The sparks were certainly flying at the July 20th Commission meeting last week. With access finally granted by the CPSC today to the video footage, I was able to see for myself all the excitement at that storied meeting. I was amply rewarded with a display of regulatory arrogance you rarely see on tape - Inez Tenenbaum and Bob Adler standing tall and thumbing their noses at a binding Executive Order. I guess the CPSC is now above ALL law, other than laws endorsed by Henry Waxman.
The tension in the room at this meeting was palpable, and the usual shenanigans took place, like Ami Gadhia's claims that CPSC Staff found that manufacturers intentionally add lead to children's products (47:31). While I would normally take the scummy consumer group reps to task for their misstatements (lies?) and innuendo, in fact at this hearing, a much more important issue was "debated". [Bickered over is more like it.] Namely, whether the CPSC has to follow President Obama's Executive Order to preform cost-benefit analyses on regulations under the CPSIA. I have previously addressed this issue in blogposts on July 12, July 14, July 20 and July 21.
After the usual pointless sparring over the ability of the CPSC to do the right thing (don't worry, Bob Adler "agonized" over these difficult decisions . . . and then voted to screw industry), the meeting devolved into a series of often incoherent and inconsistent defensive rebuffs by Dems in support of their political conclusion that they can blow off the Executive Order to the extent that it threatens in any way their work implementing the CPSIA.
Of course, the idea of the Executive Order was to ensure that those rules are economically justified. Blah blah blah. The view of the Dem Commissioners is that evidence of the extreme economic impact of these rules is not relevant to the CPSIA rulemaking process, notwithstanding Mr. Obama's little note.
Chairman Tenenbaum laid down the law at 1:15 in the tape:
"I'd like to comment on the Executive Order [which says] 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof . . . . This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.' Congress was very clear. They wanted the lead limits at 600 then 300 then 100. We have looked at this from all angles. And I can tell you, consistent with the law, we have implemented the CPSIA. . . . Congress was very aware that we could not write regulations unless we did a Section 9 cost-benefit analysis in some of the statutes we implement. And they on purpose did not require us to do cost-benefit analysis because they realized the urgency of getting lead out of children's products. . . . And that my legal understanding. . . . And so to have this fiction be a part of this public hearing, that we are required to do cost-benefit analysis under the CPSIA under the Executive Order cannot go unanswered." [Emphasis added]
Take that, Obama! Your EO is fictional! Tenenbaum seems to be saying that because Congress permitted expedited rulemaking under the CPSIA, all regulations under CPSIA are shielded from any cost-benefit analysis mandated by the President. She pins this on the standards established under the CPSIA. Interestingly, she seems to overlook that the 100 ppm standard was subject to a rulemaking process, and the Obama order specifically addresses rulemakings. She also glosses over so many other rulemakings which are remote from the standards. Details, details. . . .
The Obama order instructs the CPSC to follow Executive Order 13563 to the extent "permitted" by law. The CPSIA does not preclude cost-benefit analysis, it only allowed the agency to skip it. The only direct reference to cost-benefit in the CPSIA is in Section 233 where cost-benefit analysis is specifically written out of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970. Cost-benefit analysis is NOT specifically written out of the CPSA in the CPSIA anywhere. The Dem Commissioners didn't address this point during the July 20th meeting.
EO 13563 in relevant part says: ". . . to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages, distributive impacts; and equity). . . ." The President's new EO applies this verbiage to the CPSC. Tenenbaum just blows it off entirely. The President must be below Henry Waxman.
Ms. T gets pretty snippy at points. "There are people on this Commission that want to contort and use this Executive Order. I have spoken to attorneys at the White House; I know I stand on firm legal ground. And so please don't leave this meeting thinking that we are expected to do cost-benefit analysis or this Executive Order mandates that we do that. It does not!"
Tenenbaum's argument - I am judge, I am jury, don't question me.
Anne Northup notes that the stalemate in Congress is no indication that the law requires such harsh and inflexible positions by the agency:
"It's also clear that Members of Congress . . . are universally talking about, even the authors of the bill, changes that ought to be made [to the CPSIA]. The reason that Congress has not acted is that [there is disagreement over how broadly to amend the law.] They have not told us that they think we should proceed in the most aggressive fashion and in the most punishing rulemakings and to take advantage of every opportunity we have to regulate more toys rather than less, more tests rather than less, and so forth. . . . All an Executive Order does is ask us to . . . take seriously whether or not we can find alternative ways of achieving the meaning of the law without the disruption in the economy."
Continuing the debate (argument), Bob Adler had much to say as usual. As we know, Bob Adler is already on record volunteering to block cost-benefit analysis with his dead body. [See "Is that a promise, Bob?"] At the July 20th meeting, he proffered the reason why cost-benefit analysis is inapplicable here:
"My colleague asked whether there is anything in the statute that specifically exempts us from having to, from being able to do cost-benefit, and I think in terms of the precise parsing of the statute, that's correct. But let's be clear: it effectively in all major respects precludes us from doing that. When they've given us 42 deadlines to achieve in just a very short period of time, when they've specifically exempted us from having to do these incredibly time-consuming and costly Section 9 procedures, i think there's a very clear message from Congress there. Congress in effect was saying 'We've done the cost-benefit analysis. Now we want you to implement the law."
So, the reason not to obey the President - Congress couldn't have meant us to do a cost-benefit analysis because otherwise they wouldn't have given us so much darned work to do. In addition, by reducing our burden with looser Section 9 procedures to expedite the implementation process, Adler says Congress meant to say that they had already "completed" a cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Adler does not attempt to prove his point, his assertion being enough apparently. I am always impressed by the self-justifications of regulators who claim to be able to read the "mind" of an inanimate body like Congress. In law school, they taught us to follow rules of legislative interpretation. That's so Old School! Nowadays you only have to attribute a "thought" to Congress to "prove" legislative intent.
Of course, just a few days ago, Bob asserted something rather different:
"It says "to the extent permitted by law" we should do cost-benefit analysis. And I just wanted to say over my dead body would I agree to do the kind of cost-benefit analysis that is contained in Section 9 of the [CPSA]. That is paralysis by analysis." [Emphasis added]
At that time, Adler seemed to believe that the words "to the extent permitted by law" require the agency to do a cost-benefit analysis only when it is convenient to perform such complex analyses. Hmmm. Does anyone think that legal analysis is just a bit "loose"?
Ah, but Bob wasn't done by any means. He carried on (and on and on) at the July 20th meeting to add yet another argument, namely that cost-benefit assessments are impossible as a practical matter. No explanation as to why this was relevant, as Adler already said Congress instructed the agency to not to do such analyses and the Executive Order is inapplicable. Details, details. . . .
"One of the things that I this is intriguing . . . is where they say 'Now when you're doing a cost-benefit analysis, let's address all the deficiencies we have identified with cost-benefit analyses in the past, namely you can always calculate the costs, especially the short term high costs but measuring benefits is just extraordinarily difficult.' How do you measure the life of a little baby? Because usually what they [conclude is that] there is no benefit . . . that you can quantify from saving a baby's life."
So, apparently, it might be okay to do cost-benefit analysis (?) but it wouldn't work. Congress must not have meant us to waste our time . . . . He later challenged anyone in the room to tell him what the "quantifiable benefits" of two lost IQ points are. Too bad the EPA wasn't there. They do that regularly. Here is a quote from AOL Energy referring to this kind of economic analysis: "The economic value of the IQ points and the benefits of reducing particulate pollution was estimated using 'long-standing, peer-reviewed' practices on the effect of regulations, [EPA] officials said." Again, details, details . . . .
Adler noted that this IQ point information would be crucial to an argument on how many angels could sit on the head of a pin. Thus, Mr. Adler sneers at the value and legitimacy of a cost-benefit analysis involving children. As our apparent judge, jury and overseer, one must surmise that he thinks it's his right to make this judgment, notwithstanding an Executive Order.
Oddly, Big Bob does concede that the picture is not quite so clear. Hmmm.
"I'm not arguing that because we've got a lot of work that Congress therefore said don't do cost-benefit analysis. [Editor's Note: Bob, in fact, that IS what you argued.] That isn't all they said. They said 'You know what we want you to do, we want you to do a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis which is looking at the cost side of the ledger which is easier to calculate. In particular, to look at the cost side of the ledger insofar as affects small businesses because those are the folks who are the canaries in the mine that we look to." Adler goes on to retract this assertion, and return to his claim that Congress DIDN'T want the CPSC to do a RFA analysis and instead just wanted the agency to implement the law. His argument here seems to be that Congress was interested in some sort of economic analysis but only a limited one.
Adler then launches into his final jab at blowing off the Order:
"I guess we do have a dispute about whether we have imposed this in an ultra-aggressive way or in an extremely thoughtful way. I think we have taken the approach in an extremely thoughtful way. But sometimes you have to do a cost-benefit of whether to do a cost-benefit and I don't think that analysis gets us very far."
So Adler wraps up with his "over my dead body" argument - he just doesn't want to do it. Take that, Obama!
Nancy Nord grimly assessed the sad spectacle we witnessed:
"This is an important issue. And cost-benefit analysis could have been done with respect to our regulations under CPSIA but wasn't. Whether that's a good idea or a bad idea, we can continue to debate. But Congress did not say not to do it - Majority did. And I think that's unfortunate and I think our rules have suffered because of that."
I will spare you the late sniping between Tenenbaum and Nord, but if you like catty repartee, it's at 1:24.
With three Dem Commissioners in charge at the CPSC, you can forget about relief from the EO. Nice try, Mr. President, but you've met your match. Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore are above the law and are on a Waxman mission that transcends our laws and the Constitution. There's not much left to hope for with this crew in charge.
Maybe the CPSC will be on the national debt chopping block. Don't hold your breath. . . .
Showing posts with label Hearings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hearings. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
CPSIA - The CPSC Finds a New Way to Scr*w You
The banal and almost unnoticed adoption of ASTM F963 as a mandatory standard at the July 20th Commission meeting seems so innocuous. Is it, really?
Commissioner Nancy Nord points out that this decision was a compromise of a Hobson's Choice nature:
"I joined in the majority’s vote only because of a negotiated agreement that we would stay enforcement of the testing mandate through December 31, 2011. Had we not reached this compromise, the testing requirement would have landed in the market’s lap in mid-October, just as stores are making their final preparations for the holiday season and small toy manufacturers are at the peak of filling orders. While I am relieved that companies will now have some time to find their way through the maze we have created, I have major concerns about why we are rushing to impose testing requirements to a standard we know is about to change."
What was that last bit?
Ummm, well, the ASTM is actually updating the F963 standard right now. It will be done by year end. and as a result of the CPSC's wondrous action this week, it will be a mandatory rule to test to an obsolete standard on January 1, 2012 - and probably necessary to test to the new standard, too! Doesn't that sound great?! Now you can deliver TWO test reports when one might have sufficed. But think of how much safer kids will be if you produce two almost identical passing test reports rather than just one. Just think of it . . . .
Ms. Nord explains:
"When the stay of enforcement is lifted on January 1, 2012, most likely we will be requiring testing to an outdated standard. This puts manufacturers and retailers potentially in the situation of having to do redundant or perhaps irrelevant testing – testing mandated by the CPSC to the old standard and testing mandated by the marketplace to the new standard. Because we are taking the position that these testing requirements are rules and can only be changed (after August, 2011) by notice and comment rulemaking, there is virtually no way to get the new notice of requirements in place and labs accredited before the standard becomes effective. This puts toy manufacturers in an untenable position. Our response is that we will address these problems as they come up but, of course, in the real world, this is no response at all to the potential for confusion we are creating."
I no longer have a sense of humor, so you can rest assured that I am NOT making this up.
Why the heck was the Commission in such a big, hot hurry to get this done? Again, Ms. Nord explains:
"We are able to issue this NOR [notice of requirements] without following the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), with its notice and comment requirement, because the CPSIA allows avoiding the APA until August 14, 2011. After that, we must ask for and consider public input. Therefore, by putting out the NOR today, (1) we did not need to ask for and consider public comment, but (2) we did need to stay enforcement to prevent an unnecessary economic train wreck for the toy industry immediately prior to the holidays."
Does anyone remember that Bob Adler has said publicly at several Commission meetings and hearings that he hates stays and doesn't want to vote for any more stays? So this vote avoids a public hearing and public comment (takes time, increases scrutiny, can limited flexibility) and it also avoids another stay process to extend this misery. The Dems on the Commission almost always vote as a pack. Can you connect the dots?
