News Flash: Personal Injury Law Firm Beasley Allen P.A. announced the revelation that the CPSIA Database is a success but is still under attack. Hmmm.
For those of you unfamiliar with this authoritative news source, Beasley Allen is a Montgomery, Alabama tort law firm that boasts on its website of a "$150,000,000 verdict in a personal injury case". No doubt they are impartial in their views on the database. Their web address is http://www.southerninjurylawyer.com/.
To bolster their case in favor of the database, they trot out the informative results of Henry Waxman's "analysis" of the database released on July 7th. [Mr. Waxman did not make his data available so his analysis has gone unchallenged. The only way to review it is to recreate it. Take it for what it's worth.] Beasley Allen also cites the musings of Don Mays at Consumer Reports (he is the one who cautioned against his fourth grade daughter playing a brass instrument - don't worry, she plays the violin!), completing the rogues gallery.
Among the asserted benefits of the database, aside from website visits by other personal injury lawyers trolling for tort cases to file, Beasley Allen contends that "[s]ome manufacturers had even found the database helpful to them in identifying potential hazards in their products and addressing them as needed." Aha.
There is an evil side to this controversy, naturally: "Still, a powerful anti-consumer lobby wants the database shut down, and it is using politics to achieve that. While the database costs the CPSC $3 million to maintain – a bargain price considering its usefulness and its power to help make consumer products safer – it is on the chopping block again in current budget and debt-ceiling negotiations." [Emphasis added]
Oh, yes, the well-known and powerful "ANTI-CONSUMER LOBBY"! Have you ever met someone who was not a consumer? Are the people who never consume anything or don't have relatives or family members? Or are they people who don't want consumers to buy their products? Oh them!
Or perhaps they are people on who oppose personal injury lawyers. Just a thought. . . .
The Southern Injury Lawyers conclude: "Opponents of the new database said that the database could be easily abused and filled with false information. However, analyses have found no signs of malicious activity on the database and Consumer Reports says it has not seen any evidence that the database has been harmful to businesses."
So says the lawyers with the $150 million dollar tort lawsuit. Seems definitive to me. What could the problem possibly be???
Showing posts with label Consumer Groups. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consumer Groups. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
CPSIA - Rachel Weintraub's Distortions Justify Dem Refusal to Amend the CPSIA
Democrat tool Rachel Weintraub is never at a loss for words on the topic of CPSIA and true to form, she has today published more misstatements, distortions and innuendo to bolster Dem efforts to block amendment of the CPSIA. In the space below, I rebut Ms. Weintraub's "view of the world".
It is worth noting that a much more erudite explanation of the pending CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) was published side-by-side with Weintraub's smear campaign, namely "Fix bill would make products safer, not less so" by Eric Stone. For those who don't know Eric, his credentials include more than 33 years at the CPSC, including as Legal Director in the Office of Compliance and as Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division. He faced the real questions of safety at the agency and made the judgments subject to the scrutiny of the public, Congress and the legal system.
As Eric Stone notes, "In crafting its new safety bill, Congress proved that moral outrage and good intentions do not necessarily result in good law." Amen.
My responses to Ms. Weintraub are in blue and red.
Don't set safety clock backwards for kids products
By Rachel Weintraub
Florida Sun-Sentinel
July 24, 2011
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will soon vote on HR 1939, the "Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011," or ECADA, a bill that guts the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a vital law that keeps unsafe toys and other dangerous products off the shelves.
RW - It is a typical ploy of the Lefties opposing amendment of the CPSIA to frame everything in terms of toys. Toys are but one category affected by this awful law, but by using it as the CPSIA poster child, Weintraub puts you where she wants you - afraid of ECADA's potential effects on innocents by "evil toymakers". Aside from the fact that "evil toymakers" are no more or less prevalent in our society than any other category of "evil" something-or-anothers, Weintraub's characterization greatly distorts what CPSIA really is. CPSIA applies to ANYTHING that is intended to be sold to children. The list is well-known but, as a reminder, it includes t-shirts and shoes, carpets, pens, ATVs, bikes, books, science kits, DVDs and CDs, furniture, brass musical instruments, rhinestones and so on. Focusing on toys is just to get you going.
Congress passed CPSIA by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote in 2008, and President Bush signed the bill into law that year. After a year of careful deliberations, CPSIA's passage followed a record number of recalls of children's products that injured and killed children. The measure gave new life to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a weakened federal oversight agency that had failed in its meager efforts to protect the public's safety. The law represents a giant step forward in protecting America's children.
RW - Another defensive ploy of the CPSIA defenders is the "infallibility of Congress" argument, namely that everyone voted for it so why is anyone against it now. This argument only makes sense if you don't think about it too much. For one thing, the CPSIA was passed in anger. Have you ever said or done anything in anger that you later regretted? That point aside, it is important to consider that this law was devised by a Dem-controlled Congress dominated by the strong-willed Left Winger Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Pelosi takes no prisoners and tolerates no dissent among her Dem followers. The law was dictated by Dems to the Republicans, as insiders acknowledge, and was passed just ahead of the Obama wave in the Presidential election cycle. The votes of Republicans for such an extreme law cannot properly be deemed "voluntary" in any conventional sense. Everyone knew this law was a great chess move by the Dems, forcing Republicans to go along, and even President Bush got into the act by agreeing to sign to protect his party. Weintraub's distorted rewrite of history is a good illustration of the rule that history is written by the victors. Consider the source . . . .
CPSIA currently requires that children's products be tested for safety before they arrive on store shelves — something that many consumers already assumed was happening.
RW - Another oft-repeated consumer group assertion, never proven. It has always struck me that this argument is just transference. I have no doubt that folks like Weintraub always wanted this, and simply assume that everyone shares their "common sense" desires and fears.
It sets limits on lead in children's products, sets infant product and toy safety standards, and bans certain phthalates, which are chemicals linked to a variety of health risks. The law also creates a much-needed public database where consumers can easily report and research product safety problems.
We have already seen the successful results of CPSIA. Most recently, on June 28, 2011, new crib standards went into effect, which means that cribs sold in stores must meet the most protective safety standards in the world. This will give parents and caregivers the long-overdue peace of mind that when they purchase a new crib, it will be a truly safe place for their baby.
Some small toy manufacturers have raised concerns about the costs of testing their products to the new safety standards. These concerns, and narrowly tailored ways to reduce the costs for very small children's product manufacturers, are useful to discuss.
RW - The nauseating cynicism of this remark cannot go unaddressed. Ms. Weintraub argued for two years that the agency "needed time" to implement the law and to work out the kinks. At that time, she and the other Dems argued that there was "nothing wrong" with the CPSIA that the CPSC couldn't fix in its implementation and that consideration of legislative fixes was not merited until that process was complete. Three years later we are still subject to this on-going implementation . . . that is, those of us who haven't gone belly up. Weintraub expressed little interest in "discussing" these issues way back then.
Later, Ms. Weintraub tried to justify Henry Waxman's lame-o effort at a cursory amendment of the CPSIA that offers negligible relief. Here is an excerpt from her House testimony dated April 28, 2010 (15 months ago) on this topic:
"Special provisions for small businesses includes allowing certain businesses to be exempt from third party testing when the Commission finds that reasonable testing methods assure compliance with relevant consumer product safety standards. We believe, however, that the term "small batch manufacturer" is defined too broadly. We commend the fact that the language does not allow small batch manufacturers to obtain exceptions for durable infant or toddler products or lead paint, cribs, pacifiers, small parts, children’s metal jewelry, baby bouncers, walkers and jumpers. Because of the fatal nature of the defects in many of these types of products, as demonstrated by recalls in the past, all manufacturers should be required to meet the same safety and testing requirements. We could not accept a broadening of either the definition of small batch manufacturer or a limitation of those products not covered by this provision." [Emphasis added]
The CPSC never did identify any such "reasonable testing methods" even though the "hunt" has gone on for three years now. Even Ms. Weintraub must blush when she tells you that such issues deserve "discussion".
Unfortunately, instead of fixing concerns of the truly small manufacturers, HR 1939 goes too far and rolls back important consumer protections created by CPSIA in a number of ways.
HR 1939 reduces safety testing for children's products by undermining independent safety testing requirements for most children's products. This would place us in the same dangerous situation we were in 2007 and 2008, when millions of beloved toys were recalled because of excessive lead paint, strong magnets that when swallowed in multiples could rip apart a child's intestines and chemicals that turned into the date-rape drug when swallowed.
RW - The issue in 2007 and 2008 was NOT that the law did not protect consumers. In fact, if anything, the issue was that the agency did not (adequately) protect consumers. The bad behavior that prompted the CPSIA was clearly illegal, as the agency could act to enforce if it so chose. After all, they issued hundreds of recalls under prior law. Please pause and give that a little thought. Weintraub's argument is pure urban legend, but helpful urban legend for the tall tale she is trying to sell.
It is also worth noting that Gib Mullan, the then head of Compliance at the CPSC admitted during the second session question-and-answer session at the CPSC Tracking Labels hearing on May 12, 2009 that the agency had never seen the strong magnet hazard evidenced by Magnetix previously and at first mistook it as a "small parts" issue. No law can prevent the unknown and the not previously experienced from happening. That is a safety fantasy. In addition, the "date-rape drug" incident involved an unapproved change in materials by a factory which no testing regime would have caught (CPSIA or not). The safety issue was completely unprecedented and the product was immediately recalled without argument by a very safety conscious toymaker. Only in Weintraub's self-serving world is this incident useful . . . to terrorize. Under most circumstances, it should be held up as a great public-private partnership and a sign that there are good people in the industry.
Under this bill, virtually all toys would no longer have to be tested for safety before they come into our homes — these products would be safety-tested only if and when CPSC undertook a laborious and complicated series of steps, including a cost-benefit analysis that emphasizes testing costs over health and safety benefits.
RW - Weintraub here spurns the President's Executive Order which MANDATES cost-benefit analysis by the CPSC. This arch position conforms to the surprising world view of Bob "Over My Dead Body" Adler and Inez Tenenbaum and certainly suits their Dem agenda. It is, unfortunately, an affront to the President's order. It is also economic nonsense. The OPPOSITE is correct, at least according to the Nobel Prize committee which awarded the 1991 Economics Prize to Ronald Coase for his work proving the need for regulatory cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Coase proved that ignoring cost-benefit analysis exposes all of us to the risk of being impoverished by government regulation. Thanks, Rachel, for the great idea!
It is unclear if CPSC would ever have the resources, time or information to complete what this bill demands of them, and it is therefore unclear if toys would ever be subject to independent testing. Independent testing not only prevents unnecessary injuries to children, but it can also prevent costly recalls for the manufacturer — a benefit to consumers as well as manufacturers.
RW - Here Rachel spins an even bigger tall tale, that preserving mandatory testing is in manufacturers' best interests. Apparently she is the only one who knows this. The people who actually work for companies affected by this rule have been howling for three years-plus. Here Rachel sets us all straight - the problem is we're wrong and she's right. Oh, now I see it! Her reasoning relies on the urban legend that in the absence of mandated testing, testing will cease. That's nonsense and is not supported by data. We have been testing since I got to Learning Resources, more than 20 years ago. So, if mandated testing is necessary to force testing, why were we testing way back then? Simple - we wanted to know we were complying with the standards. Standards drive testing, and enforcement can make testing prevalent, even universal. Mandated testing just raises costs, unfortunately. I have previously addressed this issue in a blogpost.
HR 1939 increases the amount of lead that would be permitted in children's products. CPSIA currently requires that all parts of children's products comply with a single, unambiguous standard for lead content. The proposed legislation would replace that clarity with a variety of standards that will be different depending on when the product was manufactured, the age of the child for whom the product is designed, whether it contains small parts and other factors. As a result, parents and other consumers will no longer have the confidence that all parts of all children's products are safe for their children. Lead is a known toxin where even small amounts can be harmful by decreasing a child's IQ. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a single, strong standard that simply keeps lead out of children's products.
RW - No reason, huh? Space does not permit me to reduce this absurd statement to rubble. I have been writing about the many common sense reasons to modify standards for three years now. ECADA as a matter of fact does very little to change standards except to codify some sensible concessions already made by the CPSC in stays applying to metals. If you are terrorized by the prospect of bicycle licking or the horrors of playing brass instruments in the school band, ECADA's changes will no doubt keep you up at night. Your fears are nothing that our proposed National Xanax Fund can't address.
The idea that different standards for different products aimed at different ages of children are somehow "defective" flies in the face not only of common sense but also the regulatory tradition at the CPSC. Before whackjobs began to dominate the safety discussion, and before the agency had its brain removed by Congress, the regulators were able to see the sense of crafting different rules for two year olds, six year olds and twelve year olds. And nobody thought the same rules should apply to rhinestones, pens, ATVs and books. If you are an experienced parent, you might know something about the need to modify rules for different ages of children. I have tried to regulate teenagers with the same rules as toddlers and received some "pushback". And when I try to keep toddlers safe by applying sensible rules designed for teenagers, that doesn't seem to work either.
HR 1939 undermines the effectiveness of the new crib safety standard. The bill would carve out a large exception to the bipartisan standard for cribs in child-care facilities. Under the bill, some child-care facilities would not have to replace existing fixed-side cribs even if the cribs violate the most basic crib safety standards — slats too far apart, non-compliant corner posts and failing mattress supports. Parents should be assured that the cribs their babies sleep in meet the strongest crib standards — both at home and in child-care facilities. The new, robust crib standards just went into effect for new cribs consumers can buy in stores and will apply to hotels, motels and child-care facilities in 18 months. Carving out child-care center cribs from this important protection moves the safety bar backwards.
RW - I have tried to avoid biting on the bait of the consumer group attacks on ECADA for the innocuous and sensible crib rule changes. It is in Ms. Weintraub's interest to make you feel that there is some sort of evil cabal dominating the Republican Party which somehow induces them to play roulette with your babies' lives. Anyhow, it's all a fiction but a helpful fiction to Ms. Weintraub's purpose, namely to subvert efforts to amend the CPSIA. Here is the "deadly" language that Ms. Weintraub protests so intensely:
"(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR FIXED-SIDE CRIBS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN STATE OR LOCAL LAW REQUIREMENTS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a fixed-side crib that has not been recalled and that is offered or provided for use in a licensed child care facility (other than a family child care home) that is subject to the following requirements under the law of a State or a political subdivision of a State: (i) The facility may not allow a child to remain in a crib for any significant amount of time while the child is awake, (ii) The facility may not place in a crib a child over the age of 16 months, (iii) An adult must be present whenever a child is in a crib."
Ms. Weintraub fails to deliver evidence that this exceedingly modest change could harm children based on actual injury data. She just wants you to push the panic button. ECADA only permits certain legacy FIXED SIDE cribs to remain in service. I thought fixed side cribs were the "answer". Not if their inclusion in ECADA might help get it passed, apparently.
