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 Database. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Database. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2011
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.
Friday, June 17, 2011
CPSIA - Battles Lines Drawn
As ECADA moves toward a mark-up, possibly next week, the action over the CPSIA is happening elsewhere on the Hill. In yesterday's The Hill newspaper, it was announced that the pending Appropriations Bill knocks out all funding for the noxious CPSIA database.
It is symptomatic of the partisan gridlock in Washington that a policy debate has to be dealt with by withholding funds. The parties are simply unable to agree on anything. To agree is to give up political advantage. In gridlock, it is always possible to blame the other party and to paint them with whatever black brush is handy. This is particularly attractive to a minority party like the Dems in the House - they want their majority back. Thus, while the "defenses" for the absurdly over-reaching rules governing the database are almost laughable, the Dems posture as though any change threatens the American way of life.
That said, it's a good thing that the Appropriations Bill is doing the work that the House Energy and Commerce Committee hasn't done or perhaps cannot do. Brokering agreement with someone as unyielding and unreasonable as Henry Waxman is no small feat. Rationality and reason, not to mention good policy, have no apparent effect on this ideologue. He won't concede that Rep. Mike Pompeo, and the other database haters, have legitimate concerns. NO ONE is asking that the database die, just that it be a fair game for everyone. It's only because the Dems won't give a millimeter that you get the Appropriations Bill. If Energy and Commerce can't change the database, or the CPSIA, I commend the Appropriations Committee for taking action to protect American businesses from government-sanctioned slander. Somebody had to do it.
There's no telling where all this goes. The Republican majority in the House may be able to shine a light on the issues of the CPSIA, but since the Dems control the Senate and White House, it seems as though the Dems are capable of blocking progress. Three years of work have no persuaded one Dem of anything, by all appearances. [Hence my disillusionment, frustration and outrage.]
There is little sign that the Dems will give an inch - and you know what that likely means. You and I are (remain) screwed. Stasis means the 100 ppm standard gets implemented in two months, possibly retroactively. It means that you must continue to test internal components for phthalates and test and retest everything else endlessly without relief of any kind. It means that the 12-year-old age limit for everything stays in place, rhinestones and brass remain illegal (but osmium, iridium and ruthenium are still a-okay!), books and bikes and ATVs remain under the thumb of the CPSC, and many, many businesses will further weaken.
NO child will be safer, and NO injury will be avoided. The advocates can't provide evidence that ANYONE was EVER injured so there is no rational reason to believe this massive disruption will save a life or even a paper cut.
The battle lines are drawn. Perhaps now you know why I was so disappointed when only one wiener resigned from Energy and Commerce today. I can think of a few more that ought to go . . . .
VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
It is symptomatic of the partisan gridlock in Washington that a policy debate has to be dealt with by withholding funds. The parties are simply unable to agree on anything. To agree is to give up political advantage. In gridlock, it is always possible to blame the other party and to paint them with whatever black brush is handy. This is particularly attractive to a minority party like the Dems in the House - they want their majority back. Thus, while the "defenses" for the absurdly over-reaching rules governing the database are almost laughable, the Dems posture as though any change threatens the American way of life.
That said, it's a good thing that the Appropriations Bill is doing the work that the House Energy and Commerce Committee hasn't done or perhaps cannot do. Brokering agreement with someone as unyielding and unreasonable as Henry Waxman is no small feat. Rationality and reason, not to mention good policy, have no apparent effect on this ideologue. He won't concede that Rep. Mike Pompeo, and the other database haters, have legitimate concerns. NO ONE is asking that the database die, just that it be a fair game for everyone. It's only because the Dems won't give a millimeter that you get the Appropriations Bill. If Energy and Commerce can't change the database, or the CPSIA, I commend the Appropriations Committee for taking action to protect American businesses from government-sanctioned slander. Somebody had to do it.
There's no telling where all this goes. The Republican majority in the House may be able to shine a light on the issues of the CPSIA, but since the Dems control the Senate and White House, it seems as though the Dems are capable of blocking progress. Three years of work have no persuaded one Dem of anything, by all appearances. [Hence my disillusionment, frustration and outrage.]
There is little sign that the Dems will give an inch - and you know what that likely means. You and I are (remain) screwed. Stasis means the 100 ppm standard gets implemented in two months, possibly retroactively. It means that you must continue to test internal components for phthalates and test and retest everything else endlessly without relief of any kind. It means that the 12-year-old age limit for everything stays in place, rhinestones and brass remain illegal (but osmium, iridium and ruthenium are still a-okay!), books and bikes and ATVs remain under the thumb of the CPSC, and many, many businesses will further weaken.
NO child will be safer, and NO injury will be avoided. The advocates can't provide evidence that ANYONE was EVER injured so there is no rational reason to believe this massive disruption will save a life or even a paper cut.
The battle lines are drawn. Perhaps now you know why I was so disappointed when only one wiener resigned from Energy and Commerce today. I can think of a few more that ought to go . . . .
VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
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, May 9, 2011
CPSIA - Database Fun and Games
Quote: “I believe that an informed consumer is an empowered consumer,” added Chairman Tenenbaum. “The ability for parents and consumers to search this database for incidents involving a product they already own or are thinking of purchasing will enable them to make independent decisions aimed at keeping their family safe."
Database Entry: Microwave Oven [Good citizenship award pending . . . .]
Complaint: "Husband & caller were at fire station meeting. 16 yr old son was babysitting, put food in microwave, approximately 20 seconds later 5 yr old son yelled 'fire', 16 yr old thought maybe microwave had arced & caught fire. 16 yr old grabbed fire extinguisher and put 12" flames out. Caller states that marks on her wall are 12" high. Parents came home, checked unit out & saw that the cord approximately two inches from where it comes from the back of the microwave. Cord had not been frayed. Callers would like this incident investigated before there is a fire in someone's home that goes unnoticed until it is too late." [Emphasis added]
Reply: "Unit was picked up from consumer and evaluated. It was completely filthy and infested with live and dead roaches. Cord fire that was reported was due to a fire that was located outside of the unit as neither end of the cord was damaged or affected. Consumer was negligent in caring for the unit and this resulted in the unit not working."
Quote: "The CPSC’s product safety database would serve as an early warning system for unsafe products and has the potential to save lives. . . . This database will provide important safety information to American consumers.” Senator Jay Rockefeller
Database Entry: Bra [One word: Titillation!]
Complaint: "Silicon Bra Strap Cushion, she put it on wore it all on Sunday 3/20/11. After she removed her bra Sunday night, she had a blister and burning sensation on her shoulders. On Monday, the 21st, she took pictures of her shoulders. She took subsequent pcitures (sic)on the 22nd, the 26th, and the 28th. She felt the burning sensation for 3 days after wearing the product. She kept one pad of a pair of the bra strap and sent the other cushion to Miles Kimball at their request."
No Reply. The pictures (yes, PICTURES) speak for themselves. Another noble public service provided courtesy of your tax dollars at work.
Quote: "[Ami] Gadhia [policy counsel] at Consumers Union countered that knowing about a near miss can be just as important as knowing about an actual injury. 'If someone narrowly avoids getting hurt, that's a good piece of information for consumers to have,' she said."
Database Entry: Serated (sic) pie server [Who KNEW knives were sharp?!]
Complaint: "The Pampered Chef brand Slice N Serve serated pie server is razor sharp. I accidentally sliced my finger open with it. There was no defect with the product, it's just a lot sharper than most people would expect from this category of product. I have heard other people say they cut themselves with this same product." [Emphasis added]
Reply: "An individual has submitted a report to the CPSC regarding "Slice ‘N Serve, " a product distributed by The Pampered Chef, Ltd. (“The Pampered Chef”). This individual acknowledged that the product had no defect. Moreover, each Slice ‘N Serve is packaged with a “Use and Care” card, which provides clear instructions on how to safely and properly use the product, as well as Important Safeguards. The Important Safeguards warn that the blade is extremely sharp to offer the customer the best performance and may cause injury if not used properly. Product Use and Care information is also available on our website (www.pamperedchef.com) by clicking to the particular product description on our website." [Emphasis added]
Quote: “So far, we haven’t had any problems with it,” Tenenbaum told the Palmetto Forum in a lunch meeting in Columbia. The forum, affiliated with the University of South Carolina’s Walker Institute, hosts lunch seminars to stimulate discussion of international issues. the database, established in March after years of protests by business interests, allows consumers to submit reports of harm or potential harm by a variety of products. After officials review the complaint, manufacturers are given 10 days to respond to or challenge the submission. [Emphasis added]
Database Entry: Summer Infant Video Monitor [Is there any legal basis to recall consumers, instead of products?]
Complaint: We use the Summer Infant video monitor. We would sit the camera on the top of the crib corner, and at 9 months the baby was able to reach it and pull it down along with the long cord. We would watch her playing with the camera, and when we came into her room noticed that the cord was tightly wrapped around her neck, but there was not injury.
Additional Details: We have modified the cord (tied it together) so it no longer has slack and can not be pulled into the crib by the baby.
No reply. What can you say???
Database Entry: Microwave Oven [Good citizenship award pending . . . .]
Complaint: "Husband & caller were at fire station meeting. 16 yr old son was babysitting, put food in microwave, approximately 20 seconds later 5 yr old son yelled 'fire', 16 yr old thought maybe microwave had arced & caught fire. 16 yr old grabbed fire extinguisher and put 12" flames out. Caller states that marks on her wall are 12" high. Parents came home, checked unit out & saw that the cord approximately two inches from where it comes from the back of the microwave. Cord had not been frayed. Callers would like this incident investigated before there is a fire in someone's home that goes unnoticed until it is too late." [Emphasis added]
Reply: "Unit was picked up from consumer and evaluated. It was completely filthy and infested with live and dead roaches. Cord fire that was reported was due to a fire that was located outside of the unit as neither end of the cord was damaged or affected. Consumer was negligent in caring for the unit and this resulted in the unit not working."
Quote: "The CPSC’s product safety database would serve as an early warning system for unsafe products and has the potential to save lives. . . . This database will provide important safety information to American consumers.” Senator Jay Rockefeller
Database Entry: Bra [One word: Titillation!]
Complaint: "Silicon Bra Strap Cushion, she put it on wore it all on Sunday 3/20/11. After she removed her bra Sunday night, she had a blister and burning sensation on her shoulders. On Monday, the 21st, she took pictures of her shoulders. She took subsequent pcitures (sic)on the 22nd, the 26th, and the 28th. She felt the burning sensation for 3 days after wearing the product. She kept one pad of a pair of the bra strap and sent the other cushion to Miles Kimball at their request."
No Reply. The pictures (yes, PICTURES) speak for themselves. Another noble public service provided courtesy of your tax dollars at work.
Quote: "[Ami] Gadhia [policy counsel] at Consumers Union countered that knowing about a near miss can be just as important as knowing about an actual injury. 'If someone narrowly avoids getting hurt, that's a good piece of information for consumers to have,' she said."
Database Entry: Serated (sic) pie server [Who KNEW knives were sharp?!]
Complaint: "The Pampered Chef brand Slice N Serve serated pie server is razor sharp. I accidentally sliced my finger open with it. There was no defect with the product, it's just a lot sharper than most people would expect from this category of product. I have heard other people say they cut themselves with this same product." [Emphasis added]
Reply: "An individual has submitted a report to the CPSC regarding "Slice ‘N Serve, " a product distributed by The Pampered Chef, Ltd. (“The Pampered Chef”). This individual acknowledged that the product had no defect. Moreover, each Slice ‘N Serve is packaged with a “Use and Care” card, which provides clear instructions on how to safely and properly use the product, as well as Important Safeguards. The Important Safeguards warn that the blade is extremely sharp to offer the customer the best performance and may cause injury if not used properly. Product Use and Care information is also available on our website (www.pamperedchef.com) by clicking to the particular product description on our website." [Emphasis added]
Quote: “So far, we haven’t had any problems with it,” Tenenbaum told the Palmetto Forum in a lunch meeting in Columbia. The forum, affiliated with the University of South Carolina’s Walker Institute, hosts lunch seminars to stimulate discussion of international issues. the database, established in March after years of protests by business interests, allows consumers to submit reports of harm or potential harm by a variety of products. After officials review the complaint, manufacturers are given 10 days to respond to or challenge the submission. [Emphasis added]
Database Entry: Summer Infant Video Monitor [Is there any legal basis to recall consumers, instead of products?]
Complaint: We use the Summer Infant video monitor. We would sit the camera on the top of the crib corner, and at 9 months the baby was able to reach it and pull it down along with the long cord. We would watch her playing with the camera, and when we came into her room noticed that the cord was tightly wrapped around her neck, but there was not injury.
Additional Details: We have modified the cord (tied it together) so it no longer has slack and can not be pulled into the crib by the baby.
No reply. What can you say???
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
CPSIA - More Lives "Saved" by the CPSIA Database
These breathtaking database entries were submitted to me by Anonymous in a comment on my previous database blogpost. Lest you should miss these little gems, I am reposting them here for your reading pleasure. These are real filings, paid for by your tax dollars. I have provided links in case you are skeptical.
And why did Anonymous submit this comment anonmymously? "Submitted anonymously, because hey, if they can."
Indeed. . . .
Mirrored screen protector for IPhone [Eyes "zapped" by the iPhone - ouch!!]
I purchased a mirrored screen protector for my I- phone, within one week I was having pain, sensitivity, and weariness in my eyes. It took me a few days to figure out what had happened but I am certain that the mirrored quality of that screen saver is very harsh on eyes. Three days after purchasing the screen protector, I noticed while on my drive to work that the world seemed somehow much brighter, I had to wear sunglasses while driving on an overcast day, still there was just to much light. . . . At some point during that week I glance at my phone while at a stop light, the reflection absoloutley zapped my eyeballs. It was very painful and took several minutes to recover. . . . Several years ago I had had sunglasses with a similar reflective, mirror like quality and ultimately threw them away because they were so harsh on my eyes. I think this product would be particularly harmful to people who suffer fro migraines and I would be curious to know what safety testing it underwent. [Emphasis added]
CFL Light Bulb [Hope you're sitting down - CFL bulbs have mercury in them. Thanks, Eagle Eye!]
CFL bulb located in a lamp above kitchen table. My wife turned the lamp on and it immediately exploded, glass fragments landed on the kitchen table where my kids where sitting. As these things also contain Mercury! They should be banned!
Exploding Potato in Microwave [Note to CPSC - get working on that potato recall. It's URGENT!]
