be a need for a lower standard based on real risk, the agency has sufficient regulatory authority under the CPSA and FHSA to lower standards to protect children in a rulemaking process. Congress does not need to meddle further in this area.
Subsection (b) introduces a new and uncorrelated "standard" for risk under the CPSA: "presents an unreasonable risk to children’s health". This is bad draftsmanship. There is a standard already in use in the CPSA and the FHSA, namely "substantial product hazard". The amendment should MANDATE that this term ALONE should be the standard for all action by the agency.
Subsection (c) makes the application of the lead standards prospective. [In Section 6, the amendment makes the same change for phthalates.] This is mainly intended to head off market disruption and distrust over the new 100 ppm standard. Of course, in my formulation, this is unnecessary if the 100 ppm standard goes away. I would point out that the entire idea of this kind of downward ratcheting of standards implies that what was safe yesterday is no longer safe today, which is crazy.
Subsection (d) relates to a revised exemption process. The "any lead" standard would go away, in faver of some limited exceptions. Ironically, this provision expands the application of the small parts rules to products for older children like youth model ATVs. This seems like a big error to me (and a bad structure for the law). If it's foreseeable that a cap on an ATV spark plug could come off and go through a small parts cylinder, it loses its eligibility for the exception. Hmmm. This may require some further thought . . . .
There would no longer be an exemption process under the CPSIA. So if you are in, you are "in" and can't get out no matter what. The drafters seem to have settled on small parts as the way lead poisoning is "transmitted" or may be transmitted. I am not sure how this was determined, since there are no victim case histories to examine. The presumption is that mouthing is how poisoning occurs, but then again, how many poisoning victims (from children's productrs, not from lead-in-paint) can be found? Zero? If we have never seen a victim, how can we be so sure there is ANY mechanism for this dreaded outcome? Is chewing on ATVs, dirt bikes, the ink end of a pen, rocks, and so on, really such a big health risk that we must fight for years over it?
Hmmm.
The subsection also artciulates a new (presumably relaxed) standard for steel, copper and aluminum alloys. The new standard is still blank. I sure hope the definition of "steel, copper, and aluminum alloys" is crystal clear and I likewise hope that this covers the waterfront for metal used in all current products and future materials used in similar circumstances. I guess we'll find out in time . . . . It appears to me to be simply a better formulation of the originally defective legislative concept. But still defective. Remember, no victims . . . .
The drafters have introduced doubt about what's in and what's out. Is a grommet in or out? Says the new provision: you lose the exemption if "after any necessary assembly of the product and after the product has been subjected to reasonably foreseeable conditions of use and abuse, the part or any portion of the part becomes detached from the product and such part or portion of the part fits entirely within such cylinder." How are you supposed to figure this out with confidence? Your guess is as good as mine. This kind of rule does NOT work in the real world. Sorry. . . .
By the way, this provision seems to snag items incorporating metal balls. While you may or may not like those products, this provision probably will give them no relief whatsoever.
I am even more hostile to their so-called "de minimus" exception. "De minimus" ingestion of lead is okay under this rule (whatever that is - can't wait for the three year fight over "Congressional intent") BUT only if it does not fit into a small parts cylinder (same as the metals formulation). This is patently ridiculous and will give no relief to anyone. Why are the Republicans playing games here? There is no safe level for over-compromised legislation . . . .
This is the mechanism that the House is providing to "save" rhinestones, btw. To get rhinestones into the market, you will need a methodology to calculate the amount of lead a rhinestone emits and document it. You are a "merchant of death", so you must keep records of how much of this "lethal" substance you subject children to. Excessive regulation, perhaps??? As I have said, compromise is not always the way to build good legislation. The Republicans need to steel themselves to fix this law once and for all.
The concept of the "de minimus" exception may be off-base. It is worth noting that blood lead levels are CONCENTRATIONS (mass divided by volume). In other words, different levels of lead ingestion will be required for a baby and a big child to develop the same blood lead levels. The persistence of high blood lead levels also has a big impact on the likelihood of injury, so wouldn't daily lead ingestion rates be a better measure of the likelihood injury? The "de minimus" standard seems to miss the point entirely. I get the impression that this amendment was drafted entirely in the context of the (defective) CPSIA and thus carries froward some of its basic flaws and misconceptions. Square pegs are not good fits for round holes. It may not be possible to "fix" the CPSIA by layering more and more rules on top of the underlying law. Some things may be best left unregulated with a reliance on the substantial product hazard standard.
Perhaps John Dingell was onto something with the original conception of the CPSA in 1972.
Needless to say, this hyper-technical "de minimus" provision will not work for small business. None of us know how to make a "de minimus" assessment and besides, the requirement to document our methods is just an invitation for tort lawsuits. If we will be made to create evidence to be used against us, I would rather be in another business. The crafters, the small toy merchants, the t-shirt vendors, the book printers, will also howl over the need to engage in silly and pointless technical evaluations of nonexistent risks by calculating the amount of lead ingested from use of their products. This is just waste, waste, waste. Again, we should not compromise ourselves to hell in this amendment. If Congress is going to try fix the damn thing, then fix it right.
As noted above, the substantial product hazard /standard is sufficient to empower the CPSC to do everything it needs to do. The legislative structure is in place and tested over decades. Why not tell the CPSC to do its job, and stop telling us how to run our businesses?
Finally, subsection (d)(2) entirely excludes used products from the CPSIA other than children's metal jewelry and products actually known by the sellers to violate the lead standards. This relief is long overdue - I appreciate that the committee is prepared to do the right thing for this group of CPSIA victims.
Of course, this may beg the question. If Congress is able to dispense mercy on used products, what about all the other absurd victms like bicycles, rhinestones, ATVs and dirt bikes, books, rhinestones, pens, educational products, CDs and DVDs and so on? Why stop at used products? Why even START at used products? Of course, they deserve help but do they deserve it anymore than the rest of us? They are senseless victims of this law, of course - but stand in line! So why not keep the carving knife out and free some more corporate "unintended" victims? I think the problem here is political, not policy.
Ugh.
In anticipation of this week's hearing on the pending House CPSIA Amendment, I wanted to share my thoughts on the present draft.
But first, a little perspective:
The debate over the CPSIA amendment has propitious timing. Fate has provided us with a new vantage point on lead mania. In a sad parody of the junk science underlying the CPSIA, the EPA this week assured Americans that it's safe to feed mildly radioactive milk laced with bits of nuclear meltdown to infants. What?! In a March 30 press release (available on the EPA website), the EPA instructs us to keep it all in perspective:
"Results from a screening sample taken March 25 from Spokane, Wash. detected 0.8 pCi/L of iodine-131, which is more than 5,000 times lower than the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly. 'Radiation is all around us in our daily lives, and these findings are a minuscule amount compared to what people experience every day. For example, a person would be exposed to low levels of radiation on a round trip cross country flight, watching television, and even from construction materials,' said Patricia Hansen, an FDA senior scientist." [Emphasis added]
The CPSIA, on the other hand, is built around the idea that there is "no safe level for lead". The CPSC has uniformly rejected exemption requests on the grounds that there is no proof that the products won't emit ANY lead - meaning one atom. The CPSC staff has already acknowledged that there are no materials on Earth that can be relied upon to not emit a single atom of lead. I would call that "limited" options. Then again, perhaps space exploration will save us from this law . . . .
So the EPA blesses feeding milk infused with Japanese nuclear material to babies, but even a single atom of lead is intolerable to Congress and the CPSC.
Call me crazy, but they BOTH can't be right. And it's obvious who knows what they're doing in this case - it's the EPA.
It's time to drop the rhetoric and rebuild the CPSIA to provide appropriate protection WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED and strip everything else away. Period. The Emperor has no clothes.
Section 1 Definition of Children's Product: This open-ended section attempts to lay the groundwork for trimming the coverage of the CPSIA. Notice that the age limits are blank. This probably reflects internal divisions among the Republicans on how to set age limits or how to position this law for passage in the Senate and then into law.
Notably, an age limit of seven years of age passed the Senate back in 2008. That seems to be the default age that may get penciled in, simply because some people believe it may be easier to get that age limit through the Senate. I believe this is an untested hypothesis, unfortunately. The consumer groups are going to scream no matter what - they hate most of this amendment, and will make it tough on the lefties in the House and particularly in the Senate to support any rational trimming of these limits. Even seven years of age may find more than token resistance in the Senate. Of course, that does not mean we shouldn't push for the right age limits.
Were it up to me alone, I would probably pick a range defined as products SUITABLE FOR children five years of age or younger. Five years of age pretty much defines the outside limit of age inappropriate behavioral risks for normal children. Injury statistics and human factors analysis do not identify substantial risks above this age. [It provides a safe "margin of error", if one is actually needed.] I think the definition must eliminate the concept of manufacturer's "intent" because the state of mind of the maker has nothing to do with safety. The intrinsic attributes of the product are what defines risk. In addition, the fact that we must GUESS as to the state of mind of the manufacturer makes it an unworkable standard. An objective standard based on traditional notions of human factor analysis would work best.
Even more fundamentally, I question whether it is really the job of Congress to set these age limits. As we know, Congress has already made a big mess as the self-appointed substitute for the CPSC. Age limits for safety standards should be based on scientific inquiry, human factors analysis, risk assessment, and so on. It is presumptuous for anyone to conclude that Congress can do it better than the Ph.D.s at the CPSC. Of course, in this politicized environment, in which trust in the agency has been bruised beyond recognition, I am somewhat sympathetic to Republicans who feel more secure setting the rules in concrete. If, however, we want to get out of CPSIA hell, we need to restore order in the safety universe. The CPSC should be given responsibility for making these determinations on a MANDATED RISK ASSESSMENT BASIS.
I hate to go down the path of one sizes fits all age limits, myself. Is there ANY reason to set age ranges that apply equally to toys, books, t-shirts, dirt bikes and ATVs, CDs and DVDs and educational products? Of course not. Who should make this determination? The agency with the experience and the professional staff trained to make these judgments - the CPSC.
PLEASE NOTE - this is a critical part of this amendment. This section defines who is subject to this awful law and who is not. Don't misunderstand which provisions are driving this ship - this provisions controls your legal liability, your exposure to regulatory oversight, penalties, enforcement, government intrustion generally. Testing relief in this amendment MUST BE seen in the context of the limitations here.
With that thought in mind, I would remind my readers of the scarcity of evidence of lead injuries from children's products and of lead-in-substrate victims in general. I believe the entire basis of this law is a scam (or at a minimum, a hideous misunderstanding of the data) and CHALLENGE the zealots to PROVE a need for the suffocating regulation of lead-in-substrate in these products in these industries. If lead victims cannot be identified and their lead injuries explained, then there is no demonstrated need for the legislative hammer - no one will benefit (no one will be safer because they weren't in danger in the first place). The consumer groups and left wingers have had three years to trot out the victims. There are NONE. Shame on them for spreading fear. I say put up . . . or shut up.
Section 2 Application of Lead Limit:
Subsection (a) is a classic "kick the can down the road" compromise in which the 100 ppm lead standard will be implemented by the CPSC in four years, not three, pushing the prospective date of implementation out to August 2012. Not good enough, guys! The structure of this part of the law, requiring that the CPSC implement the new standard or a standard between 100 ppm and 300 ppm based on "technological feasibility" is a direct INSTRUCTION by Congress to the CPSC to reduce the standard. The CPSC arguably has no choice in the matter. [Now you know who to blame.]
You can see this issue discussed in gory detail in this snippet from my testimony on the 100 ppm in front of the CPSC Commission on February 16th. Commissioner Bob Adler asks me if I want him to BREAK THE LAW by not implementing the new standard. BREAK THE LAW, BOB!
This is no way to regulate, no way to govern a country! ALL references to the 100 ppm standard should be DROPPED from the law. As noted above, and in countless blogposts here, there are no identified lead victims from children's products - so how is lowering the lead standard at enormous cost and economic risk of benefit to ANYONE? The 112th Congress can do better than repeat the errors of the 110th Congress.
Should there be a need for a lower standard based on real risk, the agency has sufficient regulatory authority under the CPSA and FHSA to lower standards to protect children in a rulemaking process. Congress does not need to meddle further in this area.
Subsection (b) introduces a new and uncorrelated "standard" for risk under the CPSA: "presents an unreasonable risk to children’s health". This is bad draftsmanship. There is a standard already in use in the CPSA and the FHSA, namely "substantial product hazard". The amendment should MANDATE that this term ALONE should be the standard for all action by the agency.
Subsection (c) makes the application of the lead standards prospective. [In Section 6, the amendment makes the same change for phthalates.] This is mainly intended to head off market disruption and distrust over the new 100 ppm standard. Of course, in my formulation, this is unnecessary if the 100 ppm standard goes away. I would point out that the entire idea of this kind of downward ratcheting of standards implies that what was safe yesterday is no longer safe today, which is crazy.
Subsection (d) relates to a revised exemption process. The "any lead" standard would go away, in faver of some limited exceptions. Ironically, this provision expands the application of the small parts rules to products for older children like youth model ATVs. This seems like a big error to me (and a bad structure for the law). If it's foreseeable that a cap on an ATV spark plug could come off and go through a small parts cylinder, it loses its eligibility for the exception. Hmmm. This may require some further thought . . . .
There would no longer be an exemption process under the CPSIA. So if you are in, you are "in" and can't get out no matter what. The drafters seem to have settled on small parts as the way lead poisoning is "transmitted" or may be transmitted. I am not sure how this was determined, since there are no victim case histories to examine. The presumption is that mouthing is how poisoning occurs, but then again, how many poisoning victims (from children's productrs, not from lead-in-paint) can be found? Zero? If we have never seen a victim, how can we be so sure there is ANY mechanism for this dreaded outcome? Is chewing on ATVs, dirt bikes, the ink end of a pen, rocks, and so on, really such a big health risk that we must fight for years over it?
Hmmm.