Not surprisingly, Nancy Nord can connect dots:
"However, if we waited, as sound regulatory policy would direct, we would have had to seek comments from the public. Apparently this public input process is too much of a burden for the agency, so if we have the opportunity to skirt the requirement we are more than happy to do that. Like a teenager with dad’s car keys, we want to squeeze in as much joy-riding as we can before the curfew hits. Our hasty decision does not achieve a net safety benefit, but it unfortunately does make things much more difficult than they need to be for the companies that are trying to understand and follow the law. . . . With its vote today, the CPSC has once again opted for rash action over rational action, to the quick and easy over the thoughtful and transparent. We know how to do better rulemaking; unfortunately, the majority today decided to push the ‘quick’ button instead of the ‘pause and think’ button."
Another Commission decision, another shellacking of the poor fools left serving children's markets. After three years of this torture, I am just not surprised. When will our country wake up and notice this travesty?
Commissioner Nancy Nord points out that this decision was a compromise of a Hobson's Choice nature:
"I joined in the majority’s vote only because of a negotiated agreement that we would stay enforcement of the testing mandate through December 31, 2011. Had we not reached this compromise, the testing requirement would have landed in the market’s lap in mid-October, just as stores are making their final preparations for the holiday season and small toy manufacturers are at the peak of filling orders. While I am relieved that companies will now have some time to find their way through the maze we have created, I have major concerns about why we are rushing to impose testing requirements to a standard we know is about to change."
What was that last bit?
Ummm, well, the ASTM is actually updating the F963 standard right now. It will be done by year end. and as a result of the CPSC's wondrous action this week, it will be a mandatory rule to test to an obsolete standard on January 1, 2012 - and probably necessary to test to the new standard, too! Doesn't that sound great?! Now you can deliver TWO test reports when one might have sufficed. But think of how much safer kids will be if you produce two almost identical passing test reports rather than just one. Just think of it . . . .
Ms. Nord explains:
"When the stay of enforcement is lifted on January 1, 2012, most likely we will be requiring testing to an outdated standard. This puts manufacturers and retailers potentially in the situation of having to do redundant or perhaps irrelevant testing – testing mandated by the CPSC to the old standard and testing mandated by the marketplace to the new standard. Because we are taking the position that these testing requirements are rules and can only be changed (after August, 2011) by notice and comment rulemaking, there is virtually no way to get the new notice of requirements in place and labs accredited before the standard becomes effective. This puts toy manufacturers in an untenable position. Our response is that we will address these problems as they come up but, of course, in the real world, this is no response at all to the potential for confusion we are creating."
I no longer have a sense of humor, so you can rest assured that I am NOT making this up.
Why the heck was the Commission in such a big, hot hurry to get this done? Again, Ms. Nord explains:
"We are able to issue this NOR [notice of requirements] without following the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), with its notice and comment requirement, because the CPSIA allows avoiding the APA until August 14, 2011. After that, we must ask for and consider public input. Therefore, by putting out the NOR today, (1) we did not need to ask for and consider public comment, but (2) we did need to stay enforcement to prevent an unnecessary economic train wreck for the toy industry immediately prior to the holidays."
Does anyone remember that Bob Adler has said publicly at several Commission meetings and hearings that he hates stays and doesn't want to vote for any more stays? So this vote avoids a public hearing and public comment (takes time, increases scrutiny, can limited flexibility) and it also avoids another stay process to extend this misery. The Dems on the Commission almost always vote as a pack. Can you connect the dots?
Not surprisingly, Nancy Nord can connect dots:
"However, if we waited, as sound regulatory policy would direct, we would have had to seek comments from the public. Apparently this public input process is too much of a burden for the agency, so if we have the opportunity to skirt the requirement we are more than happy to do that. Like a teenager with dad’s car keys, we want to squeeze in as much joy-riding as we can before the curfew hits. Our hasty decision does not achieve a net safety benefit, but it unfortunately does make things much more difficult than they need to be for the companies that are trying to understand and follow the law. . . . With its vote today, the CPSC has once again opted for rash action over rational action, to the quick and easy over the thoughtful and transparent. We know how to do better rulemaking; unfortunately, the majority today decided to push the ‘quick’ button instead of the ‘pause and think’ button."
Another Commission decision, another shellacking of the poor fools left serving children's markets. After three years of this torture, I am just not surprised. When will our country wake up and notice this travesty?
Saturday, July 2, 2011
CPSIA - Oversight Hearing Set for July 6th
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding an oversight hearing on July 6th entitled "The Views of the Independent Agencies on Regulatory Reform" featuring CPSC Commissioners Bob Adler and Anne Northup. Other agencies will also be questioned (FCC, FERC and FTC).
Break out the popcorn!
Break out the popcorn!
Thursday, May 26, 2011
CPSIA - Tell me What You Think
With the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) stalled for the moment, it's a good time to reflect on where we are. I want to know what you think.
As I see it, this is a case of the unstoppable force colliding with the immovable object. Guess where we are located? At the point of collision. On one side, you have the Republicans. They have always decently listened to our issues and tried to help. Only after the 2010 Midterm elections were they in a position to get things done. With the power of the House majority behind them today, they have taken the political risk and shown the political will to craft a reasonable, measured and, frankly, surgical amendment of the acknowledged defective CPSIA.
Interesting sidelight: The legislative dynamic in Congress in 2008 seems long-forgotten. At that time, the Dems controlled both Houses and the dominant player was San Francisco's own Nancy Pelosi. The CPSIA was negotiated during a time when she and her minions ran the show. True, there was a Republican President BUT owing to the media frenzy at the time, no one was willing to take the political risk of asking any questions. Congressional hearings were controlled by the Dems in both Houses and stage-managed them to achieve the right "tone". Behind the scenes, the legislative negotiations between the parties at that time are best described as stiff-arms. The Republicans were jammed on many of the worst anti-business terms in the CPSIA and the sting never went away. This may be why they are so sympathetic to our cause today.
Please keep this in mind when the consumer groups and the Dems cluck about the 2008 super-majority, bipartisan vote on the original bill. In fact, the Repbulicans would tell you that they had no choice. Sounds convenient, perhaps, but if you talk to them, you will quickly see that they really mean it.
On the other side of this collision are the unscrupulous consumer groups and the Dems. This cabal works together for political advantage. The Dems, led by Henry Waxamn, see that they can use ECADA to score political points. They know that the Republicans don't want consumer groups to send out letters to their constituents saying that the incumbent voted to endanger children with lead in toys. I know it's sick, but that's reality in Washington. This may give you some perspective on why people say Washington is "broken". It is.
The Dems want to score points against the Republicans, and the fact that we are being squished in the process is a cost they are willing to bear. Get it, your demise is a cost they are willing to bear, all for the "greater good" of politically endangering the Republicans. Remember, Members of the House are continually running for office. It takes true courage to do the right thing when you are exposed to Machievellian forces like Mr. Waxman and his merry band of manipulators.
For this reason, I am fairly pessimistic about the prospects of this law. You get the same sinking feeling watching the talking heads on CNBC discuss the deficit and war over the national debt limit and hearing our national leaders talk blandly about the consequences of default on U.S. Treasuries. No big deal . . . . The politicians are playing with our lives, but act as though it is some of kabuki theater, Model UN gone mad. Do you think they are looking for a good grade, rather than doing the right thing for America?
I rule out that the Dems are totally ignorant of science. I rule out that they don't understand the data on injuries or what it means for their law. I think they simply don't care about these things. Their profession is politics, and all that matters is the taste left the mouths of voters. A bill easing up on businesses over lead in children's products has political weaknesses that the Dems prefer to exploit. The needs of our community are a secondary consideration. A distant second, too.
So . . . what do you think? What do you recommend in this hot stove league? Can we do anything about this tragi-comedy, can we save products, companies, markets and jobs before the consequences of inaction suffocates them all out of existence?
Let me know. Thanks.
As I see it, this is a case of the unstoppable force colliding with the immovable object. Guess where we are located? At the point of collision. On one side, you have the Republicans. They have always decently listened to our issues and tried to help. Only after the 2010 Midterm elections were they in a position to get things done. With the power of the House majority behind them today, they have taken the political risk and shown the political will to craft a reasonable, measured and, frankly, surgical amendment of the acknowledged defective CPSIA.
Interesting sidelight: The legislative dynamic in Congress in 2008 seems long-forgotten. At that time, the Dems controlled both Houses and the dominant player was San Francisco's own Nancy Pelosi. The CPSIA was negotiated during a time when she and her minions ran the show. True, there was a Republican President BUT owing to the media frenzy at the time, no one was willing to take the political risk of asking any questions. Congressional hearings were controlled by the Dems in both Houses and stage-managed them to achieve the right "tone". Behind the scenes, the legislative negotiations between the parties at that time are best described as stiff-arms. The Republicans were jammed on many of the worst anti-business terms in the CPSIA and the sting never went away. This may be why they are so sympathetic to our cause today.
Please keep this in mind when the consumer groups and the Dems cluck about the 2008 super-majority, bipartisan vote on the original bill. In fact, the Repbulicans would tell you that they had no choice. Sounds convenient, perhaps, but if you talk to them, you will quickly see that they really mean it.
On the other side of this collision are the unscrupulous consumer groups and the Dems. This cabal works together for political advantage. The Dems, led by Henry Waxamn, see that they can use ECADA to score political points. They know that the Republicans don't want consumer groups to send out letters to their constituents saying that the incumbent voted to endanger children with lead in toys. I know it's sick, but that's reality in Washington. This may give you some perspective on why people say Washington is "broken". It is.
The Dems want to score points against the Republicans, and the fact that we are being squished in the process is a cost they are willing to bear. Get it, your demise is a cost they are willing to bear, all for the "greater good" of politically endangering the Republicans. Remember, Members of the House are continually running for office. It takes true courage to do the right thing when you are exposed to Machievellian forces like Mr. Waxman and his merry band of manipulators.
For this reason, I am fairly pessimistic about the prospects of this law. You get the same sinking feeling watching the talking heads on CNBC discuss the deficit and war over the national debt limit and hearing our national leaders talk blandly about the consequences of default on U.S. Treasuries. No big deal . . . . The politicians are playing with our lives, but act as though it is some of kabuki theater, Model UN gone mad. Do you think they are looking for a good grade, rather than doing the right thing for America?
I rule out that the Dems are totally ignorant of science. I rule out that they don't understand the data on injuries or what it means for their law. I think they simply don't care about these things. Their profession is politics, and all that matters is the taste left the mouths of voters. A bill easing up on businesses over lead in children's products has political weaknesses that the Dems prefer to exploit. The needs of our community are a secondary consideration. A distant second, too.
So . . . what do you think? What do you recommend in this hot stove league? Can we do anything about this tragi-comedy, can we save products, companies, markets and jobs before the consequences of inaction suffocates them all out of existence?
Let me know. Thanks.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
CPSIA - AAP Publicity Campaign Tries to Block CPSIA Amendment With Half-Truths and Worse
The notorious American Academy of Pediatrics, a political organization masquerading as a scientific organization, is mounting a furious effort to stop Congress from amending its baby, the misconceived and defective CPSIA. Consistent with its previous output, the current campaign is filled with half-truths, misleading statements and innuendo. Facts and science take a back seat.
Here is their first blast email - with my replies noted. I will post more of their pap as it arrives.
As the Energy and Commerce Committee considers issues related to the safety of children's products, the American Academy of Pediatrics is pleased to provide background information about lead and its effect on child health. For more information, please contact Cindy Pellegrini (cpellegrini@aap.org) or Kristen Mizzi (kmizzi@aap.org) at the American Academy of Pediatrics at 202/347-8600.
Lead: Frequently Asked Questions
Lead is a soft, heavy and malleable metal that occurs naturally in trace amounts throughout the environment. Due to its abundance and easy workability, it has been used for thousands of years in plumbing, production of glass and crystal, and the manufacture of a wide range of consumer products. Following are some common questions about lead and its impact on children’s health.
What are the effects of lead exposure on children’s health?
Lead is well-established as a potent neurotoxin and a particular threat to the developing brain of the fetus, infant, and young child, with documented negative effects on behavior and permanent loss of IQ points. Lead causes permanent, irreversible brain damage. Even at very low levels, lead is known to cause loss of IQ and intellectual function. Children with elevated lead are more likely to have problems with attention deficit and reading disabilities, and to fail to graduate from high school. Investigators have identified associations between lead exposure and increased aggression, commission of crime and antisocial or delinquent behaviors. At high levels, lead exposure can be lethal.