HR 1939 allows the use of dangerous phthalates, which are hormone-disrupting chemicals that have been added to child-care articles like teething rings. This proposed bill would undermine CPSIA's landmark protections against phthalates by allowing large, undefined exemptions to both the prohibition and interim bans on phthalates in toys and child-care articles.
RW - Rachel again ventures into Whopperville to scare you about phthalates. Let's start by deciding how "dangerous" phthalates are. Ms. Weintraub reasons that if (the infallible) Congress banned them, the chemicals are ergo dangerous. The law, in fact, only bans three chemicals permanently and has directed the agency to investigate another three. On two previous occasions the agency has done just that . . . and concluded that phthalates don't present a risk to children. Ms. Weintraub omits to let you know that this provision was added to CPSIA at the last moment, without hearings or investigation, by California Senator Diane Feinstein of San Francisco and mentor to Nancy Pelosi. Aha. The science on phthalates is hardly an open-and-shut case - just watch 60 Minutes for perspective.
Ultimately, the greatest disservice to truth performed by Ms. Weintraub here is to distort what measly relief is being offered. ECADA only allows us to stop testing components that cannot be touched or licked by kids. That's it. The actual words: "ACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS- Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, subsections (a) and (b)(1) and any rule promulgated under subsection (b)(3) shall apply to any accessible, plasticized component part of a children’s toy or child care article."
HR 1939 undermines the new CSPC product safety database. This new database allows public access to consumer complaints about product safety problems while giving the industry ample opportunity to view and comment upon such safety-related reports before they are posted. The database, available at http://www.saferproducts.gov, just went live in March. It will help consumers research products, help CPSC identify emerging hazard trends and help prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries. HR 1939 would place onerous hurdles on those seeking to report a safety problem, thereby discouraging the sharing of potentially lifesaving information with other consumers, companies and the government.
RW - Oy vey. There has been so much written on this subject that I can't bear to write it again. Ms. Weintraub intentionally ignores any point inconsistent with her political agenda. I will leave it at that, but feel free to pour over my prior writings on the database (tagged on the side of the blog) for further details.
Consumers demanded and received strong product safety reform from Congress in 2008. Undermining these important product safety improvements puts all of our children at risk. HR 1939 will not protect our children from product safety hazards. Rather, HR 1939 rolls the safety clock backwards and creates huge and unnecessary loopholes in our nation's safety net.
RW - One last point, to quote Eric Stone: "ECADA gives CPSC broader subpoena and investigational authority. Not surprisingly, opponents do not mention such provisions since they do not fit the 'Republican-industry conspiracy' narrative." I love the "Republican-industry conspiracy narrative" part. You can see how that might work well for Rachel.
Rachel Weintraub is director of product safety and senior counsel at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C.
It is worth noting that a much more erudite explanation of the pending CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) was published side-by-side with Weintraub's smear campaign, namely "Fix bill would make products safer, not less so" by Eric Stone. For those who don't know Eric, his credentials include more than 33 years at the CPSC, including as Legal Director in the Office of Compliance and as Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division. He faced the real questions of safety at the agency and made the judgments subject to the scrutiny of the public, Congress and the legal system.
As Eric Stone notes, "In crafting its new safety bill, Congress proved that moral outrage and good intentions do not necessarily result in good law." Amen.
My responses to Ms. Weintraub are in blue and red.
Don't set safety clock backwards for kids products
By Rachel Weintraub
Florida Sun-Sentinel
July 24, 2011
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will soon vote on HR 1939, the "Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011," or ECADA, a bill that guts the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a vital law that keeps unsafe toys and other dangerous products off the shelves.
RW - It is a typical ploy of the Lefties opposing amendment of the CPSIA to frame everything in terms of toys. Toys are but one category affected by this awful law, but by using it as the CPSIA poster child, Weintraub puts you where she wants you - afraid of ECADA's potential effects on innocents by "evil toymakers". Aside from the fact that "evil toymakers" are no more or less prevalent in our society than any other category of "evil" something-or-anothers, Weintraub's characterization greatly distorts what CPSIA really is. CPSIA applies to ANYTHING that is intended to be sold to children. The list is well-known but, as a reminder, it includes t-shirts and shoes, carpets, pens, ATVs, bikes, books, science kits, DVDs and CDs, furniture, brass musical instruments, rhinestones and so on. Focusing on toys is just to get you going.
Congress passed CPSIA by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote in 2008, and President Bush signed the bill into law that year. After a year of careful deliberations, CPSIA's passage followed a record number of recalls of children's products that injured and killed children. The measure gave new life to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a weakened federal oversight agency that had failed in its meager efforts to protect the public's safety. The law represents a giant step forward in protecting America's children.
RW - Another defensive ploy of the CPSIA defenders is the "infallibility of Congress" argument, namely that everyone voted for it so why is anyone against it now. This argument only makes sense if you don't think about it too much. For one thing, the CPSIA was passed in anger. Have you ever said or done anything in anger that you later regretted? That point aside, it is important to consider that this law was devised by a Dem-controlled Congress dominated by the strong-willed Left Winger Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Pelosi takes no prisoners and tolerates no dissent among her Dem followers. The law was dictated by Dems to the Republicans, as insiders acknowledge, and was passed just ahead of the Obama wave in the Presidential election cycle. The votes of Republicans for such an extreme law cannot properly be deemed "voluntary" in any conventional sense. Everyone knew this law was a great chess move by the Dems, forcing Republicans to go along, and even President Bush got into the act by agreeing to sign to protect his party. Weintraub's distorted rewrite of history is a good illustration of the rule that history is written by the victors. Consider the source . . . .
CPSIA currently requires that children's products be tested for safety before they arrive on store shelves — something that many consumers already assumed was happening.
RW - Another oft-repeated consumer group assertion, never proven. It has always struck me that this argument is just transference. I have no doubt that folks like Weintraub always wanted this, and simply assume that everyone shares their "common sense" desires and fears.
It sets limits on lead in children's products, sets infant product and toy safety standards, and bans certain phthalates, which are chemicals linked to a variety of health risks. The law also creates a much-needed public database where consumers can easily report and research product safety problems.
We have already seen the successful results of CPSIA. Most recently, on June 28, 2011, new crib standards went into effect, which means that cribs sold in stores must meet the most protective safety standards in the world. This will give parents and caregivers the long-overdue peace of mind that when they purchase a new crib, it will be a truly safe place for their baby.
Some small toy manufacturers have raised concerns about the costs of testing their products to the new safety standards. These concerns, and narrowly tailored ways to reduce the costs for very small children's product manufacturers, are useful to discuss.
RW - The nauseating cynicism of this remark cannot go unaddressed. Ms. Weintraub argued for two years that the agency "needed time" to implement the law and to work out the kinks. At that time, she and the other Dems argued that there was "nothing wrong" with the CPSIA that the CPSC couldn't fix in its implementation and that consideration of legislative fixes was not merited until that process was complete. Three years later we are still subject to this on-going implementation . . . that is, those of us who haven't gone belly up. Weintraub expressed little interest in "discussing" these issues way back then.
Later, Ms. Weintraub tried to justify Henry Waxman's lame-o effort at a cursory amendment of the CPSIA that offers negligible relief. Here is an excerpt from her House testimony dated April 28, 2010 (15 months ago) on this topic:
"Special provisions for small businesses includes allowing certain businesses to be exempt from third party testing when the Commission finds that reasonable testing methods assure compliance with relevant consumer product safety standards. We believe, however, that the term "small batch manufacturer" is defined too broadly. We commend the fact that the language does not allow small batch manufacturers to obtain exceptions for durable infant or toddler products or lead paint, cribs, pacifiers, small parts, children’s metal jewelry, baby bouncers, walkers and jumpers. Because of the fatal nature of the defects in many of these types of products, as demonstrated by recalls in the past, all manufacturers should be required to meet the same safety and testing requirements. We could not accept a broadening of either the definition of small batch manufacturer or a limitation of those products not covered by this provision." [Emphasis added]
The CPSC never did identify any such "reasonable testing methods" even though the "hunt" has gone on for three years now. Even Ms. Weintraub must blush when she tells you that such issues deserve "discussion".
Unfortunately, instead of fixing concerns of the truly small manufacturers, HR 1939 goes too far and rolls back important consumer protections created by CPSIA in a number of ways.
HR 1939 reduces safety testing for children's products by undermining independent safety testing requirements for most children's products. This would place us in the same dangerous situation we were in 2007 and 2008, when millions of beloved toys were recalled because of excessive lead paint, strong magnets that when swallowed in multiples could rip apart a child's intestines and chemicals that turned into the date-rape drug when swallowed.
RW - The issue in 2007 and 2008 was NOT that the law did not protect consumers. In fact, if anything, the issue was that the agency did not (adequately) protect consumers. The bad behavior that prompted the CPSIA was clearly illegal, as the agency could act to enforce if it so chose. After all, they issued hundreds of recalls under prior law. Please pause and give that a little thought. Weintraub's argument is pure urban legend, but helpful urban legend for the tall tale she is trying to sell.
It is also worth noting that Gib Mullan, the then head of Compliance at the CPSC admitted during the second session question-and-answer session at the CPSC Tracking Labels hearing on May 12, 2009 that the agency had never seen the strong magnet hazard evidenced by Magnetix previously and at first mistook it as a "small parts" issue. No law can prevent the unknown and the not previously experienced from happening. That is a safety fantasy. In addition, the "date-rape drug" incident involved an unapproved change in materials by a factory which no testing regime would have caught (CPSIA or not). The safety issue was completely unprecedented and the product was immediately recalled without argument by a very safety conscious toymaker. Only in Weintraub's self-serving world is this incident useful . . . to terrorize. Under most circumstances, it should be held up as a great public-private partnership and a sign that there are good people in the industry.
Under this bill, virtually all toys would no longer have to be tested for safety before they come into our homes — these products would be safety-tested only if and when CPSC undertook a laborious and complicated series of steps, including a cost-benefit analysis that emphasizes testing costs over health and safety benefits.
RW - Weintraub here spurns the President's Executive Order which MANDATES cost-benefit analysis by the CPSC. This arch position conforms to the surprising world view of Bob "Over My Dead Body" Adler and Inez Tenenbaum and certainly suits their Dem agenda. It is, unfortunately, an affront to the President's order. It is also economic nonsense. The OPPOSITE is correct, at least according to the Nobel Prize committee which awarded the 1991 Economics Prize to Ronald Coase for his work proving the need for regulatory cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Coase proved that ignoring cost-benefit analysis exposes all of us to the risk of being impoverished by government regulation. Thanks, Rachel, for the great idea!
It is unclear if CPSC would ever have the resources, time or information to complete what this bill demands of them, and it is therefore unclear if toys would ever be subject to independent testing. Independent testing not only prevents unnecessary injuries to children, but it can also prevent costly recalls for the manufacturer — a benefit to consumers as well as manufacturers.
RW - Here Rachel spins an even bigger tall tale, that preserving mandatory testing is in manufacturers' best interests. Apparently she is the only one who knows this. The people who actually work for companies affected by this rule have been howling for three years-plus. Here Rachel sets us all straight - the problem is we're wrong and she's right. Oh, now I see it! Her reasoning relies on the urban legend that in the absence of mandated testing, testing will cease. That's nonsense and is not supported by data. We have been testing since I got to Learning Resources, more than 20 years ago. So, if mandated testing is necessary to force testing, why were we testing way back then? Simple - we wanted to know we were complying with the standards. Standards drive testing, and enforcement can make testing prevalent, even universal. Mandated testing just raises costs, unfortunately. I have previously addressed this issue in a blogpost.
HR 1939 increases the amount of lead that would be permitted in children's products. CPSIA currently requires that all parts of children's products comply with a single, unambiguous standard for lead content. The proposed legislation would replace that clarity with a variety of standards that will be different depending on when the product was manufactured, the age of the child for whom the product is designed, whether it contains small parts and other factors. As a result, parents and other consumers will no longer have the confidence that all parts of all children's products are safe for their children. Lead is a known toxin where even small amounts can be harmful by decreasing a child's IQ. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a single, strong standard that simply keeps lead out of children's products.
RW - No reason, huh? Space does not permit me to reduce this absurd statement to rubble. I have been writing about the many common sense reasons to modify standards for three years now. ECADA as a matter of fact does very little to change standards except to codify some sensible concessions already made by the CPSC in stays applying to metals. If you are terrorized by the prospect of bicycle licking or the horrors of playing brass instruments in the school band, ECADA's changes will no doubt keep you up at night. Your fears are nothing that our proposed National Xanax Fund can't address.
The idea that different standards for different products aimed at different ages of children are somehow "defective" flies in the face not only of common sense but also the regulatory tradition at the CPSC. Before whackjobs began to dominate the safety discussion, and before the agency had its brain removed by Congress, the regulators were able to see the sense of crafting different rules for two year olds, six year olds and twelve year olds. And nobody thought the same rules should apply to rhinestones, pens, ATVs and books. If you are an experienced parent, you might know something about the need to modify rules for different ages of children. I have tried to regulate teenagers with the same rules as toddlers and received some "pushback". And when I try to keep toddlers safe by applying sensible rules designed for teenagers, that doesn't seem to work either.
HR 1939 undermines the effectiveness of the new crib safety standard. The bill would carve out a large exception to the bipartisan standard for cribs in child-care facilities. Under the bill, some child-care facilities would not have to replace existing fixed-side cribs even if the cribs violate the most basic crib safety standards — slats too far apart, non-compliant corner posts and failing mattress supports. Parents should be assured that the cribs their babies sleep in meet the strongest crib standards — both at home and in child-care facilities. The new, robust crib standards just went into effect for new cribs consumers can buy in stores and will apply to hotels, motels and child-care facilities in 18 months. Carving out child-care center cribs from this important protection moves the safety bar backwards.
RW - I have tried to avoid biting on the bait of the consumer group attacks on ECADA for the innocuous and sensible crib rule changes. It is in Ms. Weintraub's interest to make you feel that there is some sort of evil cabal dominating the Republican Party which somehow induces them to play roulette with your babies' lives. Anyhow, it's all a fiction but a helpful fiction to Ms. Weintraub's purpose, namely to subvert efforts to amend the CPSIA. Here is the "deadly" language that Ms. Weintraub protests so intensely:
"(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR FIXED-SIDE CRIBS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN STATE OR LOCAL LAW REQUIREMENTS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a fixed-side crib that has not been recalled and that is offered or provided for use in a licensed child care facility (other than a family child care home) that is subject to the following requirements under the law of a State or a political subdivision of a State: (i) The facility may not allow a child to remain in a crib for any significant amount of time while the child is awake, (ii) The facility may not place in a crib a child over the age of 16 months, (iii) An adult must be present whenever a child is in a crib."