The subsection also artciulates a new (presumably relaxed) standard for steel, copper and aluminum alloys. The new standard is still blank. I sure hope the definition of "steel, copper, and aluminum alloys" is crystal clear and I likewise hope that this covers the waterfront for metal used in all current products and future materials used in similar circumstances. I guess we'll find out in time . . . . It appears to me to be simply a better formulation of the originally defective legislative concept. But still defective. Remember, no victims . . . .
The drafters have introduced doubt about what's in and what's out. Is a grommet in or out? Says the new provision: you lose the exemption if "after any necessary assembly of the product and after the product has been subjected to reasonably foreseeable conditions of use and abuse, the part or any portion of the part becomes detached from the product and such part or portion of the part fits entirely within such cylinder." How are you supposed to figure this out with confidence? Your guess is as good as mine. This kind of rule does NOT work in the real world. Sorry. . . .
By the way, this provision seems to snag items incorporating metal balls. While you may or may not like those products, this provision probably will give them no relief whatsoever.
I am even more hostile to their so-called "de minimus" exception. "De minimus" ingestion of lead is okay under this rule (whatever that is - can't wait for the three year fight over "Congressional intent") BUT only if it does not fit into a small parts cylinder (same as the metals formulation). This is patently ridiculous and will give no relief to anyone. Why are the Republicans playing games here? There is no safe level for over-compromised legislation . . . .
This is the mechanism that the House is providing to "save" rhinestones, btw. To get rhinestones into the market, you will need a methodology to calculate the amount of lead a rhinestone emits and document it. You are a "merchant of death", so you must keep records of how much of this "lethal" substance you subject children to. Excessive regulation, perhaps??? As I have said, compromise is not always the way to build good legislation. The Republicans need to steel themselves to fix this law once and for all.
The concept of the "de minimus" exception may be off-base. It is worth noting that blood lead levels are CONCENTRATIONS (mass divided by volume). In other words, different levels of lead ingestion will be required for a baby and a big child to develop the same blood lead levels. The persistence of high blood lead levels also has a big impact on the likelihood of injury, so wouldn't daily lead ingestion rates be a better measure of the likelihood injury? The "de minimus" standard seems to miss the point entirely. I get the impression that this amendment was drafted entirely in the context of the (defective) CPSIA and thus carries froward some of its basic flaws and misconceptions. Square pegs are not good fits for round holes. It may not be possible to "fix" the CPSIA by layering more and more rules on top of the underlying law. Some things may be best left unregulated with a reliance on the substantial product hazard standard.
Perhaps John Dingell was onto something with the original conception of the CPSA in 1972.
Needless to say, this hyper-technical "de minimus" provision will not work for small business. None of us know how to make a "de minimus" assessment and besides, the requirement to document our methods is just an invitation for tort lawsuits. If we will be made to create evidence to be used against us, I would rather be in another business. The crafters, the small toy merchants, the t-shirt vendors, the book printers, will also howl over the need to engage in silly and pointless technical evaluations of nonexistent risks by calculating the amount of lead ingested from use of their products. This is just waste, waste, waste. Again, we should not compromise ourselves to hell in this amendment. If Congress is going to try fix the damn thing, then fix it right.
As noted above, the substantial product hazard /standard is sufficient to empower the CPSC to do everything it needs to do. The legislative structure is in place and tested over decades. Why not tell the CPSC to do its job, and stop telling us how to run our businesses?
Finally, subsection (d)(2) entirely excludes used products from the CPSIA other than children's metal jewelry and products actually known by the sellers to violate the lead standards. This relief is long overdue - I appreciate that the committee is prepared to do the right thing for this group of CPSIA victims.
Of course, this may beg the question. If Congress is able to dispense mercy on used products, what about all the other absurd victms like bicycles, rhinestones, ATVs and dirt bikes, books, rhinestones, pens, educational products, CDs and DVDs and so on? Why stop at used products? Why even START at used products? Of course, they deserve help but do they deserve it anymore than the rest of us? They are senseless victims of this law, of course - but stand in line! So why not keep the carving knife out and free some more corporate "unintended" victims? I think the problem here is political, not policy.
Ugh.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
CPSIA - The Senate Wants to Save ATVs . . . What about the Rest of Us???
Yesterday Senators Klobuchar and Tester offered an amendment to S. 493, a moving bill to reauthorize the small business administration ("SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011"). This amendment is intended to exempt ATVs, dirt bikes, motocross and snowmobiles ("All-terrain vehicles") from the lead restrictions of the CPSIA. To my knowledge, this amendment has not been voted on yet. The text of their amendment reads as follows:
SA 259. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. TESTER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 116, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 504. EXEMPTION OF OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES FROM BAN ON LEAD IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.
(a) Exemption.--Section 101(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
(5) EXCEPTION FOR OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an off-highway vehicle.
(B) OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE DEFINED.--For purposes of this section, the term `off-highway vehicle'-- (i) means any motorized vehicle--(I) that is manufactured primarily for use off of public streets, roads, and highways; (II) designed to travel on 2 or 4 wheels; and (III) having either -- (aa) a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering control; or (bb) a nonstraddle seat, steering wheel, seat belts, and roll-over protective structure; and (ii) includes a snowmobile.
(b) Additional Amendment.--Such section is further amended in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``any''.
This is pretty stunning, really. Did you notice that they are "fixing" the CPSIA by making two changes (one surmises that they think these are the only needed fixes), exempting All-terrain Vehicles from the law, and ALSO knocking out the word "any" from the lead exemption process. If their amendment were to become law, the CPSIA Section 101(b)(1)(A) lead exemption would read as follows:
"The Commission may, by regulation, exclude a specific product or material from the prohibition in subsection (a) if the Commission, after notice and a hearing, determines on the basis of the best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that lead in such product or material will neither— (A) result in the absorption ofany lead into the human body, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product by a child, including swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children’s activities, and the aging of the product . . . ."
I must be stupid, but in this context, I don't think anything is achieved by deleting "any" (assuming "plain English" is the language of choice for legislative interpretation). The word "any" is implied in "the absorption of lead into the human body", at least I think it is. This is the kind of legislative change I am used to from the Dems in the last three years, a change that brings no relief whatsoever. After all, they are plainly deaf.
Perhaps more interesting is why they chose to make these changes now. I have long asserted that ATVs have no business being regulated under the CPSIA. Klobuchar was a prime mover for the CPSIA but apparently found out later that her state of Minnesota is deeply affected by this awful law because of the ATV ban. Oops! Minnesota is home to several large manufacturers of these products. Jobs, jobs, jobs are the key nowadays, especially if you are running for reelection. Oh no, did I say that? How cynical of me! Tester is also running for reelection - last time, he won by by 3,662 votes.
There must be some reason why Klobuchar and Tester think legislation relieving these industries from the burden of regulation. Since I know the Senators are ALL ABOUT safety, I can only conclude that they figured out that these products are already safe. Aha. I wonder how they made this determination. Perhaps they took note of the fact that lead in these products has never injured any children EVER. That fact suggests that it is wasteful to regulate the presence of lead in these products - it would not make anyone safer. Even if there were one or two injuries, wouldn't the argument be the same? After all, we are a country of 300 million, with 50 million-plus kids in the age range enveloped by the CPSIA. A tiny handful of injuries over a decade of use by perhaps 75-80 million children passing through the age range would hardly justify the billions in expense and disruption caused by the CPSIA. Good thinking, Senators!
Have I ever mentioned that the CPSC cites one death and three unverified injuries from lead over an 11-year period from 1999-2010? Hmmm.
If THAT'S the standard now, then I think Senators Klobuchar and Tester should expand their amendment to exempt ALL other products classes and components that have the same safety profile. Rhinestones? T-shirts and shoes? Educational products? Rocks and fossils? Books? Pens? Musical instruments? CDs and DVDs? Steel and other metal parts?
Isn't this proposed amendment just what we have always wanted - a concession by zealot Democrats that the law makes no sense and needs to be sharply revised? If they are rational legislators (that's a big "if"), let them tell us WHY it makes sense to NOT regulate All-terrain Vehicles and STILL regulate everything else for lead in children's products.
Senators Klobuchar and Tester, you owe us an explanation! This regulatory torture has gone on for three years, not in small part because of your unwillingness to do the right thing. Now that you are sufficiently motivated to propose giving a pass to certain favored products and industries, you must tell the Electorate why this is GOOD LAW and why the rest of us deserve to stay in Purgatory.
'Fess up - we've had enough!
SA 259. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. TESTER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 116, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 504. EXEMPTION OF OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES FROM BAN ON LEAD IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.
(a) Exemption.--Section 101(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
(5) EXCEPTION FOR OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an off-highway vehicle.
(B) OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE DEFINED.--For purposes of this section, the term `off-highway vehicle'-- (i) means any motorized vehicle--(I) that is manufactured primarily for use off of public streets, roads, and highways; (II) designed to travel on 2 or 4 wheels; and (III) having either -- (aa) a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering control; or (bb) a nonstraddle seat, steering wheel, seat belts, and roll-over protective structure; and (ii) includes a snowmobile.
(b) Additional Amendment.--Such section is further amended in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``any''.
This is pretty stunning, really. Did you notice that they are "fixing" the CPSIA by making two changes (one surmises that they think these are the only needed fixes), exempting All-terrain Vehicles from the law, and ALSO knocking out the word "any" from the lead exemption process. If their amendment were to become law, the CPSIA Section 101(b)(1)(A) lead exemption would read as follows:
"The Commission may, by regulation, exclude a specific product or material from the prohibition in subsection (a) if the Commission, after notice and a hearing, determines on the basis of the best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that lead in such product or material will neither— (A) result in the absorption of
I must be stupid, but in this context, I don't think anything is achieved by deleting "any" (assuming "plain English" is the language of choice for legislative interpretation). The word "any" is implied in "the absorption of lead into the human body", at least I think it is. This is the kind of legislative change I am used to from the Dems in the last three years, a change that brings no relief whatsoever. After all, they are plainly deaf.
Perhaps more interesting is why they chose to make these changes now. I have long asserted that ATVs have no business being regulated under the CPSIA. Klobuchar was a prime mover for the CPSIA but apparently found out later that her state of Minnesota is deeply affected by this awful law because of the ATV ban. Oops! Minnesota is home to several large manufacturers of these products. Jobs, jobs, jobs are the key nowadays, especially if you are running for reelection. Oh no, did I say that? How cynical of me! Tester is also running for reelection - last time, he won by by 3,662 votes.
There must be some reason why Klobuchar and Tester think legislation relieving these industries from the burden of regulation. Since I know the Senators are ALL ABOUT safety, I can only conclude that they figured out that these products are already safe. Aha. I wonder how they made this determination. Perhaps they took note of the fact that lead in these products has never injured any children EVER. That fact suggests that it is wasteful to regulate the presence of lead in these products - it would not make anyone safer. Even if there were one or two injuries, wouldn't the argument be the same? After all, we are a country of 300 million, with 50 million-plus kids in the age range enveloped by the CPSIA. A tiny handful of injuries over a decade of use by perhaps 75-80 million children passing through the age range would hardly justify the billions in expense and disruption caused by the CPSIA. Good thinking, Senators!
Have I ever mentioned that the CPSC cites one death and three unverified injuries from lead over an 11-year period from 1999-2010? Hmmm.
If THAT'S the standard now, then I think Senators Klobuchar and Tester should expand their amendment to exempt ALL other products classes and components that have the same safety profile. Rhinestones? T-shirts and shoes? Educational products? Rocks and fossils? Books? Pens? Musical instruments? CDs and DVDs? Steel and other metal parts?
Isn't this proposed amendment just what we have always wanted - a concession by zealot Democrats that the law makes no sense and needs to be sharply revised? If they are rational legislators (that's a big "if"), let them tell us WHY it makes sense to NOT regulate All-terrain Vehicles and STILL regulate everything else for lead in children's products.
Senators Klobuchar and Tester, you owe us an explanation! This regulatory torture has gone on for three years, not in small part because of your unwillingness to do the right thing. Now that you are sufficiently motivated to propose giving a pass to certain favored products and industries, you must tell the Electorate why this is GOOD LAW and why the rest of us deserve to stay in Purgatory.
'Fess up - we've had enough!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
CPSIA - "Children's Product" Means Whatever They Want
770 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 40 days left until Election Day.
As the Commission privately dithers, or squabbles, for weeks over passing the final interpretative rule on the meaning of "Children's Product" under the CPSIA, a recent recall illustrates the uncertainty and capriciousness of the draft rule currently in use by the Compliance staff. Or, should I say, the uncertainty and capriciousness of the current administration running the CPSC shop?
On Tuesday of this week, the CPSC announced the recall of mood rings. No, they weren't recalled because the CPSC inspector's mood ring always turned black, but good guess! The agency cited "high levels of lead". Oooo, scary lead!
Ahem, doesn't the CPSIA only apply to "Children's Products", and if so, don't the mood rings need to be "Children's Products" to be subject to the new lead standards? Right and right, careful reader! You have been paying attention, unlike certain regulators. The CPSC says this is a product intended for children under 12, so they were just doing the Lord's work to recall them, right? Save the Children! Who could oppose that?
Perhaps we should hear the company's side of the story (courtesy of one of my readers, thank you, Anonymous!):
"September 21, 2010,
To Whom It May Concern:
From: D&D Distributing-Wholesale, Inc.
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing in response to the Love Tester items that were found by CPSC staff to contain lead in excess of the current CPSIA limits. These items were originally purchased in 2005, and intended as a teenage to adult novelty, and not for children 12 and under. This is evidenced by the novelty of this item being to measure the sexual performance of the bearer with the results ranging from clammy to naughty, passionate and hot stuff. These words were specifically chosen to target a more mature market.
Nonetheless, due to our awareness potential future legislation, we instructed the factory to make these items using lead-free metal to avoid any problems. The factory confirmed that these goods would be made out of lead-free material and adjusted the prices to reflect this. In 2005, we felt that this effort was appropriate for the time. By the second half of 2007, D&D Distributing had started the process of testing new items as well as taking steps necessary to ensure that older items were lead safe. We had contacted the factory of the Love Testers again in 2007, and they responded that they had done their own testing to confirm that these items used lead-free metal.