@@@@RW - Lead is a known neurotoxin, yes, but exposure to lead does NOT erase IQ points inevitably or permanently. Common experience indicates this, and so does science. Here, the AAP is emphasizing that lead CAN do this, not that it WILL do so as a result of each exposure under all circumstances. The AAP cannot prove that lead ALWAYS has this effect nor can they link lead poisoning to the regulatory issue currently before Congress - namely, lead-in-substrate. Lead-in-paint is NOT at issue here. Elevated lead levels have NEVER been linked to lead-in-substrate - NEVER EVER ANYWHERE. Here the AAP is IMPLYING that lead can do this via lead-in-substrate, and relying on fear of the unknown (and a general societal ignorance of science) to achieve their political goal. Lead exposure from house paint, leaded gasoline and industrial pollution are the only sources of lead poisoning addressed or cited by the EPA or CDC.
Notably and shamefully, the AAP ignores or distorts its own scientific evidence in its venomous public relations campaign against the CPSIA amendment. As you will see from their later press releases, the AAP cites the following article: Chen A, Dietrich KN, Ware JH, Radcliffe J, Rogan WJ. IQ and blood lead from 2 to 7 years of age: are the effects in older children the residual of high blood lead concentrations in 2-year-olds? Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(5):597-601. They do not provide a link, but I have it for you here. In this article, the AAP's assertion that lead inevitably erases IQ points is exposed as conjectural, not a universal truth. The Abstract of the article makes it clear that no declarative statement linking lead-in-substrate to loss of IQ points can be made other than that it is theoretically possible:
“Increases in peak blood lead concentrations, which occur at 18–30 months of age in the United States, are thought to result in lower IQ scores at 4–6 years of age, when IQ becomes stable and measurable. Data from a prospective study conducted in Boston suggested that blood lead concentrations at 2 years of age were more predictive of cognitive deficits in older children than were later blood lead concentrations or blood lead concentrations measured concurrently with IQ. Therefore, cross-sectional associations between blood lead and IQ in school-age children have been widely interpreted as the residual effects of higher blood lead concentrations at an earlier age or the tendency of less intelligent children to ingest more leaded dust or paint chips, rather than as a causal relationship in older children. [Ed. Note - In other words, the lower IQs found in children may be due to the fact that it may effectively be a self-selecting group. Hmmm, interesting finding.] Here we analyze data from a clinical trial in which children were treated for elevated blood lead concentrations (20–44 μg/dL) at about 2 years of age and followed until 7 years of age with serial IQ tests and measurements of blood lead. We found that cross-sectional associations increased in strength as the children became older, whereas the relation between baseline blood lead and IQ attenuated. Peak blood lead level thus does not fully account for the observed association in older children between their lower blood lead concentrations and IQ. The effect of concurrent blood level on IQ may therefore be greater than currently believed.” [Emphasis added]
The study notes later: "In neither analysis did we see evidence in the overall group or in the placebo group that blood lead at 2 years of age determined IQ at 7 years of age. . . . Thus, although it is attractive to look at change in IQ by change in blood lead when considering the effect of an intervention, modeling those changes simultaneously is complex and can produce results that are difficult to interpret." [Emphasis added] In other settings, this might be labeled an ADMISSION. Don't expect any such thing from the AAP.
I am sure the AAP never expected anyone to actually read their footnotes . . . .
What happens to lead in the human body?
The human body treats lead like calcium. Once ingested, lead is absorbed into the bloodstream and travels throughout the body, including across the blood-brain barrier. Lead is bioaccumulative; a percentage of absorbed lead may be stored in the bones, where it is bound tightly and may be released over the course of many years. A portion of lead will also be excreted from the body. The amount of lead absorbed, excreted or stored in the bone may depend on a number of variables.
@@@@RW - This is a critical point, and again, the AAP relies on innuendo and fear to sell an implication as an accepted fact. Common experience, even among children with elevated lead levels, indicates that it is the persistence of high blood lead levels that put children at material risk of lead poisoning and IQ loss. Here's another quote from the above article CITED by the AAP: "Among children with both prior and concurrent blood lead concentrations below the corresponding medians as the reference group, those with prior blood lead concentrations at or above median but concurrent blood lead concentrations below the median did not have a decrease in school-age IQ score. In contrast, children with concurrent blood lead concentrations at or above the median had roughly similar IQ decreases, irrespective of their prior blood lead concentration." [Emphasis added]
In other words, studies show that children with high blood lead levels that are later reduced to the normal range do NOT have reduced IQ levels. HOWEVER, if the high blood lead levels are allowed to persist in school age children, lower IQ levels can be anticipated. Who are these kids with high blood lead levels at school age? That begs MANY questions. Don't expect the AAP to address them.
While it is undeniable that some lead accumulates in some form in the body, the real question is how much and what is the lasting impact of that lead. On that question, the AAP is silent and certainly makes no effort to carefully consider and translate its own cited studies. Taking the opposing position to the AAP is not the same thing as touting lead as a health food. Lead is dangerous - the question is how is it dangerous and in what forms. In this case, we are dealing with lead-in-substrate; it would be helpful to only present data relevant to that topic.
Are some children more vulnerable to lead and its effects?
Yes, but it may be difficult to identify an individual child’s risk. Lead absorption is known to vary based on factors like a child’s age and nutritional status. At least one gene has been identified that appears to raise a child’s risk. Scientists are still working to identify sensitive windows of development where lead exposure may be particularly damaging.
@@@@RW - For the sake of argument, let's assume this is unambiguously correct - kids vary in their susceptibility to lead poisoning. Some are more susceptible, some are less. [The AAP provides no data on this point here.] Then consider how many children are currently living on Earth (more than 2 billion). And then consider the effect of mortality rates and "aging out" on the total population of children in the regulated age group over a period of decades.
If kids fall along a spectrum of susceptibility to lead poisoning and therefore some are very sensitive to it, and taking into account the MANY billions of children in the regulated age group worldwide over the past 50 years, WHY aren't there any documented cases of lead poisoning from lead-in-substrate anywhere at any time under any living conditions or otherwise? Four Members of Congress asked consumer group representatives this question at the April 7th hearing - and didn't get an answer. It's a good question. The absence of victims suggests that the range of susceptibility is not as great as the AAP wants you to believe (as a result of its innuendo and implications). It also suggests (proves?) that lead-in-substrate is not a health hazard in children's products.
How does lead enter the body?
Lead can be ingested or inhaled. Children may swallow paint chips, small parts, or other items that contain lead. In addition, lead can be released from products when they are mouthed, sucked, or licked. Lead may be found in dust and soil, and is present in measurable quantities in our air. Lead cannot be absorbed through the skin, but it can be ingested if it gets on a child’s hands and he or she then puts their hands in their mouth.
@@@@@RW - A mixture of undeniable facts and misleading innuendo. The AAP mixes up known and serious sources of bio-available soluble lead (paint, dust and dirt) and immaterial and unproven sources pf insoluble lead (substrates). Their narrative is designed to manipulate you into reaching the unsupported conclusion that it's all the same by providing only half the story. If the AAP were restricted to talking JUST about lead-in-substrate, this paragraph might not be as powerful or fear-inducing. This is the basic error in the original CPSIA panic - lead-in-paint was equated with lead-in-substrate by reactive people like Dick Durbin. At that point, all was lost.
Does it matter how lead gets into the body?
No. Once lead enters the human body, its behavior is consistent.
@@@@RW - This is patently UNTRUE. Bio-available lead, namely soluble lead that can be absorbed into the bloodstream, has a very different effect than lead bound into substrate. Lead-in-substrate has never been linked to health problems but soluble lead (lead-in-paint, lead-in-dirt from leaded gasoline, lead-in-air from industrial pollution) has a clear linkage. This misstatement is either carelessness by the AAP or a flat out effort to mislead. Draw your own conclusion.
Will the size of a product, or the concentration of lead in it, have an effect on how much lead is absorbed?
Very small items can have high lead content, such as paint chips or dust. Trace amounts of lead, enough to cause measurable brain damage, are invisible to the naked eye. Exposure to higher concentrations of lead will, however, more quickly lead to higher blood lead levels in children.
@@@@RW - Again, the AAP uses lead-in-paint and dust to make a point in a question about lead-in-substrate. This is irrelevant and misleading. They want you to believe it's all one-and-the-same. The final sentence is also unsupported. A very high concentration of lead in hard plastic will NOT lead more "quickly" to higher blood levels than a lower concentration of SOLUBLE LEAD in another form (say, dust or lead-in-paint). This is plain baloney and is not supported by scientific findings or common experience. The AAP should be embarrassed.
What’s considered a high blood lead level?
Blood lead level is measured in micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL). In general, research currently indicates that 1 IQ point is lost every time a child’s blood lead level rises 1 mcg/dL at levels in the range of 3 to 10 mcg/dL. Above a level of 10 mcg/dL, IQ loss occurs somewhat more slowly, but other health consequences may appear, such as interference with iron metabolism. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that the source of lead exposure be investigated for any child with a blood lead level of 10 mcg/dL or higher.
@@@@RW - The AAP does not correlate actual data and science with their declarative statements and misleading remarks. Consider their claim that "[in] general, research currently indicates that 1 IQ point is lost every time a child’s blood lead level rises 1 mcg/dL at levels in the range of 3 to 10 mcg/dL" with the above-referenced scientific study cited by the AAP. The AAP's statement over-promises by a wide margin. Their clear implication is that high blood lead levels are like an IQ ratchet wrench but the literature speaks more carefully and notes many problems with reaching black-and-white conclusions. This may be why you did not seem to lose too many IQ points fastening lead fishing lures with your teeth as a kid. Someone once left a comment in my blog that they must have lost thousands of IQ points from lead over the years. This is what they meant.
I urge you to be suspicious of the assertions of pseudo-scientists who don't back up their big claims. If the claims are true, then there should be no reason not to trade in data. Hey, AAP, where are all the victims? Can you hear me yet???
What are current average blood lead levels in the United States?
The removal of lead from gasoline and paint in the 1970s resulted in a precipitous drop in child blood lead levels. Between 1976 and 1980, the average blood lead level for children age 1 to 5 years was 14.9 mcg/dL and blood lead levels over 40 mcg/dL were not uncommon. Today, the average blood lead level for children age 1 to 5 years is 1.5 mcg/dL (CDC NHANES, 2007-8). However, about one percent of children still have blood lead levels 10 mcg/dL or higher.
@@@@RW - This is the point Rep. Bono-Mack made at the February hearing. The last sentence is meant to scare Congress into believing that we do not know how children today come to suffer high blood lead levels - leaving the dark impression that it may be the fault of children's products. We do know the answer to this question, however - the EPA and CDC tell us that the causal agents are house paint, the consequences of leaded gasoline use and industrial pollution. It's certainly NOT lead-in-substrate. If it were, there might be at least ONE victim they could trot out. Those victims don't exist.
What is the treatment for elevated blood lead levels?
There is no treatment available for low to moderate blood lead levels. At levels of 45 mcg/dL and higher, physicians may recommend chelation, which involves administering a drug that binds to lead in the bloodstream. Chelation is not, however, effective at lower blood lead levels, and it carries risks of its own. Chelation does not reverse the damage done by lead to the developing brain.
@@@@RW - Interesting but irrelevant. This law is about lead-in-substrate. The AAP is not talking about a problem caused by lead-in-substrate here, so it's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. It sounds creepy, however, so I can understand why they felt it necessary to mention it.
What is a safe level of lead?
Scientists have not been able to identify a safe level of lead in the human body. Research shows that lead causes harm down to very low levels, below which the science remains unclear.
@@@@RW - Whether there is or is not a safe level for lead is not relevant here. What is relevant is whether lead-in-substrate can harm children. The AAP has never proven it, just asserted it. There is no evidence that lead-in-substrate can harm children in any material or detectable way. Until the consumer groups can offer up something more persuasive than their usual declarative statements, they should be kept out of the room.
For more information, please contact Cindy Pellegrini (cpellegrini@aap.org) or Kristen Mizzi (kmizzi@aap.org), at the American Academy of Pediatrics, 202/347-8600.
Here is their first blast email - with my replies noted. I will post more of their pap as it arrives.
As the Energy and Commerce Committee considers issues related to the safety of children's products, the American Academy of Pediatrics is pleased to provide background information about lead and its effect on child health. For more information, please contact Cindy Pellegrini (cpellegrini@aap.org) or Kristen Mizzi (kmizzi@aap.org) at the American Academy of Pediatrics at 202/347-8600.
