CPSIA - ABC News Wants to Know About Your Cadmium Poisoning

ABC News is doing a real public service - they are calling for childhood cadmium poisoning victims to come forward. Here's their invitation:

"Has Your Child Suffered From Cadmium Poisoning? Share your story … Toxic Cadmium in childrens' jewelry poses risk to kids' health.

Cadmium is a highly toxic metal that is appearing more and more in jewelry and toys imported from China. Dangerous effects of ingested cadmium include kidney, bone, lung and liver disease. Kids are especially at risk for complications because of their size and the likelihood that they will suck on or swallow toys or jewelry containing cadmium. Has your child suffered from cadmium poisoning? Did your family have a cadmium poisoning scare? Share your story with ABCnews.com."

I would like to know about those victims, too. So far, there are NO reported childhood injuries from cadmium in children's products that I am aware of. Zero. Of course, it is also a gripe of mine that there are no identified childhood injury victims from lead-in-substrate in children's products either. That's an even more serious issue and a real indictment of the CPSIA. Where are the victims???

I have no idea which side of the issue ABC News is on. I am willing to assume they are curious about the data, which is what a real reporter should care about. What if they get no responses - does that resolve the matter? Probably not, but then again, isn't the absence of injuries important data to consider? And if they DO get case histories, then what? They need to share them and allow the data to be examined. If this is a real health problem, then let's take it seriously and try to understand what has been revealed.

The time for product slander is over - let's look at the real data and make some intelligent decisions.

CPSIA - Why Does The Press Push Bad Ideas?

Last week, Justin Pritchard of the Associated Press again pressed the point that glassware with lead in the enamel should be recalled. He expressed shock at the "stunning" news that the CPSC reconsidered its view that the glasses are subject to the noxious lead regulations of the CPSIA.

Why did Mr. Pritchard find this outcome "stunning"? After all, in response to a question about the risks involved in the glasses, Pritchard had this to say in a TV interview: "The [lead and cadmium] levels are low in the sense of . . . no one is going to touch this glass, put their hand to their mouth and fall ill. This is a low level over time concern." If the glasses are a low risk, why would he expect a federal regulator to waste time or resources on them?

Even more remarkably, Pritchard knows that the McDonalds Shrek glasses were found to be non-toxic by the CPSC. He broke the McDonalds story. The Shrek glasses present precisely the same "issue". He also knows lead is only restricted in children's products and that enamel coatings containing lead are permitted explicitly in the law (16 CFR 1303.2(b)(1)). There is no evidence that the presence of lead in the enamel has ever injured anyone. Ever.

So why is Pritchard continuing to push a story that he knows is defective? This puts it kindly. Let's rule out that he is seeking a Pulitzer or has an ill-motive. Why would he do this?

Of course, we know there is a bias in reporting and in investigating that favors reporting "bad news". Good news is not really considered news at all (except on the sports page). The media's incentive is to publish terrifying stories - it sells papers and banner ads, and it's natural for Congress to push legislation to save us from poorly understood threats as an extension of this trend. But something else is at play, it turns out.

This subject is analyzed in an interesting article by Jonah Lehrer in this week's New Yorker magazine entitled "The Truth Wears Off". Lehrer tries to explain why replication of scientific studies tends to show declining results over time. This is quite unexpected given that scientific studies are subject to peer reviews and are often published by periodicals with their own high standards of review. Lehrer notes that in small studies, weird results can show up (such as a 1930's study which claimed that one Duke University student had ESP but later retesting revealed the student's rapidly diminishing extrasensory powers . . .). In larger pools of data, results revert to a mean (this is called "funneling"). However even statistical significance doesn't explain the phenomenon. Lehrer shows that we only get to see certain slices of data. Most data won't be published because it's not interesting or doesn't confirm prejudices.

Put into a CPSIA context, Lehrer implicitly argues that media won't write a story announcing that lead-in-enamel on your glassware is safe. Nor that you were always fine and your children weren't in danger. Nor that there have been few injuries from lead in any children's products. Nor that the few known injuries in the context of the large volume of products in use is actually a GOOD result. Nor that there are no identified victims of "phthalate poisoning" or that incidents of cadmium poisoning in American children are virtually unknown. The excuse - it's not "newsworthy". What's the reality?

The reality is that we are exposed to a very imbalanced set of data. Quoting Michael Jennions, a biologist at the Australian National University, Lehrer argues that "the tendency of scientists and scientific journals [is] to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found." If the null set (the "everything's fine" news) doesn't get reported, what does? Says Richard Palmer, a biologist at the University of Alberta, "We cannot escape the troubling conclusion that some - perhaps many - cherished generalities are at best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated."

The same mantra over and over? The words "Rachel Weintraub" suddenly pop into my mind.

Lehrer continues: "[T]he problem seems to be one of subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. Stephen Jay Gould referred to this as the 'shoehorning' process." Referring to studies in Asia that consistently confirm that acupuncture is effective, and studies in the West that show much poorer results, "Palmer notes, this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don't want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness."

Or to quote Robert Adler, anecdotes aren't evidence.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University who once published a study entitled "Why Most Published Research Findings are False", calls the phenomenon "significance chasing" where scientists play with numbers trying to find "anything that seems worthy". In a news context, this is the same as Pritchard fingering the Super Hero glasses on the grounds that there is lead in the enamel even though he knows the Shrek glasses were safe. Maybe these other glasses are a problem?! Jeff Plungis of Bloomberg published an article on lead in Christmas light wires on December 8th because he apparently thought it was "interesting" and not well-known. Same thing.

Ioannidis says "It feels good to validate a hypothesis. It feels even better when you've got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends on it. And that's why even after a claim has been systematically disproved . . .you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it's true." [Emphasis added]

Lehrer's article is a great read, I recommend it to you.

So you can stop scratching your head. Pritchard and Plungis, Adler and Tenenbaum, Waxman and Schakowsky, Weintraub and Green, will all continue to beat the same drum. They know they're right . . . they just can't prove it. And they will continue to repeat themselves in spite of the facts of this case:

• There are (virtually) no known victims.
• The impact of the law cannot be measured.
• The nexus between lead in children's products and purported injury to children is not proven. This means that the inclusion in the law of so many formerly unregulated categories of goods is absolutely unjustified.
• The benefits of prophylactic testing has been disproved by the passage of time - the last 29 months.
• The law targets small business and lets big business off the hook. Even since passage of the CPSIA, it is clear from data that big business are responsible for headline recalls.

I guess the media keeps on publishing these stories because it's human nature. Unfortunately, many jobs and many futures have been damaged in the service of a human weakness. I like to think we can rise about such limitations. It is in the hands of the CPSC and Congress to solve this problem.

Let's hope they do their job . . . sometime really soon.

CPSIA - Taking Advice from Idiots

In a recent article entitled "Advice on avoiding a toxic Christmas", USA Today attempted to take Christmas paranoia to new heights. Naturally, the premise of the article is that companies are criminally irresponsible or venal and certainly can't be trusted, and consumer advocates and any pediatrician that will talk to a reporter are better people, better informed and by definition trustworthy. In this article, USA Today's Liz Szabo consults "experts" to reach the following conclusions:

a. "No one knows how much lead people absorb from holiday decorations, says pediatrician Bruce Lanphear, of Canada's Simon Fraser University." And if he said it, it must be true. [Of course, pediatrician Philip Landrigan, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, notes "In the whole scheme of things, is it a huge risk? No."]

What's the problem with Xmas lights, you say? Lead in the PVC. According to Alicia Voorhiess, a mom with a blog, manufacturers "use it" in the PVC. Right - you got us! Don't worry, though, after much digging, she found two companies that offer Xmas lights which comply with Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), a European standard which limits the presence of lead in lights.

Ummm, Alicia, RoHS is a standard to designed to prevent leaching of heavy metals to protect the environment and only applies to electronics. This MEANS that the lead is restricted in the bulbs and fittings, not the PVC. Whatever, it sounds safer, doesn't it?

The author of the article quotes Dr. Alan Greene (my college classmate) saying that you should handle your Xmas lights with gloves. Why stop there? Moon suits, anyone?

b. Artificial Christmas trees are made of PVC, too, and we know what manufacturers are wont to do with PVC. The solution - use a real tree grown without pesticides.

I find this a most uncreative solution, myself. Here's a few more:

• Post a picture of a beautiful tree near the spot you might have placed your tree. Keep it away from the fire, however.
• Consider just displaying your Xmas lights in their packaging. No touching!
• Use an artificial tree, but place under a glass enclosure or something air tight like Saran Wrap. Stand at least five feet away at all times.