We believed that this was enough evidence to make a reasonable assumption that the Love Tester items did not contain lead.
In early 2009, we were visited by CPSC Officer Marcus Morris. Officer Morris randomly selected items for x-ray testing, as well as several items offered by D&D staff, and a few items did have lead content in excess of the new limits. These items were ordered to stop sale. It was our intention to evaluate every questionable item imported previous to new federal law (CPSIA act of 2008), and test them using CPSC’s x-ray gun. Unfortunately, the Love Tester items were missed during this time. Since early 2009, we have had several other visits from Officer Morris, and many other items were offered by D&D to be tested.
CPSC has determined that the Love Tester items are for children 12 and under, and D&D agrees to comply with the CPSC’s decision to recall the items.
Best regards,
D&D Distributing-Wholesale, Inc."
[Emphasis added.]
So the CPSC just decided that this sex toy was for kids 12 and under. Perhaps kids grow up faster in Bethesda, I don't know, but the action of the CPSC seems to ignore the clear intent of the manufacturer, not to mention the rather obvious fact that this product is not suitable for Middle School children (or younger). Feeling "clammy" yet?
Okay, zealots of the world, you ask - how dare you defend icky LEAD? Don't you Rick know how dangerous lead is for the CHILDREN? Let's not forget the children . . . .
Lead's capacity to harm has never been in doubt, but of course, I believe facts and circumstances are important in determining WHEN lead is a worry. In this case, however, I think the issue is different.
As a manufacturer subject to the awful CPSIA and the unrelenting pressure of the manic CPSC, I object to rules "on wheels". If the CPSC can move the rule from here or there to justify whatever it wants to do today without restraint, how can I protect myself? How can I plan? Please TELL ME what a "Children's Product" is. I have to figure out what my legal obligations are. Do I have to test, or not? Do I need to be lead-free, or not? What about phthalates? I also sell to thousands of distributors and stores. They are as confused as me, or more. What if they disagree with my judgment? Who decides what's right? And what if the CPSC disagrees with both of us? What is our recourse? [You know the answer to that one.]
Will regulators at the CPSC ever understand how this kind of case absolutely SCREWS me and everyone else that stupidly remains in the children's market? Will someone PLEASE tell me how to run my business? PLEASE!
We seek meaning in what we do. We produce educational products for a reason - we want to change the world for the better, we want to make a better future for children in dozens of countries. It is our privilege to do this for a living. The CPSC ruins the fun and meaning we find in our work. They poison the well by doing damage to a mood ring company. They have attacked me directly, too - but I am prohibited from telling you in this space what they are doing. I want to, but I cannot (yet). And you're next.
This has to end. I am working on it, but you have to help, too. Do you want to be the next "mood ring" company? I don't. Please HELP me. Please HELP yourself. We (you) cannot sit on our hands at a terrible time like this.
As the Commission privately dithers, or squabbles, for weeks over passing the final interpretative rule on the meaning of "Children's Product" under the CPSIA, a recent recall illustrates the uncertainty and capriciousness of the draft rule currently in use by the Compliance staff. Or, should I say, the uncertainty and capriciousness of the current administration running the CPSC shop?
On Tuesday of this week, the CPSC announced the recall of mood rings. No, they weren't recalled because the CPSC inspector's mood ring always turned black, but good guess! The agency cited "high levels of lead". Oooo, scary lead!
Ahem, doesn't the CPSIA only apply to "Children's Products", and if so, don't the mood rings need to be "Children's Products" to be subject to the new lead standards? Right and right, careful reader! You have been paying attention, unlike certain regulators. The CPSC says this is a product intended for children under 12, so they were just doing the Lord's work to recall them, right? Save the Children! Who could oppose that?
Perhaps we should hear the company's side of the story (courtesy of one of my readers, thank you, Anonymous!):
"September 21, 2010,
To Whom It May Concern:
From: D&D Distributing-Wholesale, Inc.
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing in response to the Love Tester items that were found by CPSC staff to contain lead in excess of the current CPSIA limits. These items were originally purchased in 2005, and intended as a teenage to adult novelty, and not for children 12 and under. This is evidenced by the novelty of this item being to measure the sexual performance of the bearer with the results ranging from clammy to naughty, passionate and hot stuff. These words were specifically chosen to target a more mature market.
Nonetheless, due to our awareness potential future legislation, we instructed the factory to make these items using lead-free metal to avoid any problems. The factory confirmed that these goods would be made out of lead-free material and adjusted the prices to reflect this. In 2005, we felt that this effort was appropriate for the time. By the second half of 2007, D&D Distributing had started the process of testing new items as well as taking steps necessary to ensure that older items were lead safe. We had contacted the factory of the Love Testers again in 2007, and they responded that they had done their own testing to confirm that these items used lead-free metal.
We believed that this was enough evidence to make a reasonable assumption that the Love Tester items did not contain lead.
In early 2009, we were visited by CPSC Officer Marcus Morris. Officer Morris randomly selected items for x-ray testing, as well as several items offered by D&D staff, and a few items did have lead content in excess of the new limits. These items were ordered to stop sale. It was our intention to evaluate every questionable item imported previous to new federal law (CPSIA act of 2008), and test them using CPSC’s x-ray gun. Unfortunately, the Love Tester items were missed during this time. Since early 2009, we have had several other visits from Officer Morris, and many other items were offered by D&D to be tested.
CPSC has determined that the Love Tester items are for children 12 and under, and D&D agrees to comply with the CPSC’s decision to recall the items.
Best regards,
D&D Distributing-Wholesale, Inc."
[Emphasis added.]
So the CPSC just decided that this sex toy was for kids 12 and under. Perhaps kids grow up faster in Bethesda, I don't know, but the action of the CPSC seems to ignore the clear intent of the manufacturer, not to mention the rather obvious fact that this product is not suitable for Middle School children (or younger). Feeling "clammy" yet?
Okay, zealots of the world, you ask - how dare you defend icky LEAD? Don't you Rick know how dangerous lead is for the CHILDREN? Let's not forget the children . . . .
Lead's capacity to harm has never been in doubt, but of course, I believe facts and circumstances are important in determining WHEN lead is a worry. In this case, however, I think the issue is different.
As a manufacturer subject to the awful CPSIA and the unrelenting pressure of the manic CPSC, I object to rules "on wheels". If the CPSC can move the rule from here or there to justify whatever it wants to do today without restraint, how can I protect myself? How can I plan? Please TELL ME what a "Children's Product" is. I have to figure out what my legal obligations are. Do I have to test, or not? Do I need to be lead-free, or not? What about phthalates? I also sell to thousands of distributors and stores. They are as confused as me, or more. What if they disagree with my judgment? Who decides what's right? And what if the CPSC disagrees with both of us? What is our recourse? [You know the answer to that one.]
Will regulators at the CPSC ever understand how this kind of case absolutely SCREWS me and everyone else that stupidly remains in the children's market? Will someone PLEASE tell me how to run my business? PLEASE!
We seek meaning in what we do. We produce educational products for a reason - we want to change the world for the better, we want to make a better future for children in dozens of countries. It is our privilege to do this for a living. The CPSC ruins the fun and meaning we find in our work. They poison the well by doing damage to a mood ring company. They have attacked me directly, too - but I am prohibited from telling you in this space what they are doing. I want to, but I cannot (yet). And you're next.
This has to end. I am working on it, but you have to help, too. Do you want to be the next "mood ring" company? I don't. Please HELP me. Please HELP yourself. We (you) cannot sit on our hands at a terrible time like this.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
CPSIA - Wingnuts Against Cadmium
740 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 71 days left until Election Day.
On Thursday, in an unannounced Federal Register notice (you all read the Fed. Reg. for fun like me, right?), the CPSC announced that a petition had been filed by four esteemed consumer groups demanding that the CPSC and EPA issue rules against the presence of cadmium in children's products, especially "toy jewelry". Not doubt this effort was coordinated with Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) to assist her in her reelection effort. The four consumer groups are the Sierra Club, Empire State Consumer Project, Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides (hmmm) and, our ole' pal, the Center for Environmental Health. Although the petition has not resulted in action by the agency YET, they have requested comments on the petition. Goodie, something else to waste our time on!
The only reason I know about this event is that Bloomberg.com wrote about it last Wednesday. I am sure you monitor Bloomberg for sneak requests for comment by the agency, just like me. If you go the CPSC website, good luck finding a reference to this important Fed. Reg. publication. Oh well, the CPSIA already legislates that we must be telepathic anyhow.
The cadmium mania has nothing to do with health or safety. Even the wingnuts behind this petition are unable to cite a single injury EVER from cadmium in children's products. They ask that rules be implemented "before a child dies or is seriously injured". Well, since this regulation never existed previously and cadmium has been used as a trace component in jewelry for hundreds of years, the argument that this is a "real" risk does not impress me. I hold a degree in engineering but who am I to tell the CPSC how to do math. What do you suppose the probability of injury might be if the instances are ZERO over hundreds of years involving literally trillions of human interactions? Pretty high, I guess . . . .
They better be pretty high, if the CPSC actually cares what the law says. Ha, I gave up on that a long time ago, but for you devotees, here's the deal. I have written about this many times already - the authority to recall consumer products derives from the FHSA which restricts the agency's authority to "imminent hazards". Section 12(a) of the FHSA provides this definition: "As used in this section, and hereinafter in this Act, the term 'imminently hazardous consumer product' means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury." [Emphasis added] Is it even theoretically possible for a consumer product containing cadmium to meet this standard if there are exactly zero documented injuries - ever? Of course, we have been told that "anecdotes are not evidence" . . . unless perhaps a consumer group is dishing out the (imaginary) anecdotes.
And then there's the mania in the press. The press seems no better able to evaluate this threat than any of the other urban legends underlying the CPSIA. One wonders how they assess other risks . . . like swimming pool deaths. Oh yeah, real deaths are not a problem if the activity is really fun, like swimming which claims hundreds of children's lives annually. Better to put our resources into cadmium testing - since there are no recorded events of cadmium injury from consumer products. Consider this quote from Bloomberg: "Retailers such as Dress Barn Inc. and Claire’s Boutiques Inc. have recalled necklaces, earrings and bracelets this year after finding cadmium in the products. McDonald’s Corp. offered $3 refunds in June to customers who bought “Shrek” drinking glasses with high levels of cadmium in the paint." [Emphasis added] I have pointed out ad nauseum that the CPSC admits that the Shrek glasses are SAFE but given that the recall went forward and no one remembers what happened, those glasses had to be really dangerous, right??? According to Bloomberg, that seems to be true.
The petition features the usual hyperbolic description of an imaginary crisis with hysterical references to a "rising tide" of incidents (poisonings) and unfounded accusations of manufacturers "substituting" cadmium for lead. Shame that facts hardly matter anymore. They pull out all the stops to embellish their case. If repeated enough, this kind of reasoning becomes accepted as a truth, just like "no safe levels of lead". Our "leaders" seem prone to this kind of duping.
My favorite part of the petition is the assertion of the dire threat posed by cadmium. Again, there are no reported injuries from cadmium EVER in consumer products. The CSPC admitted at last February's ICPHSO meeting that their only toxicological data on cadmium relates to workplace exposure (generally airborne). According to Wikipedia, two big sources of cadmium for humans are food and cigarette smoke. The CPSC has literally NO data on risk from consumer products - principally because there is NO evidence that there is any danger. Given the data, they made the judgment that gathering the data was a waste of money (back when people cared about such things). The most famous incident of widespread cadmium poisoning related to scandalous industrial pollution in Japan over many years. That's a far cry from the situation confronting America today.
Should we crush the toy jewelry market or pummel the rest of us with high testing costs and other legal disruptions because our regulators are unable to distinguish between industrial pollution in Japan on a massive scale, and enamel or jewelry solder with traces of cadmium in it?
According to the wingnuts, yes, we should.
And I remind you - we have 71 days left until Election Day. I recommend that you give generously to candidates that don't come from Mars, have some semblance of common sense and commit in blood to oppose the junk science movement that has taken over the CPSC and Congress. Work the neighborhoods, greet people at train stations and then go vote in droves.
If we hurry, we might get something done before the CPSC turns the screw one more rotation.
On Thursday, in an unannounced Federal Register notice (you all read the Fed. Reg. for fun like me, right?), the CPSC announced that a petition had been filed by four esteemed consumer groups demanding that the CPSC and EPA issue rules against the presence of cadmium in children's products, especially "toy jewelry". Not doubt this effort was coordinated with Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) to assist her in her reelection effort. The four consumer groups are the Sierra Club, Empire State Consumer Project, Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides (hmmm) and, our ole' pal, the Center for Environmental Health. Although the petition has not resulted in action by the agency YET, they have requested comments on the petition. Goodie, something else to waste our time on!
The only reason I know about this event is that Bloomberg.com wrote about it last Wednesday. I am sure you monitor Bloomberg for sneak requests for comment by the agency, just like me. If you go the CPSC website, good luck finding a reference to this important Fed. Reg. publication. Oh well, the CPSIA already legislates that we must be telepathic anyhow.
The cadmium mania has nothing to do with health or safety. Even the wingnuts behind this petition are unable to cite a single injury EVER from cadmium in children's products. They ask that rules be implemented "before a child dies or is seriously injured". Well, since this regulation never existed previously and cadmium has been used as a trace component in jewelry for hundreds of years, the argument that this is a "real" risk does not impress me. I hold a degree in engineering but who am I to tell the CPSC how to do math. What do you suppose the probability of injury might be if the instances are ZERO over hundreds of years involving literally trillions of human interactions? Pretty high, I guess . . . .