Lead: Frequently Asked Questions
Lead is a soft, heavy and malleable metal that occurs naturally in trace amounts throughout the environment. Due to its abundance and easy workability, it has been used for thousands of years in plumbing, production of glass and crystal, and the manufacture of a wide range of consumer products. Following are some common questions about lead and its impact on children’s health.
What are the effects of lead exposure on children’s health?
Lead is well-established as a potent neurotoxin and a particular threat to the developing brain of the fetus, infant, and young child, with documented negative effects on behavior and permanent loss of IQ points. Lead causes permanent, irreversible brain damage. Even at very low levels, lead is known to cause loss of IQ and intellectual function. Children with elevated lead are more likely to have problems with attention deficit and reading disabilities, and to fail to graduate from high school. Investigators have identified associations between lead exposure and increased aggression, commission of crime and antisocial or delinquent behaviors. At high levels, lead exposure can be lethal.
@@@@RW - Lead is a known neurotoxin, yes, but exposure to lead does NOT erase IQ points inevitably or permanently. Common experience indicates this, and so does science. Here, the AAP is emphasizing that lead CAN do this, not that it WILL do so as a result of each exposure under all circumstances. The AAP cannot prove that lead ALWAYS has this effect nor can they link lead poisoning to the regulatory issue currently before Congress - namely, lead-in-substrate. Lead-in-paint is NOT at issue here. Elevated lead levels have NEVER been linked to lead-in-substrate - NEVER EVER ANYWHERE. Here the AAP is IMPLYING that lead can do this via lead-in-substrate, and relying on fear of the unknown (and a general societal ignorance of science) to achieve their political goal. Lead exposure from house paint, leaded gasoline and industrial pollution are the only sources of lead poisoning addressed or cited by the EPA or CDC.
Notably and shamefully, the AAP ignores or distorts its own scientific evidence in its venomous public relations campaign against the CPSIA amendment. As you will see from their later press releases, the AAP cites the following article: Chen A, Dietrich KN, Ware JH, Radcliffe J, Rogan WJ. IQ and blood lead from 2 to 7 years of age: are the effects in older children the residual of high blood lead concentrations in 2-year-olds? Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(5):597-601. They do not provide a link, but I have it for you here. In this article, the AAP's assertion that lead inevitably erases IQ points is exposed as conjectural, not a universal truth. The Abstract of the article makes it clear that no declarative statement linking lead-in-substrate to loss of IQ points can be made other than that it is theoretically possible:
“Increases in peak blood lead concentrations, which occur at 18–30 months of age in the United States, are thought to result in lower IQ scores at 4–6 years of age, when IQ becomes stable and measurable. Data from a prospective study conducted in Boston suggested that blood lead concentrations at 2 years of age were more predictive of cognitive deficits in older children than were later blood lead concentrations or blood lead concentrations measured concurrently with IQ. Therefore, cross-sectional associations between blood lead and IQ in school-age children have been widely interpreted as the residual effects of higher blood lead concentrations at an earlier age or the tendency of less intelligent children to ingest more leaded dust or paint chips, rather than as a causal relationship in older children. [Ed. Note - In other words, the lower IQs found in children may be due to the fact that it may effectively be a self-selecting group. Hmmm, interesting finding.] Here we analyze data from a clinical trial in which children were treated for elevated blood lead concentrations (20–44 μg/dL) at about 2 years of age and followed until 7 years of age with serial IQ tests and measurements of blood lead. We found that cross-sectional associations increased in strength as the children became older, whereas the relation between baseline blood lead and IQ attenuated. Peak blood lead level thus does not fully account for the observed association in older children between their lower blood lead concentrations and IQ. The effect of concurrent blood level on IQ may therefore be greater than currently believed.” [Emphasis added]
The study notes later: "In neither analysis did we see evidence in the overall group or in the placebo group that blood lead at 2 years of age determined IQ at 7 years of age. . . . Thus, although it is attractive to look at change in IQ by change in blood lead when considering the effect of an intervention, modeling those changes simultaneously is complex and can produce results that are difficult to interpret." [Emphasis added] In other settings, this might be labeled an ADMISSION. Don't expect any such thing from the AAP.
I am sure the AAP never expected anyone to actually read their footnotes . . . .
What happens to lead in the human body?
The human body treats lead like calcium. Once ingested, lead is absorbed into the bloodstream and travels throughout the body, including across the blood-brain barrier. Lead is bioaccumulative; a percentage of absorbed lead may be stored in the bones, where it is bound tightly and may be released over the course of many years. A portion of lead will also be excreted from the body. The amount of lead absorbed, excreted or stored in the bone may depend on a number of variables.
@@@@RW - This is a critical point, and again, the AAP relies on innuendo and fear to sell an implication as an accepted fact. Common experience, even among children with elevated lead levels, indicates that it is the persistence of high blood lead levels that put children at material risk of lead poisoning and IQ loss. Here's another quote from the above article CITED by the AAP: "Among children with both prior and concurrent blood lead concentrations below the corresponding medians as the reference group, those with prior blood lead concentrations at or above median but concurrent blood lead concentrations below the median did not have a decrease in school-age IQ score. In contrast, children with concurrent blood lead concentrations at or above the median had roughly similar IQ decreases, irrespective of their prior blood lead concentration." [Emphasis added]
In other words, studies show that children with high blood lead levels that are later reduced to the normal range do NOT have reduced IQ levels. HOWEVER, if the high blood lead levels are allowed to persist in school age children, lower IQ levels can be anticipated. Who are these kids with high blood lead levels at school age? That begs MANY questions. Don't expect the AAP to address them.
While it is undeniable that some lead accumulates in some form in the body, the real question is how much and what is the lasting impact of that lead. On that question, the AAP is silent and certainly makes no effort to carefully consider and translate its own cited studies. Taking the opposing position to the AAP is not the same thing as touting lead as a health food. Lead is dangerous - the question is how is it dangerous and in what forms. In this case, we are dealing with lead-in-substrate; it would be helpful to only present data relevant to that topic.
Are some children more vulnerable to lead and its effects?
Yes, but it may be difficult to identify an individual child’s risk. Lead absorption is known to vary based on factors like a child’s age and nutritional status. At least one gene has been identified that appears to raise a child’s risk. Scientists are still working to identify sensitive windows of development where lead exposure may be particularly damaging.
@@@@RW - For the sake of argument, let's assume this is unambiguously correct - kids vary in their susceptibility to lead poisoning. Some are more susceptible, some are less. [The AAP provides no data on this point here.] Then consider how many children are currently living on Earth (more than 2 billion). And then consider the effect of mortality rates and "aging out" on the total population of children in the regulated age group over a period of decades.
If kids fall along a spectrum of susceptibility to lead poisoning and therefore some are very sensitive to it, and taking into account the MANY billions of children in the regulated age group worldwide over the past 50 years, WHY aren't there any documented cases of lead poisoning from lead-in-substrate anywhere at any time under any living conditions or otherwise? Four Members of Congress asked consumer group representatives this question at the April 7th hearing - and didn't get an answer. It's a good question. The absence of victims suggests that the range of susceptibility is not as great as the AAP wants you to believe (as a result of its innuendo and implications). It also suggests (proves?) that lead-in-substrate is not a health hazard in children's products.
How does lead enter the body?
Lead can be ingested or inhaled. Children may swallow paint chips, small parts, or other items that contain lead. In addition, lead can be released from products when they are mouthed, sucked, or licked. Lead may be found in dust and soil, and is present in measurable quantities in our air. Lead cannot be absorbed through the skin, but it can be ingested if it gets on a child’s hands and he or she then puts their hands in their mouth.
@@@@@RW - A mixture of undeniable facts and misleading innuendo. The AAP mixes up known and serious sources of bio-available soluble lead (paint, dust and dirt) and immaterial and unproven sources pf insoluble lead (substrates). Their narrative is designed to manipulate you into reaching the unsupported conclusion that it's all the same by providing only half the story. If the AAP were restricted to talking JUST about lead-in-substrate, this paragraph might not be as powerful or fear-inducing. This is the basic error in the original CPSIA panic - lead-in-paint was equated with lead-in-substrate by reactive people like Dick Durbin. At that point, all was lost.
Does it matter how lead gets into the body?
No. Once lead enters the human body, its behavior is consistent.
@@@@RW - This is patently UNTRUE. Bio-available lead, namely soluble lead that can be absorbed into the bloodstream, has a very different effect than lead bound into substrate. Lead-in-substrate has never been linked to health problems but soluble lead (lead-in-paint, lead-in-dirt from leaded gasoline, lead-in-air from industrial pollution) has a clear linkage. This misstatement is either carelessness by the AAP or a flat out effort to mislead. Draw your own conclusion.
Will the size of a product, or the concentration of lead in it, have an effect on how much lead is absorbed?
Very small items can have high lead content, such as paint chips or dust. Trace amounts of lead, enough to cause measurable brain damage, are invisible to the naked eye. Exposure to higher concentrations of lead will, however, more quickly lead to higher blood lead levels in children.
@@@@RW - Again, the AAP uses lead-in-paint and dust to make a point in a question about lead-in-substrate. This is irrelevant and misleading. They want you to believe it's all one-and-the-same. The final sentence is also unsupported. A very high concentration of lead in hard plastic will NOT lead more "quickly" to higher blood levels than a lower concentration of SOLUBLE LEAD in another form (say, dust or lead-in-paint). This is plain baloney and is not supported by scientific findings or common experience. The AAP should be embarrassed.
What’s considered a high blood lead level?
Blood lead level is measured in micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL). In general, research currently indicates that 1 IQ point is lost every time a child’s blood lead level rises 1 mcg/dL at levels in the range of 3 to 10 mcg/dL. Above a level of 10 mcg/dL, IQ loss occurs somewhat more slowly, but other health consequences may appear, such as interference with iron metabolism. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that the source of lead exposure be investigated for any child with a blood lead level of 10 mcg/dL or higher.
@@@@RW - The AAP does not correlate actual data and science with their declarative statements and misleading remarks. Consider their claim that "[in] general, research currently indicates that 1 IQ point is lost every time a child’s blood lead level rises 1 mcg/dL at levels in the range of 3 to 10 mcg/dL" with the above-referenced scientific study cited by the AAP. The AAP's statement over-promises by a wide margin. Their clear implication is that high blood lead levels are like an IQ ratchet wrench but the literature speaks more carefully and notes many problems with reaching black-and-white conclusions. This may be why you did not seem to lose too many IQ points fastening lead fishing lures with your teeth as a kid. Someone once left a comment in my blog that they must have lost thousands of IQ points from lead over the years. This is what they meant.
I urge you to be suspicious of the assertions of pseudo-scientists who don't back up their big claims. If the claims are true, then there should be no reason not to trade in data. Hey, AAP, where are all the victims? Can you hear me yet???
What are current average blood lead levels in the United States?
The removal of lead from gasoline and paint in the 1970s resulted in a precipitous drop in child blood lead levels. Between 1976 and 1980, the average blood lead level for children age 1 to 5 years was 14.9 mcg/dL and blood lead levels over 40 mcg/dL were not uncommon. Today, the average blood lead level for children age 1 to 5 years is 1.5 mcg/dL (CDC NHANES, 2007-8). However, about one percent of children still have blood lead levels 10 mcg/dL or higher.
@@@@RW - This is the point Rep. Bono-Mack made at the February hearing. The last sentence is meant to scare Congress into believing that we do not know how children today come to suffer high blood lead levels - leaving the dark impression that it may be the fault of children's products. We do know the answer to this question, however - the EPA and CDC tell us that the causal agents are house paint, the consequences of leaded gasoline use and industrial pollution. It's certainly NOT lead-in-substrate. If it were, there might be at least ONE victim they could trot out. Those victims don't exist.
What is the treatment for elevated blood lead levels?
There is no treatment available for low to moderate blood lead levels. At levels of 45 mcg/dL and higher, physicians may recommend chelation, which involves administering a drug that binds to lead in the bloodstream. Chelation is not, however, effective at lower blood lead levels, and it carries risks of its own. Chelation does not reverse the damage done by lead to the developing brain.
@@@@RW - Interesting but irrelevant. This law is about lead-in-substrate. The AAP is not talking about a problem caused by lead-in-substrate here, so it's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. It sounds creepy, however, so I can understand why they felt it necessary to mention it.
What is a safe level of lead?
Scientists have not been able to identify a safe level of lead in the human body. Research shows that lead causes harm down to very low levels, below which the science remains unclear.