At 11am this morning i placed a potatoe in my microwave and pressed the bake potato button on the key pad approx. 3 min later my entire microwave was engolfed in flames. My house was filling with smoke flames were shooting out of the microwave door my hudsband opened the door and threw a bucket of water on the entire wall over my stove. I called 911 and they assessed the microwave and did testing with a heat devise on the wall behind and above cuboards to make sure fire was out and informed me that heat level was extremly high and good thing i was right there to put out fire. . . . I was told by all 3 companys that there in fact had not been a recall on this product and for me to contact their legal dept if unsatisfied with their service. They also informed me that if a product is recalled it is only warrantied for 90 days. I asked so if my house burns down because of one of your products that has been recalled over 90 days ago you are not liable for that? They then told me to contact their legal dept they couldnt help me with this matter...
[But what about the potato? What about the potato???]
Britax Vigour stroller manufactured 10/2006 [It's just too dangerous to allow strollers to unfold.]
I was taking the stroller out of my car and I had the latch on. As I pulled it out to place the stroller on the ground it began to open and the latch failed. I was unable to stop it due to the weight of the stroller and it opened and caught the skin of my abdomen. It was trapped and I was unable to get it off for nearly 5 minutes. I was alone in a parking lot with my baby in his car seat in the car. Once I got it off I was in extreme pain and had pinch markings and bleeding. The next day My abdomen had a 6" bruise. I still currently 8 months later have a very bad scar that I do not think will ever go away. I feel that this stroller is unsafe and have been terrified to use it ever since. [Emphasis added]
Oven to table cookware (sold by QVC) [Is the CPSC certifying consumers as authorized test labs now?]
I ordered Temp-tations cookware from QVC. It is handpainted in China. I tested it for lead paint and the result was positive. I conducted the test several times.
[I don't know about YOU, but I am convinced! Actually, I'm not. We sell to QVC, and their safety practices are top notch and uncompromising.]
Handpainted Dinnerware [This one DEFINITELY will save lives - did you know glassware gets hot in the microwave? Who knew?! Thanks for looking out for us, Congress.]
I have some Gibson dinnerware and some of it, especially the cups, get so hot when put in the microwave that you cannot touch them when they used to reheat or heat fluids. The handles get so hot they burn your finger so badly. Several times they have gotten so hot I have dropped the cup and broken them as have the plates been dropped. I am concerned that the dinnerware may be high in metal content.
Reply: Not knowing the specific product that the consumer has, we can not provide any detail about the material used. There are some materials used that are more porous than other materials. the more porous the material the hotter that it will become to the touch. These products Gibson Overseas marks as 'Will Get Hot in the Microwave".
[I call this a public service!]
Pottery Park Designs "Village Collection" [Some of these filers should get together to compare notes.]
About 2 years ago I purchased some dinnerware, I believe it is pottery. It is made by Park Designs, called Village Collection. It's taken me this long to learn that it is not Microwave safe, even though it states that on the bottom. It gets hot enough to burn fingers.
Reply: All of our Dinnerware and Bake ware are tested for US FDA Leachable Lead and Cadmium, California Prop 65, Dishwasher Safe ,Microwave Safe at BUREAU VERITAS Hong Kong Limited. We have never had a claim such as this. Any dish placed in a microwave with food in it will conduct heat and will depend on the time and level of energy used to determine the heat of the dish. We consider the product safe for use.
[I have $20 that says the responder was not saying everything on his/her mind . . . .]
Expedition LX Jogging Stroller [Note to Self: Remove baby before folding stroller. Check twice before putting away, too. Mistakes happen, you know.]
The consumer says the handles on each side of the stroller that are oval shaped, meant to fold up the stroller. The oval openings are also for handling the stroller in the fold position to carry around. Consumer says when child is in the stroller, the child can stick his arm straight through the oval openings. Consumer says her child is 17 months old, and feels he can break his forearm with this product. Consumer contacted manufactuer and they offered no assistance and told her the child must have not been properly strapped in. Consumer says it doesnt matter if child is strapped in or not, they can still get their hands stuck in the oval openings.
Reply: The report states that a child can stick his arms through the handle openings. The report also states that they feel a child can break his forearm with this product. Baby Trend has thoroughly evaluated the report but is unable to determine any such risk as reported. The product meets all requirements of ASTM standards, including requirements for maximum and minimum opening sizes, as demonstrated by numerous third-party tests. Baby Trend is unable to gain any additional information from the person reporting because they did not provide any contact information. Baby Trend believes the product is safe when used properly.
Intex Kidie Float #59586 [Used float purchased at thrift store does not perform as expected. Hmmmm.]
No injury occurred because I was testing the device when I discovered the malfuction. . . . I purchased the kiddie float brand new in its original packaging from a local thrift store. It was purchased a few months ago. I took it out of it's packag this morning and blew it up to test it as we were planning on going to the pool today. I wanted to be sure there were no leaks. The stem cover opened on it's own after i blew it up and securly closed it into the device. I tried it again- I blew it up closed the stem cover inserted it into the floatation device and once again the pressure from the air in the floatation toy pushed the cap opened. This is extremely dangerous as it can cause a childs toy to deflate while in use in the pool and cause a possible drowning. . . . I due need to add that I later noticed that this product is for 2 and under and so I would have not used the device anyway since my child is 25 months old, but my child was NOT in it when I tested it and it malfunctioned!
Reply: We contacted the submitter of the complaint and the issue of the valve not staying in place has corrected itself after the product, which was manufactured in 2003, regained its normal shape after being tightly folded in its original package for 8 years. The valve also has a self sealing function that limits the leakage of air if the cap is not properly inserted into the valve preventing sudden loss of air. In addition, the caregiver is warned to never leave the baby unattended and to always keep the baby at arm’s reach in the unlikely event that the float would lose air or any other issue arise. The submitter sent us the product and we have verified that it is functioning properly. Whenever using any children’s product, especially one intended for use in water, it is very important to ensure that it is functioning properly before being used. Any product that is malfunctioning, broken, missing parts or in need of repair should never be used. We applaud the submitter’s diligence in checking the function of the item prior to use.
[Can't argue with that last bit. Emphasis added.]
And why did Anonymous submit this comment anonmymously? "Submitted anonymously, because hey, if they can."
Indeed. . . .
Mirrored screen protector for IPhone [Eyes "zapped" by the iPhone - ouch!!]
I purchased a mirrored screen protector for my I- phone, within one week I was having pain, sensitivity, and weariness in my eyes. It took me a few days to figure out what had happened but I am certain that the mirrored quality of that screen saver is very harsh on eyes. Three days after purchasing the screen protector, I noticed while on my drive to work that the world seemed somehow much brighter, I had to wear sunglasses while driving on an overcast day, still there was just to much light. . . . At some point during that week I glance at my phone while at a stop light, the reflection absoloutley zapped my eyeballs. It was very painful and took several minutes to recover. . . . Several years ago I had had sunglasses with a similar reflective, mirror like quality and ultimately threw them away because they were so harsh on my eyes. I think this product would be particularly harmful to people who suffer fro migraines and I would be curious to know what safety testing it underwent. [Emphasis added]
CFL Light Bulb [Hope you're sitting down - CFL bulbs have mercury in them. Thanks, Eagle Eye!]
CFL bulb located in a lamp above kitchen table. My wife turned the lamp on and it immediately exploded, glass fragments landed on the kitchen table where my kids where sitting. As these things also contain Mercury! They should be banned!
Exploding Potato in Microwave [Note to CPSC - get working on that potato recall. It's URGENT!]
At 11am this morning i placed a potatoe in my microwave and pressed the bake potato button on the key pad approx. 3 min later my entire microwave was engolfed in flames. My house was filling with smoke flames were shooting out of the microwave door my hudsband opened the door and threw a bucket of water on the entire wall over my stove. I called 911 and they assessed the microwave and did testing with a heat devise on the wall behind and above cuboards to make sure fire was out and informed me that heat level was extremly high and good thing i was right there to put out fire. . . . I was told by all 3 companys that there in fact had not been a recall on this product and for me to contact their legal dept if unsatisfied with their service. They also informed me that if a product is recalled it is only warrantied for 90 days. I asked so if my house burns down because of one of your products that has been recalled over 90 days ago you are not liable for that? They then told me to contact their legal dept they couldnt help me with this matter...
[But what about the potato? What about the potato???]
Britax Vigour stroller manufactured 10/2006 [It's just too dangerous to allow strollers to unfold.]
I was taking the stroller out of my car and I had the latch on. As I pulled it out to place the stroller on the ground it began to open and the latch failed. I was unable to stop it due to the weight of the stroller and it opened and caught the skin of my abdomen. It was trapped and I was unable to get it off for nearly 5 minutes. I was alone in a parking lot with my baby in his car seat in the car. Once I got it off I was in extreme pain and had pinch markings and bleeding. The next day My abdomen had a 6" bruise. I still currently 8 months later have a very bad scar that I do not think will ever go away. I feel that this stroller is unsafe and have been terrified to use it ever since. [Emphasis added]
Oven to table cookware (sold by QVC) [Is the CPSC certifying consumers as authorized test labs now?]
I ordered Temp-tations cookware from QVC. It is handpainted in China. I tested it for lead paint and the result was positive. I conducted the test several times.
[I don't know about YOU, but I am convinced! Actually, I'm not. We sell to QVC, and their safety practices are top notch and uncompromising.]
Handpainted Dinnerware [This one DEFINITELY will save lives - did you know glassware gets hot in the microwave? Who knew?! Thanks for looking out for us, Congress.]
I have some Gibson dinnerware and some of it, especially the cups, get so hot when put in the microwave that you cannot touch them when they used to reheat or heat fluids. The handles get so hot they burn your finger so badly. Several times they have gotten so hot I have dropped the cup and broken them as have the plates been dropped. I am concerned that the dinnerware may be high in metal content.
Reply: Not knowing the specific product that the consumer has, we can not provide any detail about the material used. There are some materials used that are more porous than other materials. the more porous the material the hotter that it will become to the touch. These products Gibson Overseas marks as 'Will Get Hot in the Microwave".
[I call this a public service!]
Pottery Park Designs "Village Collection" [Some of these filers should get together to compare notes.]
About 2 years ago I purchased some dinnerware, I believe it is pottery. It is made by Park Designs, called Village Collection. It's taken me this long to learn that it is not Microwave safe, even though it states that on the bottom. It gets hot enough to burn fingers.
Reply: All of our Dinnerware and Bake ware are tested for US FDA Leachable Lead and Cadmium, California Prop 65, Dishwasher Safe ,Microwave Safe at BUREAU VERITAS Hong Kong Limited. We have never had a claim such as this. Any dish placed in a microwave with food in it will conduct heat and will depend on the time and level of energy used to determine the heat of the dish. We consider the product safe for use.
[I have $20 that says the responder was not saying everything on his/her mind . . . .]
Expedition LX Jogging Stroller [Note to Self: Remove baby before folding stroller. Check twice before putting away, too. Mistakes happen, you know.]
The consumer says the handles on each side of the stroller that are oval shaped, meant to fold up the stroller. The oval openings are also for handling the stroller in the fold position to carry around. Consumer says when child is in the stroller, the child can stick his arm straight through the oval openings. Consumer says her child is 17 months old, and feels he can break his forearm with this product. Consumer contacted manufactuer and they offered no assistance and told her the child must have not been properly strapped in. Consumer says it doesnt matter if child is strapped in or not, they can still get their hands stuck in the oval openings.
Reply: The report states that a child can stick his arms through the handle openings. The report also states that they feel a child can break his forearm with this product. Baby Trend has thoroughly evaluated the report but is unable to determine any such risk as reported. The product meets all requirements of ASTM standards, including requirements for maximum and minimum opening sizes, as demonstrated by numerous third-party tests. Baby Trend is unable to gain any additional information from the person reporting because they did not provide any contact information. Baby Trend believes the product is safe when used properly.
Intex Kidie Float #59586 [Used float purchased at thrift store does not perform as expected. Hmmmm.]
No injury occurred because I was testing the device when I discovered the malfuction. . . . I purchased the kiddie float brand new in its original packaging from a local thrift store. It was purchased a few months ago. I took it out of it's packag this morning and blew it up to test it as we were planning on going to the pool today. I wanted to be sure there were no leaks. The stem cover opened on it's own after i blew it up and securly closed it into the device. I tried it again- I blew it up closed the stem cover inserted it into the floatation device and once again the pressure from the air in the floatation toy pushed the cap opened. This is extremely dangerous as it can cause a childs toy to deflate while in use in the pool and cause a possible drowning. . . . I due need to add that I later noticed that this product is for 2 and under and so I would have not used the device anyway since my child is 25 months old, but my child was NOT in it when I tested it and it malfunctioned!
Reply: We contacted the submitter of the complaint and the issue of the valve not staying in place has corrected itself after the product, which was manufactured in 2003, regained its normal shape after being tightly folded in its original package for 8 years. The valve also has a self sealing function that limits the leakage of air if the cap is not properly inserted into the valve preventing sudden loss of air. In addition, the caregiver is warned to never leave the baby unattended and to always keep the baby at arm’s reach in the unlikely event that the float would lose air or any other issue arise. The submitter sent us the product and we have verified that it is functioning properly. Whenever using any children’s product, especially one intended for use in water, it is very important to ensure that it is functioning properly before being used. Any product that is malfunctioning, broken, missing parts or in need of repair should never be used. We applaud the submitter’s diligence in checking the function of the item prior to use.
[Can't argue with that last bit. Emphasis added.]
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
CPSIA - Database Entries of Gripes, Refund Disputes, Misuse, Poor Maintenance
More quality postings to the CPSIA Database - saving lives 24 hours-a-day!!!
The database advocates and the CPSC strongly defend the database as a means to "save lives". This assertion has no basis in fact and none are offered, other than heart-rending stories of crib deaths that "could have been prevented" had a database existed. By stressing the possible loss of life, the advocates overstate the likely value of the database well beyond any data anyone could supply. The CPSC pledged to keep the database entries clean of grips, quality complaints, slander, inaccurate claims and the like. Are they doing their job? Is the database "saving lives"?
Read on and judge for yourself.
Please note that REAL businesses must reply to these entries. Each reply costs money, and there are legal fees behind many of these replies. The transaction costs can only be justified if they produce a positive result. Where is it? You can tell from the replies that the businesses are trying desperately to prevent damage to their brands and their products. Is this the government we want? Is this the government WE WANT TO PAY FOR?