They better be pretty high, if the CPSC actually cares what the law says. Ha, I gave up on that a long time ago, but for you devotees, here's the deal. I have written about this many times already - the authority to recall consumer products derives from the FHSA which restricts the agency's authority to "imminent hazards". Section 12(a) of the FHSA provides this definition: "As used in this section, and hereinafter in this Act, the term 'imminently hazardous consumer product' means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury." [Emphasis added] Is it even theoretically possible for a consumer product containing cadmium to meet this standard if there are exactly zero documented injuries - ever? Of course, we have been told that "anecdotes are not evidence" . . . unless perhaps a consumer group is dishing out the (imaginary) anecdotes.
And then there's the mania in the press. The press seems no better able to evaluate this threat than any of the other urban legends underlying the CPSIA. One wonders how they assess other risks . . . like swimming pool deaths. Oh yeah, real deaths are not a problem if the activity is really fun, like swimming which claims hundreds of children's lives annually. Better to put our resources into cadmium testing - since there are no recorded events of cadmium injury from consumer products. Consider this quote from Bloomberg: "Retailers such as Dress Barn Inc. and Claire’s Boutiques Inc. have recalled necklaces, earrings and bracelets this year after finding cadmium in the products. McDonald’s Corp. offered $3 refunds in June to customers who bought “Shrek” drinking glasses with high levels of cadmium in the paint." [Emphasis added] I have pointed out ad nauseum that the CPSC admits that the Shrek glasses are SAFE but given that the recall went forward and no one remembers what happened, those glasses had to be really dangerous, right??? According to Bloomberg, that seems to be true.
The petition features the usual hyperbolic description of an imaginary crisis with hysterical references to a "rising tide" of incidents (poisonings) and unfounded accusations of manufacturers "substituting" cadmium for lead. Shame that facts hardly matter anymore. They pull out all the stops to embellish their case. If repeated enough, this kind of reasoning becomes accepted as a truth, just like "no safe levels of lead". Our "leaders" seem prone to this kind of duping.
My favorite part of the petition is the assertion of the dire threat posed by cadmium. Again, there are no reported injuries from cadmium EVER in consumer products. The CSPC admitted at last February's ICPHSO meeting that their only toxicological data on cadmium relates to workplace exposure (generally airborne). According to Wikipedia, two big sources of cadmium for humans are food and cigarette smoke. The CPSC has literally NO data on risk from consumer products - principally because there is NO evidence that there is any danger. Given the data, they made the judgment that gathering the data was a waste of money (back when people cared about such things). The most famous incident of widespread cadmium poisoning related to scandalous industrial pollution in Japan over many years. That's a far cry from the situation confronting America today.
Should we crush the toy jewelry market or pummel the rest of us with high testing costs and other legal disruptions because our regulators are unable to distinguish between industrial pollution in Japan on a massive scale, and enamel or jewelry solder with traces of cadmium in it?
According to the wingnuts, yes, we should.
And I remind you - we have 71 days left until Election Day. I recommend that you give generously to candidates that don't come from Mars, have some semblance of common sense and commit in blood to oppose the junk science movement that has taken over the CPSC and Congress. Work the neighborhoods, greet people at train stations and then go vote in droves.
If we hurry, we might get something done before the CPSC turns the screw one more rotation.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
CPSIA - August, The Month To Scare (Oops, Save) The Populace
Well, it's August, almost time for Congress to recess for elections which means it's also time for your Dem friends to save you again. Makes a nice story for election time. Remember how Congress saved us two years ago, by passing a little bill called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act on August 14, 2008? I bet you're getting ready for the bill's second birthday party! Anyhow, the Congressional cicadian rhythm drove a couple Pelosi clones, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Jackie Speier (D-CA), to timely release their latest legislative salvos designed to prove up their worth to you, the voters.
Ms. Schakowsky, one of Illinois' "finest" who is rated the Number One Spender in Congress by the National Taxpayers Union (thanks, Jan!), offered up another CPSIA-like morsel, the noxious H.R. 5786 Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Before we go on, who's against safe cosmetics? Everyone raise their hands . . . no one? Okay, we're all for safe cosmetics. So what's the problem?
Your Congress at work - making the world safe from jobs and prosperity, an August tradition!
Ms. Schakowsky, one of Illinois' "finest" who is rated the Number One Spender in Congress by the National Taxpayers Union (thanks, Jan!), offered up another CPSIA-like morsel, the noxious H.R. 5786 Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Before we go on, who's against safe cosmetics? Everyone raise their hands . . . no one? Okay, we're all for safe cosmetics. So what's the problem?
- Annual registration with the FDA for all manufacturers, including much proprietary and confidential information.
- A federally-mandated schedule of new fees for the FDA to assess on the now poorer cosmetics companies.
- New safety labels (an old Schakowsky standby to make everyone so much safer).
- FDA review of the "physical, chemical and toxicological properties" of each chemical or mixture listed on the label. And lots of testing.
- New FDA regulations on banned chemicals and so on.
- New prohibitions, meaning that penalties and perhaps criminal actions are possible.
- Mandated public reporting of "adverse health effects".
The trial bar has to be licking its chops. And Jan gets to claim to her constituents that they can't live without her. After all, who else is going to save them??? Just like the CPSIA saved our company, our employees and our customers. So, so, soooooo safe and we get an even bigger federal government as an added bonus!
Not content to be outdone, savior-in-training Jackie Speier followed up her ratting out of safe McDonalds Shrek glasses with the newly-minted H.R. 5920 Toxic Metals Protection Act of 2010. Anyone against being protected from toxic metals??? Hmmm, no one? Thank heavens we have such an alert member of Congress ready to sweep in to protect us - right before elections! One of the big effects of this law is to make lots of things illegal and to specify civil and criminal liability for infractions. We really needed this!
Ms. Speier explains her "motivation": “'Children’s developmental health in this country is threatened by exposure to products containing cadmium,' said Congresswoman Speier. 'In May, Wal-Mart removed cadmium-tainted jewelry from its shelves. Last month, McDonald’s recalled over 12 million glasses containing cadmium, and SmileMakers Inc. recalled 68,000 Children’s Happy Charm Bracelets and Football Rings for containing this toxic metal. It’s time to be smart and aggressive about the risks posed by toxic metals that can cause children harm. This legislation is aimed at protecting them from hazardous levels of metals in products they might use.'" Oops, she forgot to mention that the Shrek glasses were acknowledged to be safe by the CPSC or that none of these products is associated with a single injury. Details . . . .
Then there's the swelling pile of Op-Eds and Editorials touting the "urgent" need to tighten the noose on chemicals (LA Times: "The new regulations will be burdensome on industry — and even more so if the state approves the recommendations we've listed here — but they should also pay dividends by lowering health care bills and environmental cleanup costs, as well as spawning a new industry dedicated to developing safer chemicals."). [Ed. Note: I love the part about how the bill will lower costs! I wish newspaper editorial writers knew how to add and multiply - they could really figure stuff out with those skills.] Henry Waxman, current shield of the CPSIA and guardian of the rules and regulations that ensure the business death of the children's product industry, wants to finish the job by making us account for every chemical in every product. TSCA Reform - super! We'll all be so safe . . . in the unemployment line.Your Congress at work - making the world safe from jobs and prosperity, an August tradition!
Thursday, July 1, 2010
CPSIA - What Will CPSC Hit Daiso With This Time - Nukes?
Dastardly Daiso, the hapless Japanese chain of dollar stores that probably regrets the day it first heard of the U.S., has been forced to recall yet more items. This recall, their sixth in recent years, involves five items for excessive lead. They are currently under injunction by the CPSC and the U.S. Attorney. Uh-oh.
Excessive lead in kids' products - that sounds AWFUL, doesn't it? In the tradition of most modern commentators, I thought I'd write this blogpost without reading the recall notice. After all, I know what it says without reading it, right? Well, at THIS blog, we have standards, you know. My editor INSISTED that I read it.
So I read it, and here are the details. You better sit down . . . the horror of it all . . . there are five items involved: one cloth purse, two pairs of earrings and two necklaces. The total number of units, across all five items, is 190 pieces, or less than 40 per item. And how did dastardly Daiso endanger kids THIS time? "The surface paint on the zippers of the coin purses and the clasps on the jewelry contain high levels of lead." Whoa! The retail price of these items is about $1.50 each, so the total value of this recall is $285. There were no injuries reported. The CPSC put out a press release so all of America could know how safe they were.
SCIENCE TIME: The presence of lead in the zipper paint and in the clasp does not itself cause any harm. Lead is a neurotoxin, true, but lead must enter your bloodstream to do harm. And if it does manage to get in there (through inhalation of dust or through ingestion of bio-available lead), blood lead levels must rise to a certain point before any harm can possibly occur. Since we all consume lead every day in our food, water and air, the human body clearly can process some lead without harm - it does not simply accumulate. The amount (mass) of lead in these items is probably close to nil. I assert that if you chose to have a meal comprised of only the zippers and clasps from the 190 recalled units (ALL of them), you could not raise your blood lead levels high enough to do damage. AND the impact of lead in blood varies by the age of child. As the child ages, the impact from lead dramatically diminished. This is why Congress chose not to protect my blog readers - they are all adults and out of harm's way. Lead is principally a problem for the "under 3's". The Daiso items are not for children under three, so the odds of harm are excruciating low. And it is utterly inconceivable that one person would eat all of the zipper paint and clasps in this minuscule recall. So, is this a public health crisis? You decide!
Back to Blog Time: Now, let's think of Daiso and its sorry tale. They have previously been the subject of five recalls of 19 items, totally 698 units, over two years. For this series of "transgressions", they were whacked with an injunction by the U.S. Attorney against further importing of toys (Tenenbaum: "Now the fine was large, but that wasn’t the big news . . . . We worked closely with the Justice Department on this case, and Daiso has a very high hurdle to jump over to EVER get back in the import business again"). Daiso also was hit with a "get the message" penalty of $2.05 million. This is about $1,000 per unit in penalties for items with a retail value of between $1 and $4 each. That's gotta get your attention.
So now that Daiso has stepped across the line again, what will the CPSC do? This kind of transgression can't go unpunished, right? Don't we live in a society based on retribution today? [We learned it from the Taliban.] Having hit Daiso with a $2.05 million penalty last time, the agency has to set this penalty higher since Daiso obviously is so incorrigible. If the last penalty was $1,000 per unit, maybe the agency should hit them with a penalty of $100,000 per unit to get them to take our laws seriously. Darnit, they CAN'T - that exceeds the maximum penalty of $15 million. Now what?
There's always jail time. Somebody needs to pay, of course. How can the agency ignore an offense of this scale? 190 units is unforgivable. That's almost $300 in value! That's like one iPhone (with a two-year phone contract). We can't let the people be endangered like that!
They were really good at torture in the Middle Ages - maybe something gory would get Daiso's attention this time. Capture a manager and have him/her drawn-and-quartered in the public square? The agency could webcast it! There are so many options. The agency needs to do whatever is necessary to keep American kids safe, so I certainly hope they will use their entire arsenal. Waterboarding?
Personally, I am grateful to Congress for not giving the CPSC nukes.
Excessive lead in kids' products - that sounds AWFUL, doesn't it? In the tradition of most modern commentators, I thought I'd write this blogpost without reading the recall notice. After all, I know what it says without reading it, right? Well, at THIS blog, we have standards, you know. My editor INSISTED that I read it.
So I read it, and here are the details. You better sit down . . . the horror of it all . . . there are five items involved: one cloth purse, two pairs of earrings and two necklaces. The total number of units, across all five items, is 190 pieces, or less than 40 per item. And how did dastardly Daiso endanger kids THIS time? "The surface paint on the zippers of the coin purses and the clasps on the jewelry contain high levels of lead." Whoa! The retail price of these items is about $1.50 each, so the total value of this recall is $285. There were no injuries reported. The CPSC put out a press release so all of America could know how safe they were.
SCIENCE TIME: The presence of lead in the zipper paint and in the clasp does not itself cause any harm. Lead is a neurotoxin, true, but lead must enter your bloodstream to do harm. And if it does manage to get in there (through inhalation of dust or through ingestion of bio-available lead), blood lead levels must rise to a certain point before any harm can possibly occur. Since we all consume lead every day in our food, water and air, the human body clearly can process some lead without harm - it does not simply accumulate. The amount (mass) of lead in these items is probably close to nil. I assert that if you chose to have a meal comprised of only the zippers and clasps from the 190 recalled units (ALL of them), you could not raise your blood lead levels high enough to do damage. AND the impact of lead in blood varies by the age of child. As the child ages, the impact from lead dramatically diminished. This is why Congress chose not to protect my blog readers - they are all adults and out of harm's way. Lead is principally a problem for the "under 3's". The Daiso items are not for children under three, so the odds of harm are excruciating low. And it is utterly inconceivable that one person would eat all of the zipper paint and clasps in this minuscule recall. So, is this a public health crisis? You decide!
Back to Blog Time: Now, let's think of Daiso and its sorry tale. They have previously been the subject of five recalls of 19 items, totally 698 units, over two years. For this series of "transgressions", they were whacked with an injunction by the U.S. Attorney against further importing of toys (Tenenbaum: "Now the fine was large, but that wasn’t the big news . . . . We worked closely with the Justice Department on this case, and Daiso has a very high hurdle to jump over to EVER get back in the import business again"). Daiso also was hit with a "get the message" penalty of $2.05 million. This is about $1,000 per unit in penalties for items with a retail value of between $1 and $4 each. That's gotta get your attention.
So now that Daiso has stepped across the line again, what will the CPSC do? This kind of transgression can't go unpunished, right? Don't we live in a society based on retribution today? [We learned it from the Taliban.] Having hit Daiso with a $2.05 million penalty last time, the agency has to set this penalty higher since Daiso obviously is so incorrigible. If the last penalty was $1,000 per unit, maybe the agency should hit them with a penalty of $100,000 per unit to get them to take our laws seriously. Darnit, they CAN'T - that exceeds the maximum penalty of $15 million. Now what?
There's always jail time. Somebody needs to pay, of course. How can the agency ignore an offense of this scale? 190 units is unforgivable. That's almost $300 in value! That's like one iPhone (with a two-year phone contract). We can't let the people be endangered like that!