Ms. Weintraub fails to deliver evidence that this exceedingly modest change could harm children based on actual injury data. She just wants you to push the panic button. ECADA only permits certain legacy FIXED SIDE cribs to remain in service. I thought fixed side cribs were the "answer". Not if their inclusion in ECADA might help get it passed, apparently.
HR 1939 allows the use of dangerous phthalates, which are hormone-disrupting chemicals that have been added to child-care articles like teething rings. This proposed bill would undermine CPSIA's landmark protections against phthalates by allowing large, undefined exemptions to both the prohibition and interim bans on phthalates in toys and child-care articles.
RW - Rachel again ventures into Whopperville to scare you about phthalates. Let's start by deciding how "dangerous" phthalates are. Ms. Weintraub reasons that if (the infallible) Congress banned them, the chemicals are ergo dangerous. The law, in fact, only bans three chemicals permanently and has directed the agency to investigate another three. On two previous occasions the agency has done just that . . . and concluded that phthalates don't present a risk to children. Ms. Weintraub omits to let you know that this provision was added to CPSIA at the last moment, without hearings or investigation, by California Senator Diane Feinstein of San Francisco and mentor to Nancy Pelosi. Aha. The science on phthalates is hardly an open-and-shut case - just watch 60 Minutes for perspective.
Ultimately, the greatest disservice to truth performed by Ms. Weintraub here is to distort what measly relief is being offered. ECADA only allows us to stop testing components that cannot be touched or licked by kids. That's it. The actual words: "ACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS- Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, subsections (a) and (b)(1) and any rule promulgated under subsection (b)(3) shall apply to any accessible, plasticized component part of a children’s toy or child care article."
HR 1939 undermines the new CSPC product safety database. This new database allows public access to consumer complaints about product safety problems while giving the industry ample opportunity to view and comment upon such safety-related reports before they are posted. The database, available at http://www.saferproducts.gov, just went live in March. It will help consumers research products, help CPSC identify emerging hazard trends and help prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries. HR 1939 would place onerous hurdles on those seeking to report a safety problem, thereby discouraging the sharing of potentially lifesaving information with other consumers, companies and the government.
RW - Oy vey. There has been so much written on this subject that I can't bear to write it again. Ms. Weintraub intentionally ignores any point inconsistent with her political agenda. I will leave it at that, but feel free to pour over my prior writings on the database (tagged on the side of the blog) for further details.
Consumers demanded and received strong product safety reform from Congress in 2008. Undermining these important product safety improvements puts all of our children at risk. HR 1939 will not protect our children from product safety hazards. Rather, HR 1939 rolls the safety clock backwards and creates huge and unnecessary loopholes in our nation's safety net.
RW - One last point, to quote Eric Stone: "ECADA gives CPSC broader subpoena and investigational authority. Not surprisingly, opponents do not mention such provisions since they do not fit the 'Republican-industry conspiracy' narrative." I love the "Republican-industry conspiracy narrative" part. You can see how that might work well for Rachel.
Rachel Weintraub is director of product safety and senior counsel at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
CPSIA - You're Only SAFE if It's 99.99% Lead-Free . . . But Don't Tell the EPA
Last week, the Democrats took action to protect you and your kids from the perils of lead. As we have been relentlessly reminded by non-scientists, there is "no safe level of lead" - just ask Bob Adler and Inez Tenenbaum. Now, in the wake of the conclusion that reducing lead content from 300 ppm (lead-in-substrate) to 100 ppm will produce "minimal" health benefits (read, none), the CPSC Commission voted three Democrats to two Republicans to reduce the lead limit to 100 ppm.
Reducing lead standards from 300 ppm to 100 ppm can be expressed a different way mathematically. This is a reduction from 99.97% lead-free to 99.99% lead-free. [Credit to Anne Northup for the mathematics!] This will cost billions and the economic devastation was ALSO documented by the CPSC Staff in their analysis on the 100 ppm standard. Nevertheless, the non-scientists who rule the roost at the CPSC saw nothing but health upsides in this technologically feasible but economically absurd feat. And, as we know, injuries to children have an infinite value when you are unable to assess risk. The numbers work out - yes, the cost may be in the billions and the reduction in incentives will cost yet more, but the savings are infinite! Even one avoided injury is an infinite savings. Queue the tears . . . . What-a-deal!
Ironically, last week the EPA bowed to political pressure and in an exercise of common sense, eased up on precautions against lead-in-paint in housing stock. Hello? Did you catch that one? Twelve Senators signed a letter in April to protest this proposed rule as excessive and damaging to small business, and bingo, something good finally happened. Olympia Snowe was so delighted that she put out a press release to celebrate it. Please note that the EPA acknowledges that lead-in-paint in housing stock is the principal source of lead poisoning in the United States. [It sure ain't toys.] They have previously acknowledged in writing (lucid writing, actually) that their rules on lead need to be measured and that the economic impact of their rules must also be carefully assessed. The EPA does not attach an infinite value to injuries, even to children. They aren't idiots. Draw your own conclusions.
Hello, Senators, anyone home?
The foundation of the "no safe level of lead" slogan has been laid by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a political organization masquerading as a professional organization. This organization was aggressively and justifiably attacked by Anne Northup during the 100 ppm Commission meeting. It is rare to see anyone attack these people, perhaps besides me (not a fan . . .), but do they ever deserve it. Here is what Dr. Dana Best of the AAP told a House Subcommittee on April 7, 2011:
"Exposure to lead is amply documented to cause the loss of intellectual capacity. On average, children whose blood lead levels (BLLs) rise from 10 to 20 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL) lose two to three IQ points. More recent studies have shown an even greater impact on IQ of BLLs under 10 mcg/dL. Key studies reported a loss of 4 to 7 IQ points in children whose lead levels rose from 1 mcg/dL to 10 mcg/dL. These studies suggest that “low” levels of exposure – meaning BLLs less than 10 mcg/dL – cause proportionately greater harm than higher levels. . . . The medical and scientific literature are in substantial agreement that an increase of 1 mcg/dL in blood lead level is capable of causing the loss of approximately one IQ point in children whose blood lead level is under 10 mcg/dL." [Enphasis added]
Dr. Best, well-known for her fear of children licking bicycles, has previously posited "millions" of victims of lead-in-substrate. Despite taking such a dramatic stand, Dr. Best cannot seem to name even ONE victim or lead-in-substrate or provide a single case history demonstrating that such a victim has ever been located . . . anywhere. Not even one. Doesn't matter, apparently. When you're right, you're right.
But is Dr. Best actually RIGHT? Fascinatingly, when Dr. Best plugs the notion that driving lead concentrations below 10 mcg/dl will have some defined (definite) health benefits, she flies in the face of the official AAP Policy Statement on Lead Exposure in Children (recently restated on May 1, 2009). The Policy Statement does NOT support her assertions - and she is on the committee that wrote/approved the statement. You might say she got it wrong, or you might just say she's a liar. Is it really possible to be that incompetent? Here's what the Policy Statement says:
"Canfield et al recently extended the relationship between blood lead concentration and IQ to blood lead concentrations less than 10 g/dL. They observed a decrease in IQ of more than 7 points over the first 10 g/dL of lifetime average blood lead concentration. . . . To confirm the adverse effects of lead on IQ at these concentrations, however, more children whose blood lead concentration has never been more than 10 mcg/dL should be studied. A reanalysis of the primary data from several of the prospective studies is underway to help resolve this issue. At the moment, however, these data have not yet been incorporated into policy, and the CDC16 and AAP24 both currently use 10 mcg/dL (Table 2) as the blood lead concentration of concern." [Emphasis added]
The Canfield study is the study Dr. Best cites in her Congressional testimony above. Canfield predates the restated Policy Statement (obviously, or else it wouldn't be cited), and thus forms part of the basis of the recommendation for further study. The AAP recommends further study to confirm its suspicions - and those studies aren't done. Dr. Best certainly didn't cite them. The AAP Policy Statement goes on to recommend:
"RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT: Fund studies to confirm or refute the finding that blood lead concentrations of less than 10 mcg/dL are associated with lower IQ. The next important step in lead research is conducting of studies in which confounding by socioeconomic factors is not so strong. Funding of studies in this area needs to be given high priority, as was done in the early 1980s when the question of effects of blood lead concentrations less than 20 mcg/dL was raised." [Emphasis added]
So the AAP acknowledges in its policy statement that the case is not exactly open-and-shut. Dr. Best, a member of the AAP's Committee on Environmental Health, continues to bash away on the hustings with her hyperbolic and conclusory message. Perhaps she feels that no one will likely check her work or contest her blather, so why not?
Senators? Congressmen? Does anyone care about the effects on business when it comes to the out-of-control CPSC?
There are now 25 days until the 100 ppm standard goes into effect retroactively. Starting packing up, guys. Will Congress act? I have no idea - this is not, and never has been, a question of doing the right thing for you or me or for anyone, really. The Dems have an agenda, a political agenda, and your problems are beneath their consideration. I can't say who will be the winners, but the losers are well-known by now.
Reducing lead standards from 300 ppm to 100 ppm can be expressed a different way mathematically. This is a reduction from 99.97% lead-free to 99.99% lead-free. [Credit to Anne Northup for the mathematics!] This will cost billions and the economic devastation was ALSO documented by the CPSC Staff in their analysis on the 100 ppm standard. Nevertheless, the non-scientists who rule the roost at the CPSC saw nothing but health upsides in this technologically feasible but economically absurd feat. And, as we know, injuries to children have an infinite value when you are unable to assess risk. The numbers work out - yes, the cost may be in the billions and the reduction in incentives will cost yet more, but the savings are infinite! Even one avoided injury is an infinite savings. Queue the tears . . . . What-a-deal!
Ironically, last week the EPA bowed to political pressure and in an exercise of common sense, eased up on precautions against lead-in-paint in housing stock. Hello? Did you catch that one? Twelve Senators signed a letter in April to protest this proposed rule as excessive and damaging to small business, and bingo, something good finally happened. Olympia Snowe was so delighted that she put out a press release to celebrate it. Please note that the EPA acknowledges that lead-in-paint in housing stock is the principal source of lead poisoning in the United States. [It sure ain't toys.] They have previously acknowledged in writing (lucid writing, actually) that their rules on lead need to be measured and that the economic impact of their rules must also be carefully assessed. The EPA does not attach an infinite value to injuries, even to children. They aren't idiots. Draw your own conclusions.
Hello, Senators, anyone home?
The foundation of the "no safe level of lead" slogan has been laid by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a political organization masquerading as a professional organization. This organization was aggressively and justifiably attacked by Anne Northup during the 100 ppm Commission meeting. It is rare to see anyone attack these people, perhaps besides me (not a fan . . .), but do they ever deserve it. Here is what Dr. Dana Best of the AAP told a House Subcommittee on April 7, 2011:
"Exposure to lead is amply documented to cause the loss of intellectual capacity. On average, children whose blood lead levels (BLLs) rise from 10 to 20 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL) lose two to three IQ points. More recent studies have shown an even greater impact on IQ of BLLs under 10 mcg/dL. Key studies reported a loss of 4 to 7 IQ points in children whose lead levels rose from 1 mcg/dL to 10 mcg/dL. These studies suggest that “low” levels of exposure – meaning BLLs less than 10 mcg/dL – cause proportionately greater harm than higher levels. . . . The medical and scientific literature are in substantial agreement that an increase of 1 mcg/dL in blood lead level is capable of causing the loss of approximately one IQ point in children whose blood lead level is under 10 mcg/dL." [Enphasis added]
Dr. Best, well-known for her fear of children licking bicycles, has previously posited "millions" of victims of lead-in-substrate. Despite taking such a dramatic stand, Dr. Best cannot seem to name even ONE victim or lead-in-substrate or provide a single case history demonstrating that such a victim has ever been located . . . anywhere. Not even one. Doesn't matter, apparently. When you're right, you're right.
But is Dr. Best actually RIGHT? Fascinatingly, when Dr. Best plugs the notion that driving lead concentrations below 10 mcg/dl will have some defined (definite) health benefits, she flies in the face of the official AAP Policy Statement on Lead Exposure in Children (recently restated on May 1, 2009). The Policy Statement does NOT support her assertions - and she is on the committee that wrote/approved the statement. You might say she got it wrong, or you might just say she's a liar. Is it really possible to be that incompetent? Here's what the Policy Statement says:
"Canfield et al recently extended the relationship between blood lead concentration and IQ to blood lead concentrations less than 10 g/dL. They observed a decrease in IQ of more than 7 points over the first 10 g/dL of lifetime average blood lead concentration. . . . To confirm the adverse effects of lead on IQ at these concentrations, however, more children whose blood lead concentration has never been more than 10 mcg/dL should be studied. A reanalysis of the primary data from several of the prospective studies is underway to help resolve this issue. At the moment, however, these data have not yet been incorporated into policy, and the CDC16 and AAP24 both currently use 10 mcg/dL (Table 2) as the blood lead concentration of concern." [Emphasis added]
The Canfield study is the study Dr. Best cites in her Congressional testimony above. Canfield predates the restated Policy Statement (obviously, or else it wouldn't be cited), and thus forms part of the basis of the recommendation for further study. The AAP recommends further study to confirm its suspicions - and those studies aren't done. Dr. Best certainly didn't cite them. The AAP Policy Statement goes on to recommend:
"RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT: Fund studies to confirm or refute the finding that blood lead concentrations of less than 10 mcg/dL are associated with lower IQ. The next important step in lead research is conducting of studies in which confounding by socioeconomic factors is not so strong. Funding of studies in this area needs to be given high priority, as was done in the early 1980s when the question of effects of blood lead concentrations less than 20 mcg/dL was raised." [Emphasis added]
So the AAP acknowledges in its policy statement that the case is not exactly open-and-shut. Dr. Best, a member of the AAP's Committee on Environmental Health, continues to bash away on the hustings with her hyperbolic and conclusory message. Perhaps she feels that no one will likely check her work or contest her blather, so why not?
Senators? Congressmen? Does anyone care about the effects on business when it comes to the out-of-control CPSC?
There are now 25 days until the 100 ppm standard goes into effect retroactively. Starting packing up, guys. Will Congress act? I have no idea - this is not, and never has been, a question of doing the right thing for you or me or for anyone, really. The Dems have an agenda, a political agenda, and your problems are beneath their consideration. I can't say who will be the winners, but the losers are well-known by now.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
CPSIA - 100 ppm Vote - What They Knew and When They Knew it
What did they know and when did they know it? The vote on 100 ppm is going on this AM, so it's too late to do anything about the projected 3-2 vote implementing this pointless and self-destructive provision of the CPSIA. From my perspective, having investing time and money in trying to stop this train wreck, it has been a long time since there was anything we could do about it. It's not our country.
I have written about this provision endlessly in this space. I thought I would just put up a couple bits of info previously disclosed here for perspective on the vote.