@@@@RW - Whether there is or is not a safe level for lead is not relevant here. What is relevant is whether lead-in-substrate can harm children. The AAP has never proven it, just asserted it. There is no evidence that lead-in-substrate can harm children in any material or detectable way. Until the consumer groups can offer up something more persuasive than their usual declarative statements, they should be kept out of the room.
For more information, please contact Cindy Pellegrini (cpellegrini@aap.org) or Kristen Mizzi (kmizzi@aap.org), at the American Academy of Pediatrics, 202/347-8600.
Monday, May 9, 2011
CPSIA - April 7th CPSIA Hearing Video (Unedited)
Watch this video to the end for a surprise! That is, if you have a spare seven hours . . . .
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
CPSIA - Dem CPSC Commissioner Bias Against Manufacturers MUST Be Stopped!
Before the April 7th House hearing on the CPSIA, the three Democratic CPSC Commissioners joined together to assert that in the absence of their "leadership" at the agency and their vaunted CPSIA law, manufacturers would be "dosing" children with lead in ever greater amounts. To be precise, they said they oppose "any change in the law that would lead to an increase in the doses of lead to which our children are exposed on a daily basis . . . ." According to them, changing the law means that "doses" of lead WILL increase (but leaving everything "as is", including their position at the helm, means that children will remain "safe"). In other words, they were warning Congress that "we" are planning to or will inevitably increase lead "doses" upon a change in the law.
Our company is a manufacturer of children's products, in particular educational materials and educational products. This scurrilous libel applies to me. I don't like it one bit, either.
Despite having previously raised this point in this space, I am still not quite sure people fully comprehend how offensive this action by Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore actually is. Of course, we all know the word "dosing" is offensive on its face. Everyone also knows that accusing me and my manufacturing peers of an absence of values and integrity, not to mention an actual present intent to harm children, is remarkably slanderous, unfair, untrue and completely unknowable. It's practically a blood libel. But what I don't think is clear is how grievously the three Democrats have violated a basic tenet of American social justice. in their panicky effort to appease consumer group zealots, the Dems have demonstrated a bias, a dyed-in-the-wool prejudice against an amorphous mass of people tied together only by false accusation.
It would be their undoing if they had used the same logic to attack just about anyone else.
Consider the following:
How would you feel IF Inez Tenenbaum said she was opposed to changes in CPSIA lead rules because she didn't want black people or gays to start "dosing" children with more lead?
or . . .
IF Bob Adler objected to changes in CPSIA lead rules because he said he wanted to prevent Jews from "dosing" children with more lead as they are wont to do?
or . . .
IF Thomas Moore pointed to Muslims as the principal danger in relaxing CPSIA lead rules?
The shock waves would reach tsunami heights. None of these people would still be working for the federal government, either. Public outrage would ride them out on a rail.
Of course, they didn't say any of these things (to my knowledge). Instead, the three Dem CPSC Commissioners stood shoulder-to-shoulder and simply said they can't abide the changes because manufacturers will "dose" children with lead. Can't trust manufacturers . . . .
This apparently is quite believable. The media bites down hard on the silly story, that's for sure. Consider Jeff Gelles of the Philadelphia Inquirer: "With bigger matters at stake, it was easy to overlook another drama unfolding last week: a little-noticed assault on the Consumer Product Safety Commission's efforts to improve children's safety and the transparency of its complaint-handling process. But it sadly fits right into the theme of a Republican Party eager to please its core constituencies - in this case, business groups that often bristle at any regulation, even ones designed to protect children from unsafe products."
If it's "obvious", it must be true, right? Yes, if you are biased . . . or a bigot . . . or gullible.
So apparently, it's "believable" when politicians abuse their power by accusing me of an intent to harm children (despite the fact that we have a virtually unblemished record of safety and I have devoted my business life to making children's lives better) - all because I am a member of a group called "manufacturers". Had they leveled the same accusation at me or at a group including me based on race, creed, color, gender, religion, sexual preference or some such, they would be banished from our government.
This is a dirty bias exposed, plain and simple. The Dems' accusation is also the height of cowardice, relying on political power to bludgeon a group of randomly-selected citizens for political gain. They know they have overwhelming power and are unlikely to be accountable for this malicious lie.
This isn't the first time Inez Tenenbaum has resorted to this kind of unscrupulous media and Congressional pandering. You may recall my outrage over her statement to ABC News on the first day of the Xmas selling season last year (September 30th) when she used the occasion of Mattel's 11 million unit recall to warn America against "manufacturers" who don't design in safety up front. In my blogpost entitled "Recall the CPSC", I questioned why Ms. Tenenbaum was warning American consumers about our company - after all, we are a manufacturer. What had we done to deserve this treatment from Ms. Tenenbaum? Had WE suffered a massive recall? Had WE injured children? Did she have ANY evidence that WE were doing a bad job of "[building] safety into the product from the very beginning"?
Nope, she didn't - she made that accusation without any cause to do so. Mattel erred (if they actually did), NOT US. This is called bias. Read her remarks but substitute in the words "Jews", "black people", "gays" or "Muslims" for "manufacturers" to see the effect clearly. She was WAAAAAY off-base, but who held her to account? No one. It's okay to have a bias against manufacturers.
What can we do about this? I think it's incumbent on Congress to do something about it. Let's be frank - Congress appointed these people and they are accountable for the government that we "enjoy". Is Congress ready to let bigotry and bias form the basis of our laws and our regulatory system? Is Congress ready to abandon its responsibility for oversight and to manage these rogues? How about a sense of basic fairness - there are huge numbers of manufacturers serving the American market. They are our neighbors, our friends, our relatives. Are we satisfied having a government run by people who HATE and DISTRUST manufacturers, think that "justice" involves taking away their due process and deciding cases before evidence is heard?
I sure hope somebody's listening. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM. It's time to end the reign of terror at the CPSC!
Our company is a manufacturer of children's products, in particular educational materials and educational products. This scurrilous libel applies to me. I don't like it one bit, either.
Despite having previously raised this point in this space, I am still not quite sure people fully comprehend how offensive this action by Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore actually is. Of course, we all know the word "dosing" is offensive on its face. Everyone also knows that accusing me and my manufacturing peers of an absence of values and integrity, not to mention an actual present intent to harm children, is remarkably slanderous, unfair, untrue and completely unknowable. It's practically a blood libel. But what I don't think is clear is how grievously the three Democrats have violated a basic tenet of American social justice. in their panicky effort to appease consumer group zealots, the Dems have demonstrated a bias, a dyed-in-the-wool prejudice against an amorphous mass of people tied together only by false accusation.
It would be their undoing if they had used the same logic to attack just about anyone else.
Consider the following:
How would you feel IF Inez Tenenbaum said she was opposed to changes in CPSIA lead rules because she didn't want black people or gays to start "dosing" children with more lead?
or . . .
IF Bob Adler objected to changes in CPSIA lead rules because he said he wanted to prevent Jews from "dosing" children with more lead as they are wont to do?
or . . .
IF Thomas Moore pointed to Muslims as the principal danger in relaxing CPSIA lead rules?
The shock waves would reach tsunami heights. None of these people would still be working for the federal government, either. Public outrage would ride them out on a rail.
Of course, they didn't say any of these things (to my knowledge). Instead, the three Dem CPSC Commissioners stood shoulder-to-shoulder and simply said they can't abide the changes because manufacturers will "dose" children with lead. Can't trust manufacturers . . . .
This apparently is quite believable. The media bites down hard on the silly story, that's for sure. Consider Jeff Gelles of the Philadelphia Inquirer: "With bigger matters at stake, it was easy to overlook another drama unfolding last week: a little-noticed assault on the Consumer Product Safety Commission's efforts to improve children's safety and the transparency of its complaint-handling process. But it sadly fits right into the theme of a Republican Party eager to please its core constituencies - in this case, business groups that often bristle at any regulation, even ones designed to protect children from unsafe products."
If it's "obvious", it must be true, right? Yes, if you are biased . . . or a bigot . . . or gullible.
So apparently, it's "believable" when politicians abuse their power by accusing me of an intent to harm children (despite the fact that we have a virtually unblemished record of safety and I have devoted my business life to making children's lives better) - all because I am a member of a group called "manufacturers". Had they leveled the same accusation at me or at a group including me based on race, creed, color, gender, religion, sexual preference or some such, they would be banished from our government.
This is a dirty bias exposed, plain and simple. The Dems' accusation is also the height of cowardice, relying on political power to bludgeon a group of randomly-selected citizens for political gain. They know they have overwhelming power and are unlikely to be accountable for this malicious lie.
This isn't the first time Inez Tenenbaum has resorted to this kind of unscrupulous media and Congressional pandering. You may recall my outrage over her statement to ABC News on the first day of the Xmas selling season last year (September 30th) when she used the occasion of Mattel's 11 million unit recall to warn America against "manufacturers" who don't design in safety up front. In my blogpost entitled "Recall the CPSC", I questioned why Ms. Tenenbaum was warning American consumers about our company - after all, we are a manufacturer. What had we done to deserve this treatment from Ms. Tenenbaum? Had WE suffered a massive recall? Had WE injured children? Did she have ANY evidence that WE were doing a bad job of "[building] safety into the product from the very beginning"?
Nope, she didn't - she made that accusation without any cause to do so. Mattel erred (if they actually did), NOT US. This is called bias. Read her remarks but substitute in the words "Jews", "black people", "gays" or "Muslims" for "manufacturers" to see the effect clearly. She was WAAAAAY off-base, but who held her to account? No one. It's okay to have a bias against manufacturers.
What can we do about this? I think it's incumbent on Congress to do something about it. Let's be frank - Congress appointed these people and they are accountable for the government that we "enjoy". Is Congress ready to let bigotry and bias form the basis of our laws and our regulatory system? Is Congress ready to abandon its responsibility for oversight and to manage these rogues? How about a sense of basic fairness - there are huge numbers of manufacturers serving the American market. They are our neighbors, our friends, our relatives. Are we satisfied having a government run by people who HATE and DISTRUST manufacturers, think that "justice" involves taking away their due process and deciding cases before evidence is heard?
I sure hope somebody's listening. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM. It's time to end the reign of terror at the CPSC!
Sunday, April 10, 2011
CPSIA - CPSIA Amendment Process
I have been asked to explain how this week's hearing relates to a "process" leading to a CPSIA amendment someday. Good question.
I am certainly in no position to do anything more than give you my opinion. At the moment, the House Republicans have floated a draft (and still incomplete) amendment of the CPSIA. This is the third such major amendment try, but the first by the Republicans. The prior two amendments proposed by Henry Waxman died in the last Congress. You may recall many bills that have been proposed by various people to address various elements of the law. None of those bills have moved - they're basically DOA but perhaps some current bill, like Ms. Klobuchar's bill in the Senate, would eventually gain some traction.
Next steps include completion of the CPSIA amendment and a vote on it in the House. The amendment must gain a majority vote in the entire House after it passes out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As usual, the Committee will seek a bipartisan approach if at all possible. The path forward is not clear in the House at this point.
Assuming that the bill passes out of the House, then the bill proceeds to the Senate. Will they vote on it, propose their own version, or let it die? Your guess is as good as mine. There are definitely Senators left singing the old Waxman tune, we NEED this bill to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Will they EVER relent? Will they ALL relent (that's important in the Senate)? Stay tuned to find out.
If the Senate approves its own version of the bill, a conference committee will form to negotiate a common bill for both Houses to approve. That's probably where the action will take place, far from your intruding eyes. Presumably, Mr. Obama will be consulted and his agreement secured. Mr. Obama wrote part of the CPSIA. Ugh . . . .
The last step is for Mr. Obama to sign the bill.
We are not exactly dancing in the end zone yet, although we've made progress. There will be more action to come.
I am certainly in no position to do anything more than give you my opinion. At the moment, the House Republicans have floated a draft (and still incomplete) amendment of the CPSIA. This is the third such major amendment try, but the first by the Republicans. The prior two amendments proposed by Henry Waxman died in the last Congress. You may recall many bills that have been proposed by various people to address various elements of the law. None of those bills have moved - they're basically DOA but perhaps some current bill, like Ms. Klobuchar's bill in the Senate, would eventually gain some traction.
Next steps include completion of the CPSIA amendment and a vote on it in the House. The amendment must gain a majority vote in the entire House after it passes out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As usual, the Committee will seek a bipartisan approach if at all possible. The path forward is not clear in the House at this point.
Assuming that the bill passes out of the House, then the bill proceeds to the Senate. Will they vote on it, propose their own version, or let it die? Your guess is as good as mine. There are definitely Senators left singing the old Waxman tune, we NEED this bill to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Will they EVER relent? Will they ALL relent (that's important in the Senate)? Stay tuned to find out.