They were really good at torture in the Middle Ages - maybe something gory would get Daiso's attention this time. Capture a manager and have him/her drawn-and-quartered in the public square? The agency could webcast it! There are so many options. The agency needs to do whatever is necessary to keep American kids safe, so I certainly hope they will use their entire arsenal. Waterboarding?
Personally, I am grateful to Congress for not giving the CPSC nukes.
Monday, May 17, 2010
CPSIA - What is a "Substantial Product Hazard"?
How does the CPSC decide which items to recall and which ones to permit to remain in the market?
The basis for a CPSC recall is found in Section 15(c) and 15(d) of the Consumer Product Safety Act. The CPSC is only entitled to recall items which present a "substantial product hazard", defined in section 15(a) in relevant part as: "a product defect which (because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective products distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or otherwise) creates a substantial risk of injury to the public."
Can the CPSC designate anything it wants as a "substantial product hazard"? Not in my opinion, if this legal standard is to have any meaning. Some things are substantial product hazards, and some things are lesser hazards. Those lesser hazards may still be of concern to the CPSC, but the agency lacks the legal authority to order their recall. Other solutions, such as public warnings or voluntary action by the industry, can appropriately address less severe risks adequately.
It gets tricky when there are injuries to children. [This legal dilemma has previously been parodied by The Onion - eerily anticipating the recall of dart guns pictured here.] If there are injuries or deaths, will the product always be considered a "substantial product hazard"? What if the accidents occur because of product abuse, recklessness or age-inappropriate behavior? If injuries under those circumstances constitute a "substantial product hazard", will ALL similar abuses of products be considered a "substantial product hazard"? I would think this line of reasoning would make many things, including guns, knives and even forks, suitable for urgent recall. What about broken glass - if a kid eats broken glass or ceramic, wouldn't he/she be terribly injured? Should the CPSC now recall everything made of glass? What about newspapers - paper can burn and cause injury. Recall the Chicago Tribune? [This is my fantasy.]
And if you can go this far, why must the abuse or inappropriate behavior even have to take place? Why not recall items just because you can imagine an injury occurring from an abuse that may have never happened? Is that a "substantial product hazard"? Is this pure fantasy or could recalls occur on this basis? Read on.
When there are injuries to kids, emotions run high, and the "substantial product hazard" standard expands. Add in newspaper headlines, and anything seems possible nowadays. Let's not forget that in the last eleven years, there has been ONE death from lead, when a four year old swallowed a lead jewelry charm - and, BINGO, we were gifted the CPSIA as a result. The law gives a lot of wiggle room to the motivated regulator. Some recent recalls call into question whether the substantial product hazard" standard is being observed at all.
Case 1: Cadmium jewelry. It is accepted that cadmium has been used in jewelry for decades, although not widely. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, there has never been a reported case of "cadmium poisoning" from jewelry. Pediatricians have virtually no awareness of cadmium poisoning as a health threat. The low probability of childhood injury from cadmium in children's products is also evidenced by the CPSC's lack of data on the health impact of ingesting cadmium in this form - it never came up until the Associated Press sounded the "alarm". The available data on cadmium relates only to workplace exposure or airborne cadmium.
It is equally well-accepted that children inappropriately mouth jewelry. It is also known that children can and do swallow jewelry, which happens thousands of times each year. No child thinks jewelry is food - but these things happen.
Cadmium is in (some) children's jewelry. Kids are known to mouth and/or swallow jewelry. Cadmium is a dangerous metal and can be harmful if swallowed. So, does this mean that cadmium in jewelry a "substantial product hazard"? Given that there has NEVER been a reported case of injury, it is hard to describe the risk of "severe" or even "substantial". It is best described as "possible". Yet, the CPSC has recalled cadmium jewelry three times now.
Unfortunately, the CPSC has chosen to respond to the stimulus of newspaper headlines and the ill-informed action of state legislatures, rather than the discipline imposed by its own statutory legal standard. By labeling this hazard "substantial", the CPSC creates many problems that could have lasting impact on the market. It imposes high costs on the industry for something that may not matter much, dilutes the impact of recalls of more dangerous products (have you noticed that the pace of recalls has really picked up at the agency - does that help or hurt the CPSC's mission?), and diverts the resources and attention of the CPSC staff away from larger and more pressing issues.
Perhaps worst of all, contrary to the assertions of Inez Tenenbaum, the confidence of the marketplace is being eroded by the deluge of recalls. Who can you trust anymore? Is the message that you can only trust Mother Government? If so, is Mother Government planning to take over the manufacturing of all children's products next? No one will have enough capital to survive this style of "regulating" for much longer so they better get ready to take over. This is no market stimulus program.
Case 2: Dart Guns. I am in the educational toy business and have children of my own. So I am prejudiced - I have no idea why anyone makes toys of this nature. Our company certainly doesn't, and we never allowed them in our home either. However, in our society, guns and dart guns have a certain appeal and they apparently sell well. Family Dollar Stores sold 1.8 million units of a small dart gun set for $1.50 in recent years (pictured above). It looks pretty generic to me, and for $1.50, it is clearly a cheap, disposable novelty toy.
Sadly, two boys (9 and 10 years old, respectively) died in separate incidents in which they were chewing on these darts and aspirated them. The dart suction cup blocked their airways, leading to tragedy. These terrible accidents are sad confirmation of the unnecessary risk posed by dart guns as toys. But do these circumstances meet the "substantial product hazard" standard? If they don't, how can the CPSC recall this item?
My argument is that while this toy is very objectionable and apparently capable of harming children, I do not know if it rises to the level of a "substantial" product hazard just because of the two accidental deaths (especially in light of 1.8 million sets sold, plus many millions more of similar items already in the market presenting the same "risk"). The statute does not provide that deaths automatically constitute substantial product hazards. Presumably, if that's what Congress meant, it might have said so. The tragic accidents occurred when two children were doing something they shouldn't. They were also at an age where they were supposed to know better. That doesn't make the loss of these boys any less painful but it does suggest that these incidents were terrible accidents rather than substantial product hazards. It may be that the families' remedies should be in the courts, not via the CPSC. In any event, if we (as a society) don't like dart guns, that's fine - we should ban them. Notably, the CPSC is not taking that position in this case.
Recalls cost a lot of money, and it is naive to believe that the market will not respond to an erosion in the legal standard for recalls. Legal standards are an important part of the "rules of the road". If the rules change, the entire game changes. In this case, if we are all exposed to the risk of a massive, multi-year recall of our legal products because of accidents and tragedies arising out of misuse, we will have to change our business models in ways very disadvantageous to consumers. No one has the profit margin to accommodate these unplanned and random expenses. We have no answer for this business problem - we are not clairvoyant.
For small, niche businesses like ours, the erosion of expected legal protections is very scary. These recalls are a gross expansion of capricious government power, no matter how scary cadmium jewelry is or how much we might be angry at dart gun makers. With an increasingly reactive CPSC demanding recalls to meet the expectations of newspaper headlines, randomness is complicating business planning and generally demoralizing the regulated community.
I may sound like a broken record, but this style of government is stoking voter anger. We have little recourse over these policies or over the intransigence of the Dems in Congress other than in the voting booth. I, for one, won't forget all this. We need a new sheriff in town.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
CPSIA - 50 Rhinestones, with Apologies to Paul Simon
This was submitted as a comment to one of my blogs on rhinestones. It's too good to waste as a mere comment. Enjoy!
Just don’t eat those 50 rhinestones…
(With apologies to Paul Simon)
"The problem is all because of lead", she said to me
The answer is clear just not commonsensically
I'd like to help you as you move to be lead free
Just don’t eat those 50 rhinestones…
We asked for guidance ‘cause we don’t want to be sued
CPSIA’s no help; its meaning can be misconstrued.
She just repeated, at the risk of being crude,
just don’t eat those 50 rhinestones…
Please don’t eat those 50 rhinestones.
Don’t have them for a snack, Jack
Don’t put them in a pan, Stan
Don’t soak them in soy, Roy
You should be lead free
Pretend they are pus, Gus
You don't need to taste much
Don’t put ‘em in your tea, Lee
You should be lead free
Don’t have them for a snack, Jack
Don’t put them in a pan, Stan
Don’t soak them in soy, Roy
You should be lead free
Pretend they are pus, Gus
You don't need to taste much
Don’t put ‘em in your tea, Lee
You should be lead free
We told her that the kids all like their bling.
That its safe even when connected by a string.
She just smiled and talked of toys made in Beijing
and warned about the fifty crystals…
She was sure something somewhere would prove her right
Put these stones on stuff and someone will indict
And then I realized it had become a new sound bite
To Say ‘Don’t eat those 50 rhinestones’…
Please don’t eat those 50 rhinestones.
Don’t have them for a snack, Jack
Don’t put them in a pan, Stan
Don’t soak them in soy, Roy
You should be lead free
Pretend they are pus, Gus
You don't need to taste much
Don’t put ‘em in your tea, Lee
You should be lead free
Don’t have them for a snack, Jack
Don’t put them in a pan, Stan
Don’t soak them in soy, Roy
You should be lead free
Pretend they are pus, Gus
You don't need to taste much
Don’t put ‘em in your tea, Lee
You should be lead free
- anonymous
Just don’t eat those 50 rhinestones…
(With apologies to Paul Simon)
"The problem is all because of lead", she said to me
The answer is clear just not commonsensically
I'd like to help you as you move to be lead free
Just don’t eat those 50 rhinestones…
We asked for guidance ‘cause we don’t want to be sued
CPSIA’s no help; its meaning can be misconstrued.
She just repeated, at the risk of being crude,
just don’t eat those 50 rhinestones…
Please don’t eat those 50 rhinestones.
Don’t have them for a snack, Jack
Don’t put them in a pan, Stan
Don’t soak them in soy, Roy
You should be lead free
Pretend they are pus, Gus
You don't need to taste much
Don’t put ‘em in your tea, Lee
You should be lead free
Don’t have them for a snack, Jack
Don’t put them in a pan, Stan
Don’t soak them in soy, Roy
You should be lead free
Pretend they are pus, Gus
You don't need to taste much
Don’t put ‘em in your tea, Lee
You should be lead free
We told her that the kids all like their bling.
That its safe even when connected by a string.
She just smiled and talked of toys made in Beijing
and warned about the fifty crystals…
She was sure something somewhere would prove her right
Put these stones on stuff and someone will indict
And then I realized it had become a new sound bite
To Say ‘Don’t eat those 50 rhinestones’…
Please don’t eat those 50 rhinestones.
Don’t have them for a snack, Jack
Don’t put them in a pan, Stan
Don’t soak them in soy, Roy
You should be lead free
Pretend they are pus, Gus
You don't need to taste much
Don’t put ‘em in your tea, Lee
You should be lead free
Don’t have them for a snack, Jack
Don’t put them in a pan, Stan
Don’t soak them in soy, Roy
You should be lead free
Pretend they are pus, Gus
You don't need to taste much
Don’t put ‘em in your tea, Lee
You should be lead free
- anonymous
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
CPSIA - Science, It's Really Overrated. So Is Knowing What You are Talking About.
From New Jersey Newsroom:"Amid continued concern about children's jewelry tainted with toxic materials, the [New Jersey] Assembly will also consider legislation targeting unsafe jewelry. The bill comes after 55,000 "Princess and the Frog" necklaces were recalled because they may contain high levels of the toxic heavy metal cadmium. Under the bill (A-2076), no one may sell, distribute, import or manufacture jewelry in New Jersey that contains materials classified as unsafe. The bill also includes stricter restrictions on materials used in children's jewelry and body piercing jewelry. 'Buying a necklace or a charm bracelet shouldn't bring about fears of lead and mercury poisoning, yet the health and safety of New Jerseyans are at risk,' said Assemblyman Patrick J. Diegnan (D-Middlesex), a co-sponsor. 'It's time these harmful products are taken down from store shelves for good.'" [Emphasis added]
Assemblyman Diegnan, noble Democrat of Middlesex, I am getting sick of listening to headline-seeking politicians who have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about. The January 11 AP story you refer to found a small handful of jewelry with cadmium present. There was no mention of mercury or lead . . . . As to cadmium, the CPSC says they have little or no data on ingestion of cadmium in children and can't even say (based on available data) that cadmium is a carcinogen through ingestion in children (the current evidence on cadmium involves workplace exposure or inhalation, a horse of a different color). Where did you come up with lead and mercury poisoning from jewelry? Was cadmium not scary enough to get you reelected? Do you have any idea if the presence of cadmium in jewelry is even an issue? Science be damned.
This kind of idiocy brings to mind one of the most memorable of our nation's discarded political parties, the Know-Nothings of the 1840's and 50's. This aptly-named party died a well-deserved slow death . . . but seems to have risen from the dead in the form of today's Democrats.
Know-Nothings, we can't let them take over!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
CPSIA - Redesign the Dog!
I hope you didn't miss the hubbub today from the American Academy of Pediatrics over dangerous hot dogs. Apparently, you can choke on hot dogs. This shocking revelation stimulated an outpouring of news articles, including this one: "Pediatricians call for hot dogs to be redesigned". I guess the bun would have be altered, too. Readers, submit your suggestions as comments! I am looking for something very "Space Age" but also exquisitely safe.
Pundits across the blogosphere couldn't let this pass, like our friends Walter Olson ("Cut grapes into pea-sized portions?") and Lenora Skenazy ("Surely You Must Be Choking!"). Many newspapers repeated the AAP's call for warning labels on items like nuts, certain hard fruits and hot dogs. "Back away from the peanut slowly, Tommy, I don't want you to choke!"
Any of this ring a bell? The AAP remains among the most ardent of the CPSIA advocates. They are in regular contact with the Waxmanis and advise on which scraps of relief we might be allowed. In fact, my spies point to the AAP as the big rabble rouser on rhinestones (sooooooo dangerous!) Having succeeded in gutting the children's products industry, the AAP have turned their attention to that symbol of America, the hot dog. Parents cannot possibly deal with hot dogs without government intervention - individual responsibility is so passe. The AAP will make us all so safe . . . .