All of these remedies will protect you from lead. That said, please remember there is NO safe level for lead. And a holy, jolly Christmas to you, too!

Shame that USA Today didn't focus in on the fact that there is lead in the air, in our water and in our food. OOPSIE! In fact, lead in water is conveniently piped into Washington, D.C. homes for kids to drink in their own bathrooms and kitchens. Nice! Somehow USA Today missed this. Shocking . . . .

c. Candles with metal wicks might also have lead in them, or then again, maybe they won't. In a blow to poorly-researched newspaper articles, the CPSC apparently banned these wicks in 2003. Who knew the CPSC actually tried to its job before the CPSIA? Somebody should have told Congress.

According to this all-knowing newspaper, candles also contain paraffin, a wax made from petroleum. Not sure why I should care about that, but it sounds ominous. And some fragrances in candles have phthalates in them "which can affect the hormonal system". Isn't knowing nothing about science FUN???

The solution - The author of this article actually recommends that you use pure beeswax candles. Happy hunting! They also suggest you "poke cloves into oranges". Ah, the old clove poking trick! That sounds like fun but IS IT SAFE? This article says oranges have lead in them. NO! And, for an extra kicker, it also says they have cadmium, too: "If the soils contain toxic metals like lead, mercury and cadmium then the consumers may be poisoned as happened in the "Ouchi-ouchi" disease in Japan . . . and similar episodes." Wow, Ouchi-Ouchi! Scott Wolfson, do you hear a bell ringing? [Eating oranges didn't cause "Ouchi-Ouchi" but then again, researching these things is sooooo time-consuming.]

So there you go. Skip Christmas this year, too dangerous. I wonder if a Festivus pole is lead-free . . . .

CPSIA - Wingnut or Dingbat, You Make the Call!

Hey, it's her words - is Deborah Blum a "wingnut" or a "dingbat"? In her blogpost from earlier today, Ms. Blum takes Inez Tenenbaum to task for her sins in not clamping down HARDER on American businesses stupid enough to continue selling children's products. Ms. Blum is apparently a journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin.

As an aside, I must say I had the mildest twinge of sympathy for Ms. Tenenbaum after I read Blum's blogpost. This is not my usual emotion when thinking about the CPSC Chairman, but heck, there's no winning for her, is there? I don't want her job.

Ms. Blum's contention is so asinine that it hardly bears repeating except that apparently Twitter is alive with tweets and re-tweets of her blogpost. Her thesis is that Ms. Tenenbaum tolerates excessive amounts of lead in children's products and explains it thus:

"So I’ve come up with a nice little conspiracy theory. You and your business partners are tired of low-income consumers. They can only afford dirt-cheap crap from China, their purchases don’t add up enough to float the balance sheets. So, of course, you aren’t protecting them with tougher regulations. Of course, American corporations aren’t investing in safer products. Slowly but surely, one piece of jewelry, one pair of plastic boots at a time, you’re getting rid of everyone who doesn’t matter enough to be kept safe. Sure it sounds crazy. But is it any crazier than importing poisoned goods for almost ten years without looking for alternatives or better safety systems? I don’t think so. So who’s the wingnut now?" [Emphasis added]

Hey, Ms. Blum, I can answer that one - YOU are the wingnut.

Pot calling the kettle black, I think Ms. Blum shows why some blogs must be "discounted". She makes about every possible reactive error in assessing the lead "problem" in children's products:

• She confuses CPSC lead recalls (according to her, 289 since 2001 - "more than 30 recalls every single year") with lead injuries. Hysteria over the POSSIBILITY of injury without bothering to assess the PROBABILITY of injury is how we got into this mess in the first place. I am sorry Ms. Blum is so easily rattled but isn't the data on injuries relevant? I have documented one reported death and three unverified injuries from lead in this period of time. Should we turn our lives upside down to reduce that risk further? This only amplifies my call for a National Xanax Fund.
• She reasons from headlines but shows little mastery of the actual facts. She cites the recall of McDonald's Shrek glasses ("McDonald’s recalled more than 12 million “Shrek 3″ glasses contaminated with the toxic metal cadmium (and also a little lead)") but fails to note that the CSPC has acknowledged in WRITING that the glasses were safe. She also cites the AP's recent report of lead and cadmium in enamel baked on certain glasses, but fails to note that the AP also admitted that the health risk was low or that the presence of these heavy metals is LEGAL in enamels of this type. Congress did that, and how could we EVER doubt Congress?!
• Ms. Blum repeats the junk science notion that if lead is bad in some cases, it MUST be bad in all cases. She absurdly compares lead in enamel with lead in drinking water, and then asks why there aren't standards to protect adults from the dangers of lead in enamels. Ms. Blum, can I see your turnip truck?
• Ms. Blum plays the China card, a jingoistic line of reasoning used by blamestormers. We make many of our products in China, and I consider this kind of finger pointing a contemporary form of racism. I have a lot of experience with Chinese sources, and have good reason to trust our trading partners. Ms. Blum regrettably has no idea what she is talking about when she blames "China", as though we all buy from the government of China. We do business with other privately-owned companies, not "China". It may make the world seem less complex to equate "cheap" with "poor quality" or "dangerous". It is not accurate, however.

If the Deborah Blums of the world get the upper hand in this regulatory mess, they will solve the lead problem, I am sure. It won't be a solution you will like, nor will it be effective. Lead was here before Deborah Blum roamed the Earth and will here after she's gone - it's an ELEMENT, after all. No law can banish it, and no economy can survive if lead must be eliminated in all forms from all products, even in unharmful trace amounts.

She will succeed, however, in killing off all companies that make children's products. That will solve the "problem" she is apparently obsessed with, but will create other, more serious ones.

Let's hope we don't continue to slide down this slippery slope led by people who can't decide if they are wingnuts or dingbats. It's a tough call, I'll admit. She might be both.

CPSIA - Certainty, CPSIA-style

These days, you can count on the CPSC to hold against regulated companies, particularly in response to media inquiries. Facts are a secondary consideration. The WORST thing that could happen to you or your product is if a reporter calls the CPSC. You're cooked - safety administration these days is some sort of reality show, and everything's dangerous if a reporter is sniffing around.

And three years later, they'll hit you with a big penalty.

This week's crisis is the "discovery" by the Associated Press that some enamels used on glassware (the outside) have lead or cadmium bound in. The recall fo 12 million acknowledged safe Shrek glasses was the first indicator that we faced a "crisis".

Heavy metal use in glassware enamel is not exactly big news, nor a particular cause for concern (except for enterprising and paranoid reporters). Consider for example that our ever-wise Congress EXEMPTED these coatings years ago from lead regulation ("[The lead paint ban] does not include printing inks or those materials which actually become a part of the substrate, such as the pigment in a plastic article, or those materials which are actually bonded to the substrate, such as by electroplating or ceramic glazing." 16 CFR 1303.2(b)(1)). [You may also be interested to see all the other exemptions to the lead paint ban, in 16 CFR 1303.3.]

When confronted with the "shocking" news that other coated glasses besides Shrek had lead or cadmium in the enamels, the CPSC withered. They caved, and labeled these glasses (all very likely safe but featuring Super Hero images and the like) as "Children's Products". Here's a video of the reporter enjoying his 15 minutes of fame playing off the Shrek scare. He concedes that even HE thinks the risk is "low". No matter, it's good to stir up the mud. AP needs all the coverage it can get these days.

I am so happy we are being ruled by junk scientists now.

And the CPSC's determination that these products are "Children's Products" means they are subject to CPSIA regulation. This empowers the agency to recall them "out of an abundance of caution" and to impose penalties for failures to comply with the myriad rules of the CPSIA. No matter that this classification was hardly clear previously. Hmmm. Let's see how the mishmash interpretative rule on "Children's Products" makes this determination "clear".

I say "mishmash" because I defy you to figure this out for yourself by reading all the pages they threw at us. In fact, the latest "interpretation" in the so-called Final Rule does NOT seem to override the interpretive dicta in the prior version. It merely comments on the public comments that the agency by-and-large utterly ignored. The CPSC never bothers to reissue or conform past rules or interpretations. That's a job for us hobbyists.