If the Senate approves its own version of the bill, a conference committee will form to negotiate a common bill for both Houses to approve. That's probably where the action will take place, far from your intruding eyes. Presumably, Mr. Obama will be consulted and his agreement secured. Mr. Obama wrote part of the CPSIA. Ugh . . . .
The last step is for Mr. Obama to sign the bill.
We are not exactly dancing in the end zone yet, although we've made progress. There will be more action to come.
CPSIA - Oh No, They Didn't Go Away
As you may have heard, the federal government stuck around this week. No shutdown, which means that the CPSC is still busy, busy, busy protecting us. We should all appreciate it. At least that's what they tell us.
So why do I have such a bad attitude? How would you feel if the people running this federal agency told Congress in writing that you were intent on poisoning children. They didn't accuse me by name, or you, but instead accused us all together. Perhaps they think we are all intent on doing it. They said, clear as day, that we were ready and waiting to "dose" children with lead. The purposefully-chosen word "dose" suggests an act of volition, something intentional and sinister. The word connotes an unwitting victim. Bottom line, they are saying that we are perversely stalking innocent children unaware of their "fate". Really, really nice. Especially by a Chairman of the CPSC and her cohorts holding a majority vote controlling the agency.
Those of us in business, we tend to take our reputation seriously. It is deeply offensive to be insulted by strangers, people unable to know us or our intentions. I don't think the word "slander" is too far a stretch. How can the three Democrats (Inez Tenenbaum, Bob Adler and Thomas Moore) be so arrogant to stand before Congress and assert that they (and their law) stand between the American consumer and infamy? I simply can't say. It really is disgusting.
Not only is this is a devastating insult, but it is frankly a crushing blow to the FUTURE restoration of trust in this agency. NEVER previously has there been such a broadcasting of intentions, a profound and dirty bias against manufacturers and in favor of media pandering. Whether they are taking instructions from someone off-stage or not, their letter to Congress confirms that they cannot be trusted to be fair or open-minded. The three Democrats are certainly not a government for all of us because manufacturers and retailers are now frozen out of the community. The Dems have pushed them out. This is not an American government anyone would want.
What will Congress do? Rumorville has it that I am not the only one whose jaw hit the ground and whose blood began to boil when they read the Dems' letter. Some people around town actually care about the fairness of government. Some people believe in fairness and are sensitive to any odor of ignorant prejudice, minds made up before evidence is presented. Some people believe government must be accountable. Some people believe there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.
The Dems put themselves in the soup. G-d willing, they will be held to account. Stay tuned.
So why do I have such a bad attitude? How would you feel if the people running this federal agency told Congress in writing that you were intent on poisoning children. They didn't accuse me by name, or you, but instead accused us all together. Perhaps they think we are all intent on doing it. They said, clear as day, that we were ready and waiting to "dose" children with lead. The purposefully-chosen word "dose" suggests an act of volition, something intentional and sinister. The word connotes an unwitting victim. Bottom line, they are saying that we are perversely stalking innocent children unaware of their "fate". Really, really nice. Especially by a Chairman of the CPSC and her cohorts holding a majority vote controlling the agency.
Those of us in business, we tend to take our reputation seriously. It is deeply offensive to be insulted by strangers, people unable to know us or our intentions. I don't think the word "slander" is too far a stretch. How can the three Democrats (Inez Tenenbaum, Bob Adler and Thomas Moore) be so arrogant to stand before Congress and assert that they (and their law) stand between the American consumer and infamy? I simply can't say. It really is disgusting.
Not only is this is a devastating insult, but it is frankly a crushing blow to the FUTURE restoration of trust in this agency. NEVER previously has there been such a broadcasting of intentions, a profound and dirty bias against manufacturers and in favor of media pandering. Whether they are taking instructions from someone off-stage or not, their letter to Congress confirms that they cannot be trusted to be fair or open-minded. The three Democrats are certainly not a government for all of us because manufacturers and retailers are now frozen out of the community. The Dems have pushed them out. This is not an American government anyone would want.
What will Congress do? Rumorville has it that I am not the only one whose jaw hit the ground and whose blood began to boil when they read the Dems' letter. Some people around town actually care about the fairness of government. Some people believe in fairness and are sensitive to any odor of ignorant prejudice, minds made up before evidence is presented. Some people believe government must be accountable. Some people believe there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.
The Dems put themselves in the soup. G-d willing, they will be held to account. Stay tuned.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
CPSIA - Three Dem CPSC Commissioners Accuse Industry (You) of Dosing Kids with Lead
In a revolting display of cowardly fear mongering, the three Democratic CPSC Commissioners yesterday wrote the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade to protest the proposed CPSIA amendment. In this letter, in defense of the lead-in-substrate provisions, the Dems sow fear by suggesting what you might do:
"The CPSIA set one of the most protective lead limits for children's products in the world. The public health community continues to hold its overwhelming consensus: There is no safe level of lead. We oppose any change in the law that would lead to an increase in the DOSES OF LEAD to which our children are exposed on a daily basis, particularly when the marketplace has for the most part already adjusted to lower lead levels and is well on its way to getting the lead out of children's products." [Emphasis added]
Hmmmm. Apparently we evil toymakers, sinister educational product makers, monstrous t-shirt and jeans producers, venal shoemakers, diabolic rhinestone merchants, demonic ATV purveyors, fiendish motocross enthusiasts, vile vending machine operators, corrupt jewelers, slimy resale shop owners, worthless book publishers, perverse pen companies, satanic carpet weavers - we all are just waiting for the CPSC to look the other way so we can "dose" children with lead.
This kind of asinine accusation normally would be something to deride and lampoon in this space, but in this case frankly, it's not at all funny. Here you have three CPSC Commissioners with a majority vote (including Chairman Inez Tenenbaum) going national with serious, maligning insults of our values and our integrity. They can hardly restrain themselves - they go further to assert that we have only "for the most part adjusted" to the new rules - you know, by firing people, cutting products, withdrawing from markets.
This is your "leadership" on the Commission. I want to vomit.
CPSC Commissioners are appointed by the President. I wonder if a better word is "planted".
The letters make clear where children have lead exposure risk. Lead in D.C. tap water, no, that's fine - what can anybody do about THAT? House paint, environmental sources - nah! No, the real problem is industry and its "dosing" through children's products. The last line of defense is the CPSIA. The three Dem Commissioners put it succinctly - change the law and poison children. Better to over-regulate than under-regulate because it's a zero-sum game, right?
As usual, the Dems don't mention that THEY CAN'T PRODUCE EVEN ONE INJURY VICTIM FROM LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS. There are more than 50 million children in this country in the regulated age group and no one can find a single injury victim - EVER. Nonetheless they apparently think it's perfectly fine to wag their fingers at us and accuse us of unspeakable acts.
Who'd say anything, anyhow? Won't get fooled again. . . .
I guess we have a hint here how these people might vote on the technological feasibility of 100 ppm. Giving them an extra year to lower the boom won't do anything to protect my employees or my customers - they are TELLING US that the die is cast. That's because you and I apparently want to "dose" children with lead the first chance we get! They reinforce the hyperbolic tone by standing pat on the age limits under the CPSIA - we NEED the 12 year old limit. Why? Because Mommy says so. Junk science to the rescue! We can't have kids eating their ATVs, can we?
Does anyone wonder why trust in this agency is destroyed beyond repair? Who in the business community would ever expect to get a fair shake from these consumer group front men? Government for all us? Hardly.
Defending themselves on a weak point, the Dems contend they are sympathetic to small business. Myself, I can't measure commitment by limp and syrupy words of consolation - I look at what they do, not what they say. These people have done precisely ZIPPO for small business after three years of begging, pleading, screaming. I am tired of hearing about how much they CARE about small business. [Guess who drafted the letter?] As a friend of mine used to say, it's bullpucky.
Here's a shocker: I actually agree with one thing these people say - that parents deserve safe products regardless of who makes them. Of course that makes sense (no one cares whether a tortfeasor is a big company or a small company) which is why I want sensible standards that apply equally to everyone. In this case, the government should stop telling us how to run our businesses. Make a reasonable set of standards based on a real and defined "substantial product hazard" standard and go from there. This is parent-friendly and quite workable for small business.
Of course, my suggestion would make these Democrats much less important and certainly less heroic. Their letter makes clear who "saved" America - the CPSIA, the Dems in Congress and the Dems on the Commission. They're the ones who really CARE.
Won't get fooled again . . . .
Fittingly, the letter wraps up with words dripping with insincerity: "Nevertheless, while it is true that no one, including us, wishes to over-regulate, similarly we cannot support under-protecting the American consumer, particularly our nation's children."
In other words, the Democrat Commissioners are daring Congress to loosen the nose around out necks and are prepared to blame them if anything goes wrong. This also provides cover for zealot Senators who will make sure you have a great opportunity to go bankrupt or remain under the thumb of their out-of-control agency. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say it looks like a conspiracy - Democrats against you.
It would be wrong to call this letter disillusioning. That happened a long time ago. It also conveys little new information. Anyone truly shocked by this letter by these authors has been asleep at the wheel for the last three years. This merely confirms or updates what we already knew. I don't have a solution to people like this running the show. I can't do anything about it. One of them, Thomas Moore, is now about six months past the end of his term. Maybe Congress forgot about him.
Pay attention today. The stakes are high and getting higher. The CPSC is working against you. We will need keep fighting to survive.
"The CPSIA set one of the most protective lead limits for children's products in the world. The public health community continues to hold its overwhelming consensus: There is no safe level of lead. We oppose any change in the law that would lead to an increase in the DOSES OF LEAD to which our children are exposed on a daily basis, particularly when the marketplace has for the most part already adjusted to lower lead levels and is well on its way to getting the lead out of children's products." [Emphasis added]
Hmmmm. Apparently we evil toymakers, sinister educational product makers, monstrous t-shirt and jeans producers, venal shoemakers, diabolic rhinestone merchants, demonic ATV purveyors, fiendish motocross enthusiasts, vile vending machine operators, corrupt jewelers, slimy resale shop owners, worthless book publishers, perverse pen companies, satanic carpet weavers - we all are just waiting for the CPSC to look the other way so we can "dose" children with lead.
This kind of asinine accusation normally would be something to deride and lampoon in this space, but in this case frankly, it's not at all funny. Here you have three CPSC Commissioners with a majority vote (including Chairman Inez Tenenbaum) going national with serious, maligning insults of our values and our integrity. They can hardly restrain themselves - they go further to assert that we have only "for the most part adjusted" to the new rules - you know, by firing people, cutting products, withdrawing from markets.
This is your "leadership" on the Commission. I want to vomit.
CPSC Commissioners are appointed by the President. I wonder if a better word is "planted".
The letters make clear where children have lead exposure risk. Lead in D.C. tap water, no, that's fine - what can anybody do about THAT? House paint, environmental sources - nah! No, the real problem is industry and its "dosing" through children's products. The last line of defense is the CPSIA. The three Dem Commissioners put it succinctly - change the law and poison children. Better to over-regulate than under-regulate because it's a zero-sum game, right?
As usual, the Dems don't mention that THEY CAN'T PRODUCE EVEN ONE INJURY VICTIM FROM LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS. There are more than 50 million children in this country in the regulated age group and no one can find a single injury victim - EVER. Nonetheless they apparently think it's perfectly fine to wag their fingers at us and accuse us of unspeakable acts.
Who'd say anything, anyhow? Won't get fooled again. . . .
I guess we have a hint here how these people might vote on the technological feasibility of 100 ppm. Giving them an extra year to lower the boom won't do anything to protect my employees or my customers - they are TELLING US that the die is cast. That's because you and I apparently want to "dose" children with lead the first chance we get! They reinforce the hyperbolic tone by standing pat on the age limits under the CPSIA - we NEED the 12 year old limit. Why? Because Mommy says so. Junk science to the rescue! We can't have kids eating their ATVs, can we?
Does anyone wonder why trust in this agency is destroyed beyond repair? Who in the business community would ever expect to get a fair shake from these consumer group front men? Government for all us? Hardly.
Defending themselves on a weak point, the Dems contend they are sympathetic to small business. Myself, I can't measure commitment by limp and syrupy words of consolation - I look at what they do, not what they say. These people have done precisely ZIPPO for small business after three years of begging, pleading, screaming. I am tired of hearing about how much they CARE about small business. [Guess who drafted the letter?] As a friend of mine used to say, it's bullpucky.