The 100 ppm lead limit vote is a vote of conscience. The Commission knows what they are about to unleash. I told them in no uncertain terms during my February 16th testimony:
From the CPSC Staff analysis of 100 ppm:
"[While] staff does not have data on potential lead exposure from products that have lead content less than 300 ppm, but more than 100 ppm, staff expects that the overall contribution of such products to lead exposure in children is minimal."
"Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). . . . Without the intentional use of lead in materials or the use of certain recycled materials, the lead content of most materials is substantially below the mandated limits."
Notably, NO consumer group has responded to my call or Congress' call for the identities of previous victims of the "hazard" that the CPSC purports to regulate. With no victims identified EVER ANYWHERE, the claims of benefits from this provision are spurious at best.
What is the EPA's opinion on lead in dirt? 400 ppm in play yards and 1200 ppm elsewhere is just fine. No word yet whether G-d, the manufacturer of dirt, has to provide comprehensive testing for compliance.
What is the economic impact of this change? The CPSC did not do a cost-benefit analysis as Obama's Executive Order requires now, but only provided "Economic Information" (cost only, no benefit analysis):
"[Bringing] products that do not currently comply with the 100 ppm limit into conformance is generally expected to result in increased manufacturing costs. . . . [Manufacturers] of children’s bicycles experienced a 20 to 25 percent increase in the costs of metallic components when the lead content limits were reduced from 600 ppm to 300 ppm. . . . Learning Resources, Inc., a manufacturer of educational materials and learning toys, said it expects a 10 to 20 percent increase in the cost of producing finished goods when the lead content limit is reduced to 100 ppm. . . . testing costs may rise . . . . Because there are limits to the reduction in profits that firms are willing and able to accept, some manufacturers are likely to reduce their selection of children’s products or exit the children’s market altogether. Some manufacturers may even go out of business. . . ."
"The higher costs associated with metal components will probably result in some efforts to substitute lower cost materials. Plastics, for example, might be substituted for metal parts in some products. Some of these types of substitutions may affect the utility of the children’s products. . . . Additionally, and as noted in comments from the Handmade Toy Alliance and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association, it is likely that the costs will have relatively greater consequences for smaller manufacturers and artisans, who have less bargaining power with components suppliers, fewer technical resources, smaller production runs to spread testing costs over, and smaller product lines.. . . ,There appear to be few readily available options for mitigating the costs associated with the 100 ppm content limit. . . ."
Mr. Obama's Executive Order requires the agency to make actual cost-benefit assessments of this change in law now. I made the same call on February 16, 2011 during my testimony on 100 ppm:
You can find numerous other clips from the 100 ppm hearing in posts in this space in late February or on YouTube. You can also read my comment letter on 100 ppm.
I have written about this provision endlessly in this space. I thought I would just put up a couple bits of info previously disclosed here for perspective on the vote.
The 100 ppm lead limit vote is a vote of conscience. The Commission knows what they are about to unleash. I told them in no uncertain terms during my February 16th testimony:
From the CPSC Staff analysis of 100 ppm:
"[While] staff does not have data on potential lead exposure from products that have lead content less than 300 ppm, but more than 100 ppm, staff expects that the overall contribution of such products to lead exposure in children is minimal."
"Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). . . . Without the intentional use of lead in materials or the use of certain recycled materials, the lead content of most materials is substantially below the mandated limits."
Notably, NO consumer group has responded to my call or Congress' call for the identities of previous victims of the "hazard" that the CPSC purports to regulate. With no victims identified EVER ANYWHERE, the claims of benefits from this provision are spurious at best.
What is the EPA's opinion on lead in dirt? 400 ppm in play yards and 1200 ppm elsewhere is just fine. No word yet whether G-d, the manufacturer of dirt, has to provide comprehensive testing for compliance.
What is the economic impact of this change? The CPSC did not do a cost-benefit analysis as Obama's Executive Order requires now, but only provided "Economic Information" (cost only, no benefit analysis):
"[Bringing] products that do not currently comply with the 100 ppm limit into conformance is generally expected to result in increased manufacturing costs. . . . [Manufacturers] of children’s bicycles experienced a 20 to 25 percent increase in the costs of metallic components when the lead content limits were reduced from 600 ppm to 300 ppm. . . . Learning Resources, Inc., a manufacturer of educational materials and learning toys, said it expects a 10 to 20 percent increase in the cost of producing finished goods when the lead content limit is reduced to 100 ppm. . . . testing costs may rise . . . . Because there are limits to the reduction in profits that firms are willing and able to accept, some manufacturers are likely to reduce their selection of children’s products or exit the children’s market altogether. Some manufacturers may even go out of business. . . ."
"The higher costs associated with metal components will probably result in some efforts to substitute lower cost materials. Plastics, for example, might be substituted for metal parts in some products. Some of these types of substitutions may affect the utility of the children’s products. . . . Additionally, and as noted in comments from the Handmade Toy Alliance and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association, it is likely that the costs will have relatively greater consequences for smaller manufacturers and artisans, who have less bargaining power with components suppliers, fewer technical resources, smaller production runs to spread testing costs over, and smaller product lines.. . . ,There appear to be few readily available options for mitigating the costs associated with the 100 ppm content limit. . . ."
Mr. Obama's Executive Order requires the agency to make actual cost-benefit assessments of this change in law now. I made the same call on February 16, 2011 during my testimony on 100 ppm:
You can find numerous other clips from the 100 ppm hearing in posts in this space in late February or on YouTube. You can also read my comment letter on 100 ppm.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
CPSIA - The Axis of Misinformation
CPSC Spokesman Scott Wolfson wants you to read an article:
Scott_Wolfson: If #opengov #gov20 are important to u, pls read this LATimes column: http://t.co/MrrgGwO #SaferProducts.gov #cpsc [From Scott Wolfson's Twitter feed]
Wolfson refers you to a hatchet job by David Lazarus of the LA Times on the CPSIA Product Database. I have taken issue with the blather emitted from Lazarus' PC in the past. In his latest example of irresponsible journalism, endorsed by the CPSC, Lazarus displays his studied ignorance of the issues relating to the database. His lack of research certainly didn't prevent him from making declarative statements. Wolfson wanted to be sure you didn't miss it.
Lazarus ponders what the issues could possibly be with the controversial database: "You've got to wonder why businesses are fighting so hard to keep this resource away from consumers. Is it because their fears are justified that we'll misuse this tool (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding)? Or is it because the last thing they want is a consuming public armed with the latest and most thorough information on the safety of their goods? And if it's the latter, you might now ask, what are they trying to hide?"
I cannot think of any objections to the database other than self-interest, can you? It's all a conspiracy, as anyone on the Left can tell you. Businesses have so much to hide! And did you know that evil billionaires are against the database? Lazarus sorts it all out: "Koch Industries — run by billionaires Charles and David Koch, who are active in conservative causes — also reported spending more than $200,000 lobbying against creation of the database." Lazarus asserts that it is significant that Members of Congress aligned against the database also received campaign contributions from businesses. [Can you find a single member of Congress who has NOT taken contributions from businesses or business people? Just curious.] Lazarus notes that both Reps. Emerson and Pompeo received contributions from business people who are ALSO against the database. It's all making sense now . . . .
Perhaps it was an oversight, but Lazarus fails to mention that the folks on the Left who so vigorously defend the database as implemented have been richly financed by TRIAL LAWYERS. Rep. Henry Waxman raised more than $165,000 in 2010 from lawyers (11% of his total raise). In fact, his top PAC contributor was the American Association for Justice, a group of plaintiff's attorneys actively opposing tort reform. He also received individual contributions from AAJ lobbyists. Rep. Jan Schakowsky raised a mere $224,000 from lawyers in 2010 (about 15% of her raise). Ditto for AAJ support. Poke around on OpenSecrets.org to check out your other favorites in Congress. It goes without saying that the support Waxman, Schakowsky and their ilk lavish on the database has NOTHING to do with campaign contributions by trial lawyers. It all comes from the heart, cloaked in white. Any idea who pays the bill for all the litigation initiated by the AAJ and its members? Hint: it's not Waxmn or Schakowsky.
No Lazarus article would be complete without the quotes of Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America. The strangely influential Weintraub is the Left's favorite mouthpiece on the CPSIA. Here she tries a new angle to preserve the database, the "sunk cost" argument: "The thing that's so insidious is that the database is already up and running, This would basically waste all the money and resources that have gone into creating the database." Insidious! That thrifty Rachel, she literally weeps over government waste. Of course, the database is not controversial simply because it exists; the principal reason the issue lingers on is that Lefties like Weintraub and Bob Adler insisted on unfair administrative procedures that create unreasonable risks for manufacturers unrelated to actual product hazards, like brand slander, misidentified products, lack of accountability by complaint filers, manipulation of civil disputes and unbalanced data creating misleading commercial impressions. These problems are well-documented but have apparently escaped Lazarus' beady-eyed (in)attention.
The Axis of Misinformation is at work here. You have the ignorant journalist (perhaps intentionally so or at a minimum, biased against manufacturers and disinterested in their POV), the shrill consumer "advocate" and the self-serving agency spokesman whose job is to manipulate how we feel about the CPSC (irrespective of reality or the "truth"). CPSC as PR agency is offensive to me. That's not its function and besides, I think it's dangerous to me as a consumer. As a practitioner noted this week in private correspondence: "CPSC stacks the deck by creating alarming recall notices that do not really put hazards in perspective for readers, nor does the agency give consumers enough information to determine whether the amounts that they wind up indirectly paying for the costs of recalls are justified, especially when those costs are spread out to affect products that have not been recalled and present no risk. Hazards and risks are generally overstated, and you will never see any mention of costs to the public even though, as we all know, there is, after all, no free lunch."
It is worth noting that I hear complaints from the CPSC through various channels when they object to the portrayals in this space. It's so unfair that we have freedom of speech in this country. No doubt that makes the job of regulating all of us idiots so much more difficult. Still, if I get to exercise my freedom of speech, so does Wolfson. Go ahead and read Lazarus. It is informative in a way. It will take you less than 30 seconds to recognize the shoddy journalism and the slanted, biased presentation of a one-sided story. Consider the source of this lead - Scott Wolfson and the CPSC. As I said, it's informative.
Scott_Wolfson: If #opengov #gov20 are important to u, pls read this LATimes column: http://t.co/MrrgGwO #SaferProducts.gov #cpsc [From Scott Wolfson's Twitter feed]
Wolfson refers you to a hatchet job by David Lazarus of the LA Times on the CPSIA Product Database. I have taken issue with the blather emitted from Lazarus' PC in the past. In his latest example of irresponsible journalism, endorsed by the CPSC, Lazarus displays his studied ignorance of the issues relating to the database. His lack of research certainly didn't prevent him from making declarative statements. Wolfson wanted to be sure you didn't miss it.
Lazarus ponders what the issues could possibly be with the controversial database: "You've got to wonder why businesses are fighting so hard to keep this resource away from consumers. Is it because their fears are justified that we'll misuse this tool (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding)? Or is it because the last thing they want is a consuming public armed with the latest and most thorough information on the safety of their goods? And if it's the latter, you might now ask, what are they trying to hide?"
I cannot think of any objections to the database other than self-interest, can you? It's all a conspiracy, as anyone on the Left can tell you. Businesses have so much to hide! And did you know that evil billionaires are against the database? Lazarus sorts it all out: "Koch Industries — run by billionaires Charles and David Koch, who are active in conservative causes — also reported spending more than $200,000 lobbying against creation of the database." Lazarus asserts that it is significant that Members of Congress aligned against the database also received campaign contributions from businesses. [Can you find a single member of Congress who has NOT taken contributions from businesses or business people? Just curious.] Lazarus notes that both Reps. Emerson and Pompeo received contributions from business people who are ALSO against the database. It's all making sense now . . . .
Perhaps it was an oversight, but Lazarus fails to mention that the folks on the Left who so vigorously defend the database as implemented have been richly financed by TRIAL LAWYERS. Rep. Henry Waxman raised more than $165,000 in 2010 from lawyers (11% of his total raise). In fact, his top PAC contributor was the American Association for Justice, a group of plaintiff's attorneys actively opposing tort reform. He also received individual contributions from AAJ lobbyists. Rep. Jan Schakowsky raised a mere $224,000 from lawyers in 2010 (about 15% of her raise). Ditto for AAJ support. Poke around on OpenSecrets.org to check out your other favorites in Congress. It goes without saying that the support Waxman, Schakowsky and their ilk lavish on the database has NOTHING to do with campaign contributions by trial lawyers. It all comes from the heart, cloaked in white. Any idea who pays the bill for all the litigation initiated by the AAJ and its members? Hint: it's not Waxmn or Schakowsky.
No Lazarus article would be complete without the quotes of Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America. The strangely influential Weintraub is the Left's favorite mouthpiece on the CPSIA. Here she tries a new angle to preserve the database, the "sunk cost" argument: "The thing that's so insidious is that the database is already up and running, This would basically waste all the money and resources that have gone into creating the database." Insidious! That thrifty Rachel, she literally weeps over government waste. Of course, the database is not controversial simply because it exists; the principal reason the issue lingers on is that Lefties like Weintraub and Bob Adler insisted on unfair administrative procedures that create unreasonable risks for manufacturers unrelated to actual product hazards, like brand slander, misidentified products, lack of accountability by complaint filers, manipulation of civil disputes and unbalanced data creating misleading commercial impressions. These problems are well-documented but have apparently escaped Lazarus' beady-eyed (in)attention.
The Axis of Misinformation is at work here. You have the ignorant journalist (perhaps intentionally so or at a minimum, biased against manufacturers and disinterested in their POV), the shrill consumer "advocate" and the self-serving agency spokesman whose job is to manipulate how we feel about the CPSC (irrespective of reality or the "truth"). CPSC as PR agency is offensive to me. That's not its function and besides, I think it's dangerous to me as a consumer. As a practitioner noted this week in private correspondence: "CPSC stacks the deck by creating alarming recall notices that do not really put hazards in perspective for readers, nor does the agency give consumers enough information to determine whether the amounts that they wind up indirectly paying for the costs of recalls are justified, especially when those costs are spread out to affect products that have not been recalled and present no risk. Hazards and risks are generally overstated, and you will never see any mention of costs to the public even though, as we all know, there is, after all, no free lunch."
It is worth noting that I hear complaints from the CPSC through various channels when they object to the portrayals in this space. It's so unfair that we have freedom of speech in this country. No doubt that makes the job of regulating all of us idiots so much more difficult. Still, if I get to exercise my freedom of speech, so does Wolfson. Go ahead and read Lazarus. It is informative in a way. It will take you less than 30 seconds to recognize the shoddy journalism and the slanted, biased presentation of a one-sided story. Consider the source of this lead - Scott Wolfson and the CPSC. As I said, it's informative.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
CPSIA - Hypocrisy on Display
ATVs are not toys. But ATVs are regulated by the CPSIA as though they are toys. Notably, as a consequence of the CPSIA, access to youth-model ATVs has been all but eliminated. Incredibly, there is still NOT ONE test lab certified by the CPSC to test ATVs for compliance either. Testimony to this effect was given at the February 16th CPSC hearing at which I appeared. Jay Howell of the CPSC acknowledged that the expense of testing ATVs cannot apparently be recovered by labs because there are so few youth model ATVs left on the market. No lab wants to invest for testing at a loss. The market speaks? The absence of youth model ATVs from the market also means that they are not being rented out. Rental and sales are the same thing under the CPSIA. They're gone.