This seems to be a theme of this space - the world seems to have lost its moorings. Redesign the dog, indeed. Spare me.
Pundits across the blogosphere couldn't let this pass, like our friends Walter Olson ("Cut grapes into pea-sized portions?") and Lenora Skenazy ("Surely You Must Be Choking!"). Many newspapers repeated the AAP's call for warning labels on items like nuts, certain hard fruits and hot dogs. "Back away from the peanut slowly, Tommy, I don't want you to choke!"
Any of this ring a bell? The AAP remains among the most ardent of the CPSIA advocates. They are in regular contact with the Waxmanis and advise on which scraps of relief we might be allowed. In fact, my spies point to the AAP as the big rabble rouser on rhinestones (sooooooo dangerous!) Having succeeded in gutting the children's products industry, the AAP have turned their attention to that symbol of America, the hot dog. Parents cannot possibly deal with hot dogs without government intervention - individual responsibility is so passe. The AAP will make us all so safe . . . .
This seems to be a theme of this space - the world seems to have lost its moorings. Redesign the dog, indeed. Spare me.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
CPSIA - Why Do Dems Want to Ban Rhinestones?
Why indeed. The Democrats apparently have it in for rhinestones and are so uptight about this "menace" that they are willing to write an outright ban into the CPSIA, via Mr. Waxman's new amendment. No more bling for you!
Have we finally entered the land of the looneys?
Have we finally entered the land of the looneys?
The Dems' rallying cry on rhinestones goes way back. On September 10, 2009, Rep. Bobby Rush welcomed Inez Tenenbaum to the one CPSIA hearing since August 2008 by commending her for bravely banning rhinestones.
Let's think about the basics here:
- Rhinestones are simple embellishments. They are found in inexpensive jewelry, on clothing and shoes, in craft kits, used in scrapbooking, are decorations on kids' pageant and athletic costumes, adorn hair bows and barrettes, etc. They are bling.
- Rhinestones have no history of causing lead poisoning.
- Rhinestones are even okay to sell under the obnoxious Proposition 65.
Chairman Tenenbaum has conceded in writing that the stones are not dangerous: "Commission staff recognized that most crystal and glass beads do not appear to pose a serious health risk to children . . . .” Of course, CPSC Staff are just scientists and Ph.D.'s, not lawyers writing important laws.
Unfortunately, Tenenbaum recanted her stance in Congressional testimony on September 10, 2009. On September 17, I wrote a letter to Chairman Tenenbaum about her rhinestone testimony . . . but never received a reply. The letter asks her to back up her assertion in testimony that swallowing rhinestones presents a lead poisoning risk. This is an unsupportable contention and perhaps this is why my letter was never accorded a response. In particular, I made the following point about the literal "danger" of rhinestones:
"[T]he Exponent study submitted [by the FJTA] on February 2 indicates that the FDA has determined that six micro-grams of lead per day is required to produce a one micro-gram of lead per deciliter change in blood lead levels in children six years old or younger. Thus, to produce such a change in blood lead levels from jewels would require sustained daily ingestion of 12 grams of stones (roughly 4,000 stones or hundreds of pieces of jewelry) or mouthing of 42 grams of stones (roughly 14,000 stones or more than 1,000 pieces of jewelry). Clearly, this is unlikely to occur, particularly accidentally." [Emphasis added]
As noted, Tenenbaum never answered this letter.
[See also my posts of July 21, July 21 (no. 2), September 10 and September 12.]
Of course, the natural ally of the Dems, the consumer groups, bang the drum mindlessly for banning rhinestones, too. In my September 20 post, I recounted the attack of Nancy Cowles on the rhinestones "menace". Here is Ms. Cowles' suggestion for those who value their bling:
"In an interview with BNA, Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids in Danger, praised the commission's July decision on fashion jewelry accessories. Cowles told BNA that lead is a severe toxin with no safe level. She added that while more common sense could be applied to determining which products are hazardous, consumers overall do not want products containing lead. 'People will come up with other ways to put [jewelry] on children's clothing that isn't toxic. Whether the lead [in rhinestones] leaches out fully, it's hard to know, but we don't want lead in our children's products. We will come up with other ways to decorate our clothes,' Cowles said."
It's okay, they just want to protect you.
At this point, I have to ask - what on Earth happened to our country? How did we get to this point? I can't say for myself, I don't know how this kind of stridency and absence of BASIC common sense took over our nation. Politics no longer makes sense to me. In today's New York Times, Senator Evan Byah blasts this theme as he explains why he is dropping out of the Senate after 12 years. It's a depressing read.
More depressing still is how the Democrats are making such a mess of things and disillusioning so many people, myself certainly included. In yesterday's Barron's Magazine, the Dems' ability to actually govern is questioned. That's a "wow". This small article details how Senator Max Baucus' jobs bill (written in response to President Obama's call for more economic stimulus) was gutted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for "speedy" passage:
"So Reid selected four provisions that he believes all Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree on: tax breaks for small-business investment; more money for highway construction; expansion of the Build America Bond program, and a payroll-tax exemption for employers hiring someone who's been jobless for at least 60 days. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is openly opposing the payroll-tax exemption, a stance which has fiscally conservative Democrats near despair. 'Democrats are in danger of demonstrating they cannot govern on the most basic level,' a progressive Democratic party leader said last week."
That's right - the Dems are failing at the most basic level. The CPSIA saga and the politics/populism infecting CPSC leadership and policy these days are part and parcel of the same phenomenon. Rhinestones are this week's victim. Who is next in line - you?
When are you going to say "ENOUGH"?!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
CPSIA - Keeping Government Out of Children's Products May Require Toxins
The Cadmium circus rolled on today with Senator Amy Klobuchar rushing to save America by calling for hearings on cadmium. Ms. Klobuchar must have been in quite a hurry to save America:
"Jumping on a report about toxic levels of cadmium in children's jewelry from China, Sen. Amy Klobuchar is pushing for a hearing on the issue. Klobuchar, D-Minn., sent a letter Tuesday to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., that says, in part, 'this metal has no place in children's toys.'" [Emphasis added]
Jewelry . . . toys . . . it's all the same, isn't it? Heck, when you're saving children's LIVES, these piddling details are merely the hobgoblins of little minds (Ralph Waldo Emerson must have been from Minnesota). If her heart is in the right place, who cares if she has any idea what she's talking about?
Not one to let down her adoring public, Ms. Klobuchar shared some of her expertise on the CPSIA and toxins: "Citing [the CPSIA], Klobuchar wrote that although there are 'currently no cadmium restrictions on toys and jewelry, cadmium is a poison and if ingested, can hinder brain development and lead to other health problems in children.'"
This is, strictly speaking, not true. Well, how can you expect Klobuchar to actually check a factual statement like this? She is one busy Senator, there's no time for dilly-dallying. It's not like she's a lawyer (oops, she is!) or actually participated in writing the CPSIA (oops, she did!) and voted for it (oops again, she did). She probably even read the law at one time (oops . . .).
One of the brilliant changes put through by Ms. Klobuchar and her Congressional brethren in the CPSIA was the codification of ASTM F963 (Section 106 of the CPSIA), the formerly-voluntary standard of the toy industry. This document (it's really long, don't blame her for not leafing through it) imposes a requirement of not more than 75 mg/kg of cadmium in toys. The CPSIA even required the CPSC to examine the effectiveness of the ASTM standard within a year . . . and they did it without changing any requirements relating to heavy metals. But that was before the latest headlines.
Of course, Ms. Klobuchar was simply joining the fun along with Senator Schumer who introduced anti-cadmium legislation to save us, and Chairman Tenenbaum who encouraged people to rip jewelry off the necks and wrists of their kids: "We have proof that lead in children’s jewelry is dangerous and was pervasive in the marketplace. To prevent young children from possibly being exposed to lead, cadmium or any other hazardous heavy metal, take the jewelry away." [Emphasis added] Joe McCarthy would have loved this free-for-all.
Even the AP is now scratching its collective head. The same AP reporter issued a new article today puzzling over the panicked regulators: "When pressed, Tenenbaum's spokesman Scott Wolfson explained parents should grab the trinkets and toss them. Just be sure to 'safely dispose' of the merchandise under applicable state and federal environmental law." [When I read quotes like this, I think if there wasn't a Scott Wolfson at the CPSC, we'd have to make one up.]
The AP article carries on: "So what are America's Moms and Dads to do? While neither Tenenbaum nor Wolfson would outright say not to buy cheap children's jewelry, that inference was clear, too. A tough conversation around the kitchen table: don't buy any new stuff, don't give out any new stuff, don't play with the old stuff. In fact, get rid of the old stuff, but in a manner that doesn't risk putting toxins from the jewelry into the environment. And make sure you don't go out and resell the jewelry through online auctions or to a thrift store, said Wolfson." [Emphasis added] Wolfson has a way with words, doesn't he? Reporters must love him . . . .
The AP sums it up: "So instead of focusing in on specific items, as a recall would do, the CPSC officials are taking on an entire industry. . . . [The testing for AP] only looked at 103 pieces of low-priced children's jewelry — finding 12 items with cadmium content above 10 percent of the total weight. . . . Clearly, the CPSC is worried beyond those limited test results. Even during the height of product recalls from China several years ago — when millions of items of jewelry or painted toys with high lead levels were taken off store shelves — the CPSC did not issue such a public warning. Under the administration of President Barack Obama, and with Tenenbaum replacing commissioner Nancy Nord atop the agency, the CPSC is projecting a much more aggressive image." [Emphasis added]
Cooool under fire! I think the CPSC isn't going far enough. It is clear that we in industry do not measure up to our leaders' high standards and expectations. Imagine having to wonder what will be in the paper every morning, the pressure, the angst. [If it's in print, it must be true - just ask the Zhu Zhu Pets folks.] So, to avoid all that stress, I recommend that the CPSC take the bold step to make everything illegal. We should be required to turn over all of our possessions to the government for safe disposal according to applicable environmental protection laws and then move, naked, back into the caves where things will be much safer. This should make things simple and besides, the enforcement and legal staff create NOTHING BUT WORK for the Commission. My heart bleeds.
But wait, that won't make us safe just yet. Cadmium is in our food, in our water, in our air, in cigarettes, in batteries and fertilizers, in our workplaces - horrors! I just had an epiphany - Cadmium is so ever-present in our environment that it must be the cause for human mortality. There, I put that sentence in writing and published it - so it must be true. The CPSC therefore should ban food, water and breathing. It's the only thing they can do to save the human race.
And I used to think we had too much government. You ain't seen nothin' yet, baby. . . .
"Jumping on a report about toxic levels of cadmium in children's jewelry from China, Sen. Amy Klobuchar is pushing for a hearing on the issue. Klobuchar, D-Minn., sent a letter Tuesday to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., that says, in part, 'this metal has no place in children's toys.'" [Emphasis added]
Jewelry . . . toys . . . it's all the same, isn't it? Heck, when you're saving children's LIVES, these piddling details are merely the hobgoblins of little minds (Ralph Waldo Emerson must have been from Minnesota). If her heart is in the right place, who cares if she has any idea what she's talking about?
Not one to let down her adoring public, Ms. Klobuchar shared some of her expertise on the CPSIA and toxins: "Citing [the CPSIA], Klobuchar wrote that although there are 'currently no cadmium restrictions on toys and jewelry, cadmium is a poison and if ingested, can hinder brain development and lead to other health problems in children.'"
This is, strictly speaking, not true. Well, how can you expect Klobuchar to actually check a factual statement like this? She is one busy Senator, there's no time for dilly-dallying. It's not like she's a lawyer (oops, she is!) or actually participated in writing the CPSIA (oops, she did!) and voted for it (oops again, she did). She probably even read the law at one time (oops . . .).
One of the brilliant changes put through by Ms. Klobuchar and her Congressional brethren in the CPSIA was the codification of ASTM F963 (Section 106 of the CPSIA), the formerly-voluntary standard of the toy industry. This document (it's really long, don't blame her for not leafing through it) imposes a requirement of not more than 75 mg/kg of cadmium in toys. The CPSIA even required the CPSC to examine the effectiveness of the ASTM standard within a year . . . and they did it without changing any requirements relating to heavy metals. But that was before the latest headlines.
Of course, Ms. Klobuchar was simply joining the fun along with Senator Schumer who introduced anti-cadmium legislation to save us, and Chairman Tenenbaum who encouraged people to rip jewelry off the necks and wrists of their kids: "We have proof that lead in children’s jewelry is dangerous and was pervasive in the marketplace. To prevent young children from possibly being exposed to lead, cadmium or any other hazardous heavy metal, take the jewelry away." [Emphasis added] Joe McCarthy would have loved this free-for-all.
Even the AP is now scratching its collective head. The same AP reporter issued a new article today puzzling over the panicked regulators: "When pressed, Tenenbaum's spokesman Scott Wolfson explained parents should grab the trinkets and toss them. Just be sure to 'safely dispose' of the merchandise under applicable state and federal environmental law." [When I read quotes like this, I think if there wasn't a Scott Wolfson at the CPSC, we'd have to make one up.]
The AP article carries on: "So what are America's Moms and Dads to do? While neither Tenenbaum nor Wolfson would outright say not to buy cheap children's jewelry, that inference was clear, too. A tough conversation around the kitchen table: don't buy any new stuff, don't give out any new stuff, don't play with the old stuff. In fact, get rid of the old stuff, but in a manner that doesn't risk putting toxins from the jewelry into the environment. And make sure you don't go out and resell the jewelry through online auctions or to a thrift store, said Wolfson." [Emphasis added] Wolfson has a way with words, doesn't he? Reporters must love him . . . .