Play Center Rope Ladder
My children were playing on this item in our backyard. The wooden rung on the rope ladder snapped in two, causing one child to fall onto another. The child who fell was cut by the sharp edge of the broken ladder rung. The child who was fallen on hit is head on the ground when he fell.
Reply: Little Tikes contacted the consumer and determined that the rope ladder was worn and weathered and was 6 years old. Although signifcantly out of warranty, Little Tikes elected to replace the consumer's rope ladder.
Lasko Heater
I understand this product is not safe - there is a potential fire hazard. I do NOT have a box to return this product. Would you please send one to me at work[?]
Reply: Consumer was contacted by Lasko, but did not respond. Consumer does not state why she believes product is unsafe.
Lil Gourmet
My two year old received the Children's Stainless Steel Cookware Set 5 Pc. by toysmith for Christmas osld by HomeGoods. My two and one year olds were playing with the set this morning. I heard my one year old scream. During play, the Sauté Pan's handle and pan came a part. My toddler took the handle to my one year olds face. He must have held the looped end and placed the open ended two prong end to my one year olds face. The handles open ends are blunt and small. My one year old sustained two scratches starting above his right eye on his eyelid and continue down to the middle of his cheek. He has two identical marks due to there being two pieces of metal. The marks resemble that of a scratch from a cat. Each is swollen with a white line and red irritation around the scrathings.
Reply: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the incident with our Stainless Steel Cookware Set. This set, in our Lil’ Gourmet line, has been in our catalog for several years without issue and has been tested extensively for both US and European standards to the stringent protocols for ages 3 and up despite this product being clearly age-graded for the ages of 5 and above. This item is not a toy. It is stainless steel cookware intended to be used as a child’s first cooking set. In addition to being labeled 5 and up on both the front and the back of the product, it is also stated that “Adult supervision is required.” We have uploaded our current testing documentation and would be happy to provide more information to the CPSC if required.
ExerSaucer
This is for the Evenflo triple jungle exersaucer. My daughter encountered two seperate hazards. Her arm became stuck between the band animals when she was 6 months old. We removed that toy. After converting it to an activity table, it constantly collapses under my 10 mo old where she has hurt herself without any evidence of injury. Very disappointed in this product.
Reply: From the consumer's description of the product, Evenflo believes that this report refers to the ExerSaucer® Triple Fun Activity Center. Evenflo was unable to confirm, however, that the subject product was manufactured by the company because the consumer did not respond to repeated written requests for more information. Consequently, Evenflo's investigation and response are limited only to the allegations contained in the consumer’s report and Evenflo’s information about the product believed to be at issue. The consumer reported two concerns with the Triple Fun, neither of which resulted in a specified injury to her child. First, the consumer stated that her child's arm was "stuck" between two elements of a pod toy. The toys used on all Evenflo products meet the mandatory requirements of ASTM standard F963, including requirements for clearances and openings. This is the only report of this nature received by the company about the Triple Fun since production began in 2009, and the company has sold hundreds of thousands of units. This report appears to relate to the cognitive inability of a very young child to understand how to remove her arm from certain portions of the pod toy, and does not represent a potential product hazard.
The consumer further reported that, when the Triple Fun is used as a play table (the third and final stage of use for this multi-stage product), she felt the unit was unstable when used by her 10-month-old child. Although the consumer states the child ”hurt herself,” no specific injury is described. In the third stage of use, the Triple Fun converts to a play table intended for use by children of walking age through approximately 24 months of age. Notably, the play table stage is not designed rigidly so as to provide a seating surface, a platform for climbing or for assistance to pull-up from a sitting to standing position, any of which could result in a fall, particularly with a child just beginning to walk. Due to the limited information contained in the consumer’s report, however, the company does not know how the child was using the Triple Fun when the alleged instability occurred, or even if the child was at the appropriate developmental age for use of the product in Stage 3.
The company continues to believe the Triple Fun is safe when properly used, offering consumers a multi-stage (play mat, stationary activity center and play table) product for children age birth through 24 months.
John Deere
THIS 65 YEAR OLD DECEDENT WAS THE UNRESTRAINED DRIVER OF A 2011 JOHN DEER TRACTOR AND WAS IN THE PROCESS OF GRADING A PRIVATE UNPAVED DRIVEWAY. THE DECEDENT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BACKING DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AND HAD BACKED ONTO THE SOFT EDGE OF THE DRIVE. THIS CAUSED THE TRACTOR TO ROLL OVER AND EJECT THE DECEDENT. A CALL WAS MADE TO 911 FOR ASSISTANCE AND EMS/POLICE RESPONDED TO THE SCENE. THE FIRST RESPONDERS PRONOUNCED THE DECEDENT DOA AND A LOCAL MEDICAL EXAMINER WAS NOTIFIED TO COMPLETE AN EXAMINATION.
Cookin for Kids Dinnerware
Kids dinnerware play set. We used an XRF analyzer and testing results showed the plate contained over 300 ppm of lead AND mercury.
Reply: This product has been tested against applicable standards and passed.
Dora the Explorer Guitar
My daughter recieved a Dora Tunes Guitar by Fisher Price for her birthday yesterday. She loves Dora, so we immediately opened it and discarded the package. When she pressed a button, I was shocked at how very loud it was! I took it from her and looked all over for a volume control figuring it must have been set at the factory for selling purposes and could be adjusted by the consumer. Sadly, there is no volume control! I attempted to put tape on the speaker, but it is not in a very accessible spot & I did not have much luck. I turned the guitar off, but having heard that it makes noise, my daughter was less than thrilled. After her bath while we were using the hair dryer, I turned it back on and was shocked that it could still be heard loud & clear over the hair dryer. I fear that this toy is unsafe due to the excessive noise. It hurt my ears, I can only imagine how damaging it is to a two-year-old's small ears!
Dynacraft Bicycle
On March 14, 2011 my daughter was riding one of my bicycles along with her father. The pedal came out of it's socket and the jagged threading protruding out of the bicycle tore into her leg (calf). This resulted in a laceration large enough to require seven stitches at the emergency room that very evening.
Reply: Dynacraft has reviewed the above numbered report and provides the following comment in response. The information contained in this comment is true and accurate to Dynacraft’s best knowledge, information and belief. The mother of a 32 year old woman reported that the pedal of her bicycle that her daughter was riding, Dynacraft model 8549-54, came off causing an accident. There was an injury but no loss of control was reported. Dynacraft is the distributor of such a bicycle and they are sold to Target for resale around the United States.
In repose to this data base posting Dynacraft has had its Risk Management Team contact the rider to learn more detail about the incident and is now in the process of resolving a compensation claim that was first made during this contact. Dynacraft has not been able to examine the subject bicycle but the rider has provided three low resolution digital photos of the bicycle’s bottom bracket area. A tracking sticker can be seen in one of these photos and it shows that the bicycle was manufactured in 2000 and thus is over ten years old. The bicycle was purchased by the rider’s mother when she was employed by Target, and the bicycle has spent most of the ensuing years in the rider’s parent’s garage.
From the telephone interview it was learned that bicycle has not been regularly used and thus not maintained since it was purchased at Target over ten years ago. On the day of the accident the rider was using this bicycle to take a ride with her father. The rider did not know if her parents retained the manual for the bicycle. Dynacraft also learned that her mother had not correctly reported the incident and what happened was that the left crank arm came off the chainwheel axel, the rider stopped the bike with the brakes but the rider cut her leg on the axel while doing so. Dynacraft’s bicycles ship with a manual and the manual is also available on Dynacraft’s web site: http://www.dynacraftbikes.com/inc/New%20Dynacraft%20Manual%202006-sm.pdf The warranty is in the manual and at the time of the accident the drive elements of the bicycle were out of warranty for over 8 years. In addition pages 88 and 89 provide maintenance instructions for the “cotterless crank” on model 8549-54. The incident and long history of no maintenance described by the rider strongly suggests that the incident resulted from the recommended maintenance described in the manual not being done. The applicable portions of those recommendations follow: Adjustment After Use:
1. Remove dust cap.
2. Tap the crank arm lightly with a mallet.
3. Re-tighten the flange nuts, and refit the dust cops.
New cotterless cranks may become loosen with initial use. Tighten the flange nuts after several hours of riding, and repeat it two or three times after further use. Cranks should then remain tight. . . . Lubrication and Adjustment - Cotterless Cranks To adjust the free play in a three piece type bottom bracket, loosen the lock ring on the left side by turning it counter-clockwise. Then turn the adjusting cup as required. Re-tighten the lock ring taking care not to alter the cup adjustment."
Never the less Dynacraft will continue to seek a resolution of the matter with the rider who was injured. Dynacraft requests that this comment be published in the Consumer Product Information Database, and hereby consents to such publication.
Value City Sectional
I purchased a sectional couch from Value City Furniture in Fredericksburg VA on 4-11-2010 in the amount of $1723.71. I paid for extended fabric/warranty. I also paid for the delivery. 7 months after the furniture was delivered, one section of the couch began to sink inwards. I contacted the company in November of 2010. On 12-27-2010, a representative came over and took pictures as did I. I was told that it will be replaced in 6-8 weeks. To date, I have not had calls returned or this couch fixed. The big dent in the couch is very low and cannot be sat on. It seems that someone can fall through the damaged part of the couch,if the couch is utilized. I ve contacted the BBB, Value city and also will file a warrant in debt. I have tried numerous times to be refunded money or have the piece replaced. I not getting results.
Stihl Chainsaw
I was using a MS361 chainsaw that had received a recall notice from STIHL and had the necessary repairs completed at R.H.McCrary. I was operating said chainsaw on Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at about 11:10am when the throttle trigger stuck as a I was removing the chainsaw blade from the trunk of a tree I was in the process of cutting. The chain kept its high turning speed instead of reducing to idle speed and the result of this caused the blade to "jump-back". I attempted to throw my leg out of the path of the blade but was not quick enough. The chain knicked my left leg just below my kneecap. I was taken to the ER where I recieved stitches to sew up two separate lacerations. I have photo documentation of the wound from before stitches were applied and from after the lacerations were stitched. I am not a first-time chainsaw user and have used multiple types of chainsaws and multiple brands while working for my mother's firewood and tree clearing business.
Reply: At STIHL Incorporated, safety is a top priority, and we are sorry to hear that you were injured while using a STIHL product. To help us better understand your experience, please contact us directly at 1-800-GO-STIHL and press “2” for Technical Services. It is our understanding that the throttle trigger of the chain saw had been repaired just prior to the accident, and you believe the repair may have contributed to the accident. During our inspection of your employer’s chain saw, however, we were unable to replicate any sticking of the throttle trigger. We did note that the chain saw had been heavily used and not well maintained. Among other things, the muffler was loose, an AV spring was broken and there were large quantities of debris and saw dust in the air box and around the throttle linkage/master control switch.
We hope that we will have the opportunity to speak with you directly. Learning more about your accident will help us determine what may have caused it. We thank you for calling this matter to our attention.
Baby Trend Stroller
The front wheel of my Baby Trend Expedition Stroller fell off 3 times. After the first time they sent me hardware to fix myself. The wheel then fell off a second time. I then sent it back to Baby Trends and they said they would repair it or send me a brand new stroller. They sent me back the old one, claiming it was fixed. I lent it to a friend to use after taking it on one walk. They went for a jog and the front wheel fell off again sending him and his son flying onto the pavement! The Dad suffered cuts on his hands and knees but fortunately he was able to protect the son from injuries. The stroller is obviously faulty. There have been other complaints on various websites about the front wheel and they have done nothing to resolve the situation. The stroller should be recalled. I don't want any other products from them, I want my money back so I can use it towards a stroller from a BETTER company!
Reply: According to consumer, the product was purchased on or before 4/1/2010. On 10/4/2010 Consumer contacted Baby Trend requesting replacement parts for the front fork assembly stating assembly came apart somehow. Replacement parts were sent to consumer at that time. 4 months later on 2/10/2011 consumer then contacts Baby Trend again wanting money back for product because they were unable to get
replacement parts to work properly. Baby Trend then paid to bring product in for warranty evaluation and correctly replaced the parts for the consumer. The product was evaluated by engineering and determined to be in perfect working condition, other than normal wear for being used for approximately one year. The product was returned to the consumer. 3/18/2011 consumer contacts Baby Trend again requesting a refund.
Disney Princess Light
We have the disney princess chandelier and the plastic crystal piece became lodged next to the light bulb and melted it. I do have pictures and the lamp if it is needed to be seen.
Hunter Boots
Rubber Boots that leak a white powder substance.
Reply: Here is an explanation of this issue from the company’s website:
What is the white residue on my Hunter boots? Occasionally, it is possible that white marks will appear on your Hunter rubber wellington boots. This is called 'blooming', it is your boots attempting to protect themselves from environmental damage. Every Hunter rubber wellington boot is made from 100% natural ingredients and small amounts of wax are included in the rubber compound during the vulcanization process that is used to make each pair. When exposed to certain environmental factors, this wax can "bloom" to the surface and appear as white marks. This is not a defect with the boots, and is completely natural. If this does happen, you can wipe this blooming clean with a warm, damp cloth. We recommend UV Tech* Spray which can be found at boating, hunting or fishing stores.
Pogo Stick
Bottom of stick came apart.
Reply: Thank you for transmitting this to us. We would like to follow up with this customer, but are unable to without the contact information. This product issue described is the subject of a recall announced on March 16, 2011.
Ariel Fountain
Daughter cut thumb on Ariel Fountain and Bubble Boat while playing with it in tub.
La-Z-Boy
I am contacting you in the hopes that you will take action to help prevent other consumers from making a significant investment in furniture that literally falls apart and presents a safety hazard to families with young children. In its corporate marketing materials, La-Z-boy promises furniture made with "durability,” "high standards,” "wear tested fabrics,” and "superior quality” – however my actual experience with the furniture has been dramatically to the contrary – and the company refuses to properly address potentially dangerous quality issues. I purchased a leather couch and loveseat from La-Z-boy approximately five years ago. I invested $3000 in the set – and was assured that these leather pieces would be able to stand the test of time. After only 2.5 years, the leather began pulling away on the arm of the couch, exposing sharp staples. I contacted the company and communicated that I was concerned about the quality of the piece and its potential longevity. After extensive follow up, they finally agreed to send an upholsterer to repair the piece.