Interestingly, Chandler's Law prohibits children under 16 from riding adult-sized ATVs. If you can connect even two dots, you will realize that this is a tacit ban on children riding ATVs. Period. This is the secret agenda of the consumer group zealots like the former AAP majordomo Cindy Pelligrini as she admitted at a meeting of stakeholders with the House Energy and Commerce Committee staff on January 6, 2011. So in other words, the consumer groups have a political agenda that they cannot accomplish via direct legislation - taking away ATVs from your kids, even using youth model ATVs developed at the request of the CPSC. ATV riding is too popular regionally for a ban to ever pass Congress - so the consumer groups obtained their objective under the cover of darkness with the CPSIA and sympathetic Dem plants on the CPSC Commission.
And here's the hypocrisy of Ms. Tenenbaum on public display. Appearing to herald the restrictions on youth access to adult-sized ATVs, Ms. Tenenbaum does not mention that she is ALSO responsible for the removal of youth-model ATVs from the market and that Chandler's Law essentially implements a ban on ATV use by children under 16 years of age in South Carolina. Had she admitted it, the publicity storm would have been bad for South Carolina legislators and Dems all over the country. She'll never breathe a word.
Not unlike the rest of the CPSIA mess, the reality is kept beneath a cloak, out of sight. You will only notice, if you ever do, when you go to the store and try to buy something wonderful that you have used safely in the past . . . and it's gone. Where did it go? The self-appointed "fun suckers" have been there first. Youth model ATVs - they're against them. Trampolines, backyard pools, fireworks, rhinestones, brass instruments - all too "dangerous" for you to be allowed to use. They know what's best, and you should be thankful.
It's our country but they're running it. When are you going to do something about it? After three years, you don't have much time left to figure it out.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
CPSIA - Shams and the People Who Perpetrate Them
As far back as December 2009, CPSIA zealots have been promoting the notion that a "functional purpose" exemption is the centerpiece of any fix to the CPSIA. See Henry Waxman's first attempt at a middle-of-the-night amendment to the CPSIA. Chairman Inez Tenenbaum chimed in in January 2010 to support the need for a functional purpose exemption: "I have learned through our implementation of the law, however, that there are circumstances where the exclusion of lead in certain materials or component parts is extremely problematic. Accordingly, it would be helpful for Congress to create a new exclusion to the section 101(a) lead content limits that would allow some flexibility in cases where lead is required for a functional purpose and the elimination of the lead is impracticable or impossible." At their insistene, this term has always been part of each draft of CPSIA amendment being discussed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This same approach lives on in ECADA today. Does it really make sense to offer an "out" for items or materials which "[require] the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture" without violative lead levels? How might that judgment be made?
No matter - the exemption sounds like a nice gesture by the powers-that-be, doesn't it? Leaves the door cracked just a bit so that companies in the children's market can preserve hope, right? The provision also addresses the unfortunate but predictable fact that the CPSC has been "unable" to grant even one exemption to the CPSIA in the last three years. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothin'. Advocates insist that this exemption process solves the problem of an overly-inflexible law without unnecessarily "endangering" children from dreaded lead.
I wonder if you would feel differently if you knew that there are no conceivable materials or products that meet this standard. The CPSC Staff confirmed it in writing. The CPSC report on 100 ppm released last week confirms once and for all that the functional purpose exemption is an outright SHAM. This darling of Rep. Henry Waxman and his minions (including Adler and Tenenbaum) will never be used to grant even one exemption, thus perpetuating the hoax that the CPSIA has exemptions. It doesn't, it never has and if the Dems get their way with this provision, it never will. This is no accident.
The CPSC Staff report concludes that the 100 ppm lead level is "technologically feasible" for all products and all materials. Thus, they recommend the implementation of the new standard on time on August 14 to apply to everything. This is critical - they conclude that every material and every product can be produced at the 100 ppm level.
This is actually a narrow judgment under very specific conditions set out in the CPSIA. "Technologically feasible" is a term of art under the law - it does not have the ordinary English language meaning you might otherwise expect. Of particular note, the definition does not refer to cost or economics in any fashion. In other words, if it can be done (at any expense, regardless of how ridiculous), it must be done. As the staff discovered, almost anything is "technologically feasible" under this definition in a low tech business like children's products. Of course, you might have to spend a lot of money or take a lot of economic risk. The law is indifferent to these pedestrian concerns.
To reach this conclusion, staff also dispensed with the notion that anyone "used" lead at these trace levels. They note that intentional uses of lead were always at concentrations well above 300 ppm: "Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). Therefore, staff does not believe that children’s product manufacturers intentionally design or make products or components with the maximum allowable lead content because lead concentration near the maximum limit would have no benefit or purpose to the product or the manufacturer." In other words, lead is never "included" in children's products at these levels.
[Note to the Dem Commissioners - you can now officially apologize for your insulting remark that we manufacturers intend to "dose" children with lead if standards are even slightly loosened.]
Staff also confirmed the obvious on health issues relating to these trace levels: The contribution of products with lead levels of between 100 ppm and 300 ppm is "minimal".
In so concluding, the staff apparently rejected the testimony of the AAP's estimable Dana Best that IQ points were being lost left and right from trace levels of lead.
So why are the Dems still insisting on a "functional purpose" exemption process? Well, substantively, there is no rational justification for it anymore - it cannot be granted given staff's conclusions. That said, who is going to figure that one out? It sounds good, makes good press for an easily-duped media, and allows Dems to adopt the stump-worthy posture of "listening" to corporate victims while still protecting children against evil companies out to poison them.
As I said, who is going to connect the dots and figure this one out? Expect every draft of the pending CPSIA amendment to include this obsolete notion no matter the facts. It's good for you, remember!
This is called leadership in Washington today.
This same approach lives on in ECADA today. Does it really make sense to offer an "out" for items or materials which "[require] the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture" without violative lead levels? How might that judgment be made?
No matter - the exemption sounds like a nice gesture by the powers-that-be, doesn't it? Leaves the door cracked just a bit so that companies in the children's market can preserve hope, right? The provision also addresses the unfortunate but predictable fact that the CPSC has been "unable" to grant even one exemption to the CPSIA in the last three years. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothin'. Advocates insist that this exemption process solves the problem of an overly-inflexible law without unnecessarily "endangering" children from dreaded lead.
I wonder if you would feel differently if you knew that there are no conceivable materials or products that meet this standard. The CPSC Staff confirmed it in writing. The CPSC report on 100 ppm released last week confirms once and for all that the functional purpose exemption is an outright SHAM. This darling of Rep. Henry Waxman and his minions (including Adler and Tenenbaum) will never be used to grant even one exemption, thus perpetuating the hoax that the CPSIA has exemptions. It doesn't, it never has and if the Dems get their way with this provision, it never will. This is no accident.
The CPSC Staff report concludes that the 100 ppm lead level is "technologically feasible" for all products and all materials. Thus, they recommend the implementation of the new standard on time on August 14 to apply to everything. This is critical - they conclude that every material and every product can be produced at the 100 ppm level.
This is actually a narrow judgment under very specific conditions set out in the CPSIA. "Technologically feasible" is a term of art under the law - it does not have the ordinary English language meaning you might otherwise expect. Of particular note, the definition does not refer to cost or economics in any fashion. In other words, if it can be done (at any expense, regardless of how ridiculous), it must be done. As the staff discovered, almost anything is "technologically feasible" under this definition in a low tech business like children's products. Of course, you might have to spend a lot of money or take a lot of economic risk. The law is indifferent to these pedestrian concerns.
To reach this conclusion, staff also dispensed with the notion that anyone "used" lead at these trace levels. They note that intentional uses of lead were always at concentrations well above 300 ppm: "Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). Therefore, staff does not believe that children’s product manufacturers intentionally design or make products or components with the maximum allowable lead content because lead concentration near the maximum limit would have no benefit or purpose to the product or the manufacturer." In other words, lead is never "included" in children's products at these levels.
[Note to the Dem Commissioners - you can now officially apologize for your insulting remark that we manufacturers intend to "dose" children with lead if standards are even slightly loosened.]
Staff also confirmed the obvious on health issues relating to these trace levels: The contribution of products with lead levels of between 100 ppm and 300 ppm is "minimal".
In so concluding, the staff apparently rejected the testimony of the AAP's estimable Dana Best that IQ points were being lost left and right from trace levels of lead.
So why are the Dems still insisting on a "functional purpose" exemption process? Well, substantively, there is no rational justification for it anymore - it cannot be granted given staff's conclusions. That said, who is going to figure that one out? It sounds good, makes good press for an easily-duped media, and allows Dems to adopt the stump-worthy posture of "listening" to corporate victims while still protecting children against evil companies out to poison them.
As I said, who is going to connect the dots and figure this one out? Expect every draft of the pending CPSIA amendment to include this obsolete notion no matter the facts. It's good for you, remember!
This is called leadership in Washington today.
Monday, June 27, 2011
CPSIA - What's the Difference?
The current debate over the need for mandatory CPSIA testing of children's products derives from consumer advocate assertions that American consumers "want" this testing to be "assured" that products are not laden with lead. This assertion has never been backed up with real data (other than "push poll" data) but strikes a nice chord with certain politicians seeking to have something nice to say on the stump.
Has this very notion, that mandatory testing "assures" anxious consumers, ever been tested? More to the point, how does mandating testing achieve anything - given that the core issue preceding the CPSIA was compliance with the rules. In other words, prior to the CPSIA, a small number of companies making children's products (some of them large multinationals like Mattel) did a poor job of following the rules. Some quite notoriously ignored the rules, too. Despite the fact that the agency had the legal power to enforce against these companies and despite the fact that these companies were not following the rules, Congress decided what we really needed were more rules. Apparently, when companies don't follow one set of rules, there is a big need for more rules.
More rules certainly solved the problem. . . .
And out of that effort grew the myth that mandated testing was absolutely necessary to keep America safe. Of course, mandated testing for real hazards isn't controversial. For instance, you will not find one peep from me about testing for lead-in-paint since 2008. That's a real hazard, actually linked to real, actual victims. However, the CPSIA invented a couple new standards concerning "hazards" not previously documented to have caused any actual injuries, and instituted mandated testing. This was Congress' solution to a perceived lack of compliance by the market.
How does that work logically? There were standards or rules previously, and they were notoriously ignored by a small number companies. That made everyone "mad" and gave people like Dick Durbin something to spout off about. But the fact is, the rules were well-known and were nevertheless ignored. We can certainly conclude from this experience that the existence of a rule is not assurance that the rule will actually be followed. Compliance is independent from posted restrictions. [Have you ever been cited for speeding? 'Nuf said.]
The new rules mandated third party testing for every product. Why? Purportedly to make SURE that every product complied with the standards that Congress felt were being ignored. Since we "cannot trust" companies to obey these standards, they must test. Apaparently, we trust these companies to test even though they previously ignored the mandated standards. And this apparently helps the CFA sleep better at night.
But if a small number of companies were ignoring the old rules, what makes Congress think a small number of companies won't ignore the NEW rules and simply lie about their testing or cut a few corners . . . until they get caught? Good question? I have no answer to it.
The Dems don't like to talk about this. In their perfect world, while the old standards were rules that might be ignored, the replacement rules (mandated testing) will CERTAINLY be universally followed. No reason for this conclusion has ever been provided. The lack of rationale has not deterred the Dems from clinging to this idea like grim death . . . .
Not all of the new CPSIA rules work to protect consumers, but disclosure of the facts is not forthcoming if it might reflect badly on the agency or Congress. For instance, you may recall that companies can petition to certify firewalled in-house labs to conduct testing on a "trust me" basis - this rule effectively only benefits big companies like Mattel. Yet when Mattel recalled 11 million units of its toys last September, nothing was disclosed about the involvement of its firewalled labs in the recalls. Were any of these items tested in0house and passed? Let's not forget that Mattel is largely responsible for the CPSIA because of its bad acts. Was the firewalled lab rule a bummer for American consumers? This is not a question welcomed by Dems.
And if a small number of companies will skirt the NEW rules on madndated testing, what happens to the rest of us? Well, our costs will certainly go through the roof and put us at a disadvantage to the scofflaws. In other words, the more compliant you are, the worse you fare competitively. Many of us would rather eat sand than knowingly break the law. So our costs skyrocket, and the basic problem that Congress wanted to solve (presumably, making consumers safer, not making consumer advocates sleep easier in their naivete) is not advanced at all.
Is this economically-efficient? Stupid question - to this politicos, it only matters what the CPSIA sounds like on the stump. Is anyone safer? Well, first tell me whether a markedly lower percentage of cheaters are present in the market.
Let's get one thing straight: there is no way to know if you are complying with lead content standards without testing. Whether testing is mandated or not, testing will need to take place to assess compliance with mandated levels of lead in children's products. Mandating compliance with the standard and mandating testing is the SAME THING - but the big difference is that in the former case, we can run our businesses and succeed or fail based on our ability to run those businesses well and competitively. In the latter case, the government becomes our partner and nothing we do is beyond their scrutiny and "advice" (needed or not). After all, they have nothing better to do. Catch criminals? Please - watching over our shoulders is all they have time for.
We can only hope that some Dems will wake up and do the right thing for our economy and job creation. This three-year disaster is a metaphor for everything that's wrong with our current government and political leadership. I wish it were otherwise, but there is no sign that the Dems care what we have to say. Until this storm breaks, we are doomed to slowly asphyxiate through mandated testing under the supervision of the government.
Has this very notion, that mandatory testing "assures" anxious consumers, ever been tested? More to the point, how does mandating testing achieve anything - given that the core issue preceding the CPSIA was compliance with the rules. In other words, prior to the CPSIA, a small number of companies making children's products (some of them large multinationals like Mattel) did a poor job of following the rules. Some quite notoriously ignored the rules, too. Despite the fact that the agency had the legal power to enforce against these companies and despite the fact that these companies were not following the rules, Congress decided what we really needed were more rules. Apparently, when companies don't follow one set of rules, there is a big need for more rules.
More rules certainly solved the problem. . . .
And out of that effort grew the myth that mandated testing was absolutely necessary to keep America safe. Of course, mandated testing for real hazards isn't controversial. For instance, you will not find one peep from me about testing for lead-in-paint since 2008. That's a real hazard, actually linked to real, actual victims. However, the CPSIA invented a couple new standards concerning "hazards" not previously documented to have caused any actual injuries, and instituted mandated testing. This was Congress' solution to a perceived lack of compliance by the market.