In any event, it so happens that I addressed this very issue in my comment letter on the rule. The following section comes from the never-overwritten text accompanying the prior version of the rule. Consider this advice given to industry:

"The more of these types of characteristics that a product has, the greater the likelihood that the product is a children’s product. For example, a pen which is decorated or whose advertising and marketing features themes that correspond to obvious children’s interests, e.g., preschool characters, will greatly influence the purchase for preschool children. However, there also are ‘novelty’ pens that could appeal to children 12 years of age or younger as well as older children and adults; such novelty pens would not be considered to be primarily intended for children. For example, a simple ball point stick pen bearing an elementary school’s name, without any other decorations, would likely appeal to anyone (i.e. students, teachers, parents) connected with the school. A pen with a silly head on the top, not associated with any particular mass media (and not sold in toy stores), may have just as much appeal to adults as it would to children. Pens with puzzle features that allow the user to take them apart and reconfigure the design also are likely to appeal to children and adults alike, and thus, are not likely to be considered children’s products because they are not primarily intended for children."

Clear as mud.

Remember, we in industry must interpret this gobbledygook and run our businesses. Perhaps even more difficult is to use "rules" like this in agreement with your dealers. Basically, since the rules make no sense, it is not possible to agree with many or sometimes ANY of your customers. Welcome to my world.

It is extremely unfortunate that in the wake of conceding the safety of the Shrek glassware, and even worse, in the face of explicit exemptions of glazings in the FHSA, the CPSC would proceed to declare these items within the scope of its regulations, thus exposing yet another group of innocent companies to huge unexpected and unjustified losses. Brands will be further damaged, consumer confidence dented, and no doubt, sales of children's products will be bruised in the prime selling season. Good going, government!

This agency seems downright dense about the impact of its activities. For myself, this act proves that the CPSC cannot be trusted, has lost any sense of what constitutes safe or unsafe, and is dangerously reactive (especially in response to members of Congress and members of the press). For regulated companies, this is the worst of times - we face a looney regulator who is absolutely devoid of self-discipline or judgment. They administer a kind of "hang-'em-high" justice. If you are ever in the gray area with the CPSC, you can count on them to push you over the edge. Their rationale - you have to err on the side of safety even if you have no reasonable basis to suspect that any safety issues existed.

Okay, I get it. But when the regulator has no idea where "safety" is, erring on the side of safety means pleasing reporters who are trying to sell papers. Reporters sell fear - that's the only way to sell papers these days. Connect the dots - random losses are coming to all of us.

Selling children's products is for crazy people. I cannot believe the damage being inflicted by these people.

The database gets approved tomorrow. Enjoy the ride!

CPSIA - Cadmium Law Rammed Through in California

741 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 70 days left until Election Day.

California State Senator Fran Pavley (hope you're sitting down, she's a Dem) rammed through the latest in state cadmium regulations, setting a 300 ppm limit on cadmium in children's jewelry. This law, if signed by the CA Governor, will enable a barrage of lawsuits by consumer groups feeding off this kind of CA legislation. Zero lives will be saved, but plenty of jobs will be lost. We are already hearing of companies that are pulling out of California and more will follow. The craziness in California is basically unbearable at this point.

What really steams me about this law is Pavley's VERY OWN PRESS RELEASE. Consider these quotes:

"Senator Pavley (D-Santa Monica) . . . is seeking a ban on the dangerous metal cadmium after learning that manufacturers are simply replacing lead with cadmium. 'Cadmium is a known cancer causing agent and there is no reason for our most vulnerable citizens - our children - to be exposed to this highly toxic metal,' said Senator Pavley. 'These manufacturers are replacing one toxic metal for another when less toxic alternatives like zinc are available. It’s completely irresponsible to use cadmium in jewelry marketed to children.'"

"As an Assembly member in 2006, Pavley authored a law to ban the use of hazardous levels of lead, a powerful neurotoxin, in children’s jewelry. . . . However, a loophole in the law has allowed jewelry makers to substitute cadmium. Recent laboratory reports in the United States are now showing that the heavy metal cadmium is being used in place of lead. 'It’s a shame that jewelry makers are using a loophole in the law to harm our children,' said Senator Pavley. 'There is absolutely no excuse for manufacturers to use this dangerous agent in products for kids.'"[Emphasis added]

Let's be clear about something - there is absolutely no publicly available information to suggest that anyone is substituting cadmium for lead in jewelry (or in any other children's product). That's pure urban legend. If there is such evidence, someone should put the evidence up for all to see. This is a LIE - during election season. Shocked? I'm not . . . I live in Illinois.

I have already thoroughly covered the fact that there are NO KNOWN CASES of cadmium poisoning in children from any consumer product - EVER. This makes me surmise that Ms. Pavley is either stupid or she's a liar. One thing's for sure, she doesn't know what she's talking about. But I'm sure her message of crisis "averted" is a good seller back in Santa Monica.

Oh, by the way, did you catch her recommendation that zinc be substituted for cadmium because it's so much safer? Certainly we can trust the esteemed Ms. Pavley, a world-renowned toxicologist and metallurgist, right? Ummm, well, what about zinc poisoning? It's pretty icky - here's what you get with Ms. Pavley's preferred way to kill kids:

• Body pain
• Burning sensations
• Chills
• Collapse
• Convulsions
• Cough
• Fever
• Low blood pressure
• Metallic taste in mouth
• No urine output
• Rash
• Shock
• Shortness of breath
• Vomiting
• Watery or bloody diarrhea
• Yellow eyes or yellow skin

Hey, this sounds much better than cadmium poisoning. Of course, neither will ever occur in children because of their contact with children's products. After all, no one's ever had the cadmium poisoning California wants to prevent. If no one's ever had it . . . do we need to change anything to prevent it in the future? Do we need to know anything to make this judgment?

Nahhhh - besides I love zinc convulsions!

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.

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?

• 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!

CPSIA - Why Hasn't Data Changed Opinions at the CPSC?

I have recently published numerous blogs on CPSC recall data documenting the dearth of injuries and deaths from lead in the past decade. I am certainly not indifferent to the suffering of any victim, however, I note that data on injuries is a way to measure the urgency of the threat. There has been one death and three asserted injuries in the last eleven years from lead. We are a country of 300 million-plus and have a $15 trillion dollar economy - presumably, we need to prioritize.

I have also provided CPSC data on injuries and deaths from other hazards, such as cadmium (zero), pool drains (very low, but greater than lead), phthalates (zero) and pool and spa (extremely high, more in an average day than in a decade for lead, phthalates and cadmium put together). In fact, I documented the distribution of injuries and deaths among all recalled children's products over an 11-year period. At one death and three unverified injuries, lead comes in last among all recall categories with more than eight recalls over 11 years (lead and lead-in-paint accounted for 248 of 899 total recalls in the surveyed period of time). Literally every significant hazard facing children in consumer products is worse and much more dangerous than lead according to the CPSC's own data.

I have also shown that the data on recalls publicized by the CPSC tends to magnify the scale of lead recalls, making the recalls seem more threatening and the implied hazard more urgent than they really are. Among other things, the quantity of recalled products typically (if not always) includes inventory in the possession of the manufacturer. This inventory NEVER MADE IT TO THE MARKET. In addition, recall data also includes product still on the shelf at retailers. This inventory, which was sold by the manufacturer to the retailer, was never sold to consumers. Inventory in the possession of the manufacturer, its factories or its retailers has no conceivable potential to harm a child. The amount of product in the hands of consumers could be tiny. Please consider these facts when evaluating the claims of consumer groups on the "poor" effectiveness of recalls. The math gets all tangled up, doesn't it?

Call me crazy, but this seems like some rather shocking data. The deaths and injuries from lead and phthalates are so small that they are trumped in a single day by pool and spa deaths and injuries. [The reported deaths and serious injuries from pools and spas since Memorial Day, at least 210, are AT LEAST FIFTY TIMES THE NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM LEAD IN THE LAST ELEVEN YEARS. In other words, it will take more than 500 years for lead to produce as many deaths and serious injuries as the last 53 days from pools and spas (if the lead death and injury rate doesn't taper off).]

And yet the CPSC seems to have no interest in this data, their OWN data. Why? Well, the best I can say is that they believe every life is precious and thus, economics cannot be considered when designing a response to the hazard. I did not invent this view of the consumer group-dominated Commission - I asked this very question of a person in a position to know, and got this answer. So there you go.

Does this hold water, that economics are irrelevant and should never be considered? First, on the relevance of economics, I think that's a silly proposition. Of course economics matters. Please don't feign shock or disgust. Let's do an exercise: How much shall we spend to save a life? A child died from swallowing a lead charm on a single bracelet several years ago. This is the lone reported death from lead or lead-in-paint from a consumer product in at least 11 years and has been cited as a justification for the CPSIA maelstrom. In this space, I have adopted a proxy estimate of $5.6 billion in annual CPSIA compliance costs for the children's product industry (based on a submission of the HTA to support their Congressional testimony).