A few years later, in the Fall of 2010, we again faced another significant quality issue - the plastic piping began popping through the loveseat cushions, creating an area with exposed plastic piping that is approximately 10-12 inches long presenting a choking hazard for our 2-year old. We again contacted the company – and they have refused to do anything about the furniture, but rather focused on shifting blame
indicating that we must have caused the damage -- even though for the vast majority of the life of the furniture, it was only being used by two adults and we also purchased the leather protection treatment when we first invested in the piece. Since our rejected La-Z-boy inquiry, we contacted a Boston area leather repair company to assess the furniture for repair. The representative of this company visited our home in January and estimated that it would likely be too costly to justify repairing the piece. This representative also indicated that the most likely cause of the piping issue was not in fact user wear, but rather poor manufacturing using leather that was too thin to encase the piping to fully protect it from breaking through the leather.
For your reference, I am attaching photos of the La-Z-boy furniture. I truly hope you will be able to make this company accountable for the quality issues we have experienced. I also strongly encourage you to investigate how many other pieces from the same manufacturing batch could be affected with either exposed staples and/or piping to prevent any other families from a potentially dangerous situation that could harm their young children.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Also, I would love to be kept abreast of your investigation if possible.
Reply: This consumer contacted La-Z-Boy in March of 2008 to complain about a broken upholstered arm on her furniture. La-Z-Boy replaced the arm, without charge for parts or labor, even though the furniture was 2½ years old. In November of 2010, the consumer again contacted La-ZBoy, this time saying that the cushion welting had popped through the leather. Since this was a wear issue on a five-year-old love seat, La-ZBoy declined to provide a warranty repair. The consumer’s concern relates solely to the quality of a product and not to a risk of injury.
Glade Plug-In
My husband awoke on the morning of Monday, March 14th at approximately 6:00 a.m. and woke me up because it smelled in the living room as though something was burning. After we both circled the perimeter of the living room we determined that the burning smell was coming from the almost brand new Glade Plug-In (by SC Johnson) Plugged in to an outlet in our living room. Once we unplugged the item, the burning smell started to dissipate. Heaven forbid had that happened while we weren't at home I can only imagine what would have happened. Incidentaly, the outlet that the Glade Plug-In was plugged into is no longer operational and the breaker keeps flipping causing the electricity in the adjoining rooms to not work. We have had to call a licensed Electrician who is coming out this afternoon (Tuesday, March 22nd) to determine what damage the Plug-In did to our electricity in our home and get it repaired. I find it absolutely abhorrent that an unsafe item such as this is allowed to be on the market as it is truly a fire hazard! We have saved the Glade Plug-In that caused the damage and will certainly provide any information we can to anyone who needs it to research this further including the receipt from the electrician this afternoon. Thank you for researching this matter further.
Reply: SC Johnson is submitting this initial response to Report 20110322-90A21-2147481070 which describes a consumer’s concern with an air freshener product that was plugged into what the consumer described as a malfunctioning electrical outlet. SC Johnson has confirmed that it has not been contacted by the consumer about her concerns. However, in her database entry the consumer indicated that she intended to contact SC Johnson about the incident. For that reason, SC Johnson sent an e-mail to the consumer on April 5, 2011, inviting her to call an SC Johnson Consumer Relationship Center representative. A copy of that message has been copied at the end of this response. In that e-mail SC Johnson also asked the consumer to preserve the product and the malfunctioning outlet so that her concerns could be fully investigated. To date, the consumer has not responded to SC Johnson. Because there has been no positive product identification and because neither the product nor the outlet has been made available for an inspection, SC Johnson cannot provide definitive information about the incident. However, SC Johnson is confident that its PlugIns® air freshener products are safe when used as intended and SC Johnson is aware of no test data that would indicate that a PlugIns® product can cause the concerns identified by the consumer. In fact, millions of PlugIns® products are used without incident each year and the products are thoroughly tested by SC Johnson and independent laboratories before they are placed on the market. Additionally, all PlugIns® products bear the Underwriters Laboratories’ mark.
In her submission, the consumer stated that the outlet in which the air freshener was in use “is no longer operational and the breaker keeps flipping causing the electricity in the adjoining rooms not to work”. This description seems to indicate that the problem noticed by the consumer could not have been caused by an air freshener product which draws a minimal current but rather that the problem is with the home’s electrical supply system. Nevertheless, SC Johnson remains willing to have its representatives inspect both the air freshener product and the outlet and SC Johnson will share the findings of the inspection with the consumer. SC Johnson invites the consumer to contact SC Johnson so that her concerns can be investigated. Pursuant to 16 C.F.R § 1102.12, SC Johnson verifies that it has reviewed the database Report and that its responsive comments relate to that Report and that the information contained in SC Johnson’s comments is true and accurate to the best of SC Johnson’s knowledge. Finally, SC Johnson requests that its responsive comments be published in the database and SC Johnson consents to such publication.
TEXT OF E-MAIL TO CONSUMER:
Your recent contact to the Consumer Products Safety Commission was brought to our attention by CPSC. In the report you filed, it noted that you intended to contact our company directly. Since we haven’t heard from you, I thought that it was important for SC Johnson to follow up with you to see if you would like to talk with us. The situation you reported concerns us and we would like to learn more about the product you were using and what happened. Glade® PlugIns® products are used with confidence in millions of homes each year and they bear the Underwriters Laboratories mark and are subjected to extensive independent testing, as well as testing by SC Johnson. So I might learn more about your experience, I invite you to contact me at 888-301-0033 Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Central time. Until we talk, please hold on to the PlugIns® unit and receptacle – they will be helpful as we work together to investigate this further. Finally, we respect your privacy, and if you choose not to call me, we will not reach out to you again. However, we would welcome the opportunity to investigate your concerns
Bugaboo Frog Stroller
I own a Bugaboo Frog and had an accident today from which my son resulted injured. As I was leaving my apartment, the stroller hit a very small sidewalk bump. The bump caused to stroller to collapse and my son ended up face first on the concrete. My 10 month old son injured his lip and bled considerably from his nose, he now has a fairly large abrasion in his nose. The bump was very slight, certainly not large enough to cause a product that is designed to walk around in the city to collapse
Reply: Bugaboo received the report on 30 March 2011. We appreciate receiving the reported information via the CPSC database for our prompt action. Bugaboo has been in contact with the customer to learn about the situation. In contrary to the initial report the stroller did not collapse (fold) onto the child during this incident. Based on several discussions with the customer it is our current understanding wheels hit a bump causing the stroller to overturn. Bugaboo commissioned a review of its service and compliant database that showed no similar injury incidents have been reported in the past. Therefore, we have asked the customer to provide this stroller to us for a prompt and in-depth investigation. Bugaboo is committed to providing the involved parties results of its investigation as soon as possible. The Bugaboo Frog is tested by an independent testing laboratory to the ASTM F833:2009, the US Standard Consumer Safety Performance
Specification for Carriages and Strollers, and it is JPMA Certified by the Juvenile Products Manufactures Association. The customer will receive a replacement stroller to enable Bugaboo to complete an inspection of the incident stroller. Bugaboo is proud of the safety record of its child products and develops them with a deep sense of responsibility. Consumers are advised to always consult and follow the User Guide before operating the product and in case there are questions contact us directly for assistance.
Miracle Bubbles
While using Imperial Toy brand Super Miracle Bubbles, my daughter's lips made contact with the bubble solution (this is pretty normal for toddlers). A short time after she finished blowing bubbles, her lips turned completely white and the skin sloughed off! This caused an evening of pain for her and she could not eat any spicy or salty foods without crying. This happened two times because after the first I was not convinced the bubbles caused the reaction.
Reply: Our bubble solution formula has been reviewed by Board Certified Toxicologist and found to be non-toxic and a non irritant.
The database advocates and the CPSC strongly defend the database as a means to "save lives". This assertion has no basis in fact and none are offered, other than heart-rending stories of crib deaths that "could have been prevented" had a database existed. By stressing the possible loss of life, the advocates overstate the likely value of the database well beyond any data anyone could supply. The CPSC pledged to keep the database entries clean of grips, quality complaints, slander, inaccurate claims and the like. Are they doing their job? Is the database "saving lives"?
Read on and judge for yourself.
Please note that REAL businesses must reply to these entries. Each reply costs money, and there are legal fees behind many of these replies. The transaction costs can only be justified if they produce a positive result. Where is it? You can tell from the replies that the businesses are trying desperately to prevent damage to their brands and their products. Is this the government we want? Is this the government WE WANT TO PAY FOR?
Play Center Rope Ladder
My children were playing on this item in our backyard. The wooden rung on the rope ladder snapped in two, causing one child to fall onto another. The child who fell was cut by the sharp edge of the broken ladder rung. The child who was fallen on hit is head on the ground when he fell.
Reply: Little Tikes contacted the consumer and determined that the rope ladder was worn and weathered and was 6 years old. Although signifcantly out of warranty, Little Tikes elected to replace the consumer's rope ladder.
Lasko Heater
I understand this product is not safe - there is a potential fire hazard. I do NOT have a box to return this product. Would you please send one to me at work[?]
Reply: Consumer was contacted by Lasko, but did not respond. Consumer does not state why she believes product is unsafe.
Lil Gourmet
My two year old received the Children's Stainless Steel Cookware Set 5 Pc. by toysmith for Christmas osld by HomeGoods. My two and one year olds were playing with the set this morning. I heard my one year old scream. During play, the Sauté Pan's handle and pan came a part. My toddler took the handle to my one year olds face. He must have held the looped end and placed the open ended two prong end to my one year olds face. The handles open ends are blunt and small. My one year old sustained two scratches starting above his right eye on his eyelid and continue down to the middle of his cheek. He has two identical marks due to there being two pieces of metal. The marks resemble that of a scratch from a cat. Each is swollen with a white line and red irritation around the scrathings.
Reply: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the incident with our Stainless Steel Cookware Set. This set, in our Lil’ Gourmet line, has been in our catalog for several years without issue and has been tested extensively for both US and European standards to the stringent protocols for ages 3 and up despite this product being clearly age-graded for the ages of 5 and above. This item is not a toy. It is stainless steel cookware intended to be used as a child’s first cooking set. In addition to being labeled 5 and up on both the front and the back of the product, it is also stated that “Adult supervision is required.” We have uploaded our current testing documentation and would be happy to provide more information to the CPSC if required.
ExerSaucer
This is for the Evenflo triple jungle exersaucer. My daughter encountered two seperate hazards. Her arm became stuck between the band animals when she was 6 months old. We removed that toy. After converting it to an activity table, it constantly collapses under my 10 mo old where she has hurt herself without any evidence of injury. Very disappointed in this product.
Reply: From the consumer's description of the product, Evenflo believes that this report refers to the ExerSaucer® Triple Fun Activity Center. Evenflo was unable to confirm, however, that the subject product was manufactured by the company because the consumer did not respond to repeated written requests for more information. Consequently, Evenflo's investigation and response are limited only to the allegations contained in the consumer’s report and Evenflo’s information about the product believed to be at issue. The consumer reported two concerns with the Triple Fun, neither of which resulted in a specified injury to her child. First, the consumer stated that her child's arm was "stuck" between two elements of a pod toy. The toys used on all Evenflo products meet the mandatory requirements of ASTM standard F963, including requirements for clearances and openings. This is the only report of this nature received by the company about the Triple Fun since production began in 2009, and the company has sold hundreds of thousands of units. This report appears to relate to the cognitive inability of a very young child to understand how to remove her arm from certain portions of the pod toy, and does not represent a potential product hazard.
The consumer further reported that, when the Triple Fun is used as a play table (the third and final stage of use for this multi-stage product), she felt the unit was unstable when used by her 10-month-old child. Although the consumer states the child ”hurt herself,” no specific injury is described. In the third stage of use, the Triple Fun converts to a play table intended for use by children of walking age through approximately 24 months of age. Notably, the play table stage is not designed rigidly so as to provide a seating surface, a platform for climbing or for assistance to pull-up from a sitting to standing position, any of which could result in a fall, particularly with a child just beginning to walk. Due to the limited information contained in the consumer’s report, however, the company does not know how the child was using the Triple Fun when the alleged instability occurred, or even if the child was at the appropriate developmental age for use of the product in Stage 3.
The company continues to believe the Triple Fun is safe when properly used, offering consumers a multi-stage (play mat, stationary activity center and play table) product for children age birth through 24 months.
John Deere
THIS 65 YEAR OLD DECEDENT WAS THE UNRESTRAINED DRIVER OF A 2011 JOHN DEER TRACTOR AND WAS IN THE PROCESS OF GRADING A PRIVATE UNPAVED DRIVEWAY. THE DECEDENT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BACKING DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AND HAD BACKED ONTO THE SOFT EDGE OF THE DRIVE. THIS CAUSED THE TRACTOR TO ROLL OVER AND EJECT THE DECEDENT. A CALL WAS MADE TO 911 FOR ASSISTANCE AND EMS/POLICE RESPONDED TO THE SCENE. THE FIRST RESPONDERS PRONOUNCED THE DECEDENT DOA AND A LOCAL MEDICAL EXAMINER WAS NOTIFIED TO COMPLETE AN EXAMINATION.
Cookin for Kids Dinnerware
Kids dinnerware play set. We used an XRF analyzer and testing results showed the plate contained over 300 ppm of lead AND mercury.
Reply: This product has been tested against applicable standards and passed.
Dora the Explorer Guitar
My daughter recieved a Dora Tunes Guitar by Fisher Price for her birthday yesterday. She loves Dora, so we immediately opened it and discarded the package. When she pressed a button, I was shocked at how very loud it was! I took it from her and looked all over for a volume control figuring it must have been set at the factory for selling purposes and could be adjusted by the consumer. Sadly, there is no volume control! I attempted to put tape on the speaker, but it is not in a very accessible spot & I did not have much luck. I turned the guitar off, but having heard that it makes noise, my daughter was less than thrilled. After her bath while we were using the hair dryer, I turned it back on and was shocked that it could still be heard loud & clear over the hair dryer. I fear that this toy is unsafe due to the excessive noise. It hurt my ears, I can only imagine how damaging it is to a two-year-old's small ears!
Dynacraft Bicycle
On March 14, 2011 my daughter was riding one of my bicycles along with her father. The pedal came out of it's socket and the jagged threading protruding out of the bicycle tore into her leg (calf). This resulted in a laceration large enough to require seven stitches at the emergency room that very evening.