Here's a shocker: I actually agree with one thing these people say - that parents deserve safe products regardless of who makes them. Of course that makes sense (no one cares whether a tortfeasor is a big company or a small company) which is why I want sensible standards that apply equally to everyone. In this case, the government should stop telling us how to run our businesses. Make a reasonable set of standards based on a real and defined "substantial product hazard" standard and go from there. This is parent-friendly and quite workable for small business.
Of course, my suggestion would make these Democrats much less important and certainly less heroic. Their letter makes clear who "saved" America - the CPSIA, the Dems in Congress and the Dems on the Commission. They're the ones who really CARE.
Won't get fooled again . . . .
Fittingly, the letter wraps up with words dripping with insincerity: "Nevertheless, while it is true that no one, including us, wishes to over-regulate, similarly we cannot support under-protecting the American consumer, particularly our nation's children."
In other words, the Democrat Commissioners are daring Congress to loosen the nose around out necks and are prepared to blame them if anything goes wrong. This also provides cover for zealot Senators who will make sure you have a great opportunity to go bankrupt or remain under the thumb of their out-of-control agency. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say it looks like a conspiracy - Democrats against you.
It would be wrong to call this letter disillusioning. That happened a long time ago. It also conveys little new information. Anyone truly shocked by this letter by these authors has been asleep at the wheel for the last three years. This merely confirms or updates what we already knew. I don't have a solution to people like this running the show. I can't do anything about it. One of them, Thomas Moore, is now about six months past the end of his term. Maybe Congress forgot about him.
Pay attention today. The stakes are high and getting higher. The CPSC is working against you. We will need keep fighting to survive.
CPSIA - Witness List for April 7th CPSIA Amendment Hearing
Memo to Members of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade:
When you listen to Dr. Dana Best fling around numbers tomorrow, please remember that "bazillions" is not a real number. When she asserts that there are possibly "millions" of injured children from lead-in-substrate, please demand real, auditable data!
The Witnesses:
Panel 1
Mr. Robert Jay Howell
Assistant Executive Director
Hazard Identification and Reduction
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Dr. Barbara D. Beck, Ph.D., DABT, FATS
Principal
Gradient
Dr. Dana Best, MD, MPH, FAAP
American Academy of Pediatrics
Panel 2
Ms. Erika Z. Jones
Partner
Mayer Brown
On Behalf of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association
Mr. Paul C. Vitrano
General Counsel
Motorcycle Industry Council Principal
Ms. Sheila A. Millar
Partner
Keller and Heckman LLP
Caroline Cox
Research Director
Center for Environmental Health
Panel 3
Mr. Frederick Locker
Locker Greenberg & Brainin PC
Mr. Charles A. Samuels
Member
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mr. Dan Marshall
Vice President, Handmade Toy Alliance
Co-Owner, Peapods Natural Toys & Baby Care
Ms. Rachel Weintraub
Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel
Consumer Federation of America
When you listen to Dr. Dana Best fling around numbers tomorrow, please remember that "bazillions" is not a real number. When she asserts that there are possibly "millions" of injured children from lead-in-substrate, please demand real, auditable data!
The Witnesses:
Panel 1
Mr. Robert Jay Howell
Assistant Executive Director
Hazard Identification and Reduction
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Dr. Barbara D. Beck, Ph.D., DABT, FATS
Principal
Gradient
Dr. Dana Best, MD, MPH, FAAP
American Academy of Pediatrics
Panel 2
Ms. Erika Z. Jones
Partner
Mayer Brown
On Behalf of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association
Mr. Paul C. Vitrano
General Counsel
Motorcycle Industry Council Principal
Ms. Sheila A. Millar
Partner
Keller and Heckman LLP
Caroline Cox
Research Director
Center for Environmental Health
Panel 3
Mr. Frederick Locker
Locker Greenberg & Brainin PC
Mr. Charles A. Samuels
Member
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mr. Dan Marshall
Vice President, Handmade Toy Alliance
Co-Owner, Peapods Natural Toys & Baby Care
Ms. Rachel Weintraub
Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel
Consumer Federation of America
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
CPSIA - Majority Staff Memo on CPSIA Amendment for April 7th Hearing
The Majority Staff memo on the CPSIA hearing was sent out to members of the committee to explain the CPSIA amendment ahead of the hearing. You can read it HERE
CPSIA - The Hill Publishes My Op-Ed on CPSIA Hearings
Enough already! It’s time to amend the lead law
By Richard Woldenberg
04/06/11 02:51 PM ET
After almost three years of bickering over the law regulating lead in children’s products, a comprehensive amendment is finally up for discussion in the House of Representatives. It’s about time.
In August 2008, the 110th Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in an overreaction to notorious lead-in-paint toy recalls. Claiming that weak regulation “caused” these violations of law (lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades), consumer groups coined a slogan to sum it up: “There is NO safe level of lead”. Stooping low to sow fear, they have even warned the CPSC about the perils of bicycle licking and playing brass instruments in the school band. Their lead slogan has been repeated endlessly to justify a stifling, over-reaching law which has accomplished little but damaged many fine companies, killed jobs and depressed markets. The CPSIA deems companies "guilty until proven innocent" by forcing them to test products over and over again at huge expense to prove compliance with the new lead standard.
The screams of law-abiding companies have been consistently ignored by CPSC as it has implemented ever-harsher regulations under the new law. The safety agency is even considering ratcheting down permissible lead from 300 ppm to the unimaginably low 100 ppm level. Economics be damned!
In contrast to the claims of CPSIA backers warning that the sky is falling, CPSC recall records list only four alleged lead injuries from 1999 to 2010 among the nation’s 50+ million young children. Advocates have never produced victim case histories to justify the draconian rules and simply wag their fingers at anyone daring to question their cherished law.
As directed by Congress, the CPSC has dutifully banned the sale of rhinestones to children, ended the era of youth model ATVs and forbidden the use of brass bushings in toy car wheel assemblies. Why? They might emit a single atom of lead! The supporters of the law justify these extreme actions on the grounds that lead is a poison but somehow overlook that kids are exposed to more lead every day from eating a snack, drinking water or playing outside in the fresh air. The descent into regulation purgatory is down a slippery slope.
Being governed by this law can give you fits. For example, to be able to continue to legally sell our geology kits to schools (featuring real rocks!), we must give this warning: “Caution: Federal law requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed.” We don’t relish looking like idiots at the hand of the U.S. government.
We’re certainly not alone in feeling the pain. The law affects many safe products spanning the U.S. economy, like books, t-shirts and shoes, ATVs and dirt bikes, bicycles, donated or resale goods, musical instruments, pens and educational products. The number of companies touched by the CPSIA is in the many thousands.
The CPSIA was written in response to failings of big companies, but hammers small and medium-sized companies with particular vengeance. Our small business has already lost customers who now feel that selling toys is too confusing or too much of a “hassle”. Market shrinkage courtesy of the federal government is our new reality. The technical rules and ever-changing legal requirements are beyond the capability of all but the most highly-trained quality managers or lawyers to comprehend. For this reason, small businesses bear the greatest risk of liability under the law, despite being responsible for almost no injuries from lead in the last decade. The double whammy of massive new regulatory obligations and the prospect of devastating liability are driving small businesses out of the children’s market.
Our family business makes educational products, and we work tirelessly to ensure that our products are safe. We have tested our products for decades now. None of us could ever tolerate lead poisoning. Nevertheless, I believe that our company should not be crushed by our government over some consumer groups' phobias and junk science.
The 112th Congress should know better after years of hearings, comment letters, op-eds, pleading and even direct appeals from the five CPSC Commissioners. To quote The Who, "We won’t get fooled again." If Congress is serious about fixing our economy and creating jobs, it’s time to lift the yoke of the CPSIA and set the children’s product market free once again.
Richard Woldenberg is Chairman of Learning Resources, Inc.
By Richard Woldenberg
04/06/11 02:51 PM ET
After almost three years of bickering over the law regulating lead in children’s products, a comprehensive amendment is finally up for discussion in the House of Representatives. It’s about time.
In August 2008, the 110th Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in an overreaction to notorious lead-in-paint toy recalls. Claiming that weak regulation “caused” these violations of law (lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades), consumer groups coined a slogan to sum it up: “There is NO safe level of lead”. Stooping low to sow fear, they have even warned the CPSC about the perils of bicycle licking and playing brass instruments in the school band. Their lead slogan has been repeated endlessly to justify a stifling, over-reaching law which has accomplished little but damaged many fine companies, killed jobs and depressed markets. The CPSIA deems companies "guilty until proven innocent" by forcing them to test products over and over again at huge expense to prove compliance with the new lead standard.
The screams of law-abiding companies have been consistently ignored by CPSC as it has implemented ever-harsher regulations under the new law. The safety agency is even considering ratcheting down permissible lead from 300 ppm to the unimaginably low 100 ppm level. Economics be damned!
In contrast to the claims of CPSIA backers warning that the sky is falling, CPSC recall records list only four alleged lead injuries from 1999 to 2010 among the nation’s 50+ million young children. Advocates have never produced victim case histories to justify the draconian rules and simply wag their fingers at anyone daring to question their cherished law.
As directed by Congress, the CPSC has dutifully banned the sale of rhinestones to children, ended the era of youth model ATVs and forbidden the use of brass bushings in toy car wheel assemblies. Why? They might emit a single atom of lead! The supporters of the law justify these extreme actions on the grounds that lead is a poison but somehow overlook that kids are exposed to more lead every day from eating a snack, drinking water or playing outside in the fresh air. The descent into regulation purgatory is down a slippery slope.
Being governed by this law can give you fits. For example, to be able to continue to legally sell our geology kits to schools (featuring real rocks!), we must give this warning: “Caution: Federal law requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed.” We don’t relish looking like idiots at the hand of the U.S. government.
We’re certainly not alone in feeling the pain. The law affects many safe products spanning the U.S. economy, like books, t-shirts and shoes, ATVs and dirt bikes, bicycles, donated or resale goods, musical instruments, pens and educational products. The number of companies touched by the CPSIA is in the many thousands.
The CPSIA was written in response to failings of big companies, but hammers small and medium-sized companies with particular vengeance. Our small business has already lost customers who now feel that selling toys is too confusing or too much of a “hassle”. Market shrinkage courtesy of the federal government is our new reality. The technical rules and ever-changing legal requirements are beyond the capability of all but the most highly-trained quality managers or lawyers to comprehend. For this reason, small businesses bear the greatest risk of liability under the law, despite being responsible for almost no injuries from lead in the last decade. The double whammy of massive new regulatory obligations and the prospect of devastating liability are driving small businesses out of the children’s market.
Our family business makes educational products, and we work tirelessly to ensure that our products are safe. We have tested our products for decades now. None of us could ever tolerate lead poisoning. Nevertheless, I believe that our company should not be crushed by our government over some consumer groups' phobias and junk science.
The 112th Congress should know better after years of hearings, comment letters, op-eds, pleading and even direct appeals from the five CPSC Commissioners. To quote The Who, "We won’t get fooled again." If Congress is serious about fixing our economy and creating jobs, it’s time to lift the yoke of the CPSIA and set the children’s product market free once again.
Richard Woldenberg is Chairman of Learning Resources, Inc.
Monday, March 28, 2011
CPSIA - AAP, Get a Calculator!
In my continuing exploration of the misuse of data by consumer groups to prove up the "need" for the CPSIA, it occurred to me that Dr. Dana Best of the American Academy of Pediatrics can't multiply. She needs a new calculator.
Just an aside: Japanese government officials announced today that radiation OUTSIDE the disabled reactors at Fukushima have now reached LETHAL levels:
"Water in an underground trench outside the No. 2 reactor had levels exceeding 1 sievert an hour, a spokesman for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. told reporters in the capital today. Thirty minutes of exposure to that dose would trigger nausea and four hours might lead to death within two months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preventing the most-contaminated water from leaking into the ground or air is key to containing the spread of radiation beyond the plant. A partial meltdown of fuel rods in the No. 2 reactor probably caused a jump in the readings, Japan’s chief government spokesman said today. 'There’s not much good news right now,' said Gennady Pshakin, a former IAEA official based in Obninsk, the site of Russia’s first nuclear power plant." [Emphasis added]
The Japanese situation is a real crisis. The AAP wants you to think lead is also a crisis. It's not.