The AP sums it up: "So instead of focusing in on specific items, as a recall would do, the CPSC officials are taking on an entire industry. . . . [The testing for AP] only looked at 103 pieces of low-priced children's jewelry — finding 12 items with cadmium content above 10 percent of the total weight. . . . Clearly, the CPSC is worried beyond those limited test results. Even during the height of product recalls from China several years ago — when millions of items of jewelry or painted toys with high lead levels were taken off store shelves — the CPSC did not issue such a public warning. Under the administration of President Barack Obama, and with Tenenbaum replacing commissioner Nancy Nord atop the agency, the CPSC is projecting a much more aggressive image." [Emphasis added]
Cooool under fire! I think the CPSC isn't going far enough. It is clear that we in industry do not measure up to our leaders' high standards and expectations. Imagine having to wonder what will be in the paper every morning, the pressure, the angst. [If it's in print, it must be true - just ask the Zhu Zhu Pets folks.] So, to avoid all that stress, I recommend that the CPSC take the bold step to make everything illegal. We should be required to turn over all of our possessions to the government for safe disposal according to applicable environmental protection laws and then move, naked, back into the caves where things will be much safer. This should make things simple and besides, the enforcement and legal staff create NOTHING BUT WORK for the Commission. My heart bleeds.
But wait, that won't make us safe just yet. Cadmium is in our food, in our water, in our air, in cigarettes, in batteries and fertilizers, in our workplaces - horrors! I just had an epiphany - Cadmium is so ever-present in our environment that it must be the cause for human mortality. There, I put that sentence in writing and published it - so it must be true. The CPSC therefore should ban food, water and breathing. It's the only thing they can do to save the human race.
And I used to think we had too much government. You ain't seen nothin' yet, baby. . . .
CPSIA - Regulation by Newspaper Headline
There was once a time when newspaper headlines did not immediately become law. Those golden days are seemingly a hazy memory, to judge from the swift and judgmental reaction to a recent AP story on cadmium in children's jewelry.
PLEASE NOTE - This essay is not a defense of cadmium. That's becoming a tiresome objection, frankly. Cadmium is bad, okay? Back to the story . . . .
The AP story, backed up by test reports that AP will apparently not release, prompted Senator Chuck Schumer to introduce legislation on Wednesday, two days later, to "stop it cold". After an equally lengthy deliberation and careful consideration of the flimsy facts of this case, Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the CPSC made this astounding announcement today:
"Because of these recent developments, I have a message for parents, grandparents and caregivers: Do not allow young children to be given or to play with cheap metal jewelry, especially when they are unsupervised."
Whoa! Tenenbaum is saying that consumers should boycott ALL "cheap" metal jewelry now? Is she trying to put Claire's Boutique and countless thousands of other small companies out of business entirely, all because of the unconfirmed accusations of an AP reporter about a handful of pieces of jewelry from a tiny number of sources? Within 48 hours, too? I think that's irresponsible.
Yes, it's irresponsible, but that's the way this populist government of reactive politicians wants to govern. The Obamites are apparently shocked to discover that anything ever goes wrong, and if they ever find a single fly in the ointment, they then assume they are facing a broad scale assault. Hence, the immediate action to implement bans and cessations of trade.
Stop it cold, indeed - but what exactly is being stopped? Trade. Jobs. Futures.
Even worse, frankly, is the notion that this problem must be "solved" by legislation. While Senator Schumer was simply doing the usual, pandering for votes, where is it written that this problem is best resolved by Congressional action? [Let's put aside the niggling detail that some further assessment of the nature of this "dire" threat is appropriate before we take ANY action whatsoever.] Apparently, Mr. Schumer believes it's his job to fix this problem and that in the absence of his decisive action, the rest of the government would fall on its face.
Umm, well, we used to have a federal agency for this very task, the CPSC. Okay kids, gather 'round, let me tell you about a long ago time when the CPSC had actual authority to assess risk and depending on its independent judgment, was entitled to draft and implement rules governing safety in the marketplace. Wasn't that a wonderful time, kids?! Well, not anymore. Nowadays, apparently only Congress can exercise judgment. And that judgment is best exercised without the use of any scientific advice or reliance on the agency charged with the responsibility for safety administration.
Courtesy of the CPSIA, the CPSC is now a bureaucracy designed to serve the will of the politicians - determining what is safe (and what is not) is not their primary job anymore. Congress has no use for Ph.D.s or other people that actually understand science. With folks running the show like Chuck Schumer who apparently believe that an AP story is a perfect substitute for expert advice, there is no need for the CPSC to do anything other than fuel panic for Congress to assuage. Hence Ms. Tenenbaum's shocking announcement today.
This is completely wrongheaded and will damage markets almost immediately. It's all the more amazing because we have been here before, and paid the price with two years of chaos, misery and pain. The lessons of the CPSIA apparently weren't learned, and to judge from the knee-jerk reaction to the AP story, it appears unlikely that this group of politicians (Democrats) and administrators are capable of ever mastering them.
Remember, I think cadmium is bad. But bad is no justification for legislation or rulemaking on the fly. This is not a sudden and life-threatening crisis. This metal, while undesirable, was probably in the market for years, all without poisoning large swaths of American children. The story of the little boy in Minnesota who swallowed a jewerly bangle and died (monotonously repeated by Senator Amy Klobuchar and now by Inez Tenenbaum), sad as it is, should be retired. I have no interest in seeing the children's product industry put out to pasture just because of one accident.
Someday I hope we can restore some sense of proportion and restraint in safety administration. It can be done. . . .
PLEASE NOTE - This essay is not a defense of cadmium. That's becoming a tiresome objection, frankly. Cadmium is bad, okay? Back to the story . . . .
The AP story, backed up by test reports that AP will apparently not release, prompted Senator Chuck Schumer to introduce legislation on Wednesday, two days later, to "stop it cold". After an equally lengthy deliberation and careful consideration of the flimsy facts of this case, Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the CPSC made this astounding announcement today:
"Because of these recent developments, I have a message for parents, grandparents and caregivers: Do not allow young children to be given or to play with cheap metal jewelry, especially when they are unsupervised."
Whoa! Tenenbaum is saying that consumers should boycott ALL "cheap" metal jewelry now? Is she trying to put Claire's Boutique and countless thousands of other small companies out of business entirely, all because of the unconfirmed accusations of an AP reporter about a handful of pieces of jewelry from a tiny number of sources? Within 48 hours, too? I think that's irresponsible.
Yes, it's irresponsible, but that's the way this populist government of reactive politicians wants to govern. The Obamites are apparently shocked to discover that anything ever goes wrong, and if they ever find a single fly in the ointment, they then assume they are facing a broad scale assault. Hence, the immediate action to implement bans and cessations of trade.
Stop it cold, indeed - but what exactly is being stopped? Trade. Jobs. Futures.
Even worse, frankly, is the notion that this problem must be "solved" by legislation. While Senator Schumer was simply doing the usual, pandering for votes, where is it written that this problem is best resolved by Congressional action? [Let's put aside the niggling detail that some further assessment of the nature of this "dire" threat is appropriate before we take ANY action whatsoever.] Apparently, Mr. Schumer believes it's his job to fix this problem and that in the absence of his decisive action, the rest of the government would fall on its face.
Umm, well, we used to have a federal agency for this very task, the CPSC. Okay kids, gather 'round, let me tell you about a long ago time when the CPSC had actual authority to assess risk and depending on its independent judgment, was entitled to draft and implement rules governing safety in the marketplace. Wasn't that a wonderful time, kids?! Well, not anymore. Nowadays, apparently only Congress can exercise judgment. And that judgment is best exercised without the use of any scientific advice or reliance on the agency charged with the responsibility for safety administration.
Courtesy of the CPSIA, the CPSC is now a bureaucracy designed to serve the will of the politicians - determining what is safe (and what is not) is not their primary job anymore. Congress has no use for Ph.D.s or other people that actually understand science. With folks running the show like Chuck Schumer who apparently believe that an AP story is a perfect substitute for expert advice, there is no need for the CPSC to do anything other than fuel panic for Congress to assuage. Hence Ms. Tenenbaum's shocking announcement today.
This is completely wrongheaded and will damage markets almost immediately. It's all the more amazing because we have been here before, and paid the price with two years of chaos, misery and pain. The lessons of the CPSIA apparently weren't learned, and to judge from the knee-jerk reaction to the AP story, it appears unlikely that this group of politicians (Democrats) and administrators are capable of ever mastering them.
Remember, I think cadmium is bad. But bad is no justification for legislation or rulemaking on the fly. This is not a sudden and life-threatening crisis. This metal, while undesirable, was probably in the market for years, all without poisoning large swaths of American children. The story of the little boy in Minnesota who swallowed a jewerly bangle and died (monotonously repeated by Senator Amy Klobuchar and now by Inez Tenenbaum), sad as it is, should be retired. I have no interest in seeing the children's product industry put out to pasture just because of one accident.
Someday I hope we can restore some sense of proportion and restraint in safety administration. It can be done. . . .
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
CPSIA - Must Read in the Denver Post
Let me say, here and now, that if I am chosen for next year's committee, THIS GUY gets my vote for Nobel Peace Prize in 2010!
Opinion
Harsanyi: They're tragically delicious
By David Harsanyi
Posted: 10/14/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
How can Americans be expected to wrestle with the myriad of dangers that confront them each day? Insalubrious cereal? Unregulated garage sales? Pools of death? Sometimes it's too much to process.
You know what we are desperately crying out for? An army of crusading federal regulatory agents with unfettered power. Who else has the fortitude and foresight to keep us all safe?
Mercifully, as The Washington Post recently reported, many of President Barack Obama's appointees "have been quietly exercising their power over the trappings of daily life . . . awakening a vast regulatory apparatus with authority over nearly every U.S. workplace, 15,000 consumer products and most items found in pantries and medicine cabinets."
If there's anything Americans are hankering for in their everyday lives, it's a vast regulatory apparatus. Hey, it's dangerous out there.
That's why the new chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission recently unleashed 100 agency inspectors to investigate whether or not swimming pools in America were equipped with a drain cover to prevent children from entrapment.
Nearly 0.9 children fall prey to this sadistic killer each year. With the compassionate guidance of federal officials, we will almost surely see this number plunge to 0.8 children per year.
It should be noted that each tragic year that passes by, an estimated 300 children under the age of 4 drown in swimming pools. Why our government sits idly by as this watery assassin targets
the most vulnerable among us is a mystery.
Don't get me started on food. Washington will not rest until every one of our children is forcing down some gravel-based Mueslix after morning calisthenics in the name of a glorious preventive care revolution. I get it. They're fat.
This is why I am grateful that one courageous soul has finally stood up to the menacing influence of Big Cereal. Yes, Food and Drug Administration commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg has had enough of deceitful infiltration of Cheerios, demanding that General Mills cease and desist a marketing campaign that peddles the fallacious claim that the oat-based cereal can lower cholesterol.
Why stop with oats? Trix are not only for kids, you know. Lucky Charms are nowhere close to being "magically" delicious.
What Lucky Charms does do is perpetuate the stereotype that the Irish are a bunch of oft-inebriated jerks — which everyone knows is only true about 70 percent of the time.
Isn't there a statute we can pass in Congress to end the hate?
Then again, it's not only those scheming Irish that are hawking their wares — unregulated — on concrete suburban driveways and inner city thrift stores across this country.
The "Resale Round-up," launched by the CPSC, finally limits the power of these merchants of death who recklessly barter second-hand toys to unsuspecting civilians at low prices. Consider that Tonka truck — the one that you somehow outlasted — contraband. If not, you could be fined thousands of dollars.
The only question now is how did any of us survive this long?
Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Regulation at New York University Law School, points out that "In the Bush administration, the problem was that the political folks were hostile to the mission."
It is no surprise that Bush administration — a close second to Big Cereal in wickedness — was hostile to regulating the rhinestones on your kids' denim jackets. Apparently the depths of its depravity knew no bounds.
The mission? Simple. Keeping you safe. Because everyone knows that parents aren't equipped to keep their children safe until a bureaucrat explains exactly how it's done.
And those parents who are neglecting their children's safety, well, they always care more once government gets involved. Right?
E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Opinion
Harsanyi: They're tragically delicious
By David Harsanyi
Posted: 10/14/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
How can Americans be expected to wrestle with the myriad of dangers that confront them each day? Insalubrious cereal? Unregulated garage sales? Pools of death? Sometimes it's too much to process.
You know what we are desperately crying out for? An army of crusading federal regulatory agents with unfettered power. Who else has the fortitude and foresight to keep us all safe?
Mercifully, as The Washington Post recently reported, many of President Barack Obama's appointees "have been quietly exercising their power over the trappings of daily life . . . awakening a vast regulatory apparatus with authority over nearly every U.S. workplace, 15,000 consumer products and most items found in pantries and medicine cabinets."
If there's anything Americans are hankering for in their everyday lives, it's a vast regulatory apparatus. Hey, it's dangerous out there.
That's why the new chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission recently unleashed 100 agency inspectors to investigate whether or not swimming pools in America were equipped with a drain cover to prevent children from entrapment.
Nearly 0.9 children fall prey to this sadistic killer each year. With the compassionate guidance of federal officials, we will almost surely see this number plunge to 0.8 children per year.
It should be noted that each tragic year that passes by, an estimated 300 children under the age of 4 drown in swimming pools. Why our government sits idly by as this watery assassin targets
the most vulnerable among us is a mystery.
Don't get me started on food. Washington will not rest until every one of our children is forcing down some gravel-based Mueslix after morning calisthenics in the name of a glorious preventive care revolution. I get it. They're fat.
This is why I am grateful that one courageous soul has finally stood up to the menacing influence of Big Cereal. Yes, Food and Drug Administration commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg has had enough of deceitful infiltration of Cheerios, demanding that General Mills cease and desist a marketing campaign that peddles the fallacious claim that the oat-based cereal can lower cholesterol.
Why stop with oats? Trix are not only for kids, you know. Lucky Charms are nowhere close to being "magically" delicious.
What Lucky Charms does do is perpetuate the stereotype that the Irish are a bunch of oft-inebriated jerks — which everyone knows is only true about 70 percent of the time.
Isn't there a statute we can pass in Congress to end the hate?