Reply: Dynacraft has reviewed the above numbered report and provides the following comment in response. The information contained in this comment is true and accurate to Dynacraft’s best knowledge, information and belief. The mother of a 32 year old woman reported that the pedal of her bicycle that her daughter was riding, Dynacraft model 8549-54, came off causing an accident. There was an injury but no loss of control was reported. Dynacraft is the distributor of such a bicycle and they are sold to Target for resale around the United States.
In repose to this data base posting Dynacraft has had its Risk Management Team contact the rider to learn more detail about the incident and is now in the process of resolving a compensation claim that was first made during this contact. Dynacraft has not been able to examine the subject bicycle but the rider has provided three low resolution digital photos of the bicycle’s bottom bracket area. A tracking sticker can be seen in one of these photos and it shows that the bicycle was manufactured in 2000 and thus is over ten years old. The bicycle was purchased by the rider’s mother when she was employed by Target, and the bicycle has spent most of the ensuing years in the rider’s parent’s garage.
From the telephone interview it was learned that bicycle has not been regularly used and thus not maintained since it was purchased at Target over ten years ago. On the day of the accident the rider was using this bicycle to take a ride with her father. The rider did not know if her parents retained the manual for the bicycle. Dynacraft also learned that her mother had not correctly reported the incident and what happened was that the left crank arm came off the chainwheel axel, the rider stopped the bike with the brakes but the rider cut her leg on the axel while doing so. Dynacraft’s bicycles ship with a manual and the manual is also available on Dynacraft’s web site: http://www.dynacraftbikes.com/inc/New%20Dynacraft%20Manual%202006-sm.pdf The warranty is in the manual and at the time of the accident the drive elements of the bicycle were out of warranty for over 8 years. In addition pages 88 and 89 provide maintenance instructions for the “cotterless crank” on model 8549-54. The incident and long history of no maintenance described by the rider strongly suggests that the incident resulted from the recommended maintenance described in the manual not being done. The applicable portions of those recommendations follow: Adjustment After Use:
1. Remove dust cap.
2. Tap the crank arm lightly with a mallet.
3. Re-tighten the flange nuts, and refit the dust cops.
New cotterless cranks may become loosen with initial use. Tighten the flange nuts after several hours of riding, and repeat it two or three times after further use. Cranks should then remain tight. . . . Lubrication and Adjustment - Cotterless Cranks To adjust the free play in a three piece type bottom bracket, loosen the lock ring on the left side by turning it counter-clockwise. Then turn the adjusting cup as required. Re-tighten the lock ring taking care not to alter the cup adjustment."
Never the less Dynacraft will continue to seek a resolution of the matter with the rider who was injured. Dynacraft requests that this comment be published in the Consumer Product Information Database, and hereby consents to such publication.
Value City Sectional
I purchased a sectional couch from Value City Furniture in Fredericksburg VA on 4-11-2010 in the amount of $1723.71. I paid for extended fabric/warranty. I also paid for the delivery. 7 months after the furniture was delivered, one section of the couch began to sink inwards. I contacted the company in November of 2010. On 12-27-2010, a representative came over and took pictures as did I. I was told that it will be replaced in 6-8 weeks. To date, I have not had calls returned or this couch fixed. The big dent in the couch is very low and cannot be sat on. It seems that someone can fall through the damaged part of the couch,if the couch is utilized. I ve contacted the BBB, Value city and also will file a warrant in debt. I have tried numerous times to be refunded money or have the piece replaced. I not getting results.
Stihl Chainsaw
I was using a MS361 chainsaw that had received a recall notice from STIHL and had the necessary repairs completed at R.H.McCrary. I was operating said chainsaw on Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at about 11:10am when the throttle trigger stuck as a I was removing the chainsaw blade from the trunk of a tree I was in the process of cutting. The chain kept its high turning speed instead of reducing to idle speed and the result of this caused the blade to "jump-back". I attempted to throw my leg out of the path of the blade but was not quick enough. The chain knicked my left leg just below my kneecap. I was taken to the ER where I recieved stitches to sew up two separate lacerations. I have photo documentation of the wound from before stitches were applied and from after the lacerations were stitched. I am not a first-time chainsaw user and have used multiple types of chainsaws and multiple brands while working for my mother's firewood and tree clearing business.
Reply: At STIHL Incorporated, safety is a top priority, and we are sorry to hear that you were injured while using a STIHL product. To help us better understand your experience, please contact us directly at 1-800-GO-STIHL and press “2” for Technical Services. It is our understanding that the throttle trigger of the chain saw had been repaired just prior to the accident, and you believe the repair may have contributed to the accident. During our inspection of your employer’s chain saw, however, we were unable to replicate any sticking of the throttle trigger. We did note that the chain saw had been heavily used and not well maintained. Among other things, the muffler was loose, an AV spring was broken and there were large quantities of debris and saw dust in the air box and around the throttle linkage/master control switch.
We hope that we will have the opportunity to speak with you directly. Learning more about your accident will help us determine what may have caused it. We thank you for calling this matter to our attention.
Baby Trend Stroller
The front wheel of my Baby Trend Expedition Stroller fell off 3 times. After the first time they sent me hardware to fix myself. The wheel then fell off a second time. I then sent it back to Baby Trends and they said they would repair it or send me a brand new stroller. They sent me back the old one, claiming it was fixed. I lent it to a friend to use after taking it on one walk. They went for a jog and the front wheel fell off again sending him and his son flying onto the pavement! The Dad suffered cuts on his hands and knees but fortunately he was able to protect the son from injuries. The stroller is obviously faulty. There have been other complaints on various websites about the front wheel and they have done nothing to resolve the situation. The stroller should be recalled. I don't want any other products from them, I want my money back so I can use it towards a stroller from a BETTER company!
Reply: According to consumer, the product was purchased on or before 4/1/2010. On 10/4/2010 Consumer contacted Baby Trend requesting replacement parts for the front fork assembly stating assembly came apart somehow. Replacement parts were sent to consumer at that time. 4 months later on 2/10/2011 consumer then contacts Baby Trend again wanting money back for product because they were unable to get
replacement parts to work properly. Baby Trend then paid to bring product in for warranty evaluation and correctly replaced the parts for the consumer. The product was evaluated by engineering and determined to be in perfect working condition, other than normal wear for being used for approximately one year. The product was returned to the consumer. 3/18/2011 consumer contacts Baby Trend again requesting a refund.
Disney Princess Light
We have the disney princess chandelier and the plastic crystal piece became lodged next to the light bulb and melted it. I do have pictures and the lamp if it is needed to be seen.
Hunter Boots
Rubber Boots that leak a white powder substance.
Reply: Here is an explanation of this issue from the company’s website:
What is the white residue on my Hunter boots? Occasionally, it is possible that white marks will appear on your Hunter rubber wellington boots. This is called 'blooming', it is your boots attempting to protect themselves from environmental damage. Every Hunter rubber wellington boot is made from 100% natural ingredients and small amounts of wax are included in the rubber compound during the vulcanization process that is used to make each pair. When exposed to certain environmental factors, this wax can "bloom" to the surface and appear as white marks. This is not a defect with the boots, and is completely natural. If this does happen, you can wipe this blooming clean with a warm, damp cloth. We recommend UV Tech* Spray which can be found at boating, hunting or fishing stores.
Pogo Stick
Bottom of stick came apart.
Reply: Thank you for transmitting this to us. We would like to follow up with this customer, but are unable to without the contact information. This product issue described is the subject of a recall announced on March 16, 2011.
Ariel Fountain
Daughter cut thumb on Ariel Fountain and Bubble Boat while playing with it in tub.
La-Z-Boy
I am contacting you in the hopes that you will take action to help prevent other consumers from making a significant investment in furniture that literally falls apart and presents a safety hazard to families with young children. In its corporate marketing materials, La-Z-boy promises furniture made with "durability,” "high standards,” "wear tested fabrics,” and "superior quality” – however my actual experience with the furniture has been dramatically to the contrary – and the company refuses to properly address potentially dangerous quality issues. I purchased a leather couch and loveseat from La-Z-boy approximately five years ago. I invested $3000 in the set – and was assured that these leather pieces would be able to stand the test of time. After only 2.5 years, the leather began pulling away on the arm of the couch, exposing sharp staples. I contacted the company and communicated that I was concerned about the quality of the piece and its potential longevity. After extensive follow up, they finally agreed to send an upholsterer to repair the piece.
A few years later, in the Fall of 2010, we again faced another significant quality issue - the plastic piping began popping through the loveseat cushions, creating an area with exposed plastic piping that is approximately 10-12 inches long presenting a choking hazard for our 2-year old. We again contacted the company – and they have refused to do anything about the furniture, but rather focused on shifting blame
indicating that we must have caused the damage -- even though for the vast majority of the life of the furniture, it was only being used by two adults and we also purchased the leather protection treatment when we first invested in the piece. Since our rejected La-Z-boy inquiry, we contacted a Boston area leather repair company to assess the furniture for repair. The representative of this company visited our home in January and estimated that it would likely be too costly to justify repairing the piece. This representative also indicated that the most likely cause of the piping issue was not in fact user wear, but rather poor manufacturing using leather that was too thin to encase the piping to fully protect it from breaking through the leather.
For your reference, I am attaching photos of the La-Z-boy furniture. I truly hope you will be able to make this company accountable for the quality issues we have experienced. I also strongly encourage you to investigate how many other pieces from the same manufacturing batch could be affected with either exposed staples and/or piping to prevent any other families from a potentially dangerous situation that could harm their young children.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Also, I would love to be kept abreast of your investigation if possible.
Reply: This consumer contacted La-Z-Boy in March of 2008 to complain about a broken upholstered arm on her furniture. La-Z-Boy replaced the arm, without charge for parts or labor, even though the furniture was 2½ years old. In November of 2010, the consumer again contacted La-ZBoy, this time saying that the cushion welting had popped through the leather. Since this was a wear issue on a five-year-old love seat, La-ZBoy declined to provide a warranty repair. The consumer’s concern relates solely to the quality of a product and not to a risk of injury.
Glade Plug-In
My husband awoke on the morning of Monday, March 14th at approximately 6:00 a.m. and woke me up because it smelled in the living room as though something was burning. After we both circled the perimeter of the living room we determined that the burning smell was coming from the almost brand new Glade Plug-In (by SC Johnson) Plugged in to an outlet in our living room. Once we unplugged the item, the burning smell started to dissipate. Heaven forbid had that happened while we weren't at home I can only imagine what would have happened. Incidentaly, the outlet that the Glade Plug-In was plugged into is no longer operational and the breaker keeps flipping causing the electricity in the adjoining rooms to not work. We have had to call a licensed Electrician who is coming out this afternoon (Tuesday, March 22nd) to determine what damage the Plug-In did to our electricity in our home and get it repaired. I find it absolutely abhorrent that an unsafe item such as this is allowed to be on the market as it is truly a fire hazard! We have saved the Glade Plug-In that caused the damage and will certainly provide any information we can to anyone who needs it to research this further including the receipt from the electrician this afternoon. Thank you for researching this matter further.
Reply: SC Johnson is submitting this initial response to Report 20110322-90A21-2147481070 which describes a consumer’s concern with an air freshener product that was plugged into what the consumer described as a malfunctioning electrical outlet. SC Johnson has confirmed that it has not been contacted by the consumer about her concerns. However, in her database entry the consumer indicated that she intended to contact SC Johnson about the incident. For that reason, SC Johnson sent an e-mail to the consumer on April 5, 2011, inviting her to call an SC Johnson Consumer Relationship Center representative. A copy of that message has been copied at the end of this response. In that e-mail SC Johnson also asked the consumer to preserve the product and the malfunctioning outlet so that her concerns could be fully investigated. To date, the consumer has not responded to SC Johnson. Because there has been no positive product identification and because neither the product nor the outlet has been made available for an inspection, SC Johnson cannot provide definitive information about the incident. However, SC Johnson is confident that its PlugIns® air freshener products are safe when used as intended and SC Johnson is aware of no test data that would indicate that a PlugIns® product can cause the concerns identified by the consumer. In fact, millions of PlugIns® products are used without incident each year and the products are thoroughly tested by SC Johnson and independent laboratories before they are placed on the market. Additionally, all PlugIns® products bear the Underwriters Laboratories’ mark.
In her submission, the consumer stated that the outlet in which the air freshener was in use “is no longer operational and the breaker keeps flipping causing the electricity in the adjoining rooms not to work”. This description seems to indicate that the problem noticed by the consumer could not have been caused by an air freshener product which draws a minimal current but rather that the problem is with the home’s electrical supply system. Nevertheless, SC Johnson remains willing to have its representatives inspect both the air freshener product and the outlet and SC Johnson will share the findings of the inspection with the consumer. SC Johnson invites the consumer to contact SC Johnson so that her concerns can be investigated. Pursuant to 16 C.F.R § 1102.12, SC Johnson verifies that it has reviewed the database Report and that its responsive comments relate to that Report and that the information contained in SC Johnson’s comments is true and accurate to the best of SC Johnson’s knowledge. Finally, SC Johnson requests that its responsive comments be published in the database and SC Johnson consents to such publication.
TEXT OF E-MAIL TO CONSUMER:
Your recent contact to the Consumer Products Safety Commission was brought to our attention by CPSC. In the report you filed, it noted that you intended to contact our company directly. Since we haven’t heard from you, I thought that it was important for SC Johnson to follow up with you to see if you would like to talk with us. The situation you reported concerns us and we would like to learn more about the product you were using and what happened. Glade® PlugIns® products are used with confidence in millions of homes each year and they bear the Underwriters Laboratories mark and are subjected to extensive independent testing, as well as testing by SC Johnson. So I might learn more about your experience, I invite you to contact me at 888-301-0033 Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Central time. Until we talk, please hold on to the PlugIns® unit and receptacle – they will be helpful as we work together to investigate this further. Finally, we respect your privacy, and if you choose not to call me, we will not reach out to you again. However, we would welcome the opportunity to investigate your concerns
Bugaboo Frog Stroller
I own a Bugaboo Frog and had an accident today from which my son resulted injured. As I was leaving my apartment, the stroller hit a very small sidewalk bump. The bump caused to stroller to collapse and my son ended up face first on the concrete. My 10 month old son injured his lip and bled considerably from his nose, he now has a fairly large abrasion in his nose. The bump was very slight, certainly not large enough to cause a product that is designed to walk around in the city to collapse
Reply: Bugaboo received the report on 30 March 2011. We appreciate receiving the reported information via the CPSC database for our prompt action. Bugaboo has been in contact with the customer to learn about the situation. In contrary to the initial report the stroller did not collapse (fold) onto the child during this incident. Based on several discussions with the customer it is our current understanding wheels hit a bump causing the stroller to overturn. Bugaboo commissioned a review of its service and compliant database that showed no similar injury incidents have been reported in the past. Therefore, we have asked the customer to provide this stroller to us for a prompt and in-depth investigation. Bugaboo is committed to providing the involved parties results of its investigation as soon as possible. The Bugaboo Frog is tested by an independent testing laboratory to the ASTM F833:2009, the US Standard Consumer Safety Performance
Specification for Carriages and Strollers, and it is JPMA Certified by the Juvenile Products Manufactures Association. The customer will receive a replacement stroller to enable Bugaboo to complete an inspection of the incident stroller. Bugaboo is proud of the safety record of its child products and develops them with a deep sense of responsibility. Consumers are advised to always consult and follow the User Guide before operating the product and in case there are questions contact us directly for assistance.