So, is $5.6 billion the "right" amount to spend annually to prevent the next loss of life? Sure, you say, spend the $5.6 billion each year, every life is precious. Okay, does the cumulative spend of $61.9 billion over 11 years (to match the period in which the one death occurred) sound a bit extreme? Can you think of anything else that might be a better use of $61.9 billion? [Like a new national highway system? A new electrical grid? A few more cruise missiles? A few months of national health care?] I would note that $62 billion is double the provisional losses of BP from the Gulf oil spill. That's a lot of coconuts, if you ask me.

Should we spend $61.9 billion on every cause of death? What about causes of death that are "worse", meaning that loss of life is greater? Should we spend proportionately? If our resources are limited (I used to think that was relevant but lately, who knows?), how should we allocate our limited dollars? Is it okay to prioritize? Does lead make the cut if we try to allocate rationally?

It is worth noting that the value of a life or an injury is a heavily-litigated subject. It is a staple of tort litigation to estimate damages by assessing the economic value of a life or an injury. The U.S. government also engages in the same analysis. Certain agencies are forbidden by law to issue regulations that do not show an economic profit, that is, the cost of the regulation must be outweighed by its economic benefits. [Money spent or saved by the public versus the government is not relevant to this analysis - a dollar's a dollar no matter who spends it.]

The benefits of the regulation are calculated by assessing the economic value of lives and injuries. To regulate otherwise is economically irrational - which is where the CPSC seems to be. More to the point, economic irrationality is against the weight of U.S. jurisprudence, not to mention laws limiting the ability of the government to issue regulations. Hate to sound trendy, but it is Big Government completely out of control to contend that lives are "priceless" and to assert that the cost to avoid injury or death should not be limited by economic considerations. Please note that the EPA assesses the economic "value" of a life at $6.1 million. For even more perspective, the EPA says that one IQ point lost to lead is worth $8,346. CPSIA compliance costs are not less than $5.6 billion EACH YEAR. Do the math.

Okay, this is bordering on insulting your intelligence. Yet, astoundingly, the CPSC doesn't get it. What about the behavior of the CPSC itself - do they ever consider economics? Again, at the risk of insulting your intelligence, of course they do. For one thing, they themselves have limited resources. They can't do everything they want, and have to make choices. They have a BUDGET. They can't hire everyone they want, can't inspect everything, can't process every claim immediately and so on. They also make practical judgments on some things. I reported recently the tarring the Commission received for making a practical judgment about how to implement the pool drain law. In that case, they chose to agree with the recommendations of industry, which is heresy in some circles . Certain members of Congress live in those circles . . . . No doubt the savaging of the Commission over that minor practical judgment will have the intended effect of eliminating whatever shreds of common sense or backbone extant at the CPSC and the Commission. Perhaps this is the end of their consideration of economics . . . .

Where does this leave us? Come on, guys, right where we were for the last two years! We continue to rail against this awful law, and the CPSC gets progressively more and more stone deaf. I feel increasingly like I am mumbling to myself, especially when they won't respond to their own data or other data-driven rational arguments. Given that the Dems have made their name by being totally deaf to the legitimate concerns of industry, what choices are left to us? I am turning more of my energies to the 2010 Midterm elections. I hope you will also do what you can to change the dynamic in Washington. You've seen what these people have done in the last 18 months. Ready for more?

I'm not. And I am doing something about it.

Lenore Skenazy has a Few Things to Say about All Those CPSC Recalls

Lenore Skenazy who writes the Free Range Kids Blog, has an op-ed on Forbes.com about all those CPSC recalls (previously covered on this blog here and here).

She doesn't mince words.

Money quotes:

"And so it goes in the unbrave new world, where nothing is safe enough. It's a world brought to us by the once sane, now danger-hallucinating Consumer Product Safety Commission."

and

"[CPSC] actively engages in fear mongering, perhaps to give it something to do. After it rid the world of leaping lawnmowers and exploding frying pans, it turned its sights on the also-rans of corporate reprehensibility. The tricycle with a protruding screw. The stuffed animal whose button eyeball contains lead paint. And to remain relevant, it acts as if there is really no distinction between a bucking chain saw and a Little Tykes "choking hazard" the size of a salt shaker. And it just keeps getting more irrational."

Read the entire op-ed: "Students Aren't Allowed to Touch Real Rocks."

Posted by the Staff of the Alliance for Children's Product Safety

GUEST BLOG - Bruce Lund, Lund and Company Invention, L.L.C. on the Cadmium "Crisis"

When we put the call out for Guest Bloggers a couple of weeks ago, we received this post from toy designer and inventor Bruce Lund. While he originally posted it on his own blog several months ago, it's still relevant today.

Cadmium in Children's Jewelry

By Bruce Lund

Knee jerk responses, ill considered opinions, and unsupported positions based on hearsay or questionable sources are all what led to the CPSIA legislative insanity that continues to grind on and grind up small companies with regulations that are expensive, onerous, and simply wrongheaded. Although well intentioned, the results are not those intended.

On the issue of cadmium levels in children's jewelry, something which has always been in jewelry of all kinds, and has never been identified as a health risk, the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has warned against allowing children to play with inexpensive jewelry. That, along with state level legislation may well remove jewelry for kids from the marketplace altogether - all without any science and . . .

“without the benefit of a review of the test data, which AP and its testing partner have not made public or shared with the companies whose products are named in the story. The CPSC subsequently issued a recall for one jewelry item with "high levels of cadmium," but also did not share data – even with the company itself.”

(quoted from the Alliance for Children's Product Safety and CPSIA, and to view previous "Casualties of the Week," visit AmendTheCPSIA.com)

Were cadmium to be a health problem, it would have manifested itself as kidney disease, which is virtually unknown in children. The result is the toy industry and other related industries being ruled on and regulated on the basis of unsubstantiated claims in the media and politicians' knee jerk legislation, not on the basis of fact, scientific risk analysis, or sound judgment.

That almost sounds like craziness to me. Where is the voice of reason? Could it even be heard over the din of today's media-saturated world?

Blog post by Bruce Lund, Founder, Lund and Company Invention, L.L.C.

Bruce's blog can be found here. The blog above was originally posted here on March 30, 2010.


Posted by the Staff of the Alliance for Children's Product Safety

CPSIA - What?! Too Many Recalls - That CAN'T Be!

The Washington Post stated the obvious this week in an article Friday entitled "Officials Worry about Consumers Lost Among the Recalls". Apparently, the surge in recalls has caused consumers to increasingly ignore them. Apparently, many consumers choose to continue to use recalled items or even to eat recalled food. Among the issues, the swelling number of recalls encourages consumers to assume that they are not serious. In addition, the onslaught of recalls is numbing to consumers. Prominent recalls that appear to be based on junk science or Regulatory Multiple Personality Disorder (RMPD), like my personal favorite McDonald's Shrek glasses which were recalled despite the CPSC's admissin that they were perfectly safe, only amplifiwa the sense of a system is out of control.

Among the useless advice offered in the article is the recommendation that all merchants should do as Costco does, which is to call every customer who has ever bought a recalled item in its stores. What Costco does is admirable, but it is entirely dependent on being a multi-billion dollar, high tech mass market retailer. I think it would be great if I could hit my nine iron 205 yards like Tiger Woods, but then again, it ain't happenin'. It's about as realistic to advise (or require) me to match Mr. Woods distance and accuracy with his golf clubs as it is to require all U.S. merchants to match the achievements of ONE of them, namely Costco in this case. Unfortunately, the article's suggestion is utterly out of touch with reality. Bad news - the world's imperfect. . . .

Whatever we do, we certainly shouldn't address the standards for how recalls are determined, staged or publicized. We may disagree about many things, but we all have to acknowledge that our government COULDN'T be at fault. Certainly not, their every choice and execution is perfection by definition. It's obviously the fault of industry.

Editor's Note: In case you were wondering, I was being sarcastic in the paragraph above.

The Post article also clucks about the implementation of registration cards for durable infant products like cribs and bassinets. I have consistently pointed out that durable infant products are in a different category because they are useful for a long time (hence the word "durable") and tend to be handed down from one generation to another, often being used over decades. On this basis, having a way to reach consumers is a good idea. BUT we need to acknowledge an important consequence of this idealistic solution - the new rules tend to make it very difficult or even illegal as a practical matter to START a business catering to these markets. For those companies crazy enough to remain in the durable infant products market, the new rules on registration cards and data retention is a Gift from Above. The infrastructure and overhead burden of this requirement will be unbearable for any except the most well-capitalized companies.