How does that work logically? There were standards or rules previously, and they were notoriously ignored by a small number companies. That made everyone "mad" and gave people like Dick Durbin something to spout off about. But the fact is, the rules were well-known and were nevertheless ignored. We can certainly conclude from this experience that the existence of a rule is not assurance that the rule will actually be followed. Compliance is independent from posted restrictions. [Have you ever been cited for speeding? 'Nuf said.]
The new rules mandated third party testing for every product. Why? Purportedly to make SURE that every product complied with the standards that Congress felt were being ignored. Since we "cannot trust" companies to obey these standards, they must test. Apaparently, we trust these companies to test even though they previously ignored the mandated standards. And this apparently helps the CFA sleep better at night.
But if a small number of companies were ignoring the old rules, what makes Congress think a small number of companies won't ignore the NEW rules and simply lie about their testing or cut a few corners . . . until they get caught? Good question? I have no answer to it.
The Dems don't like to talk about this. In their perfect world, while the old standards were rules that might be ignored, the replacement rules (mandated testing) will CERTAINLY be universally followed. No reason for this conclusion has ever been provided. The lack of rationale has not deterred the Dems from clinging to this idea like grim death . . . .
Not all of the new CPSIA rules work to protect consumers, but disclosure of the facts is not forthcoming if it might reflect badly on the agency or Congress. For instance, you may recall that companies can petition to certify firewalled in-house labs to conduct testing on a "trust me" basis - this rule effectively only benefits big companies like Mattel. Yet when Mattel recalled 11 million units of its toys last September, nothing was disclosed about the involvement of its firewalled labs in the recalls. Were any of these items tested in0house and passed? Let's not forget that Mattel is largely responsible for the CPSIA because of its bad acts. Was the firewalled lab rule a bummer for American consumers? This is not a question welcomed by Dems.
And if a small number of companies will skirt the NEW rules on madndated testing, what happens to the rest of us? Well, our costs will certainly go through the roof and put us at a disadvantage to the scofflaws. In other words, the more compliant you are, the worse you fare competitively. Many of us would rather eat sand than knowingly break the law. So our costs skyrocket, and the basic problem that Congress wanted to solve (presumably, making consumers safer, not making consumer advocates sleep easier in their naivete) is not advanced at all.
Is this economically-efficient? Stupid question - to this politicos, it only matters what the CPSIA sounds like on the stump. Is anyone safer? Well, first tell me whether a markedly lower percentage of cheaters are present in the market.
Let's get one thing straight: there is no way to know if you are complying with lead content standards without testing. Whether testing is mandated or not, testing will need to take place to assess compliance with mandated levels of lead in children's products. Mandating compliance with the standard and mandating testing is the SAME THING - but the big difference is that in the former case, we can run our businesses and succeed or fail based on our ability to run those businesses well and competitively. In the latter case, the government becomes our partner and nothing we do is beyond their scrutiny and "advice" (needed or not). After all, they have nothing better to do. Catch criminals? Please - watching over our shoulders is all they have time for.
We can only hope that some Dems will wake up and do the right thing for our economy and job creation. This three-year disaster is a metaphor for everything that's wrong with our current government and political leadership. I wish it were otherwise, but there is no sign that the Dems care what we have to say. Until this storm breaks, we are doomed to slowly asphyxiate through mandated testing under the supervision of the government.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
CPSIA - I Think I Found Someone Who Lost a Few IQ Points . . . .
Morons on parade . . . .
Never failing to disappoint, the Tribune (via its South Florida Sun-Sentinel) today published the latest left wing tripe about the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA). In an article entitled "Pandering politicians threaten to make hay of product safety", Nicole Brochu unquestioningly falls in line with Henry Waxman and Rachel Weintraub on ECADA and trashes safety legislation she clearly does not understand.
I am pretty sure Ms. Brochu is not a regular reader of this blog. She has successfully remained ignorant of many indisputable facts about safety in children's products, not to mention the detailed nature of the problems caused by CPSIA. That certainly makes it easier to react emotionally to the "threat" posed by ANY effort to change the ill-conceived CPSIA. And that she does . . . .
Ms. Brochu starts by confirming her bias against business and ruling out any consideration of opposing viewpoints (possibly involving FACTS): "I don't know about you, but when it comes to keeping the nation's supply of kids' toys and other consumer products safe, I'm going with the advice of doctors, scientists and watchdogs. I'm not sure we can rely on toymakers and motorcycle distributors to have the public's collective back on this one. . . . [The] only thing [ECADA] proposes to enhance is special interests' bottom lines -- not the CPSC's authority, or its protections of the consumers in its care."
Ah, special interests again! She must have been talking to the estimable Jan Schakowsky. As everyone knows, I am a "very cynical . . . special interest". You should see my lapel pin!
Ms. Brochu regurgitates the platitudes and slogans of the shrill groups opposing any change to the law:
The author finishes up with one of the biggest misconceptions promoted by the opponents of ECADA:
"The bill would do away with the requirement that manufacturers test their products before bringing them to market, putting the onus instead on the tax-funded CPSC to conduct extensive, costly analyses to determine if testing is necessary. Taxpaying consumers shouldn't shoulder the burden, or the cost, of making sure the products they buy are safe. In any reasonable scenario, that responsibility should fall on the businesses -- big or small -- making money selling their wares to the American public."
This remark reflects a gross misunderstanding of how businesses operate and how the proposed change in law affects businesses regulated under the CPSIA. ECADA does not eliminate the need to test children's products for compliance with the strictures of the CPSIA. The lead standards are still on the books, the rabid regulators are still breathing down our necks and THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF YOU COMPLY WITHOUT PERFORMING PRODUCT TESTS. What ECADA accomplishes, Ms. Brochu, is to stop the government from telling us how to run our businesses. We know better how to comply with these rules than they do, and can save vast sums of money wasted on government-mandated testing overkill. We will STILL HAVE TO TEST. There is no way around it. And if we screw up, we pay. This is not really a change, btw. We have always been subject to American tort law and have always been on the hook for our failures.
I wonder if the knuckleheads who believe that ECADA eviscerates the CPSIA understand that the government has no way to force businesses to test. Mandated testing does not mean that every children's product will be tested, any more than posted speed limits mean that you will never get a speeding ticket. To survey compliance, the CPSC will always have to test products - and cops will always need radar guns. Scurrilous businesses that don't want to spend the money to comply will lie - and good businesses will spend themselves into bankruptcy paying for endlessly repetitive tests. The mandated testing regime has little to do with these behaviors because this is the realm of compliance. Rules do not eliminate bad behavior as common experience instructs. The drafters of ECADA get this point, and have incorporated the modest concession that the standards are more important to safety than attempting to manage thousands of businesses. Ms. Brochu would know this if she read my blog.
I want to draw your attention AGAIN to the important point that Ms. Brochu's safety neurotics have yet to answer my query - WHERE ARE THE VICTIMS OF LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE? If we are saving children from a dreaded threat NOW, presumably children were suffering grave consequences in the past. Yet when asked to name these victims and provide case histories and other identifying and validating data, the advocates cannot name even ONE victim - from any country, at any time, using any children's product by any manufacturer under any living conditions. Zero known victims - but we must bear billions in costs to comply with a neurotics' legislative and regulatory wet dream.
Notably, in May 2010 I published my own analysis of 11 years of CPSC recalls from 1999-2010 and found only three alleged injuries (all from lead-in-paint) and one death (from swallowing a lead bangle from a bracelet). That's it - and there are no known victims of lead-in-substrate in the CPSC's publicly-available recall records in that time period to the best of my knowledge. Or at any other time in the history of the world. The absence of lead-in-substrate injuries is stark in comparison to prosaic risks we bear EVERY DAY. Stair falls have killed almost as many people in Japan as fires despite the fact that many structures in Japan are made of wood (1976). In Canada, injuries and fatalities on stairs are at least ten times greater than those from natural disasters (1985). In the UK, it has been estimated that more than 100,000 stair injuries occur annually (1999). Yet the federal government wants us to spend literally BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually to protect against a health threat not associated with a SINGLE documented injury. We are being governed by idiots.
Maybe someday we can expect the media to think before it speaks. Maybe someday the standards for journalism will include knowing what you're talking about, investigating and challenging preconceived notions and a healthy skepticism for pat answers. Until then, we have the Tribune and Ms. Brochu.
VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
Never failing to disappoint, the Tribune (via its South Florida Sun-Sentinel) today published the latest left wing tripe about the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA). In an article entitled "Pandering politicians threaten to make hay of product safety", Nicole Brochu unquestioningly falls in line with Henry Waxman and Rachel Weintraub on ECADA and trashes safety legislation she clearly does not understand.
I am pretty sure Ms. Brochu is not a regular reader of this blog. She has successfully remained ignorant of many indisputable facts about safety in children's products, not to mention the detailed nature of the problems caused by CPSIA. That certainly makes it easier to react emotionally to the "threat" posed by ANY effort to change the ill-conceived CPSIA. And that she does . . . .
Ms. Brochu starts by confirming her bias against business and ruling out any consideration of opposing viewpoints (possibly involving FACTS): "I don't know about you, but when it comes to keeping the nation's supply of kids' toys and other consumer products safe, I'm going with the advice of doctors, scientists and watchdogs. I'm not sure we can rely on toymakers and motorcycle distributors to have the public's collective back on this one. . . . [The] only thing [ECADA] proposes to enhance is special interests' bottom lines -- not the CPSC's authority, or its protections of the consumers in its care."
Ah, special interests again! She must have been talking to the estimable Jan Schakowsky. As everyone knows, I am a "very cynical . . . special interest". You should see my lapel pin!
Ms. Brochu regurgitates the platitudes and slogans of the shrill groups opposing any change to the law:
- ECADA and CPSIA are toy bills.
- CPSIA was passed by an overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress and was signed by "pro-business Republican President George W. Bush".
- As a result of the CPSIA, there has been a "noticeable improvement in the public's wounded confidence" (presumably in children's products and the federal government).
- "[A] bunch of pandering politicians [are trying] to muck it all up for us. Since Republicans took over majority control of the U.S. House last year (and even before), they have set their sights on diminishing the safety act's laudatory provisions in the name of lifting the burden off small-business owners." [Ed. Note: This is a variant of the argument that only Democrats and consumer groups care about kids, certainly not businesses or Republicans.]
- ECADA is "a hyperventilating overreach that would put the country's health and safety at risk. And that's just what an impressive contingent of folks -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Kids In Danger, Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the CPSC's chairman and two of its commissioners -- say this measure would do."
- ECADA "[waters] down the safety act's firm hold on lead content in children's products . . . ."
- The book industry and motorcycle industry are "special interests" seeking a pass for their products. No matter the merits of their claims, the law's protections cannot be weakened in any way. [Ed. Note: This is the "zero sum" argument again - if manufacturers are made better off by ECADA, it follows "logically" that children MUST BE worse off.]
The author finishes up with one of the biggest misconceptions promoted by the opponents of ECADA:
"The bill would do away with the requirement that manufacturers test their products before bringing them to market, putting the onus instead on the tax-funded CPSC to conduct extensive, costly analyses to determine if testing is necessary. Taxpaying consumers shouldn't shoulder the burden, or the cost, of making sure the products they buy are safe. In any reasonable scenario, that responsibility should fall on the businesses -- big or small -- making money selling their wares to the American public."
This remark reflects a gross misunderstanding of how businesses operate and how the proposed change in law affects businesses regulated under the CPSIA. ECADA does not eliminate the need to test children's products for compliance with the strictures of the CPSIA. The lead standards are still on the books, the rabid regulators are still breathing down our necks and THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF YOU COMPLY WITHOUT PERFORMING PRODUCT TESTS. What ECADA accomplishes, Ms. Brochu, is to stop the government from telling us how to run our businesses. We know better how to comply with these rules than they do, and can save vast sums of money wasted on government-mandated testing overkill. We will STILL HAVE TO TEST. There is no way around it. And if we screw up, we pay. This is not really a change, btw. We have always been subject to American tort law and have always been on the hook for our failures.
I wonder if the knuckleheads who believe that ECADA eviscerates the CPSIA understand that the government has no way to force businesses to test. Mandated testing does not mean that every children's product will be tested, any more than posted speed limits mean that you will never get a speeding ticket. To survey compliance, the CPSC will always have to test products - and cops will always need radar guns. Scurrilous businesses that don't want to spend the money to comply will lie - and good businesses will spend themselves into bankruptcy paying for endlessly repetitive tests. The mandated testing regime has little to do with these behaviors because this is the realm of compliance. Rules do not eliminate bad behavior as common experience instructs. The drafters of ECADA get this point, and have incorporated the modest concession that the standards are more important to safety than attempting to manage thousands of businesses. Ms. Brochu would know this if she read my blog.
I want to draw your attention AGAIN to the important point that Ms. Brochu's safety neurotics have yet to answer my query - WHERE ARE THE VICTIMS OF LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE? If we are saving children from a dreaded threat NOW, presumably children were suffering grave consequences in the past. Yet when asked to name these victims and provide case histories and other identifying and validating data, the advocates cannot name even ONE victim - from any country, at any time, using any children's product by any manufacturer under any living conditions. Zero known victims - but we must bear billions in costs to comply with a neurotics' legislative and regulatory wet dream.
Notably, in May 2010 I published my own analysis of 11 years of CPSC recalls from 1999-2010 and found only three alleged injuries (all from lead-in-paint) and one death (from swallowing a lead bangle from a bracelet). That's it - and there are no known victims of lead-in-substrate in the CPSC's publicly-available recall records in that time period to the best of my knowledge. Or at any other time in the history of the world. The absence of lead-in-substrate injuries is stark in comparison to prosaic risks we bear EVERY DAY. Stair falls have killed almost as many people in Japan as fires despite the fact that many structures in Japan are made of wood (1976). In Canada, injuries and fatalities on stairs are at least ten times greater than those from natural disasters (1985). In the UK, it has been estimated that more than 100,000 stair injuries occur annually (1999). Yet the federal government wants us to spend literally BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually to protect against a health threat not associated with a SINGLE documented injury. We are being governed by idiots.
Maybe someday we can expect the media to think before it speaks. Maybe someday the standards for journalism will include knowing what you're talking about, investigating and challenging preconceived notions and a healthy skepticism for pat answers. Until then, we have the Tribune and Ms. Brochu.
VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
Monday, June 13, 2011
CPSIA - Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
We live in interesting times. There has been no action by Congress to deal with the CPSIA since its controversial passage in August 2008 despite consistent and loud hue and cry. Right now, Dems are blocking progress. Apparently, they think the biggest threat to America is ANY change to the CPSIA. Our markets, our jobs, our livelihoods will be a necessary sacrifice to . . . what?
Reelection.