Miracle Bubbles
While using Imperial Toy brand Super Miracle Bubbles, my daughter's lips made contact with the bubble solution (this is pretty normal for toddlers). A short time after she finished blowing bubbles, her lips turned completely white and the skin sloughed off! This caused an evening of pain for her and she could not eat any spicy or salty foods without crying. This happened two times because after the first I was not convinced the bubbles caused the reaction.
Reply: Our bubble solution formula has been reviewed by Board Certified Toxicologist and found to be non-toxic and a non irritant.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
CPSIA - What You Get For Your Database Dollars
Selections from the CPSIA database, courtesy of an interested party. It's easy to see how careully the CPSC has been following its own rules on postings . . . .
“I don't think anyone should be wearing them and if they do try them, they should be made aware of potential injury and warned to discontinue use at the first sign of discomfort. I wish I had know.”
“Please consider taking the shoes off the market before more people are hurt.”
“each time the hat was placed on baby's head he would cry.” [Sorry just had to add this one, it was due to broken needle.]
“My ankle still hurts and probably will never be the same.”
“…still pains me with every step I take.”
“I truly hope you will be able to make this company accountable for the quality issues we have experienced”
“I also strongly encourage you to investigate how many other pieces from the same manufacturing batch could be affected…”
“it didn't occur to me that there might be problems associated with a product being sold in a reputable store.”
“It appears that [Company name] has no concern whatsoever for Consumer Safety just profits.”
“We used an XRF analyzer and testing results showed the plate contained over 300 ppm of lead AND mercury.”
“I did NOT want another product in my home from this manufacturer”
“This product should be recalled.”
“I don't think anyone should be wearing them and if they do try them, they should be made aware of potential injury and warned to discontinue use at the first sign of discomfort. I wish I had know.”
“Please consider taking the shoes off the market before more people are hurt.”
“each time the hat was placed on baby's head he would cry.” [Sorry just had to add this one, it was due to broken needle.]
“My ankle still hurts and probably will never be the same.”
“…still pains me with every step I take.”
“I truly hope you will be able to make this company accountable for the quality issues we have experienced”
“I also strongly encourage you to investigate how many other pieces from the same manufacturing batch could be affected…”
“it didn't occur to me that there might be problems associated with a product being sold in a reputable store.”
“It appears that [Company name] has no concern whatsoever for Consumer Safety just profits.”
“We used an XRF analyzer and testing results showed the plate contained over 300 ppm of lead AND mercury.”
“I did NOT want another product in my home from this manufacturer”
“This product should be recalled.”
Monday, April 4, 2011
CPSIA - Analysis of Pending House CPSIA Amendment (Sections 3-11)
Continuing with my analysis of the pending draft of the CPSIA Amendment:
Section 3 Application of Third Party Testing Requirements: Merry Christmas, this provision ends mandatory phthalate and lead-in-substrate testing! Yes, Virginia, you read that right - there is a Santa Claus after all. Of course, as noted in my earlier blogpost, you are still subject to broad standards applying to many of your products. How will you know if you comply without some testing? You won't. Hmmm - a Catch-22! The limitations in the definition of Children's Products echo here. Removing mandatory testing is not the whole solution, unfortunately.
You still must test for lead-in-paint, small parts, children's metal jewelry and certain juvenile products.
The provision does not remove the CPSC from the process of certifying labs. This needless expansion of the role of our government in this market has never had a sufficient justification, in my view. Why are they in this business? What problem does it solve? Can ANYONE provide evidence that the market wasn't "working" before the CPSC arrived on the lab certification scene? This CPSIA provision is probably a historic consumer group wish-list item or perhaps a staffer's stray term that was never removed. The CPSIA was drafted in a fever of "our government failed us", so it's only natural that the law inserted the CPSC into every nook and cranny of the market. In this case, their conscription has not proven valuable, just another wasteful expense of the federal government that we all will pay for (again and again and again).
Ironically, the provision seems to create even more involvement in certification by the agency, if it chooses to require third party testing. Among other things, the agency must assess testing "capacity". That should prove "interesting".
This section provides some exemption for crafters, products focused on disabled persons (this phrasing only awkwardly covers certain "special needs" children) and one-of-a-kind items. The definition of the exemption incorporates the unfortunate term "not economically practicable" for testing to be excused. I can only imagine the serious of hearings and "stakeholder" meetings required to define what is and is not covered by this new term. This anticipatory compromise (perhaps as a concession to as-yet-encountered resistance in the Senate) likely spoils the workings of this well-intended provision.
A small quantity exemption modeled on Henry Waxman's formula has survived into this draft, unfortunately. The rule incorporates an arbitrary and otherwise meaningless volume rule to identify those companies too small to be required to test. I have never understood why Congress would want to let small companies flaunt safety rules because of their size. Is it okay to be poisoned by a little company but not by a big one? Isn't this law about SAFETY first and foremost? Perhaps we would do better to home in on REAL problems and leave everything else basically unregulated? After all, the substantial product hazard standard gives the agency a LOT of power to change course if they identify a new and REAL problem at a later time.
Under this amendment, the amoeba that is the CPSIA spread in yet another new direction. Today's new priority is apparently small parts. Why? Not explained. Has someone concluded that the former reliance on voluntary standards for small parts failed? On what basis? Does a lab putting products through a choke tube really save lives over relying on voluntary compliance (without specifying the use of outside labs)? Perhaps the best solution is to hold companies responsible for compliance with ASTM F963 without requiring testing (thus preserving the agency's ability to enforce), and holding the line on lead-in-paint testing? After all, L-I-P is easily tested and probably should always be subject to testing owing to the nature of the hazard. I don't know that small companies deserve an "out" on L-I-P because of the ease of controlling sources of paint and getting documentation on lead content. On the other hand, I don't understand why small parts needs this special mention.
Perhaps the sweetest term in this entire document is the new requirement that the agency perform a cost-benefit analysis on ANY mandated third party testing and further, that the testing imposes the least possible burden. This is a pure post-midterm election "smaller government" provision and something to be cherished. This requirement will be applied retroactively on any mandatory testing passed after August 14, 2009. Nice!!!
Finally, this provision makes the "15 Month Rule" voluntary by the CPSC, rather than Congressionally-mandated. Does this mean that it's dead? I can't say for sure. Let's hope so. Better yet, why not change this provision to get the CPSC out of the business of telling us how to be reasonable? Reasonableness is a term that courts have successfully interpreted for years without Congress' help. Why not let the courts decide what's reasonable if there is a dispute?
Section 4 Application of and Process for Updating Durable Nursery Products Standards: I skipped this as it relates to cribs. Not my area.
Section 5 Application of Section 106 to FDA-Regulated Products: Pulls in FDA rules into mandatory toy safety standards enforceable by the CPSC. Does not apply to me, not sure which is you this will impact.
Section 6 Application of Phthalates Standard: This provision limits the application of the phthalates ban to only certain parts of a "toy" (as defined).
First, the rule makes ALL phthalates rules PROSPECTIVE from the date of enactment. For those of you sitting on old inventory with the vain hope that someday it will saleable, this might be your lucky day!
The rule also gives the agency the power to exempt products from the phthalates ban if deemed "not necessary to protect children's health". This can be done only by rule under the amendment, so don't expect anything quick or cheap. This will be a long, drawn-out and arduous process - in other words, it is highly unlikely to occur.
As noted above, the term "necessary to protect children's health" conflicts with (or at least differs from) the substantial product hazard standard already in use. This is wrong and should be changed. Congress should use ONE standard for all matters relating to health under the CPSA, namely substantial product hazard, and it should resist the urge to introduce new standards throughout this document. That will only confuse things and make matters worse.
The provision adds a firm deadline for the end of the ban of the three phthalates the subject of the CHAP, if the agency does not act promptly after the CHAP is concluded. This provision seems to express distrust between Congress and the current administration of the CPSC. Will safety zealots hijack the CHAP process? This provision aims to prevent it. Hmmm.
Subsection (e) fiddles with the definition of "toy" to align it with the definition in the now mandatory ASTM F963 standard. Not sure how this will affect you (or me). The ASTM standard includes many different age ranges (by item) so some may even expand. Many will contract.
Finally, the revised definition excludes parts that can only be "licked". Frankly, based on my recollection of the CPSC's serious approach to this in the past, I anticipate that they will assume children have serpent tongues making almost everything "lickable". Sadly, Congress probably can't rely on the CPSC to take a simple definition and let companies administer it. This provision is an invitation to make "rules". I would suggest that the amendment be modified to specifically permit companies to exercise their reasonable business judgment on what is "lickable". I would point out that in the absence of victims that people besides Diane Feinstein can identify, the need to treat the possible presence of phthalates in these items as a public health crisis is unsupported. The CPSC, on the other hand, WILL treat it as a crisis since Congress banned the substances in toys. That makes it quite serious for the agency. To restore sanity, Congress will either need to give very specific instructions to the CPSC, or mandate the use of risk assessment to resolve this matter.
Personally, I am tired of all this, and hope Congress can find a way to put this to bed. I don't relish another three years of hearings, comment letters, begging and the like. Let My People Go - build some easy rules, let us exercise judgment and re-focus the agency on substantial product hazards.
The rule does NOT limit the application of the ban to ONLY plasticized parts, meaning that testing costs to assure compliance may remain in place for wood, metal, labels and other sundry items. Believe it or not, that's where we are now. [The CPSC seems stuck on phthalates right now - no final rules have been promulgated on this simple ban and no labs have been certified since August 2008.] It is a complete waste of money, particularly since only Diane Feinstein knows of victims of this purported hazard. The rule should be revised to limit toy industry legal exposure for what is best characterized as a ban based on conjecture and fear, not actual science or identifiable injury victims.
Section 7 Exemption Authority for Tracking Labels Requirement: This provision gives the agency the ability (by regulation) to exclude specific products or classes of products from the tracking label requirement if the Commission determines that it is not "economically practicable" to apply tracking labels. Even for those products thrown a lifeline, they may still have to provide the information through alternative means devised by the CPSC.
I believe cynically that our very existence, the very fact that we are still breathing today, can be used to rebut the argument that tracking labels are not "economically practicable". A better rule would be to let us decide for ourselves whether we want to use tracking labels. Companies can be relied upon to decide on an economically rational basis. If it's a good use of money, we'll do it. Otherwise, we won't.
In the case of our company, in fact, that's what we used to do. Some of our items had tracking labels, most did not. Our motivation had nothing to do with recalls. That's because our recall record was so good that tracking labels never made sense as a "defensive" move. The few tracking labels we added were to assist us on quality issues (generally relating to the production of electronic items). We used product identifiers to improve our supply chain and raise our quality levels. Why not let businesses exercise judgment and live with the consequences? Make good decisions, innovate in value-added ways and profit, OR make bad decisions, cut corners and lose. Simple. This provision should be revised accordingly.
I have also suggested in the past that mandatory tracking labels be restricted to long-life, heirloom-style products, mainly juvenile products like cribs. These items have a checkered past, and are used with the most vulnerable children (babies). There is reason to believe tracking labels will have some value in this arena, and in addition, since these items are generally big ticket items, the cost of the labels is not material. As for everything else, forget it.
Section 8 Requirements for Public Database: The very encouraging changes proposed in this section would provide basic safety net protections to innocent companies possibly subject to unmerited attack in the database. I have not taken the time to compare these provisions to the Nord/Northup draft rule on the database, but believe they are consistent or at least Nord/Northup provided inspiration for these changes. The changes reduce the scope of people who can file a report, and gives companies more authority to resist publication of material inaccuracies.
The time frames for circulation of data needs to lengthened considerably. The prospect of "doom" flaunted by consumer groups needs to be downplayed. While the drama of pending disaster makes grist for the newspaper mill, it is unrealistic and has driven the database process in an abusive direction unnecessarily. Giving more time for back and forth means that the agency will have fewer occasions to knowingly publish false information. In addition, there is always the possibility that working together on a more relaxed schedule will allow the CPSC and businesses to work together better.
My interaction with the agency has reduced my confidence in getting a fair hearing on material inaccuracy. We presented information rebutting definitively an accusation made by a consumer, and we were told that we had not demonstrated "material inaccuracy". That seemed to fly in the face of the facts but we could not rebut what the filer "thought". I do not see anything in the new language that would prevent the agency from publishing that original filing. If good faith were the metric, I would worry about it. But today's CPSC is highly-politicized so I am not prepared to say I believe they will interpret clear language "clearly" or behave in a "reasonable" manner. I call on Congress and the CPSC to jointly figure out how to solve this trust problem. Should there be a way to appeal the judgment of the CPSC? It would have to be simple and cheap - something administrative and independent - to give companies a way to protect themselves if they feel they're not getting a fair shake. It may be worth the effort to restore faith in the database.
The database is a very expensive trifle. I question whether we can afford it. Think about how much time and resources will be devoted by the CPSC to the database. Is this really the best way to spend our money on safety? A "nice to have", perhaps, but probably not a "must have".
Misidentified products and reports proven materially inaccurate will not be allowed to be published under this amendment. Thank heavens . . . .
Section 9-11: Technical amendments as far as I can tell.
Section 3 Application of Third Party Testing Requirements: Merry Christmas, this provision ends mandatory phthalate and lead-in-substrate testing! Yes, Virginia, you read that right - there is a Santa Claus after all. Of course, as noted in my earlier blogpost, you are still subject to broad standards applying to many of your products. How will you know if you comply without some testing? You won't. Hmmm - a Catch-22! The limitations in the definition of Children's Products echo here. Removing mandatory testing is not the whole solution, unfortunately.