I am glad I don't need a crib now. Considering how many companies have been crushed by recalls, the penal attitude of the agency (with huge penalties possible LONG after recalls are announced), tough new standards and regulations on the product class, and the new registration cards, I cannot imagine many companies remaining in this market for much longer. The ensuing lack of competition will likely mean fewer products, much higher prices, less innovation, fewer available imports. The CPSIA is a protectionist regime for those few companies not already bankrupt at the hands of the government.

I am not in this business and my kids are older - for once, this is someone else's problem. I think the government's approach to fixing this problem is completely wrong. They seem to be taking their instructions from a very small and insular group of consumer advocates whose judgment on these matters is largely unchallenged by industry or an inquisitive media. [Media is only inquisitive these days if they can portray a crisis, it seems to me.] Having bought into these harsh concepts at the hands of consumer groups, the government today is busy patting itself on the back for a job well-done. We'll see . . . .

In the meantime, with the CPSC announcing micro-recalls like Daiso's latest (190 pieces recalled - total, including inventory on the shelf - of five items selling for $1.50 at retail), the consumer is left wondering if anything is safe or everything is safe (and the government has lost its mind). I can't tell you but my guess is closer to the latter. And the Washington Post says you are all checking out. Good job, regulators!

CPSIA - Wolfson Fans Fear on Shrek Glasses (Was it a Slow Week at the CPSC?)

It seems that the feeding frenzy over the McDonald's Shrek glasses just won't die. No matter that there are zero reported injuries from cadmium in consumer products - EVER - or that the medical community is basically unaware of any material risk to children from cadmium in consumer products. Yet another news report on McDonald's perpetuated the myth that the presence of cadmium on the outside of the glasses is a danger.

Let's start with a basic FACT - CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson put in WRITING that the Shrek glasses were NOT TOXIC. I have previously analyzed this remark and concluded that "not toxic" is the equivalent of "SAFE" (based on the plain English language meaning of the words). Wolfson has conceded in writing that the glasses are safe.

Now the Philadelphia Inquirer quotes Scott Wolfson raising doubts about McDonald's Shrek glasses:

"'CPSC is doing additional follow-up work in the aftermath of the recall,' Wolfson said. 'The case is not closed.'"

The CPSC is apparently investigating glasses that Wolfson himself called safe. Don't worry, Wolfson is just trying to keep everybody calm.

Apparently not content with this mess, Wolfson goes on to suggest that some parents (the really neurotic ones) may want to take special precautions with the safe glasses:

"Wolfson, the CPSC spokesman, said risk-conscious parents might want to consider using a souvenir glass simply as a souvenir. 'If a parent wanted to be as cautious as possible, they should consider not allowing their child to use it as a drinking glass — to keep it as a collectable or just allow it for adult use only,' Wolfson said."


The message here, of course, is that the glasses are NOT safe. But they are. So who are you to believe, Wolfson Number One or Wolfson Number Two? Or not believe any of the Wolfsons because they are playing some sort of game with us that none of us can understand?

The Shrek glasses manufacturer certainly seems puzzled. But he seems to be reliant on knowledge of the manufacturing process and perhaps even knows something about science, seemingly a liability these days when dealing with a know-nothing government:

"'There is nothing wrong with the manufacturing process,' Jose-Maria Aulotte, Arc’s senior vice president, said last week . . . . Aulotte said the cadmium-based pigments are made in Germany — not France, as a McDonald’s spokeswoman previously stated — and are legal 'in all countries we do business in.' He said the pigments are used in red and yellow enamels, and in combinations such as oranges and greens. Once decorated, the glasses are fired at 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit, in a process called vitrification that Aulotte said locks the enamels to the glassware. 'We’re confident all Arc International products are safe for use by children and adults, and are unaware of harmful exposure related to these pigments,' he said via email . . . . Aulotte said he was puzzled why the CPSC tests suggested that routine handling could lead to cadmium exposure. 'It depends on what you do with it. But if you just carry the glass, it should not come off,' Aulotte said."

Were the CPSC a logical place with regulators who are concerned about public safety, not public neuroses or headlines, this matter would be long dead. Why couldn't Wolfson tell the Philadelphia Inquirer that the matter is closed, that he has already informed it that the glasses were safe and that the recall was voluntary at the request of McDonald's to reassure the public about its cautious approach to safety? Well, of course, that's not entirely true, as it has been widely reported that the CPSC urged this recall of safe product. What SHOULD the CPSC say? Maybe that they screwed up?

I should live so long.

CPSIA - Cadmium Crisis Explained

Scratching your head about the mounting crisis over cadmium? Let's see, the CPSC declares the Shrek glasses "not toxic" but still pushes for a recall of these safe products "in an abundance of caution". Apparently, the CPSC either believes that perfectly safe products should be recalled in an abundance of caution or that they themselves can't figure out what's "dangerous" anymore. Not a single article or a single person to my knowledge has identified a single injury caused by cadmium in a consumer product - EVER.

[Oops, SORRY, there is a consumer product closely associated with cadmium intake: " Tobacco smoking is the most important single source of cadmium exposure in the general population. . . . The absorption of cadmium from the lungs is much more effective than that from the gut, and as much as 50% of the cadmium inhaled via cigarette smoke may be absorbed. On average, smokers have 4-5 times higher blood cadmium concentrations and 2-3 times higher kidney cadmium concentrations than non-smokers. . . . No significant effect on blood cadmium concentrations could be detected in children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke." Time to stop smoking, guys - that's big news, apparently.]

Of course, we shouldn't ignore the fact that the people who are terrorizing America over cadmium are the very same people who are pushing for deep and invasive regulation of all chemicals throughout our society. It's the anti-chemicals crowd behind the cadmium panic. Mr. Waxman's big goal is the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Arguably, the CPSIA is the opening shot in his TSCA battle, which explains his utter intransigence in the face of well-documented catastrophes caused by the CPSIA. Cadmium is perfect for that purpose, especially since no one seems to understand the nature of the threat. Just mention cadmium and "bone softening" and the media and politicians melt.

Anyhow, I was wondering how cadmium became so scary. I realize that cadmium is dangerous under certain limited circumstances - but so are many other things that Americans like to use, such as fire, water . . . and guns. It is obviously time for some research. To help you out, I have provided many useful links below. The history of cadmium is VERY revealing. Here's what I found out:

The discovery of cadmium came long after Rachel Weintraub and Henry Waxman attended school. Back in the olde days when they were educated, the Periodic Table had a different look:



In those days, when chemistry teachers taught the periodic table, position 48 was known as Puppy Dogs. Chemistry instructors typically explained that this element was responsible for sunshine, candy, love and (of course) puppy dogs. Everything that was good and sweet in our idyllic lives were attributable to Puppy Dogs. Element 48, also known as "Smiley Face", was always the element children liked best. Most lessons were taught staring dreamily out the window at the playground, watching small children frolic and play. Puppy Dogs was good stuff.

The role of Puppy Dogs in our lives and the American Way was a foundation belief in the scientific community for many years.

Later, science took a dark turn. In 2007, scientists in Congress discovered to their horror that lead (Pb) was not only present on the periodic table just two squares away from Puppy Dogs but that lead was a contaminant in certain consumer products. At this time, science had not advanced far enough for Congressional scientists to know that lead has been on the Earth since creation and is found in everything including our food, water and air. Once Congressional scientists were able to detect trace levels of lead in consumer products, a specialist in the Top Secret Congressional Skunk Works connected the dots - "What about kids? If they play with Puppy Dogs, it's just two squares away from LEAD!" This is what prompted passage of the CPSIA.

Am I being too science-y? Sorry.

As you know, science marches on and in a very recent 2010 development, scientists at the Consumer Federation of America, led by Rachel Weintraub, and at the CPSC discovered that Puppy Dogs was actually NOT the 48th element. After urgent research into how sunlight was created if not by Puppy Dogs, cadmium was discovered accidentally when someone pulled on their earlobe while deep in thought.