During this crisis of thousands of businesses catering to children, a Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee charged with managing the CPSIA mess, has been emailing photos of his you-know-what to women and girls all over America. One of Anthony Weiner's email correspondents was reportedly voted "Most likely to be involved in a tabloid scandal" by her high school class (she's only 21, it wasn't long ago). I think you get the (sordid) picture. Mr. Weiner has been of no use on the CPSIA, riding the high horse "protecting children" with his Dem brethren, at the VERY SAME TIME he was using the Internet for interactions that are, at a minimum, pretty creepy.
So Weiner is against letting even a notch out on the CPSIA belt around our necks, too unsafe . . . but he thinks it's okay to creep around on the Internet, shooting pics of himself in the Congressional locker room and sending them out to his female Internet pals (one of whom was a porn star). Hypocrisy? How can that be, the Dems are cloaked in white, right???
Mr. Weiner remains perplexingly in office. As Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus noted on Meet the Press:
"What we called for is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in this country to do what every American knew had to be done immediately and call for his resignation. Now, it seemed to me that for the first 10 days in this circus that the only job [in America] that Nancy Pelosi was interested in saving was Anthony Weiner's. We've got crushing unemployment in this country, we've got a president that's, that's whistling past the graveyard, we've got families that are struggling, and instead we've got leadership in a Democratic Party that are defending a guy that deserves no defense." [Emphasis added]
And back at the ranch, the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is stalled. Why? Consider the May 25th words of Rep. Henry Waxman, Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and principal roadblock to relief:
"But instead of refining a good law, the Republican bill goes after the law with a wrecking ball. The result is an assault on children’s safety. The Republicans call their bill the 'Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act.' A better name is the 'Unsafe Toy Act.'" [Emphasis added]
That's right - the Dem leader is calling the work of the Republican majority the "Unsafe Toy Act". Hmmm. Please NOTE that the General Counsel of this committee (Gib Mullen) is the former General Counsel of the CPSC and its former Director of Compliance. Is the implication that this former Kirkland & Ellis partner is a "hack", lacking principle and integrity and is simply doing as he is told by Republican overlords who don't care about children's safety? Please, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
The label "Unsafe Toy Act" is an insult and a lie in so many ways. First of all, it isn't true. As I have discussed extensively in this space, ECADA is a surgical revision to the CPSIA, designed to fine tune the law without restructuring it. Reporters have called me to ask what the big deal is. Good question but the answer is obvious. No rational person subject to the laws of the United States or residing here would want to make toys, or any children's product, "unsafe". If you insist that they would, Mr. Waxman, PROVE IT. Oh yeah, you don't do that, do you?
Second, Mr. Waxman impugns the dignity and integrity of anyone who would dare support ECADA. That includes me since for more than 20 years my career has been devoted to making educational products (with perhaps the best safety record in the entire children's product industry). Mr. Waxman's label plainly announces to the general public that I favor poisoning kids to make more money. That is rather offensive, to say the least. Members of the House of Representatives are permitted to speak their minds, through and including libelous remarks, while on the House floor. They literally can say ANYTHING with impunity - I can't sue them for this slander. As such, there is no recourse for this slander.
This unfortunate label is at the heart of what the Dems are after - political advantage. Those of you who periodically pepper me with defenses of good Democrats fail to recognize the consistent pattern of obstruction and failure to act reasonably among the small group (cabal) of Dems and associated consumer groups behind this roadblock. The pattern of lies is all for political effect. Can you imagine the reelection commercials? Good for the Dems, bad for anyone who disagrees with them. The threat even applies to Dems who might have a conscience and be willing to stand up to the demagogues - the consumer groups are ready to attack them, too. Everyone knows it, no one wants to say it.
Mr. Waxman trots out the usual lies and misstatements, relying on the trick of portraying this law as a "toy law":
"The Unsafe Toy Act triples the amount of lead allowed in most children’s toys. For some children’s products, the bill would allow lead levels to increase 100 times or more. The bill eviscerates the requirement that toys imported from China be independently tested for safety. . . . Just listen to what the experts are saying about this bill. The Consumer Federation of America says that the bill creates 'huge loopholes.' Consumers Union says it will 'lower standards and roll back safeguards for children and infants.' The American Academy of Pediatrics and 100 other experts in children’s health wrote to express their 'deep concern' over the bill because it 'would have the effect of permitting more lead in toys.' Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and a majority of the Commission wrote that the bill 'would effectively revoke key protections … and fails to adequately protect the health and safety of American children.'"
I have rebutted the consumer group "arguments" numerous times in this space already. I am not going to repeat myself here. Mr. Waxman's reference to "triple" lead levels refers to a new limitation on the excessive and useless 100 ppm lead standard that, btw, has never been deemed technologically feasible by the CPSC. The "change" to lead levels of 100 times or more than existing standards refers to the rule exempting metal alloys (like brass) complying with the stay authorized by the CPSC Commission. OMG, you mean we can still use brass in children's products like pens and trumpets? The HORROR!
Neither the consumer groups nor Mr. Waxman and his Dem brethren have answered my question - Where are the victims? This question was asked several times in the April 7th hearing by members of the committee. To date, no one has supplied even one case history.
No one calls Mr. Waxman to account for his lies and innuendos, so he persists in trashing those who can't defend themselves. This is not unlike his unjustified attacks on Toyota that were later proven FALSE. Mr. Waxman did something similar at the April 7th hearing first discussing the CPSIA Amendment. In his opening statement, Mr. Waxman laid it on thick:
"But your discussion draft, which is the subject of today’s hearing, takes a wrecking ball to the law and would endanger young children. . . . Your discussion draft is a very different document. Democrats, consumer groups, and health experts were not consulted. The result is a one-sided proposal that provides relief to industry, but sacrifices children’s health and safety. . . . I have learned over the last few months that there seems to be no limit to the ability of the new Republican majority to pass bad legislation in this Committee and on the House floor. I have no doubt that if you want to do so, you could do so again with your draft bill. But there is no chance that a bill this extreme could ever become law. It would not survive in the Senate and if it did, it would be vetoed by the President." [Emphasis added]
It's always nice to end with a threat.
The title of this post refers to a lampoon written by now Senator Al Franken (D-MN). In this book, he contends that Republicans are liars. Well, well, well, how times change, huh? Mr. Franken??? Any comment?
I didn't think so.
Reelection.
During this crisis of thousands of businesses catering to children, a Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee charged with managing the CPSIA mess, has been emailing photos of his you-know-what to women and girls all over America. One of Anthony Weiner's email correspondents was reportedly voted "Most likely to be involved in a tabloid scandal" by her high school class (she's only 21, it wasn't long ago). I think you get the (sordid) picture. Mr. Weiner has been of no use on the CPSIA, riding the high horse "protecting children" with his Dem brethren, at the VERY SAME TIME he was using the Internet for interactions that are, at a minimum, pretty creepy.
So Weiner is against letting even a notch out on the CPSIA belt around our necks, too unsafe . . . but he thinks it's okay to creep around on the Internet, shooting pics of himself in the Congressional locker room and sending them out to his female Internet pals (one of whom was a porn star). Hypocrisy? How can that be, the Dems are cloaked in white, right???
Mr. Weiner remains perplexingly in office. As Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus noted on Meet the Press:
"What we called for is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in this country to do what every American knew had to be done immediately and call for his resignation. Now, it seemed to me that for the first 10 days in this circus that the only job [in America] that Nancy Pelosi was interested in saving was Anthony Weiner's. We've got crushing unemployment in this country, we've got a president that's, that's whistling past the graveyard, we've got families that are struggling, and instead we've got leadership in a Democratic Party that are defending a guy that deserves no defense." [Emphasis added]
And back at the ranch, the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is stalled. Why? Consider the May 25th words of Rep. Henry Waxman, Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and principal roadblock to relief:
"But instead of refining a good law, the Republican bill goes after the law with a wrecking ball. The result is an assault on children’s safety. The Republicans call their bill the 'Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act.' A better name is the 'Unsafe Toy Act.'" [Emphasis added]
That's right - the Dem leader is calling the work of the Republican majority the "Unsafe Toy Act". Hmmm. Please NOTE that the General Counsel of this committee (Gib Mullen) is the former General Counsel of the CPSC and its former Director of Compliance. Is the implication that this former Kirkland & Ellis partner is a "hack", lacking principle and integrity and is simply doing as he is told by Republican overlords who don't care about children's safety? Please, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
The label "Unsafe Toy Act" is an insult and a lie in so many ways. First of all, it isn't true. As I have discussed extensively in this space, ECADA is a surgical revision to the CPSIA, designed to fine tune the law without restructuring it. Reporters have called me to ask what the big deal is. Good question but the answer is obvious. No rational person subject to the laws of the United States or residing here would want to make toys, or any children's product, "unsafe". If you insist that they would, Mr. Waxman, PROVE IT. Oh yeah, you don't do that, do you?
Second, Mr. Waxman impugns the dignity and integrity of anyone who would dare support ECADA. That includes me since for more than 20 years my career has been devoted to making educational products (with perhaps the best safety record in the entire children's product industry). Mr. Waxman's label plainly announces to the general public that I favor poisoning kids to make more money. That is rather offensive, to say the least. Members of the House of Representatives are permitted to speak their minds, through and including libelous remarks, while on the House floor. They literally can say ANYTHING with impunity - I can't sue them for this slander. As such, there is no recourse for this slander.
This unfortunate label is at the heart of what the Dems are after - political advantage. Those of you who periodically pepper me with defenses of good Democrats fail to recognize the consistent pattern of obstruction and failure to act reasonably among the small group (cabal) of Dems and associated consumer groups behind this roadblock. The pattern of lies is all for political effect. Can you imagine the reelection commercials? Good for the Dems, bad for anyone who disagrees with them. The threat even applies to Dems who might have a conscience and be willing to stand up to the demagogues - the consumer groups are ready to attack them, too. Everyone knows it, no one wants to say it.
Mr. Waxman trots out the usual lies and misstatements, relying on the trick of portraying this law as a "toy law":
"The Unsafe Toy Act triples the amount of lead allowed in most children’s toys. For some children’s products, the bill would allow lead levels to increase 100 times or more. The bill eviscerates the requirement that toys imported from China be independently tested for safety. . . . Just listen to what the experts are saying about this bill. The Consumer Federation of America says that the bill creates 'huge loopholes.' Consumers Union says it will 'lower standards and roll back safeguards for children and infants.' The American Academy of Pediatrics and 100 other experts in children’s health wrote to express their 'deep concern' over the bill because it 'would have the effect of permitting more lead in toys.' Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and a majority of the Commission wrote that the bill 'would effectively revoke key protections … and fails to adequately protect the health and safety of American children.'"
I have rebutted the consumer group "arguments" numerous times in this space already. I am not going to repeat myself here. Mr. Waxman's reference to "triple" lead levels refers to a new limitation on the excessive and useless 100 ppm lead standard that, btw, has never been deemed technologically feasible by the CPSC. The "change" to lead levels of 100 times or more than existing standards refers to the rule exempting metal alloys (like brass) complying with the stay authorized by the CPSC Commission. OMG, you mean we can still use brass in children's products like pens and trumpets? The HORROR!
Neither the consumer groups nor Mr. Waxman and his Dem brethren have answered my question - Where are the victims? This question was asked several times in the April 7th hearing by members of the committee. To date, no one has supplied even one case history.
No one calls Mr. Waxman to account for his lies and innuendos, so he persists in trashing those who can't defend themselves. This is not unlike his unjustified attacks on Toyota that were later proven FALSE. Mr. Waxman did something similar at the April 7th hearing first discussing the CPSIA Amendment. In his opening statement, Mr. Waxman laid it on thick:
"But your discussion draft, which is the subject of today’s hearing, takes a wrecking ball to the law and would endanger young children. . . . Your discussion draft is a very different document. Democrats, consumer groups, and health experts were not consulted. The result is a one-sided proposal that provides relief to industry, but sacrifices children’s health and safety. . . . I have learned over the last few months that there seems to be no limit to the ability of the new Republican majority to pass bad legislation in this Committee and on the House floor. I have no doubt that if you want to do so, you could do so again with your draft bill. But there is no chance that a bill this extreme could ever become law. It would not survive in the Senate and if it did, it would be vetoed by the President." [Emphasis added]
It's always nice to end with a threat.
The title of this post refers to a lampoon written by now Senator Al Franken (D-MN). In this book, he contends that Republicans are liars. Well, well, well, how times change, huh? Mr. Franken??? Any comment?
I didn't think so.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
CPSIA - Consumers Union is Hazardous to Your Health
Lies, innuendos, misstatements, twists - which is it this time?
Today Ami Gadhia, one of the Consumers Union CPSIA hacks (a.k.a. "Policy Counsel") weighed in with her usual bunk about the lurking "dangers" in children's products. In particular, today's tripe is a protest against modifying the CPSIA. Her writings and utterances are invariably infuriating for their lack of perspective, tall tales and general fear mongering. In her article "Turning Back the Clock on Child Safety Protections", Ms. Gadhia continues her fine tradition of twisting and obfuscating the facts. Considering her background in the subject matter and her law degree, one must assume ill-intent. This can't be accidental.
Let me debunk her junk one-by-one:
a. "Turning Back the Clock on Child Safety Protections": The Op-Ed's title is absurd in light of the actual bill's wording. The CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is a mild and surgical bill intended to offer minimal but effective relief from over-regulation while preserving the structure of the CPSIA. Killing the CPSIA is politically impossible, it appears, so this is the best that can be offered at this time. Ms. Gadhia must be asserting that ANY change in the CPSIA is a setback. This argument is always left unproven - but no one ever holds her accountable so why not tell the tall tale? The consumer groups rely on the appeal of the "zero sum" argument which also goes unchallenged. It goes like this: ANY change in the CPSIA which might benefit a business is THEREFORE a setback for children's safety. If the Cubs lose 15-5, they are somehow better off if they instead lose 13-5. Right. . . .
b. Ms. Gadhia, like her fellow manipulators in the consumer "advocacy" field, relies on an emotional appeal to kick off her crock - the story of a child who swallowed magnets, leading to gory injury. A few notes on this line of reasoning:
d. Ms. Gadhia trots out yet another misleading but longstanding justification for not changing the CPSIA - namely that it passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress. I fail to grasp the intellectual power of this "infallibility of Congress" argument, and further note that dozens of members of Congress have been trying to change the law ever since. There has been more than a dozen bills floated to amend this "perfect" law since August 2008. In addition, the timing of passage of this law (three months ahead of the 2008 Presidential poll electing Mr. Obama) made it very dangerous politically to vote against this terrible law if you wanted to keep your job in Congress. Even Mr. Bush had to sign it for political reasons. The political and media frenzy in 2008 made rationality impossible, and minds were made up. Have you ever made a bad call when you were furious? 'Nuf said . . . by everyone except the dangerous Ms. Gadhia.
e. The Consumers Union storyteller informs us that ECADA "would poke some serious holes in the product safety net". What a dream if Ms. Gadhia were actually right that this amendment would actually dent the CPSIA that I hate. It doesn't, regrettably. To "prove" her points, she lists four lies:
It's time to turn back the clock on irrationality and lowest common denominator government. Who should set the tone for us - the Anthony Weiners of the world (did you hear that his wife is pregnant?) or people that are interested in children's safety AND the viability of American businesses that provide jobs to your neighbors and valued products to your kids? I think it's time that our representatives in Congress, especially those in Congress calling themselves Democrats, to stand up for WHAT'S RIGHT rather than what's easy or what's safe (for their job security). We pay them to lead, not to cower. PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
Today Ami Gadhia, one of the Consumers Union CPSIA hacks (a.k.a. "Policy Counsel") weighed in with her usual bunk about the lurking "dangers" in children's products. In particular, today's tripe is a protest against modifying the CPSIA. Her writings and utterances are invariably infuriating for their lack of perspective, tall tales and general fear mongering. In her article "Turning Back the Clock on Child Safety Protections", Ms. Gadhia continues her fine tradition of twisting and obfuscating the facts. Considering her background in the subject matter and her law degree, one must assume ill-intent. This can't be accidental.
