CPSIA - Lowest Common Neurosis

I have a new legal standard for the CPSC in its continuing effort to make everyone so, so, SOOOO safe: the "Lowest Common Neurosis". Under this innovative legal standard, our safety agency would reset its legal standards and reissue 2500 pages of rules every time a ridiculous news article appears touting a poorly-conceived, made-up phobia relating to children's products. There are so many examples to think of, from cadmium jewelry (thanks, AP!) to Zhu Zhu Pets with lethal noses to the latest craze, making hourly employees at the checkout counter cough up General Conformity Certificates on the spot.

Hadn't heard of that one yet? This is the latest craze sweeping the nation, thoughtfully brought to our attention by the Dallas CBS affiliate on May 10. Their report begins ominously: "Mindee Haas buys plenty of toys for her 15-month-old daughter Sophia. Haas, 33, says she usually trusts those toys are safe, but her trust is fading after a recent run of toy recalls."

Ah, the "recent run of toy recalls". And those were what, precisely??? I think the crack CBS "investigator" is referring to the recalls in 2007/8. They certainly couldn't be referring to recent recalls because toy recall rates have fallen precipitously. According to data from the CPSC website, there have been a grand total of nine recalls through April 15 of this year (one alleged injury, from laceration) and only 32 in 2009 (20 alleged injuries and one death, none from lead). This is very low by historical standards. Of the 3 billion toys estimated sold per year in our country, only 4,530,860 were recalled in 2009 over 32 recalls. The total units recalled this year is 888,680 through April 15. This amounts to a recall of approximately 1 in 1,000 toys sold (in other words, 99.9% toys were NOT recalled in 2009/10).

I guess a crisis is whatever CBS Dallas says it is.

Apparently not satisfied with creating a scare about imaginary recalls, the CBS affiliate continues to intone, quoting the mom: "'I don't want [my daughter] to be a lab rat at home,' said Haas 'There are so many things in toys these days that we just don't know the effects of them long term and that's what's scary.' Toy after toy has been yanked off the shelves deemed unsafe for children."

To "investigate", CBS decided to find evidence of toy safety. They chose the low budget route and opted to NOT test toys, perhaps fearing that the toys would pass (and then what would they be able to say?). Instead, Matahari-like, "CBS 11 News went undercover inside the most popular toy stores to see if they had the certificates for their toys."

Frankly, if I still had a sense of humor about this awful law and its devastating consequences, I might find this rather amusing. I don't. Here's what CBS did, in their own words:

"Employees at both stores and even a manager said this was the first time they heard about safety certificates. 'I have a guest who's wanting to buy a toy she says she was told that you can get a certificate printed out something that says there's been a lead recall or not,' asked a Target employee 'It shows if the toy has been tested for lead.' We waited as the employee got an answer from her manager, 'Do you know anything about that?' Manager: 'No I have never heard that we don't have certificate.'" Incredibly, the checkout person at Babies R Us and Toys R Us also did not have a copy of the company's safety files right there for inspection. Whoa!

I think this is CBS's hidden camera video of their investigation:



CBS was able to get some great insights on the problem from a SMU Marketing professor. He thinks the stores are blowing it. "'Not only is it important to have [the GCCs], but you could use [the certificates] to market your store,' explained [Dan] Howard 'You could advertise the fact that we have it!' When asked how difficult he thought it was to simply know about the certificates Howard responded 'Not difficult at all!'"

Dan Howard says it's not difficult at all to have checkout counter access to GCCs at Target, TRU and all other U.S. retail outlets for children's products. Well that settles it! I sense a new rule a-comin'!

And how does Mom feel about the CBS findings? I think she articulates our new Lowest Common Neurosis rather well: "'Just not knowing if the companies are being responsible enough to know what's in their products that's what's concerning,'" said Haas. She says she will stick to going to her mom and pop shops for the time being."

Anyone want to kick in for a national Xanax fund?

CPSIA - The Long-g-g-g-g Wait is Over!

The long-awaited test standard for clacker balls is FINALLY here! At only 16 pages, it's a mere trifle of a test standard but - believe me - it's packed with goodness.

And if you're one of those people who stays up late at night, fretting over how to find a testing company properly qualified to test your clacker balls, you can rest easy now - this godsend of a standard addresses that exact dilemma! Third party assessment of clacker balls has been identified by Congress as ESSENTIAL to restore America's confidence in the clacker ball industry. Clacker ball safety - that's change you can believe in!

These steps are long overdue, particularly in light of panic over imported clacker balls which may be prone to off-tempo clacking.