You still must test for lead-in-paint, small parts, children's metal jewelry and certain juvenile products.
The provision does not remove the CPSC from the process of certifying labs. This needless expansion of the role of our government in this market has never had a sufficient justification, in my view. Why are they in this business? What problem does it solve? Can ANYONE provide evidence that the market wasn't "working" before the CPSC arrived on the lab certification scene? This CPSIA provision is probably a historic consumer group wish-list item or perhaps a staffer's stray term that was never removed. The CPSIA was drafted in a fever of "our government failed us", so it's only natural that the law inserted the CPSC into every nook and cranny of the market. In this case, their conscription has not proven valuable, just another wasteful expense of the federal government that we all will pay for (again and again and again).
Ironically, the provision seems to create even more involvement in certification by the agency, if it chooses to require third party testing. Among other things, the agency must assess testing "capacity". That should prove "interesting".
This section provides some exemption for crafters, products focused on disabled persons (this phrasing only awkwardly covers certain "special needs" children) and one-of-a-kind items. The definition of the exemption incorporates the unfortunate term "not economically practicable" for testing to be excused. I can only imagine the serious of hearings and "stakeholder" meetings required to define what is and is not covered by this new term. This anticipatory compromise (perhaps as a concession to as-yet-encountered resistance in the Senate) likely spoils the workings of this well-intended provision.
A small quantity exemption modeled on Henry Waxman's formula has survived into this draft, unfortunately. The rule incorporates an arbitrary and otherwise meaningless volume rule to identify those companies too small to be required to test. I have never understood why Congress would want to let small companies flaunt safety rules because of their size. Is it okay to be poisoned by a little company but not by a big one? Isn't this law about SAFETY first and foremost? Perhaps we would do better to home in on REAL problems and leave everything else basically unregulated? After all, the substantial product hazard standard gives the agency a LOT of power to change course if they identify a new and REAL problem at a later time.
Under this amendment, the amoeba that is the CPSIA spread in yet another new direction. Today's new priority is apparently small parts. Why? Not explained. Has someone concluded that the former reliance on voluntary standards for small parts failed? On what basis? Does a lab putting products through a choke tube really save lives over relying on voluntary compliance (without specifying the use of outside labs)? Perhaps the best solution is to hold companies responsible for compliance with ASTM F963 without requiring testing (thus preserving the agency's ability to enforce), and holding the line on lead-in-paint testing? After all, L-I-P is easily tested and probably should always be subject to testing owing to the nature of the hazard. I don't know that small companies deserve an "out" on L-I-P because of the ease of controlling sources of paint and getting documentation on lead content. On the other hand, I don't understand why small parts needs this special mention.
Perhaps the sweetest term in this entire document is the new requirement that the agency perform a cost-benefit analysis on ANY mandated third party testing and further, that the testing imposes the least possible burden. This is a pure post-midterm election "smaller government" provision and something to be cherished. This requirement will be applied retroactively on any mandatory testing passed after August 14, 2009. Nice!!!
Finally, this provision makes the "15 Month Rule" voluntary by the CPSC, rather than Congressionally-mandated. Does this mean that it's dead? I can't say for sure. Let's hope so. Better yet, why not change this provision to get the CPSC out of the business of telling us how to be reasonable? Reasonableness is a term that courts have successfully interpreted for years without Congress' help. Why not let the courts decide what's reasonable if there is a dispute?
Section 4 Application of and Process for Updating Durable Nursery Products Standards: I skipped this as it relates to cribs. Not my area.
Section 5 Application of Section 106 to FDA-Regulated Products: Pulls in FDA rules into mandatory toy safety standards enforceable by the CPSC. Does not apply to me, not sure which is you this will impact.
Section 6 Application of Phthalates Standard: This provision limits the application of the phthalates ban to only certain parts of a "toy" (as defined).
First, the rule makes ALL phthalates rules PROSPECTIVE from the date of enactment. For those of you sitting on old inventory with the vain hope that someday it will saleable, this might be your lucky day!
The rule also gives the agency the power to exempt products from the phthalates ban if deemed "not necessary to protect children's health". This can be done only by rule under the amendment, so don't expect anything quick or cheap. This will be a long, drawn-out and arduous process - in other words, it is highly unlikely to occur.
As noted above, the term "necessary to protect children's health" conflicts with (or at least differs from) the substantial product hazard standard already in use. This is wrong and should be changed. Congress should use ONE standard for all matters relating to health under the CPSA, namely substantial product hazard, and it should resist the urge to introduce new standards throughout this document. That will only confuse things and make matters worse.
The provision adds a firm deadline for the end of the ban of the three phthalates the subject of the CHAP, if the agency does not act promptly after the CHAP is concluded. This provision seems to express distrust between Congress and the current administration of the CPSC. Will safety zealots hijack the CHAP process? This provision aims to prevent it. Hmmm.
Subsection (e) fiddles with the definition of "toy" to align it with the definition in the now mandatory ASTM F963 standard. Not sure how this will affect you (or me). The ASTM standard includes many different age ranges (by item) so some may even expand. Many will contract.
Finally, the revised definition excludes parts that can only be "licked". Frankly, based on my recollection of the CPSC's serious approach to this in the past, I anticipate that they will assume children have serpent tongues making almost everything "lickable". Sadly, Congress probably can't rely on the CPSC to take a simple definition and let companies administer it. This provision is an invitation to make "rules". I would suggest that the amendment be modified to specifically permit companies to exercise their reasonable business judgment on what is "lickable". I would point out that in the absence of victims that people besides Diane Feinstein can identify, the need to treat the possible presence of phthalates in these items as a public health crisis is unsupported. The CPSC, on the other hand, WILL treat it as a crisis since Congress banned the substances in toys. That makes it quite serious for the agency. To restore sanity, Congress will either need to give very specific instructions to the CPSC, or mandate the use of risk assessment to resolve this matter.
Personally, I am tired of all this, and hope Congress can find a way to put this to bed. I don't relish another three years of hearings, comment letters, begging and the like. Let My People Go - build some easy rules, let us exercise judgment and re-focus the agency on substantial product hazards.
The rule does NOT limit the application of the ban to ONLY plasticized parts, meaning that testing costs to assure compliance may remain in place for wood, metal, labels and other sundry items. Believe it or not, that's where we are now. [The CPSC seems stuck on phthalates right now - no final rules have been promulgated on this simple ban and no labs have been certified since August 2008.] It is a complete waste of money, particularly since only Diane Feinstein knows of victims of this purported hazard. The rule should be revised to limit toy industry legal exposure for what is best characterized as a ban based on conjecture and fear, not actual science or identifiable injury victims.
Section 7 Exemption Authority for Tracking Labels Requirement: This provision gives the agency the ability (by regulation) to exclude specific products or classes of products from the tracking label requirement if the Commission determines that it is not "economically practicable" to apply tracking labels. Even for those products thrown a lifeline, they may still have to provide the information through alternative means devised by the CPSC.
I believe cynically that our very existence, the very fact that we are still breathing today, can be used to rebut the argument that tracking labels are not "economically practicable". A better rule would be to let us decide for ourselves whether we want to use tracking labels. Companies can be relied upon to decide on an economically rational basis. If it's a good use of money, we'll do it. Otherwise, we won't.
In the case of our company, in fact, that's what we used to do. Some of our items had tracking labels, most did not. Our motivation had nothing to do with recalls. That's because our recall record was so good that tracking labels never made sense as a "defensive" move. The few tracking labels we added were to assist us on quality issues (generally relating to the production of electronic items). We used product identifiers to improve our supply chain and raise our quality levels. Why not let businesses exercise judgment and live with the consequences? Make good decisions, innovate in value-added ways and profit, OR make bad decisions, cut corners and lose. Simple. This provision should be revised accordingly.
I have also suggested in the past that mandatory tracking labels be restricted to long-life, heirloom-style products, mainly juvenile products like cribs. These items have a checkered past, and are used with the most vulnerable children (babies). There is reason to believe tracking labels will have some value in this arena, and in addition, since these items are generally big ticket items, the cost of the labels is not material. As for everything else, forget it.
Section 8 Requirements for Public Database: The very encouraging changes proposed in this section would provide basic safety net protections to innocent companies possibly subject to unmerited attack in the database. I have not taken the time to compare these provisions to the Nord/Northup draft rule on the database, but believe they are consistent or at least Nord/Northup provided inspiration for these changes. The changes reduce the scope of people who can file a report, and gives companies more authority to resist publication of material inaccuracies.
The time frames for circulation of data needs to lengthened considerably. The prospect of "doom" flaunted by consumer groups needs to be downplayed. While the drama of pending disaster makes grist for the newspaper mill, it is unrealistic and has driven the database process in an abusive direction unnecessarily. Giving more time for back and forth means that the agency will have fewer occasions to knowingly publish false information. In addition, there is always the possibility that working together on a more relaxed schedule will allow the CPSC and businesses to work together better.
My interaction with the agency has reduced my confidence in getting a fair hearing on material inaccuracy. We presented information rebutting definitively an accusation made by a consumer, and we were told that we had not demonstrated "material inaccuracy". That seemed to fly in the face of the facts but we could not rebut what the filer "thought". I do not see anything in the new language that would prevent the agency from publishing that original filing. If good faith were the metric, I would worry about it. But today's CPSC is highly-politicized so I am not prepared to say I believe they will interpret clear language "clearly" or behave in a "reasonable" manner. I call on Congress and the CPSC to jointly figure out how to solve this trust problem. Should there be a way to appeal the judgment of the CPSC? It would have to be simple and cheap - something administrative and independent - to give companies a way to protect themselves if they feel they're not getting a fair shake. It may be worth the effort to restore faith in the database.
The database is a very expensive trifle. I question whether we can afford it. Think about how much time and resources will be devoted by the CPSC to the database. Is this really the best way to spend our money on safety? A "nice to have", perhaps, but probably not a "must have".
Misidentified products and reports proven materially inaccurate will not be allowed to be published under this amendment. Thank heavens . . . .
Section 9-11: Technical amendments as far as I can tell.
Monday, March 21, 2011
CPSIA - Answers to Supplemental House Questions (Hearing of Feb. 17th)
This is my Response for the Record to questions posed by Rep. Mike Pompeo after the February 17th hearing held by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade:
February 17, 2011
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee:
“A Review of CPSIA and CPSC Resources"
Congressman Mike Pompeo
1. Did your company have to buy a copy of the F-963 standard? Why? How much did that cost?
Our company has purchased several copies of ASTM F963 over the years. According to the ASTM International website (http://www.astm.org/Standards/F963.htm), the current cost of F963 is $62, or $74 (redline version). [This means that the ASTM literally charges companies EXTRA to figure out what changed in this legally-mandated standard.] To my knowledge, this standard is only available from the ASTM. Ironically, even the CPSC is unable to provide access to this document (as acknowledged in this CPSC Powerpoint presentation http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/intl/toyweb2_en.pdf) which casts doubt on its ability to guide companies attempting to comply with the law. The lack of access and cost of access to this standard certainly makes compliance burdensome for small businesses.
The F963 standard has been updated regularly over the years, and we need to have access to the current version of the standard at all times. Until the CPSIA was enacted, the F963 standard was the tacit equivalent of a mandatory standard because the toy industry adopted it as a “voluntary” standard with the encouragement of the CPSC. At one time, voluntary standards were the preferred way the agency regulated many industries, including our industry. We have always used the F963 standard as a reference in product development and safety administration and frequently tested for compliance with the standard.
2. You’ve been dealing with all of the agency’s rules for the last few years. By my reckoning, an entrepreneur with, say, a good idea for a board game would have to pay to buy a copy of F-963 from ASTM (not a small price to pay for some small or start-up toymakers). Then, because the standard is literally dozens of pages long of densely spaced text, he’d have to hire a lawyer to tell which parts of the standard apply to his product. Then, he’d have to find a third-party test lab to test and certify a random sample of his actual production line for compliance with all of the F-963 requirements. And, if any product fails, you are basically back to the drawing board. And, of course, he’d have to do all this before ever selling a single toy. Do you think the next board game entrepreneur (e.g., Trivial Pursuit) might have a hard time getting off the ground under this regime? Has this agency effectively killed entrepreneurship in the toy market? Does a start-up company stand any chance of being able to navigate the CPSC’s new rules and regulations on its own?
The CPSIA has had the effective of creating new barriers of entry in the children’s product market, once one of America’s most entrepreneurial industries. The burdens are heavy in the toy industry but even worse in related industries like juvenile products. Large companies with steady cash flow enjoy considerable and valuable advantages over entrepreneurs who must put large sums of money at risk in their initial investment in compliance costs before receiving their first dollar of revenue. The effect of the CPSIA is one of picking winners and losers in affected markets. I question whether this is the appropriate role of the federal government in our markets.
We believe that these heavy costs will discourage investment in new products, by new entrants, by existing players and especially by small businesses. Recently, at the CPSC’s hearing on the looming 100 ppm lead standard, representatives of the bicycle industry noted that in the wake of the 300 ppm lead standard, many small bicycle manufacturers have already left the market and large companies cut their product lines considerably. I have long predicted a reduction in product diversity as a necessary consequence of the CPSIA. Other evidence of market contraction exists, as well. At this year’s ICPHSO, CPSC Acting Director of the Office of Compliance and Field Operations Robert (“Jay”) Howell noted the CPSC’s challenge in identifying a test lab that has or will agree to equip itself as a certified test lab for ATVs. Why? So many ATV manufacturers have stopped producing youth model ATVs under the effective ban by the CPSIA’s lead standards that testing labs can’t justify the capital investment to provide CPSIA compliance testing. Product diversity is declining all over the children’s product market.
Toymakers will experience the same depressing effect and yes, that means that the next Trivial Pursuit inventor may be washed out. We may never know because the absence of a new toy or novel game will be hard to detect in the ad-driven, promotional toy market. It is clear, however, that entrepreneurs are free to deploy their capital wherever they want – they are seeking returns on their capital - so the combination of high CPSIA compliance costs, high regulatory risk, high legal costs and a generally hostile regulatory environment seems unlikely to attract new entrants to the toy market. War stories will also discourage new entrants – the well-known experience of toymakers who have suffered under this regulatory regime.