Here's what Wikipedia says about this Nobel Prize winning discovery:

"Cadmium is a chemical element with the symbol Cd and atomic number 48. Cadmium represents a low point in American science education. In a little known provision of the "Treaty of the Meter" signed by the United States in 1878 signalling the promising beginning of the metric movement in our country, the 48th position of the periodic table was deemed to be a Smiley Face and called "Puppy Dogs". American science, never questioning this regulation, eventually traced the origins of sunshine and love back to this phantom element. In early 2010, scientists at the U.S. House of Representatives noticed that lead (Pb) was located near Puppy Dogs on the periodic table, and in a rapid series of science-y experiments, determined that Puppy Dogs was actually a soft, bluish-white metal chemically similar to the two other metals in group 12, zinc and mercury. Frighteningly, experiments have determined that cadmium, if dumped into a river in massive quantities as mining run-off over a period of decades, will cause bone softening in nearby populations ("Ouch-Ouch Sickness" is also known as one of the Four Big Pollution Diseases of Japan)."

So that brings you up-to-date on cadmium, bone softening and toxicity. I hope this helps you understand why your Congress and the CPSC are trying to save you from dangerous cadmium. Apparently, you need a lot of "saving". In my case, I am just going to stop drinking from rivers downstream from WWII mining operations in Japan. That should probably be enough protection for me.

CPSIA - Recall of Safe Products Continues to Reverberate

The national convulsions (call it "brain softening") induced by the CPSC's action in forcing McDonald's to recall admittedly SAFE Shrek drinking glasses continued to spin out of control today. Following their usual election year script of harshly dealing with invented crises to impress the easily-duped public, Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak, two Democratic leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent letters today to McDonald's and the manufacturer of the glasses, ARC International, demanding information to blow this non-issue up into a mega-crisis.

Before I summarize how Waxman and Stupak worked to spread regulatory disease far and wide, I think we all owe a big THANK YOU to the CPSC for so vigilantly protecting us from these safe products. There is no doubt that we were all victims of a false sense of security, not knowing that atoms of cadmium might be lurking on the outside of drinking glasses. Of course, cadmium atoms also lurk in our food, in our water, in our air, in our dirt AND on countless glasses in our homes sold over preceding decades without incident - but, heck, that's a little too science-y, don't you think? Only by exposing that these glasses are SAFE while at the VERY SAME TIME pushing for a highly-publicized recall and resulting media panic, did the CPSC reveal that we were actually safe without even knowing it - and yet they STILL acted to protect us! What a great bunch of guys and gals we have at the CPSC, we are so lucky. No really, thank YOU Consumer Product Safety Commission!

Mssrs. Waxman and Stupak sent off two letters demanding lots of "incriminating" information, such as:

• A list of all manufacturers and distributors that supply McDonald's with children's products. McDonald's interest in keeping its suppliers' identities confidential as a trade secret is no never mind. After all, the glasses they recalled are SAFE, so you can't take ANY chances. And let's not forget the FACT that the other McDonald's items are NOT suspected of ANY violation of ANY law. This is Mr. Waxman's wizardry to keep us all so safe. . . .
• A list of all the "steps" McDonald's takes to ensure that children's products do not contain hazardous materials. The FACT that the CPSC has declared these glasses SAFE does not apparently matter in this inquiry, raising the question of what Waxman and Stupak mean by "hazardous materials". Presumably then, the presence of an atom of cadmium might meet their "standard" for hazardous materials. In utopia, there is no cadmium. Waxman and Stupak represent the 1st and 8th Congressional Districts of Utopia, respectively.
• The identity of the supplier of the enamel on the SAFE glasses. This identity had previously been withheld by ARC, showing character by attempting to keep the crisis away from an innocent supplier. As ARC said in a recent newspaper report, "[it] could have been any glass company. . . . We all do the same thing using materials from the same suppliers."

I find it ironic that the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is none other than Michael Burgess. Burgess is a doctor (M.D.). Maybe he has a sense of what constitutes an actual hazard to human health. If he does, I hope he shares it with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. . . .

Hey, let's not get too paranoid here. No one is going to pay attention to this mass hysteria or change how they regard the federal safety laws. This mega-screwing of two reputable companies over admittedly SAFE products is not relevant to the rest of us. Why? They'll never be interested in us because we all make . . . SAFE PRODUCTS.

Oh, crap.

CPSIA - McDonald's Shrek Glasses Weren't an "Imminent Hazard"

Some people apparently think I contend that product recalls can only take place if the CSPC insists. I have certainly argued that the CPSC has no authority to demand or even ask for a recall unless certain specific conditions are met. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but there are limits to the agency's legal authority. Companies themselves can recall products for any reason. There need not be a safety reason - you can recall something from the market because the color's wrong, the material is somehow less than expected, wrong size, wrong instructions, wrong packaging, whatever. A company's ability to recall its own products is not limited by law.

In the case of the McDonald's Shrek glasses, yes, McDonald's declared a voluntary recall. That's not unusual - the vast majority of recalls are voluntary. Only a tiny handful of recalls every year are "mandatory". In any event, the critical issue here is NOT that McDonald's made this choice. As we have discussed, the publicity from this event forced McDonald's hand - they had to protect their brand at all costs. The issue here is that the CPSC apparently "urged" the company to "do the right thing". [These words come from the OnSafety blog, the official blog of the CPSC, believed to be written by Scott Wolfson, Director of Public Affairs.] It was apparently the "right thing" to do although the agency conceded that the glasses were "not toxic", in other words SAFE.

While companies are allowed to choose to recall safe products at their pleasure, the CPSC does not have the unlimited legal authority to reach out to American companies and tell them to take this kind of voluntary action.

The power to recall emanates from certain provisions of the CPSA and FHSA. Notably, Section 12(a) of the CPSA, the agency can't go to court unless there is an "imminent hazard". What might that be? "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." Given that the glasses have been acknowledged to be "non-toxic", this standard is impossible to meet.

The relevant term in the FHSA is "banned hazardous substance". In Section 2(q)(1)(A), it is defined as "any toy, or other article intended for use by children, which is a hazardous substance, or which bears or contains a hazardous substance in such manner as to be susceptible of access by a child to whom such toy or other article is entrusted". [If a ban is done pursuant to subsection (B) of this clause as a "household item" because it is chemical in nature, it must be done by rule, subject to comment and so on. There was no rulemaking process involved in this case.]

"Hazardous material" is defined in Section 2(f)(1)(D) in relevant part as "Any toy or other article intended for use by children which the Commission by regulation determines, in accordance with section 3(e) of this Act, presents an electrical, mechanical, or thermal hazard." And Section 3(e) refers only to electrical, mechanical or thermal hazards, clearly inapplicable here.

Bottom line, the McDonald's glasses are outside the reach of the CPSC . . . if the wording of its principal empowering laws matter anymore.

CPSIA - What Does "Not Toxic" Mean?

Apparently, certain people who should know better have asserted that "not toxic" does NOT connote safety. They implausibly argue that it's "not the same thing". In other words, the argument goes that if you were to contend that something is "not toxic", it is somehow different than saying that it's "safe". I beg to differ. Certain people apparently think I don't "get it".

We should check that out, don't you think?

I am pretty sure these certain people are native speakers of English, so we can't go there.

Mr. Dictionary stepped up to resolve this difficulty. Here are some definitions that may help sort this out. Some dictionaries do not define "non-toxic", relying instead on the definition of the root word "toxic". I hope you, too, can make this leap.

a. American Heritage Dictionary (Official Edition): This is on my desk for just such an occasion. "Toxic" is defined as "Of or caused by a toxin or poison". The definition of a "toxin" is (in relevant part) "a substance, produced by a plant, animal or microorganism that . . . is capable of producing poisoning when introduced into the body . . . ." A "poison" is "a substance that causes injury, illness or death, esp. by chemical means". So I derive that "not toxic" means that the substance in question will NOT cause "injury, illness or death". I think you might call such a thing "safe".

b. The Free Dictionary: Two definitions of "nontoxic": (i) not producing or resulting from poison, and (ii) safe to eat. So according to this dictionary, "not toxic" means you can eat it safely. Not sure I'd recommend that for, say, a painted glass, but perhaps other people would.

c. Wikipedia: "Toxicity" is defined as "the degree to which a substance is able to damage an exposed organism." So something that is "not toxic" is something that has NO ability to damage an exposed organism. Another word for such a thing is "safe".

d. Thesaurus.com: Perhaps most pertinently, the primary synonym for "non-toxic" is "harmless" and the short definition is "not injurious or dangerous". The full list of synonyms is "controllable, disarmed, gentle, guiltless, hurtless, innocent, innocuous, innoxious, inoffensive, inoperative, kind, manageable, naive, nonirritating, nontoxic, painless, paper-tiger, powerless, pussycat, reliable, safe, sanitary, simple, soft, softie, sound, sure, trustworthy, unobjectionable, unoffensive". [Emphasis added] The antonyms are "bad, destructive, evil, harmful, hurtful, injurious, sinful, wicked".