Of course, not every lab is qualified to test your clacker balls. A Third Party Clacker Ball Conformity Assessment Body (we call them "test labs", but you should probably call them TPCBCAB's) needs to be accredited in the Clacker Sciences before any General Conformity Certificate would be acceptable. As if this weren't obvious . . . . For high-volume clacker ball manufacturers, the CPSC has thoughtfully provided special rules for money-saving Firewalled Clacker Ball Conformity Assessment Bodies (FCBCABs, not to be confused with a TPCBCABs). So you have options!

Fortunately, the CPSC saw the crisis in clacker ball safety coming and POURED money from its annual $118 million budget into its clacker ball department, hiring squads of Ph.D.'s skilled in clackerology - just file a Section 15 report and see how quickly they clack your balls like never before! And to protect our borders, the CPSC beefed up its atrophied team of Field Clacker Ball Inspectors (FCBIs). To combat clacking marauders, the CPSC staged FCBIs at each domestic port, alert and poised to protect America against contraband balls.

Does anyone think it's ironic that there are no clacker ball recalls listed on the CPSC website? Okay, the agency has only been protecting us since 1972 - that's only 38 years - but still, no clacker ball recalls? Clearly the absence of recalls proves the need for more vigilant clacker ball testing is URGENT. The public's relief at a re-energized CPSC, ready to oversee our every clack, is palpable. No longer a toothless tiger, this CPSC has become a snarling, clacking . . . something.

So, worry not America, your clacker balls will be safe again for many hours of happy clacking!

Just don't forget - when you play with your balls, always ask for lead-free. You CAN'T be too safe . . . .

CPSIA - Reaction to my Testing Guidance Comments

On November 11, I published my thoughts on the recently-announced Testing Guidance. These guidelines will be the subject of the upcoming two-day workshop at the CPSC on Dec. 10/11.

In my blogpost, I noted that children's products with paint require independent testing while painted non-children's products used in the home and around children only require a GCC, no testing. That makes NO sense to me, as explained in my blogpost.

I received a series of emails from a regular reader of this space, someone with a great deal of expertise in the CPSC and its practices. Let's just say, this person knows quite a bit more than me. Here's what my reader said in reply to this essay:

"I think the implication that children's products needed some special class of testing by someone other than the manufacturer was highly questionable to begin with. (Put another way, why should we distrust children's product manufacturers? Or in the alternative, is the risk from such products really so much higher that special safeguards were necessary? In truth, most of the serious injuries and deaths that led to recalls were because of defects and not because of non-compliance with rules that you could test for.)

. . . .

Unfortunately, there seems to be a national trend--including other agencies and state and local governments--of legislating requirements based on junk science disseminated by interest groups. This leads not only to incredible costs, or loss of product for consumers, but diverts the attention and resources of the agencies from their core mission of reducing deaths, injury, and illness. That is the ultimate irony here: that in promoting safety some of these presumably well intentioned people are in fact likely decreasing the public safety."

Score one for people that actually know what they're talking about! Couldn't say it better myself (although I have been trying for about a year).

CPSIA - Love Them GCCs

Hope you love paperwork! Here is the list of products that NOW require GCCs to be legally sold in the U.S. under the CPSIA and related acts, bans, demonizations and paranoia documents (Appendix A):

• All Terrain Vehicles
• Architectural Glazing Materials
• Bicycles
• Bicycle Helmets
• Bunk Beds
• Carpets and rugs
• CB Omnidirectional Base Station Antennas
• Cellulose Insulation
• Contact Adhesives
• Cigarette and Multipurpose Lighters
• Dive Sticks
• Fireworks Devices
• Garage Door Openers
• Lawnmowers
• Lead in paint (We knew about that one! But didja know: "Some applications are exempted including mirror back coatings, metal furniture, blinds, chandeliers, fixtures, appliances, manufactured windows, artist paints. Agricultural and industrial uses are also not covered. Touch up paints for the exempted applications that contain lead must be labeled.")
• Matchbooks
• Mattresses
• Refrigerators
• Refuse Bins (I was wondering when the CPSC would start regulating garbage cans!)
• Swimming Pool Slides
• Vinyl Plastic Film
• Wearing Apparel (except hats, gloves, andfootwear)

These items may have exceptions - you will have to scrutinize every word of the 31-pager issued by the CPSC to know the full extent of your requirements.

I have always said, there ain't no problem that can't be made better with more paperwork! Pretty soon the CPSC may require that we exchange GCCs before shaking hands (noting the application of Purell at all appropriate times). Nothing Orwellian or self-destructive about this mania, is there???

Okay everybody, call your suppliers and get all that paper flowing!