As a practical matter, the rules and regulations put out by the CPSC to implement the CPSIA for toys are incomprehensible, not to mention incomplete. We are now 31 months into the CPSIA era, yet the CPSC has yet to promulgate a final phthalate standard or certify even one phthalates testing lab. EACH and EVERY toy must be “phthalate-free” but the CPSC has yet to tell us how to know it has achieved this goal. This means we are subject to the risk that they will invalidate all the work we have done since 2008. While this regulatory delay is simply outrageous, it is more likely proof of the defects in the CPSIA than a sign of failure by the CPSC. Even the largest companies have complained to the CPSC about the blizzard of rules and interpretations. One of great frustrations in attempting to comply with the new rules is that many CPSC legal interpretations have been given in private letters, orally in speeches or even in the form of voicemails. Access to such information may be critical but is obviously inaccessible to anyone not obsessively watching every minute of every video, reading every letter, attending every meeting or hearing and talking to every stakeholder in an attempt to master the breadth of this ever-morphing regulatory scheme.
3. Does the existence of a small business ombudsman at the agency solve the compliance problem?
The office of the Small Business Ombudsman serves a useful purpose as a friendly point of contact and possible advocate for small business within the agency. That said, there is no evidence that the office has power to make decisions, change policy or offer its own definitive interpretation of rules. For small businesses totally at a loss, the ombudsman is a good place to turn to for plain English answers to basic questions about rules. Notably, the office is not permitted to make decisions on behalf of the agency. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to make problems “go away”. For this reason, the ombudsman function appears to be the regulatory equivalent of a shoulder to cry on. The current ombudsman, Neil Cohen, has been a good friend to the small business community, but unfortunately, he doesn’t write the rules.
4. What problems do you anticipate occurring as a result of the public database?
We know that the public database will be administered on a post-it-and-forget-it basis. Based on our dealings with the agency, I believe that the agency will post all incidents unless a mistaken identity can be proven. As a consequence, we anticipate that the database will be allowed to be filled up with “incidents” that are conjectural, misleading or even proven WRONG. In the first and only filing against our company, an anonymous complaint accused one of our products of posing a small parts hazard. That accusation was based on an image viewed on a website – there is no indication that the filer had ever handled our product. Consequently, the filer had no reasonable basis for the small parts claim. As a matter of fact, we routinely test for small parts and have done so for years, and when we presented a valid CPSIA test report under F963 (and EN71, the European standard), we were told by the General Counsel of the CPSC that the claim would nevertheless be eligible to be published under current rules. Thus, we KNOW that the false and misleading filings will KNOWINGLY be published by the CPSC even if PROVEN false. We believe this flagrantly violates our basic right to due process and creates the potential for damaging “feeding frenzies” that can consume our products and brands.
Other claims may relate to “hazards” which affect a wide swath of products already well-known by regulators and industry. This presents many risks to industry and to brands. What will a consumer make of a "report of harm" relating to a general hazard and only one particular product? Is this a minor incident or a harbinger of a real risk? Should they stop using the product? Should they stop using the particular model or brand which is subject of the complaint? Given that many products may present the same hazard (for instance, that an electrical cord could pose a strangulation hazard), how does this information help consumers? Will consumers actually understand the issue and be able to put it into some sort of perspective? And when incidents accumulate, as they are likely to do, presumably the brands and models with the largest numbers in distribution will have more incidents even though, ironically, they may be better constructed and "safer" than the alternatives. Will consumers falsely conclude that the models with more incidents are less safe and turn to something that really is?
Responding to this type of complaint obviously creates a new and terrible dilemma for manufacturers. Should they expend resources to respond? Do they need to lay out "a brief" about the nature of the failure and why their product is named? Will people just view whatever they say as unreliable, self-serving information or will they really be able to internalize the data? As noted above, most people will not be able to put these incidents in any kind of perspective. The only thing we know for certain is that brands and companies will be the losers.
The public portrayal of the database belies the unverified nature of the filings. Notwithstanding the disclaimers made by the agency, even esteemed media outlets like The New York Times refer to the database as a “database of unsafe products”. Unsafe? That label presumes some kind of judgment or filter prior to filing, which even The New York Times must assume is being provided by the CPSC. Ironically, the CPSC is doing everything possible to avoid providing that service. The result may be disastrous for American manufacturers, importers, private labelers and retailers of children’s products. It will be yet another self-inflicted economic injury.
5. What can Congress do to return the agency to one that regulates on the basis of risk?
Congress should mandate that the CPSC use principles of risk assessment to make all decisions relating to regulation of children’s products. The legislatively-mandated use of judgment and proportionality will likely lead to better rulemaking and more regulatory common sense. It is the legislative banishing of the exercise of judgment that led to the devastation of the bicycle industry, the elimination of youth model ATVs from the market (even though those products owe their very existence to a concerted effort by the CPSC to protect children from injury on adult-sized ATVs), the banning of all products made of brass, the senseless and almost neurotic banning of rhinestones as embellishments on children’s clothing, shoes and jewelry, and so on. NONE of these changes in rules have been tied to even ONE avoided injury.
Congress should also mandate the use of principles of cost-benefit analysis by the agency in its rulemaking processes. Under the CPSIA, all considerations of economics have flown out the window with predictably disastrous results. We can operate our government better according to basic common sense notions of cost-benefit analysis.
February 17, 2011
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee:
“A Review of CPSIA and CPSC Resources"
Congressman Mike Pompeo
1. Did your company have to buy a copy of the F-963 standard? Why? How much did that cost?
Our company has purchased several copies of ASTM F963 over the years. According to the ASTM International website (http://www.astm.org/Standards/F963.htm), the current cost of F963 is $62, or $74 (redline version). [This means that the ASTM literally charges companies EXTRA to figure out what changed in this legally-mandated standard.] To my knowledge, this standard is only available from the ASTM. Ironically, even the CPSC is unable to provide access to this document (as acknowledged in this CPSC Powerpoint presentation http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/intl/toyweb2_en.pdf) which casts doubt on its ability to guide companies attempting to comply with the law. The lack of access and cost of access to this standard certainly makes compliance burdensome for small businesses.
The F963 standard has been updated regularly over the years, and we need to have access to the current version of the standard at all times. Until the CPSIA was enacted, the F963 standard was the tacit equivalent of a mandatory standard because the toy industry adopted it as a “voluntary” standard with the encouragement of the CPSC. At one time, voluntary standards were the preferred way the agency regulated many industries, including our industry. We have always used the F963 standard as a reference in product development and safety administration and frequently tested for compliance with the standard.
2. You’ve been dealing with all of the agency’s rules for the last few years. By my reckoning, an entrepreneur with, say, a good idea for a board game would have to pay to buy a copy of F-963 from ASTM (not a small price to pay for some small or start-up toymakers). Then, because the standard is literally dozens of pages long of densely spaced text, he’d have to hire a lawyer to tell which parts of the standard apply to his product. Then, he’d have to find a third-party test lab to test and certify a random sample of his actual production line for compliance with all of the F-963 requirements. And, if any product fails, you are basically back to the drawing board. And, of course, he’d have to do all this before ever selling a single toy. Do you think the next board game entrepreneur (e.g., Trivial Pursuit) might have a hard time getting off the ground under this regime? Has this agency effectively killed entrepreneurship in the toy market? Does a start-up company stand any chance of being able to navigate the CPSC’s new rules and regulations on its own?
The CPSIA has had the effective of creating new barriers of entry in the children’s product market, once one of America’s most entrepreneurial industries. The burdens are heavy in the toy industry but even worse in related industries like juvenile products. Large companies with steady cash flow enjoy considerable and valuable advantages over entrepreneurs who must put large sums of money at risk in their initial investment in compliance costs before receiving their first dollar of revenue. The effect of the CPSIA is one of picking winners and losers in affected markets. I question whether this is the appropriate role of the federal government in our markets.
We believe that these heavy costs will discourage investment in new products, by new entrants, by existing players and especially by small businesses. Recently, at the CPSC’s hearing on the looming 100 ppm lead standard, representatives of the bicycle industry noted that in the wake of the 300 ppm lead standard, many small bicycle manufacturers have already left the market and large companies cut their product lines considerably. I have long predicted a reduction in product diversity as a necessary consequence of the CPSIA. Other evidence of market contraction exists, as well. At this year’s ICPHSO, CPSC Acting Director of the Office of Compliance and Field Operations Robert (“Jay”) Howell noted the CPSC’s challenge in identifying a test lab that has or will agree to equip itself as a certified test lab for ATVs. Why? So many ATV manufacturers have stopped producing youth model ATVs under the effective ban by the CPSIA’s lead standards that testing labs can’t justify the capital investment to provide CPSIA compliance testing. Product diversity is declining all over the children’s product market.
Toymakers will experience the same depressing effect and yes, that means that the next Trivial Pursuit inventor may be washed out. We may never know because the absence of a new toy or novel game will be hard to detect in the ad-driven, promotional toy market. It is clear, however, that entrepreneurs are free to deploy their capital wherever they want – they are seeking returns on their capital - so the combination of high CPSIA compliance costs, high regulatory risk, high legal costs and a generally hostile regulatory environment seems unlikely to attract new entrants to the toy market. War stories will also discourage new entrants – the well-known experience of toymakers who have suffered under this regulatory regime.
As a practical matter, the rules and regulations put out by the CPSC to implement the CPSIA for toys are incomprehensible, not to mention incomplete. We are now 31 months into the CPSIA era, yet the CPSC has yet to promulgate a final phthalate standard or certify even one phthalates testing lab. EACH and EVERY toy must be “phthalate-free” but the CPSC has yet to tell us how to know it has achieved this goal. This means we are subject to the risk that they will invalidate all the work we have done since 2008. While this regulatory delay is simply outrageous, it is more likely proof of the defects in the CPSIA than a sign of failure by the CPSC. Even the largest companies have complained to the CPSC about the blizzard of rules and interpretations. One of great frustrations in attempting to comply with the new rules is that many CPSC legal interpretations have been given in private letters, orally in speeches or even in the form of voicemails. Access to such information may be critical but is obviously inaccessible to anyone not obsessively watching every minute of every video, reading every letter, attending every meeting or hearing and talking to every stakeholder in an attempt to master the breadth of this ever-morphing regulatory scheme.
3. Does the existence of a small business ombudsman at the agency solve the compliance problem?
The office of the Small Business Ombudsman serves a useful purpose as a friendly point of contact and possible advocate for small business within the agency. That said, there is no evidence that the office has power to make decisions, change policy or offer its own definitive interpretation of rules. For small businesses totally at a loss, the ombudsman is a good place to turn to for plain English answers to basic questions about rules. Notably, the office is not permitted to make decisions on behalf of the agency. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to make problems “go away”. For this reason, the ombudsman function appears to be the regulatory equivalent of a shoulder to cry on. The current ombudsman, Neil Cohen, has been a good friend to the small business community, but unfortunately, he doesn’t write the rules.
4. What problems do you anticipate occurring as a result of the public database?
We know that the public database will be administered on a post-it-and-forget-it basis. Based on our dealings with the agency, I believe that the agency will post all incidents unless a mistaken identity can be proven. As a consequence, we anticipate that the database will be allowed to be filled up with “incidents” that are conjectural, misleading or even proven WRONG. In the first and only filing against our company, an anonymous complaint accused one of our products of posing a small parts hazard. That accusation was based on an image viewed on a website – there is no indication that the filer had ever handled our product. Consequently, the filer had no reasonable basis for the small parts claim. As a matter of fact, we routinely test for small parts and have done so for years, and when we presented a valid CPSIA test report under F963 (and EN71, the European standard), we were told by the General Counsel of the CPSC that the claim would nevertheless be eligible to be published under current rules. Thus, we KNOW that the false and misleading filings will KNOWINGLY be published by the CPSC even if PROVEN false. We believe this flagrantly violates our basic right to due process and creates the potential for damaging “feeding frenzies” that can consume our products and brands.
Other claims may relate to “hazards” which affect a wide swath of products already well-known by regulators and industry. This presents many risks to industry and to brands. What will a consumer make of a "report of harm" relating to a general hazard and only one particular product? Is this a minor incident or a harbinger of a real risk? Should they stop using the product? Should they stop using the particular model or brand which is subject of the complaint? Given that many products may present the same hazard (for instance, that an electrical cord could pose a strangulation hazard), how does this information help consumers? Will consumers actually understand the issue and be able to put it into some sort of perspective? And when incidents accumulate, as they are likely to do, presumably the brands and models with the largest numbers in distribution will have more incidents even though, ironically, they may be better constructed and "safer" than the alternatives. Will consumers falsely conclude that the models with more incidents are less safe and turn to something that really is?
Responding to this type of complaint obviously creates a new and terrible dilemma for manufacturers. Should they expend resources to respond? Do they need to lay out "a brief" about the nature of the failure and why their product is named? Will people just view whatever they say as unreliable, self-serving information or will they really be able to internalize the data? As noted above, most people will not be able to put these incidents in any kind of perspective. The only thing we know for certain is that brands and companies will be the losers.
The public portrayal of the database belies the unverified nature of the filings. Notwithstanding the disclaimers made by the agency, even esteemed media outlets like The New York Times refer to the database as a “database of unsafe products”. Unsafe? That label presumes some kind of judgment or filter prior to filing, which even The New York Times must assume is being provided by the CPSC. Ironically, the CPSC is doing everything possible to avoid providing that service. The result may be disastrous for American manufacturers, importers, private labelers and retailers of children’s products. It will be yet another self-inflicted economic injury.
5. What can Congress do to return the agency to one that regulates on the basis of risk?
Congress should mandate that the CPSC use principles of risk assessment to make all decisions relating to regulation of children’s products. The legislatively-mandated use of judgment and proportionality will likely lead to better rulemaking and more regulatory common sense. It is the legislative banishing of the exercise of judgment that led to the devastation of the bicycle industry, the elimination of youth model ATVs from the market (even though those products owe their very existence to a concerted effort by the CPSC to protect children from injury on adult-sized ATVs), the banning of all products made of brass, the senseless and almost neurotic banning of rhinestones as embellishments on children’s clothing, shoes and jewelry, and so on. NONE of these changes in rules have been tied to even ONE avoided injury.
Congress should also mandate the use of principles of cost-benefit analysis by the agency in its rulemaking processes. Under the CPSIA, all considerations of economics have flown out the window with predictably disastrous results. We can operate our government better according to basic common sense notions of cost-benefit analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