So, just to be clear, when someone, anyone says something is "not toxic", what they mean is that it is SAFE. This is always the case, even if they flap their arms wildly about . . . for reasons that only they can provide.

Always happy to help.

Mr. Dictionary

CPSIA - McDonald's Fallout Continues

The spectacle of the McDonald's cadmium "scare" continued to unfold today.

Let's not forget that this recall was "urged" by the CPSC although the CPSC admits in writing that the glasses are "non-toxic". In other words, the glasses are safe. As the manufacturer notes: "'It could have been any glass company,' said Ron Biagi, an executive with Arc International, which made the glasses. 'We all do the same thing using materials from the same suppliers.'" McDonald's clearly had no choice in the matter, suffering a terrible loss of prestige no matter what the outcome. So the CPSC, Rep. Jackie Speier, one anonymous tipster and a hyperbolic press forced a highly wasteful and destructive recall.

The tumult, chaos and confusion thoughtlessly spawned by the CPSC continues to unfurl in almost predictable fashion: "But the returns [to McDonald's] are just the beginning of the next chapter in the cadmium debate, with the CPSC poised to set new limits on the metal even as it downplays the McDonald's recall and environmental advocates aim to use the episode to build momentum for reform of federal toxics law."

A terrible move deserves an even worse follow-up.

What's the cause for alarm here? The glasses are safe, so says the CPSC . . . as it dramatically lowers the standard for cadmium. Yeah, nobody's worried.

The consumer group talking heads can't resist chiming in: "Don Mays, senior director of product safety for Consumer Reports, said cadmium was being used in some manufactured goods to replace lead, which has been eliminated from many products in response to heavy regulation and widespread health concerns. Many of those goods were once commonly associated with lead, like paint and inexpensive jewelry. 'We’re just starting to see this,' Mr. Mays said. 'It’s starting to creep into a lot of consumer products that never had it before.'”

Does anyone care that the CPSC SAYS THIS ISN'T TRUE? "After an Associated Press investigation first uncovered the high cadmium levels in some children's jewelry, CPSC Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum publicly warned manufacturers in Hong Kong not to replace lead with cadmium or other toxic metals. Tenenbaum told senators in April that 'we really don't think' companies are deliberately swapping out lead for other hazardous chemicals, 'but we think they're being careless and not realizing that you cannot use these metals in children's products.'" [Emphasis added]

Some in the press aren't persuaded. After all, urban myths are true . . . aren't they? "[David Lazarus of the LA Times] notes that Cadmium has probably stayed off the radar for so long because people weren't widely aware of its use. The focus has primarily been on the danger of lead products, and lead product replacements weren't a primary concern. Chinese manufacturers began using Cadmium insted [sic] of lead to get the same vivid pigments in product colors." Right. David Lazarus knows all about this.

And then there are our Democratic leaders in Congress. It's election season so there's little incentive to be a calming influence. "Congresswoman Jackie Spear [sic], who first received the anonymous tip about the Shrek cups, doubts Europe is the Cadmium culprit due to its strict manufacturing rules. Spear [sic] suspects either a subcontractor or ingredient provider in China; China is one of the leading Cadmium producers in the world. . . . Spear [sic] says she has legislation in the works that would expand the Cadmium ban in U.S., specifying removing its use in any product for children."

And the basis for Rep. Speier's hunch is . . . what, exactly? The glasses were made in a U.S. factory: "In contrast to the Chinese-made children's jewelry recalled earlier in the year, the drinking glasses were manufactured in the United States, by the Millville, N.J.-based company ARC International. Ron Biagi, vice president for North American sales at ARC, said he was surprised by the recall and vouched for the safety of the glasses. While environmental and consumer groups pointed to the importance of identifying the producer of the cadmium-tainted enamel used on the McDonald's glasses, Biagi declined to name ARC's supplier. 'It's not fair for me to pull them in,' he said." OMG, somebody decent is left in the world! I had about given up hope.

Having set off the blaze, CPSC Director of Public Affairs Scott Wolfson again spewed more of his patented mixed signals sure to sow seeds of doubt: "'What's so important is for parents to understand the difference. ... Children are not at an acute risk; the glasses are not toxic,' Wolfson said, adding that 'there are no signs we're looking at a wave here of cadmium becoming the next lead.'" Which is why, Scott, you and your agency acted so promptly to push for a recall of this non-toxic product made of common materials in wide distribution in this country for years without any detectable adverse health effect? Which is why you told America to stop using the oh-so-safe glasses "immediately" in your OnSafety blog? Do I have this wrong? Clear as mud. Very believable, too.

There are terms for this that are too crass for a family publication like my blog. Let your imagination run. How will all this resolve itself? Of course, not very well. Justified by fear of "bone softening" (that sounds HORRIBLE, doesn't it?) and other bizarre maladies that supposedly COULD befall us from unspecified exposure to cadmium, we will get many new and ineffective regulations imposing yet more devastating costs and devastating risk on the children's product industry.

While hatred of government is a necessary by-product of the massive self-inflicted injury of the CPSIA, we will more pertinently be faced with the difficult challenge of protecting our life's work - our businesses. The livelihoods of our friends and associates at our company, the economic well-being of our customers and suppliers (often our close friends, too) and in our case, the economic future prospects of the kids who are being educated with our products, all hang in the balance. I don't know what stops this freight train before it tragically collides with reality. Certainly not leadership or a show of character from our government.

I hate to close these essays sounding like a Tea Partier (not that I resent the label). I don't wish to be marginalized for having strong views about an abdication of leadership and judgment by our government leaders. Say what you will, the McDonald's fiasco was fomented by politicians with agendas. Many companies and people - and our economy - will be severely damaged as a result.

There's nothing to be proud of here.

CPSIA - McDonalds Recall Urged by CPSC - WHY?

The CPSC has put in writing that the Shrek glasses recalled by McDonald's last week are "non-toxic". Nonetheless, the CPSC (perhaps the commission itself, as noted in certain press reports) "urged" the company to make the recall.

So now it appears that the CPSC thinks it's okay to ask a company to recall a product for reasons that it acknowledges pose no safety issue. Why?

Let's not forget all the expense that this move imposes on the company coerced into making the recall. The law restrict the power of the agency to take this step, in part to preserve the incentive to make "at risk" investments in new products. There's also that small detail called "due process". My previous post noted that the CPSC does not have the authority to make recalls of products absent a "substantial product hazard". This suggests that the CPSC was exceeding its authority in the McDonald's case. By almost any measure, the CPSC's actions were inexplicable. Why demand a recall of a safe product?

I cannot answer this question for the CPSC or its Chairman, Inez Tenenbaum. However, here's a few salient facts to chew on:

1. The Member of Congress (Jackie Speier) that "tipped off" the CPSC about this matter is a Democrat.
2. Jackie Speier represents a California Congressional district (12th) that abuts Nancy Pelosi's district (8th).
3. Shortly after first being elected to Congress in a 2008 by-election, Speier was appointed by Pelosi to serve as a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, then chaired by none other than Henry Waxman. Waxman resigned this chairmanship to take over as Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4. Ms. Speier has publicly endorsed the "black box" requirement for cars that Mr. Waxman supports. She also wants to create a federal law restricting cadmium in jewelry. Her concept of Congressional activism is very closely aligned with Mr. Waxman, another California Democrat and patron of the Democratic majority on the Commission.
5. Today, Speier is a member of three committees. Besides Oversight, the other two committees are chaired by Edward Markey and Barney Frank, two close allies of Waxman and Pelosi.
6. Jackie Speier is running for reelection in one of the most phobic of states, California. The Democrats need every seat they can get in this Mid-Term election.
7. One of the three Democrat Commissioners appointed by Obama was a member of Henry Waxman's staff for several years (Adler).

And can anyone imagine a Democrat-controlled CPSC telling a Democratic Member of Congress from the San Francisco area that her highly-publicized call for investigation of Shrek glasses because of cadmium was, in fact, unmerited, that the product was perfectly safe and the large corporation responsible for the glasses had protected consumers very well? In an election year with Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House and Henry Waxman directly overseeing the agency?

Nope, can't think of a single reason why the leadership of the CPSC would urge McDonald's to recall the safe glasses.

At least the CPSC won't have to pay the costs of the recall. That's McDonald's problem.

CPSIA - Lowest Common Denominator Government

We saw a display of Mr. Obama's team in action this past week as McDonald's was cornered into a national recall of a safe product. How did it happen? Did our government rise to the occasion, or simply resume its descent into the abyss?