Then again, it's not only those scheming Irish that are hawking their wares — unregulated — on concrete suburban driveways and inner city thrift stores across this country.
The "Resale Round-up," launched by the CPSC, finally limits the power of these merchants of death who recklessly barter second-hand toys to unsuspecting civilians at low prices. Consider that Tonka truck — the one that you somehow outlasted — contraband. If not, you could be fined thousands of dollars.
The only question now is how did any of us survive this long?
Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Regulation at New York University Law School, points out that "In the Bush administration, the problem was that the political folks were hostile to the mission."
It is no surprise that Bush administration — a close second to Big Cereal in wickedness — was hostile to regulating the rhinestones on your kids' denim jackets. Apparently the depths of its depravity knew no bounds.
The mission? Simple. Keeping you safe. Because everyone knows that parents aren't equipped to keep their children safe until a bureaucrat explains exactly how it's done.
And those parents who are neglecting their children's safety, well, they always care more once government gets involved. Right?
E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
CPSIA - Washington Post Notes Zealous CPSC Enforcement Actions
In today's Washington Post, Lyndsey Layton wrote an article entitled "A Vigorous Push From Federal Regulators" in which the current enforcement approach of the CPSC is given considerable space. The Post notes the decision by the CPSC to make rhinestones illegal as an example of "getting tough" on the law. [Btw, for those of you playing along at home, the CPSC has yet to deign to call me or answer my letter on rhinestones dated September 17. I shouldn't be surprised, after all they have thousands of similar unanswered questions on their desks - what's so special about me?!]
The Post sums up the problem as follows: "'It's "shoot first and ask who we shot later,"' said Gary L. Yingling, a lawyer and pharmacist who worked for a decade in the FDA general counsel's office and now represents companies regulated by the agency. 'My concern is whether they've dotted their i's, crossed the t's, understand the statutory regulations and understand what the agency did yesterday. That's a real concern.'"
Ms. Tenenbaum, from the same article: "We are enforcing the law; that's what we do."
Of course, the obvious problem here is that these regulators refuse to exercise judgment. They tend to hide behind their claimed responsibility to enforce the law (implying that this process must proceed without an exercise of judgment) and fail to explain or justify their use of force on any grounds rationally related to safety. Perhaps they feel this cleanses them of responsibility for their actions, as they didn't write the law. It's a classic bureaucrat's excuse - don't talk to me, I am just following orders. There is historical precedent for fearing government officials with this attitude.
Perhaps he CPSC will go on its merry way and put us all out of business, hobble a great industry and harm millions of kids by depriving them of essential products necessary to their development or preservation of their standard of living - but only YOU can stop them. The agency (which used to brag about its broad "enforcement discretion" back in the olde days at the beginning of the year) will respond to its Congressional overlords. You need to carpetbomb them with emails, calls and letters expressing your concern. Make sure to let them know how you have been victimized by the law and how it is harming kids in your community. We need to raise a holy stink if we want any chance to stopping the vigorous enforcers.
The Post sums up the problem as follows: "'It's "shoot first and ask who we shot later,"' said Gary L. Yingling, a lawyer and pharmacist who worked for a decade in the FDA general counsel's office and now represents companies regulated by the agency. 'My concern is whether they've dotted their i's, crossed the t's, understand the statutory regulations and understand what the agency did yesterday. That's a real concern.'"
Ms. Tenenbaum, from the same article: "We are enforcing the law; that's what we do."
Of course, the obvious problem here is that these regulators refuse to exercise judgment. They tend to hide behind their claimed responsibility to enforce the law (implying that this process must proceed without an exercise of judgment) and fail to explain or justify their use of force on any grounds rationally related to safety. Perhaps they feel this cleanses them of responsibility for their actions, as they didn't write the law. It's a classic bureaucrat's excuse - don't talk to me, I am just following orders. There is historical precedent for fearing government officials with this attitude.
Perhaps he CPSC will go on its merry way and put us all out of business, hobble a great industry and harm millions of kids by depriving them of essential products necessary to their development or preservation of their standard of living - but only YOU can stop them. The agency (which used to brag about its broad "enforcement discretion" back in the olde days at the beginning of the year) will respond to its Congressional overlords. You need to carpetbomb them with emails, calls and letters expressing your concern. Make sure to let them know how you have been victimized by the law and how it is harming kids in your community. We need to raise a holy stink if we want any chance to stopping the vigorous enforcers.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
CPSIA - Consider the Source (Part II)
From an article in today's BNA entitled "Need for CPSIA Changes Debated",
"In an interview with BNA, Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids in Danger, praised the commission's July decision on fashion jewelry accessories. Cowles told BNA that lead is a severe toxin with no safe level.
She added that while more common sense could be applied to determining which products are hazardous, consumers overall do not want products containing lead.
“People will come up with other ways to put [jewelry] on children's clothing that isn't toxic. Whether the lead [in rhinestones] leaches out fully, it's hard to know, but we don't want lead in our children's products. We will come up with other ways to decorate our clothes,” Cowles said."
There are other quotes from consumer groups in this article that set my blood ablaze, but I thought this one deserves special "heralding".
I should note that I have written about rhinestones extensively, and debunked the opinion expressed by the estimable Ms. Cowles thoroughly. [See my "Jewelry" tags.] You may wonder, why do I care so much about rhinestones. Our business does not use rhinestones, so what's the big deal for me? Rhinestones is a poster child for the stupidity of the law. The impact of the CPSIA on rhinestones is the impact that is bedeviling the entire children's product industry, from toys to books to shoes to bedding to what-have-you. If rhinestones go down, safe as they are, we all go down. If we can save rhinestones on a rational and fair basis, perhaps the rest of us will get fairer treatment.
That said, I have a couple comments on Ms. Cowles' remarks. First of all, she is fear mongering, not advocating for you and your children. She says rhinestones are "toxic" - I say "prove it". The people behind the CPSIA are left with few options to save their precious law but to deceive the general public about health risks. The case on rhinestones is out there to be examined by Ms. Cowles. Why not attack rhinestones with data and analysis? Because no data or analysis exists to weaken the case FOR rhinestones. The "there's no safe level of lead" mantra is faulty. We already consume plenty of lead in our air, our food and our water daily. The rationale that trace presence of lead in children's products is somehow the health "tipping point" has never been proven and frankly cannot be asserted on a reasoned, scientific basis. The lead we consume in our normal daily activities dwarfs the lead you might ingest from casual contact with children's products. If there really is "no safe level for lead", then our wise Congress should attack the big sources of lead first, and leave the rest of us for later.
Second, Ms. Cowles is sending a lot of people down the river with her casual condemnation of rhinestones. I would note that many industries use rhinestones in their products. The people who run those companies, are employed by those companies, are supported by income from those companies, trade with those companies or value those products in their lives, will ALL lose if the likes of Ms. Cowles get to run our society. Does that make ANY sense to ANYONE (besides Ms. Cowles)?
I keep thinking of the prescription she offers for living a safe and wondrous life. She says we will (and should) find something else to decorate our products with. Perhaps Ms. Cowles decorates herself with the jewels from Pretty, Pretty Princess. That's what she is suggesting, that we get used to plastic jewelry. Perhaps Ms. Cowles can live with getting gifts for her kids from a vending machine, but that's not how I want to live. As I have noted before, inexpensive stones are a way for people to bedeck kids with jewelry inexpensively. Rhinestones are important to a lot of people, some of whom may not have the economic wherewithal to switch to diamonds and rubies. In addition, it's an inexpensive way to let little kids have a bit of bling. If you are trying to make your little kids look special for social, cultural or religious reasons, I think Palladium earrings may be somewhat impractical for most people. Little kids to tend to outgrow their clothing and shoes quickly. Parents can't really afford to buy and rebuy clothing and jewelry using precious stones as their kids grow, and may never warm up to Pretty, Pretty Princess jewelry. If this is the way it has to be, I think we should think more insightfully about who is writing the rules for our society.
Increasingly, the recommendations of consumer advocates are ringing more and more hollow. How crazy has the world become? Consider this quote from the November 2008 "Trouble in Toyland" report issued by the Vermont PIRG:
"Some children’s toys, jewelry and cosmetics may contain toxic chemicals, especially lead and toxic phthalates. . . . PHTHALATES AND OTHER CHEMICALS Avoid toys made of PVC plastic; which often contains phthalate softeners. Choose unpainted wooden or cloth toys instead."
Yes, PIRG wants us to use cloth toys and plain unpainted wooden toys to be "safe". But how "safe" are these toys? The CPSC, after due consideration, has informed us in their new phthalates testing standard: "Examples of materials that do not normally contain phthalates and, therefore, might not require testing or certification are . . . Natural wood [and] Textiles made from natural fibers, such as cotton or wool . . . ." Uh-oh! PIRG is telling you to buy products that MIGHT contain phthalates! Ouch. [To be fair, I have no idea how phthalates would get in there, but heck, the CPSC says they MIGHT. They must know something I don't.]
So PIRG has it wrong - we can't even play with cloth toys or wood. What's left? Rocks. Oh, no - rocks need to be tested for lead, phthalates and sharp points! Well, perhaps after the Residential Rock Roundup is wrapped up, we will all be safe to move into caves to play with our rocks. Ms. Cowles, get your own cave - you can't play with my rocks.
"In an interview with BNA, Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids in Danger, praised the commission's July decision on fashion jewelry accessories. Cowles told BNA that lead is a severe toxin with no safe level.
She added that while more common sense could be applied to determining which products are hazardous, consumers overall do not want products containing lead.
“People will come up with other ways to put [jewelry] on children's clothing that isn't toxic. Whether the lead [in rhinestones] leaches out fully, it's hard to know, but we don't want lead in our children's products. We will come up with other ways to decorate our clothes,” Cowles said."
There are other quotes from consumer groups in this article that set my blood ablaze, but I thought this one deserves special "heralding".
I should note that I have written about rhinestones extensively, and debunked the opinion expressed by the estimable Ms. Cowles thoroughly. [See my "Jewelry" tags.] You may wonder, why do I care so much about rhinestones. Our business does not use rhinestones, so what's the big deal for me? Rhinestones is a poster child for the stupidity of the law. The impact of the CPSIA on rhinestones is the impact that is bedeviling the entire children's product industry, from toys to books to shoes to bedding to what-have-you. If rhinestones go down, safe as they are, we all go down. If we can save rhinestones on a rational and fair basis, perhaps the rest of us will get fairer treatment.
That said, I have a couple comments on Ms. Cowles' remarks. First of all, she is fear mongering, not advocating for you and your children. She says rhinestones are "toxic" - I say "prove it". The people behind the CPSIA are left with few options to save their precious law but to deceive the general public about health risks. The case on rhinestones is out there to be examined by Ms. Cowles. Why not attack rhinestones with data and analysis? Because no data or analysis exists to weaken the case FOR rhinestones. The "there's no safe level of lead" mantra is faulty. We already consume plenty of lead in our air, our food and our water daily. The rationale that trace presence of lead in children's products is somehow the health "tipping point" has never been proven and frankly cannot be asserted on a reasoned, scientific basis. The lead we consume in our normal daily activities dwarfs the lead you might ingest from casual contact with children's products. If there really is "no safe level for lead", then our wise Congress should attack the big sources of lead first, and leave the rest of us for later.
Second, Ms. Cowles is sending a lot of people down the river with her casual condemnation of rhinestones. I would note that many industries use rhinestones in their products. The people who run those companies, are employed by those companies, are supported by income from those companies, trade with those companies or value those products in their lives, will ALL lose if the likes of Ms. Cowles get to run our society. Does that make ANY sense to ANYONE (besides Ms. Cowles)?
I keep thinking of the prescription she offers for living a safe and wondrous life. She says we will (and should) find something else to decorate our products with. Perhaps Ms. Cowles decorates herself with the jewels from Pretty, Pretty Princess. That's what she is suggesting, that we get used to plastic jewelry. Perhaps Ms. Cowles can live with getting gifts for her kids from a vending machine, but that's not how I want to live. As I have noted before, inexpensive stones are a way for people to bedeck kids with jewelry inexpensively. Rhinestones are important to a lot of people, some of whom may not have the economic wherewithal to switch to diamonds and rubies. In addition, it's an inexpensive way to let little kids have a bit of bling. If you are trying to make your little kids look special for social, cultural or religious reasons, I think Palladium earrings may be somewhat impractical for most people. Little kids to tend to outgrow their clothing and shoes quickly. Parents can't really afford to buy and rebuy clothing and jewelry using precious stones as their kids grow, and may never warm up to Pretty, Pretty Princess jewelry. If this is the way it has to be, I think we should think more insightfully about who is writing the rules for our society.
Increasingly, the recommendations of consumer advocates are ringing more and more hollow. How crazy has the world become? Consider this quote from the November 2008 "Trouble in Toyland" report issued by the Vermont PIRG:
"Some children’s toys, jewelry and cosmetics may contain toxic chemicals, especially lead and toxic phthalates. . . . PHTHALATES AND OTHER CHEMICALS Avoid toys made of PVC plastic; which often contains phthalate softeners. Choose unpainted wooden or cloth toys instead."
Yes, PIRG wants us to use cloth toys and plain unpainted wooden toys to be "safe". But how "safe" are these toys? The CPSC, after due consideration, has informed us in their new phthalates testing standard: "Examples of materials that do not normally contain phthalates and, therefore, might not require testing or certification are . . . Natural wood [and] Textiles made from natural fibers, such as cotton or wool . . . ." Uh-oh! PIRG is telling you to buy products that MIGHT contain phthalates! Ouch. [To be fair, I have no idea how phthalates would get in there, but heck, the CPSC says they MIGHT. They must know something I don't.]
So PIRG has it wrong - we can't even play with cloth toys or wood. What's left? Rocks. Oh, no - rocks need to be tested for lead, phthalates and sharp points! Well, perhaps after the Residential Rock Roundup is wrapped up, we will all be safe to move into caves to play with our rocks. Ms. Cowles, get your own cave - you can't play with my rocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