Let me debunk her junk one-by-one:
a. "Turning Back the Clock on Child Safety Protections": The Op-Ed's title is absurd in light of the actual bill's wording. The CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is a mild and surgical bill intended to offer minimal but effective relief from over-regulation while preserving the structure of the CPSIA. Killing the CPSIA is politically impossible, it appears, so this is the best that can be offered at this time. Ms. Gadhia must be asserting that ANY change in the CPSIA is a setback. This argument is always left unproven - but no one ever holds her accountable so why not tell the tall tale? The consumer groups rely on the appeal of the "zero sum" argument which also goes unchallenged. It goes like this: ANY change in the CPSIA which might benefit a business is THEREFORE a setback for children's safety. If the Cubs lose 15-5, they are somehow better off if they instead lose 13-5. Right. . . .
b. Ms. Gadhia, like her fellow manipulators in the consumer "advocacy" field, relies on an emotional appeal to kick off her crock - the story of a child who swallowed magnets, leading to gory injury. A few notes on this line of reasoning:
- The CPSIA is NOT a toy law. Despite Ms. Gadhia's relentlessly repetitive references to toy safety, the law applies equally to ALL children's products, from shoes and t-shirts to pens to rhinestones to ATVs and bikes to books to educational products to carpet to what-have-you. By focusing on toy gore, Ms. Gadhia lulls her reader into overlooking the awesome overreach of this bill. We don't want kids injured by magnets . . . ergo, we should ban all hazards in all things. Huh?
- The magnet hazard she refers to had never been seen by the agency previously. It was a classic latent hazard, unregulated specifically because it was unrecognized. You can see Gib Mullan, the current General Counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and former General Counsel and Director of Compliance at the CPSC say ON VIDEOTAPE (at the CPSC Tracking Labels hearing) that the agency first thought the problem was a small parts issue, not a strong magnets issue. No law can effectively regulate UNKNOWN hazards. Claiming that the CPSIA "solves" this safety issue is pure baloney.
- The magnet hazard was addressed promptly and effectively by the agency without the need for changes implemented by the CPSIA. The agency had this power under its 1972 enabling legislation and following laws.
- Sometimes bad things happen to good people.
d. Ms. Gadhia trots out yet another misleading but longstanding justification for not changing the CPSIA - namely that it passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress. I fail to grasp the intellectual power of this "infallibility of Congress" argument, and further note that dozens of members of Congress have been trying to change the law ever since. There has been more than a dozen bills floated to amend this "perfect" law since August 2008. In addition, the timing of passage of this law (three months ahead of the 2008 Presidential poll electing Mr. Obama) made it very dangerous politically to vote against this terrible law if you wanted to keep your job in Congress. Even Mr. Bush had to sign it for political reasons. The political and media frenzy in 2008 made rationality impossible, and minds were made up. Have you ever made a bad call when you were furious? 'Nuf said . . . by everyone except the dangerous Ms. Gadhia.
e. The Consumers Union storyteller informs us that ECADA "would poke some serious holes in the product safety net". What a dream if Ms. Gadhia were actually right that this amendment would actually dent the CPSIA that I hate. It doesn't, regrettably. To "prove" her points, she lists four lies:
- "The bill undermines safety testing for children's products". The bill eliminates MANDATORY testing as required by the CPSIA. It does not ban testing, nor does it discourage or remove the incentive to test. Excessive testing is one of the original problems cited in the bill, and has cost our company well in excess of $1 million since the passage of the bill - all without making even one product in our product range safer, even a little bit. This term is the brainchild of the consumer groups (Rachel Weintraub?), reasoning that if the government didn't require mandatory testing, no testing would be done. This misconception overlooks the enforcement of the new standards. It is IMPOSSIBLE to assess whether you comply with the standard without testing. Enforcement of the standard, as is anticipated, means that everyone WILL test. What is being eliminated is the role of Mother Government "helping" us by telling us how to run our businesses. If the standard is enforced, people will HAVE TO test. If they don't enforce the standard, they won't enforce mandatory testing either. What's the big deal here? Just the opportunity for Ms. Gadhia to mindlessly bang her drum.
- "The bill undermines lead protections". Ms. Gadhia informs us that consumer confidence would "erode" if the current one-size-fits-all standard is replaced with "a variety of standards that will be different depending on when the product was manufactured, the age of the child for whom the product is designed, whether it contains small parts, and other factors." OMG - standards that are reasonably tailored to the individual hazard and individual product! NO - please tell me we still live in a world where books, t-shirts, diamonds and rubies, ATVs, bicycles, appliances, pens, carpets, DVDs and toys are ALL subject to exactly the same rules. What is the world coming to??? I presume Ms. Gadhia thinks we are idiots, or else this is all she has, which ain't much. Anyone surprised?
- "The bill undermines the effectiveness of the new crib safety standard". I have previously addressed this issue - the three Dem Commissioners made this same baseless accusation a few days ago. See my reply in this space.
- "The bill undermines the new public database for people to report and read about product safety problems". Ms. Gadhia warns "the provisions in this legislation would place onerous burdens on the person making the complaint, thereby discouraging parties with valuable safety information from reporting." Whoa - you mean we won't get to see stuff like this, this and this again???
It's time to turn back the clock on irrationality and lowest common denominator government. Who should set the tone for us - the Anthony Weiners of the world (did you hear that his wife is pregnant?) or people that are interested in children's safety AND the viability of American businesses that provide jobs to your neighbors and valued products to your kids? I think it's time that our representatives in Congress, especially those in Congress calling themselves Democrats, to stand up for WHAT'S RIGHT rather than what's easy or what's safe (for their job security). We pay them to lead, not to cower. PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
Monday, June 6, 2011
CPSIA - Status of CPSIA Amendment (ECADA)
Having delayed the mark-up of the CPSIA Amendment bill (ECADA), the House is out of session for the next week. The timing for resumption of the consideration of this bill has not been released.
I think it is incumbent on us to make a fuss over this delay and to press our Congressional representatives to act to pass this law. Other industry groups are pushing for the meager and surgical relief offered by this law - but the Dems continue to resist. The Dems moan and groan as though ECADA guts the CPSIA, perhaps banking on a docile media to not challenge their characterization of a very balanced and frankly, rather undramatic bill. In fact, I was just interviewed by a reporter whose opening question was why the controversy over a bill that changes so little about the CPSIA. Good question.
I have an explanation to offer you - it's just politics, pure and simple, 100% politics. As previously noted, the Republicans were sensitive to the excesses of the law before it was passed. Given that the CPSIA was passed in August 2008, as America headed to the polls en masse to overwhelmingly elect Mr. Obama as our President, all members of Congress (other than Rand Paul and three others) saw the wisdom of supporting this bill. The political cost of opposition to the CPSIA was unbearable - as my own representative told me face-to-face in July 2008, even though the CPSIA was over-the-top, he had to vote for it, otherwise he would face election commercials accusing him of defending corporations over children's safety. He would not sacrifice his job over this vote. He assured me that Congress usually goes too far in its bills, but would go back in 12-to-18 months to fix it.
Not in this case, apparently.
So the Republicans, like the Democrats, preferred the safe route politically in the summer of 2008, but by all appearances, wanted to go back and fix the bill as predicted by my district's representative. To their credit, the Republicans have used the majority power in the House restored in the 2010 midterm elections to reach out to both sides on this issue, as well as to the Dems, to find appropriate middle ground on this contentious issue. [I have discussed these efforts in this space over the course of 2011.] The new General Counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Gib Mullan, is the ex-General Counsel and ex-Director of Compliance and Field Operations at the CPSC, so let's posit that he understands the law pretty well from all angles.
Even with this new horsepower (intellectual and political), the Dems haven't responded to the Republicans' entreaties and resolutely won't yield on any points. They continue to fight ECADA tooth and nail. Why?
It's politics, just politics. Drop any notion that the Dems care about you . . . or your employees . . . or your suppliers . . . or your dealers . . . . or the consumers, teachers, families or schools that want, need and use your products every day. Jobs, schmobs. The well-documented and negative consequences of the CPSIA on our markets and economy (not to mention the paltry or nonexistent acheivements of the law) are just not on the Dems' radar. They only care about getting reelected - their concern is simply themselves. As in 2008, the ECADA issue is tailor-made for political gains. As far as I can tell, that's too tempting a morsel to pass up, damn the consequences on the "little people". The Dems argue to the populace that anything that makes the world better for your business necessarily makes life worse for kids. Zero sum. It's a stupid, nonsensical argument, but if you give it no thought, it might SOUND good. The Dems know their position makes them look good to a dozing electorate and a gullible media, and makes the Republicans push a lot of chips into the center of the table to do the right thing for our country.
The Dems are also catering to their power base, the consumerists. The consumer groups have their own axes to grind. For one thing, if they give an inch here, some people might accuse them of being hypocrites. After all, they have repeated the Big Lie ("There is no safe level of lead") for so long that it would come as a shock and disappointment to their true believers if they conceded the (intentional) error of their bumper sticker slogan. In addition, their budgets are paid for by trial lawyers. If they give in, there will less money available for tort lawyers to suck out of the system. That won't work, will it?
So the Dems are opposing restoring sanity to the safety laws for entirely self-interested political reasons. Not ONE Democrat has EVER broken with the Waxman line. They have stuck together like glue. Hats off to them for being well-organized. But the Dems should be ashamed of themselves as public citizens - by putting their own PERSONAL interests ahead of the country and its economic engine, they are taking the low road. Throwing our company, our jobs, our products, the families and schools that need our products, throwing everyone under the bus all to save their own jobs - that's contemptible. This is your government at work.
Please reach out to your Congressmen to express your outrage. Send emails and faxes, and ask your friends, relatives and associates to do it, too. Let's clog the inboxes with complaints. It's time to stand up for what's right!
I think it is incumbent on us to make a fuss over this delay and to press our Congressional representatives to act to pass this law. Other industry groups are pushing for the meager and surgical relief offered by this law - but the Dems continue to resist. The Dems moan and groan as though ECADA guts the CPSIA, perhaps banking on a docile media to not challenge their characterization of a very balanced and frankly, rather undramatic bill. In fact, I was just interviewed by a reporter whose opening question was why the controversy over a bill that changes so little about the CPSIA. Good question.
I have an explanation to offer you - it's just politics, pure and simple, 100% politics. As previously noted, the Republicans were sensitive to the excesses of the law before it was passed. Given that the CPSIA was passed in August 2008, as America headed to the polls en masse to overwhelmingly elect Mr. Obama as our President, all members of Congress (other than Rand Paul and three others) saw the wisdom of supporting this bill. The political cost of opposition to the CPSIA was unbearable - as my own representative told me face-to-face in July 2008, even though the CPSIA was over-the-top, he had to vote for it, otherwise he would face election commercials accusing him of defending corporations over children's safety. He would not sacrifice his job over this vote. He assured me that Congress usually goes too far in its bills, but would go back in 12-to-18 months to fix it.
Not in this case, apparently.
So the Republicans, like the Democrats, preferred the safe route politically in the summer of 2008, but by all appearances, wanted to go back and fix the bill as predicted by my district's representative. To their credit, the Republicans have used the majority power in the House restored in the 2010 midterm elections to reach out to both sides on this issue, as well as to the Dems, to find appropriate middle ground on this contentious issue. [I have discussed these efforts in this space over the course of 2011.] The new General Counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Gib Mullan, is the ex-General Counsel and ex-Director of Compliance and Field Operations at the CPSC, so let's posit that he understands the law pretty well from all angles.
Even with this new horsepower (intellectual and political), the Dems haven't responded to the Republicans' entreaties and resolutely won't yield on any points. They continue to fight ECADA tooth and nail. Why?
It's politics, just politics. Drop any notion that the Dems care about you . . . or your employees . . . or your suppliers . . . or your dealers . . . . or the consumers, teachers, families or schools that want, need and use your products every day. Jobs, schmobs. The well-documented and negative consequences of the CPSIA on our markets and economy (not to mention the paltry or nonexistent acheivements of the law) are just not on the Dems' radar. They only care about getting reelected - their concern is simply themselves. As in 2008, the ECADA issue is tailor-made for political gains. As far as I can tell, that's too tempting a morsel to pass up, damn the consequences on the "little people". The Dems argue to the populace that anything that makes the world better for your business necessarily makes life worse for kids. Zero sum. It's a stupid, nonsensical argument, but if you give it no thought, it might SOUND good. The Dems know their position makes them look good to a dozing electorate and a gullible media, and makes the Republicans push a lot of chips into the center of the table to do the right thing for our country.
The Dems are also catering to their power base, the consumerists. The consumer groups have their own axes to grind. For one thing, if they give an inch here, some people might accuse them of being hypocrites. After all, they have repeated the Big Lie ("There is no safe level of lead") for so long that it would come as a shock and disappointment to their true believers if they conceded the (intentional) error of their bumper sticker slogan. In addition, their budgets are paid for by trial lawyers. If they give in, there will less money available for tort lawyers to suck out of the system. That won't work, will it?
So the Dems are opposing restoring sanity to the safety laws for entirely self-interested political reasons. Not ONE Democrat has EVER broken with the Waxman line. They have stuck together like glue. Hats off to them for being well-organized. But the Dems should be ashamed of themselves as public citizens - by putting their own PERSONAL interests ahead of the country and its economic engine, they are taking the low road. Throwing our company, our jobs, our products, the families and schools that need our products, throwing everyone under the bus all to save their own jobs - that's contemptible. This is your government at work.
Please reach out to your Congressmen to express your outrage. Send emails and faxes, and ask your friends, relatives and associates to do it, too. Let's clog the inboxes with complaints. It's time to stand up for what's right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