"Americans want to be safe. And they expect their federal government to protect them. So that is what I'm here to do." Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, NPR Report “Under Obama, Agencies Step Up Rule-Making”



Last week in a coordinated media extravaganza, an anonymous caller alerted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) to the trace presence of cadmium in Shrek glasses being sold by McDonald's. In a rapid fire series of events, McDonald's announced a voluntary recall of the offending Made-in-America glasses “at the urging of the [CPSC] commission ”. The CPSC apparently pushed for the recall of the glasses by McDonald's after quickly testing the glasses.

[It turns out that there were two "anonymous tipsters", one of whom is Jennifer Taggart, a regular reader of this blog. Ms. Taggart has acknowledged that cadmium levels on the McDonald's glasses are well within California's Proposition 65 restrictions. Prop. 65 is easily the most restrictive and challenging of the myriad local safety regulations.]

Rep. Speier seized the election year opportunity to lecture McDonald's on safety: “’Our children’s health should not depend on the consciences of anonymous sources. Although McDonald’s did the right thing by recalling these products, we need stronger testing standards to ensure that all children’s products are proven safe before they hit the shelves,’ said Speier. ‘Cadmium is a toxic substance that is extremely dangerous to the developmental health of children. . . . Thanks to this anonymous tip received by my office, the proper agencies were alerted, necessary action was taken by McDonald’s, and the long-term health of millions of children is no longer at risk.’”

Jackie Speier is a Democrat representing the San Francisco area.

A media deluge followed the recall. Typical of the hyperbole is this article from NJ.com: "McDonald's announced the voluntary recall after small amounts of cadmium were found in the enamel with which character images were painted on the glasses . . . . Long-term exposure to low levels of cadmium from those glasses can cause various health problems, including cancer, bone softening and severe kidney problems. [NJ State Assemblyman Paul] Moriarty, in a news release, demanded an investigation . . . . 'It's stunning that in this day and age our children can still come into contact with toxic materials just by using a glass featuring a cartoon character,' Moriarty said in the release. . . . " [Emphasis added] AP could not resist the McDonald's cadmium frenzy that it helped to create: "A recall of 12 million cadmium-tainted ''Shrek'' drinking glasses sold by McDonald's raises questions about the safety of millions of similar cheap promotional products that have been sitting in Americans' kitchen cabinets for years."

It all boils down to trust, right? After all, it’s McDonald’s. McDonald’s is America, McDonald’s is children. If you can’t trust McDonald's, who can you trust?

I will attempt to answer that question.

First - Can you trust McDonald's?

Yes, absolutely, without reservation. McDonald's (not a customer of ours, never was) has the best reputation of any company in the toy industry (in my humble opinion) for safety, conscientiousness and attention to detail. McDonald's is HARDLY asleep at the wheel. Rep. Speier’s remarks are outrageous but for the fact that she is a California Democrat from San Francisco. Consider the source. I believe McDonald's ten times out of ten against Rep. Speier.

On the other hand, if McDonald's is so wonderful, why on Earth did they recall these glasses? Okay, you be the CEO of McDonald's for a moment – what would you do? Fight for the right to sell cadmium-laced glasses? Argue that the glasses are “safe”, that toxic cadmium isn't harmful? Please, McDonald's had no choice because it has to protect its brand. Listen to the Moms in the video above. If they don't trust McDonald's, they will walk across the street to Wendy’s. McDonald's has NO CHOICE but to “do the right thing”. The cost of the recall is a secondary concern. Burn, baby, burn.

Second - Can you trust an anonymous tipster?

Why be anonymous if you are acting “heroically”? Well, for one thing, being anonymous means you aren't accountable if you are wrong. The two tipsters were using XRF guns, acknowledged by the CPSC to be imperfect and best used to screen for possible faults. It might be embarrassing - or expensive - to start a public panic and then be proven wrong. This mess might be seen as your fault and somebody might want you to pay for the expenses. Hmmm.

What if the caller had reason to hide his/her identity? This is the very worrisome scenario. There are many people who might want to rat out a McDonald's. How about a competitor? Or a spurned supplier? A disgruntled employee or spouse of an employee? This is one of the primary objections I made to the public database - the potential for abuse is rampant. An anonymous tipster very well might be up to no good. McDonald’s loss could be the tipster’s gain – an ill-intentioned tipster in partnership with a self-promoting fear monger in election season (like Jackie Speier) could be a powder keg. [Ed. Note: It is worth noting for clarity's sake that Jennifer Taggart has identified herself so this discussion does not apply to her.]

This could happen to you, too. The CPSIA encourages this kind of rat-me-out frenzy. How many businesses will close or sell out because of this shameful law? Time will tell. In the meantime, the sport of trashing trademarks and company reputations will thrive at the hands of the "anonymous tipsters".

Third - Can you trust the CPSC?

We ought to be able to trust them. Have they earned this trust?

Here’s a June 4th tweet from Scott Wolfson, Director of Public Affairs: "Scott_Wolfson: Note to reporters: the recalled McDonald's glasses are not toxic." Interesting - the CPSC apparently pushed for the recall of safe products. Wolfson is also responsible for the press release detailing this recall: "The designs on the glasses contain cadmium. Long term exposure to cadmium can cause adverse health effects." Same guy. And Wolfson offered these calming words of reassurance to the AP: "Wolfson said the recalled glasses have 'far less cadmium' than the [recently] recalled jewelry. He would not say how much cadmium leached from the glasses in tests, only that it was 'slightly above the protective level currently being developed by the agency.'"

I believe Mr. Wolfson is the author of the CPSC's OnSafety blog - here's how he counseled consumers about the McDonald's glasses in a recent post: "If you bought these “Shrek Forever After 3D” glasses at McDonald’s – millions of you did – stop using them immediately. . . . The glasses contain low-levels of cadmium. . . . The company has stepped up to do the right thing [in issuing a recall]." [Emphasis added] He also justified the recall of non-toxic glasses in the New York Times as follows: "Both C.P.S.C. and McDonald’s are being highly protective of children in announcing this recall."

Scott has a way with words, doesn't he? Makes you wonder what his job is, exactly.

So the CPSC admits that the glasses were safe. Yet the "commission" urged McDonald's to recall the glasses. Why? Wolfson says implausibly that the CPSC was being "highly protective" in recalling non-toxic glasses. Actually, "Why" may not even be the right question.

Let's consider the question of "how". On what legal basis did the CPSC press McDonald's to take this step? The authority of the agency to demand a recall depends on the presence of a "substantial product hazard". There is no other basis for the agency to take action - it cannot act on whims or because it is always crabby on Mondays. I have addressed this issue previously in this space, and noted that the authority to initiate a recall is based on the existence of "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."

If the CPSC's Director of Public Affairs notifies the press that the product is not toxic, it is incontestably certain that the glasses don't present a substantial product hazard in this case. For perspective, consider the views of the U.S. factory responsible for the glasses:

"[VP Ron] Biagi . . . added that [in addition to McDonald's] Durand Glass also does material safety tests. 'We will do nothing (different) because we don't need to,' Biagi added. 'You are always looking for the most healthful way to make a product. What we're producing today, it is safe.' Biagi said there are multiple suppliers, domestic and foreign, of the enamel used for the Shrek glasses. Other glass producers use the same product, he said. Late Friday, the company issued a short statement from its CEO for North American operations, Fred Dohn. 'All the products, whether decorated or undecorated, that Arc International is delivering on the markets meet the highest standards of quality and safety,' Dohn stated. 'Arc International is a professional manufacturer that stands behind all its products. We therefore see this as an internal decision by McDonald's and will be investigating the matter once we receive more information.'"

So what gives? By all appearances, the leadership of the agency substantially exceeded its legal authority in pressuring McDonald's to recall these glasses. Any problem with that?

I won't insult your intelligence with a rant about the trustworthiness of the Democrats who are running the shop these days. If you trust Jackie Speier and the like after this sorry tale, I can't help you.

In closing, let's recall the words of Ms. Tenenbaum: "Americans want to be safe. And they expect their federal government to protect them. So that is what I'm here to do." By all appearances, Ms. Tenenbaum was doing exactly what she promised - her agency is wrapping you in bubble wrap whether you need it or not. She says that's how you want it - no matter that it's outside her legal authority, well-beyond any notion of common sense and implemented with a complete disregard to economic consequences or the impact on other market participants. It's okay because the press eats it up . . . and it helps reelect members of Congress. Everybody's a winner as we sink into the abyss.

Lowest Common Denominator Government. Yes We Can.