In my post yesterday, I reported on Dr. Dana Best's testimony in front of the CPSC Commission on February 16th about the purported effects of even trace amounts of lead on the intelligence of our children. While Dr. Best speaks for the AAP on occasion, I know that she doesn't always write her own testimony. Sometimes she reads words written by other people under her own name. In the Spring of 2008, I went looking for Dana Best, and in response to a voicemail I left at her office, Cindy Pelligrini of the AAP called me back. Dana Best never called me back. I was calling in reference to the then pending Illinois lead labeling law which was being propelled by Dr. Best's seminal House testimony on lead (September 20, 2007). In that phone conversation, Ms. Pelligrini acknowledged to me that she had written the September 20th testimony, not Dr. Best, and as a consequence, was the "right person" to talk about its contents. Ms. Pelligrini's qualifications to write House testimony on lead on behalf of a professional association of pediatricians? According to her in our conversation, she holds a degree in political science. She is not a doctor and she is not a scientist as far as I know.
So is it surprising then that Dr. Best got all tangled up in numbers in the recent CPSC testimony? As I noted yesterday, Dr. Best asserted the following: "When averaged across even a modest population of children, the public health harm caused by lead is significant. Considering that there are about 75 million children in our nation, impacting one-half of one percent of all children would mean an exposure of 3.75 million children. . . . For one million children, [the loss of lifetime income from one IQ point per child] would total over $8.3 billion." [Emphasis added]
Okay, let's break out our calculators and check Dr. Best's math. 75 million x 0.005 = 375,000. Oops! Didn't she say that "one-half of one percent of all children" is 3.75 million kids? Hmmm.
[Sidebar - she's almost right about the population of kids, but not quite. According to childstats.gov, there were 75.2 million children living in the U.S. in 2010. Of course, only 50.4 million were under 12 years of age, basically the age bracket covered by the CPSIA. This is not a calculator error, this is just more junk statistics from a so-called "expert". I hope the CPSC Commission employs a fact checker!]
I think that's a big difference. 3.75 million children is 1-in-20 but 375,000 is 1-in-200 (based on a population of 75 million children, an inflated number). Using the more realistic population number of about 50 million, Dr. Best's 3.75 million number is 1-in-13 children. Dr. Best's number suggests that there is likely to be two or more lead poisoning victims in EVERY classroom of children in our country. Do you believe that?
Give me a break. The problem is that there are many people out there who might believe this nonsense. Some of them may be your elected representatives.
Dr. Best goes on to "illustrate" the scope of the "cost" of this poisoning, all based on her assumption of 1-in-13 children losing IQ points. She illustrates the "cost" to society of the loss of a single IQ point on a seemingly "modest" population of 1 million children. [Don't forget, she hasn't produced even ONE victim yet.] Since she is apparently severely math-challenged, let me help you here. One million children is (roughly) 2% of the age range covered by the CPSIA. In other words, it's about 1-in-50 kids. Her "modest" assumption implies at least one brain-damaged child in every other classroom in America, all because of lead-in-substrate in children's products. Her illustration is intended to show that the incredibly "high" cost of the purported lead epidemic justifies the extreme measures of the CPSIA to eliminate lead down to trace levels in children's products.
Do you believe her? Why, exactly? If there are so many damaged children from lead-in-substrate in children's products, why can't the AAP come up with a few and show real case histories? Why won't they talk about real data?
I am not impressed. The AAP holds itself out as an "expert" but puts out junk statistics to back up junk science recommendations. We are being scammed.
You MUST demand of your Congress that they won't be fooled. The age of junk science needs to be brought to an end! Let your voices be heard!
Just an aside: Japanese government officials announced today that radiation OUTSIDE the disabled reactors at Fukushima have now reached LETHAL levels:
"Water in an underground trench outside the No. 2 reactor had levels exceeding 1 sievert an hour, a spokesman for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. told reporters in the capital today. Thirty minutes of exposure to that dose would trigger nausea and four hours might lead to death within two months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preventing the most-contaminated water from leaking into the ground or air is key to containing the spread of radiation beyond the plant. A partial meltdown of fuel rods in the No. 2 reactor probably caused a jump in the readings, Japan’s chief government spokesman said today. 'There’s not much good news right now,' said Gennady Pshakin, a former IAEA official based in Obninsk, the site of Russia’s first nuclear power plant." [Emphasis added]
The Japanese situation is a real crisis. The AAP wants you to think lead is also a crisis. It's not.
In my post yesterday, I reported on Dr. Dana Best's testimony in front of the CPSC Commission on February 16th about the purported effects of even trace amounts of lead on the intelligence of our children. While Dr. Best speaks for the AAP on occasion, I know that she doesn't always write her own testimony. Sometimes she reads words written by other people under her own name. In the Spring of 2008, I went looking for Dana Best, and in response to a voicemail I left at her office, Cindy Pelligrini of the AAP called me back. Dana Best never called me back. I was calling in reference to the then pending Illinois lead labeling law which was being propelled by Dr. Best's seminal House testimony on lead (September 20, 2007). In that phone conversation, Ms. Pelligrini acknowledged to me that she had written the September 20th testimony, not Dr. Best, and as a consequence, was the "right person" to talk about its contents. Ms. Pelligrini's qualifications to write House testimony on lead on behalf of a professional association of pediatricians? According to her in our conversation, she holds a degree in political science. She is not a doctor and she is not a scientist as far as I know.
So is it surprising then that Dr. Best got all tangled up in numbers in the recent CPSC testimony? As I noted yesterday, Dr. Best asserted the following: "When averaged across even a modest population of children, the public health harm caused by lead is significant. Considering that there are about 75 million children in our nation, impacting one-half of one percent of all children would mean an exposure of 3.75 million children. . . . For one million children, [the loss of lifetime income from one IQ point per child] would total over $8.3 billion." [Emphasis added]
Okay, let's break out our calculators and check Dr. Best's math. 75 million x 0.005 = 375,000. Oops! Didn't she say that "one-half of one percent of all children" is 3.75 million kids? Hmmm.
[Sidebar - she's almost right about the population of kids, but not quite. According to childstats.gov, there were 75.2 million children living in the U.S. in 2010. Of course, only 50.4 million were under 12 years of age, basically the age bracket covered by the CPSIA. This is not a calculator error, this is just more junk statistics from a so-called "expert". I hope the CPSC Commission employs a fact checker!]
I think that's a big difference. 3.75 million children is 1-in-20 but 375,000 is 1-in-200 (based on a population of 75 million children, an inflated number). Using the more realistic population number of about 50 million, Dr. Best's 3.75 million number is 1-in-13 children. Dr. Best's number suggests that there is likely to be two or more lead poisoning victims in EVERY classroom of children in our country. Do you believe that?
Give me a break. The problem is that there are many people out there who might believe this nonsense. Some of them may be your elected representatives.
Dr. Best goes on to "illustrate" the scope of the "cost" of this poisoning, all based on her assumption of 1-in-13 children losing IQ points. She illustrates the "cost" to society of the loss of a single IQ point on a seemingly "modest" population of 1 million children. [Don't forget, she hasn't produced even ONE victim yet.] Since she is apparently severely math-challenged, let me help you here. One million children is (roughly) 2% of the age range covered by the CPSIA. In other words, it's about 1-in-50 kids. Her "modest" assumption implies at least one brain-damaged child in every other classroom in America, all because of lead-in-substrate in children's products. Her illustration is intended to show that the incredibly "high" cost of the purported lead epidemic justifies the extreme measures of the CPSIA to eliminate lead down to trace levels in children's products.
Do you believe her? Why, exactly? If there are so many damaged children from lead-in-substrate in children's products, why can't the AAP come up with a few and show real case histories? Why won't they talk about real data?
I am not impressed. The AAP holds itself out as an "expert" but puts out junk statistics to back up junk science recommendations. We are being scammed.
You MUST demand of your Congress that they won't be fooled. The age of junk science needs to be brought to an end! Let your voices be heard!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
CPSIA - Star-Tribune Op-Ed Blasts CPSIA for ATV Effects
[Editor's Note: I have a postscript to add to this Op-Ed. See the bottom for an additional fact to consider.]
Mike Larson: Toy lead ban puts kids on ATVs at risk
By MIKE LARSON
March 27, 2011
Commentary
In a month or so, the snow will be gone, the Twins will again be fighting for a pennant and thousands of families will be hitting the trails on ATVs looking for fun and adventure.
Unfortunately, this year more kids are likely to be riding larger, adult-sized ATVs because thousands of dealers like me can't sell youth model ATVs or mini bikes.
Why? Because of a ridiculous political fight in Washington, D.C., that is putting our kids in danger.
ATV dealers and others in our industry are caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war because of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), a law that included new, strict standards for lead in toys -- but created such a broad definition of "children's products" that it ended up banning the sale of youth model ATVs, mini-bikes and other off-highway vehicles because they contain small amounts of lead.
Yes, you read that correctly: ATVs and motorcycles designed to meet the size and performance needs of young riders ages 6 to 12 became "banned hazardous substances" under the new law.
Because lead must be ingested in order to be a health risk, the small amounts of lead that are embedded in metal parts, like the frame and the battery terminals to enhance the safety and functionality of these components, pose no risk to kids.
While not one case of lead poisoning can be documented from children riding youth model ATVs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's own data shows that more than 90 percent of youth injuries and fatalities occur on larger, adult-size vehicles.
In fact, the CPSC, the ATV industry, safety advocates and parents all agree that it's critical to keep youth riders off adult-sized ATVs, and have cooperated for years to educate ATV riders that children should ride only ATVs that are the correct size for them.
The CPSC's own scientists agree that the presence of lead in these products does not present a health hazard to children. CPSC staff wrote to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who helped write the bill:
"The possibility that children will suffer significant lead exposures from [youth model ATVs] appears to be remote at best....A child using an adult ATV as a substitute would face a far graver and more immediate risk than that of the possible lead exposure from the youth ATVs."
Dingell is now calling for Congress to fix the law.
The CPSC also tried to temporarily address the ban by issuing a stay of enforcement in 2009.
Unfortunately, this hasn't helped because the many manufacturers and dealers have chosen not to sell the smallest youth model ATVs because of the risks of selling under the stay, and there's now a limited availability of these products for consumers.
In fact, half of the major ATV manufacturers are no longer selling youth model off-highway vehicles.
The financial impact on our industry has been devastating. Many dealerships throughout the country have closed because of losing the sales of youth-sized machines on top of an already depressed market. Many dealerships have had to lay off workers to stay open. These actions add job losses to an already challenging economic environment.
ATV and motor-sports enthusiasts have sent hundreds of thousands of letters and e-mails to Congress urging an end to the ban. Sen. Amy Klobuchar has pledged her support, and we urge her and other Minnesota members of Congress to take a leadership role in resolving this ridiculous situation. We've heard a lot of talk from both Republicans and Democrats that this ban must end, but for two years nothing has been done as politics has prevented Congress from addressing this problem.
Kids aren't licking or eating their ATVs, but they just might ride adult-sized ATVs thanks to this ban. Congress is putting kids in danger by refusing to address this problem.
Mike Larson is owner of Larsons Cycle in Cambridge, Minn.
Editor's Postscript: I attended a meeting of stakeholders on January 6th in Washington hosted jointly by Republican and Democratic staff for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to discuss possible changes to the CPSIA. [I wrote about this meeting a couple times earlier this year.] At this meeting, Cindy Pelligrini of the AAP admitted that the fact that the CPSIA tacitly banned youth model ATVs was fine with her and her employer. Why? As she noted, the AAP has long wanted youth model ATVs banned. Changing the law would only open the door to a reversal of this other policy objective of theirs. In other words, the AAP is using its standing with Democratic legislators to push an agenda with a "double benefit". Rather than fighting to ban youth model ATVs directly, a battle it would certainly lose, the AAP used the indirect route of overselling a lead standard that they knew ATVs could not meet. ATVs weren't banned under this law by accident. They were hardly an "unintended consequence." The damage to Minnesota businesses has been significant under this law. Next time, Ms. Klobuchar should pick her allies more carefully.
Mike Larson: Toy lead ban puts kids on ATVs at risk
By MIKE LARSON
March 27, 2011
Commentary
In a month or so, the snow will be gone, the Twins will again be fighting for a pennant and thousands of families will be hitting the trails on ATVs looking for fun and adventure.
Unfortunately, this year more kids are likely to be riding larger, adult-sized ATVs because thousands of dealers like me can't sell youth model ATVs or mini bikes.
Why? Because of a ridiculous political fight in Washington, D.C., that is putting our kids in danger.
ATV dealers and others in our industry are caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war because of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), a law that included new, strict standards for lead in toys -- but created such a broad definition of "children's products" that it ended up banning the sale of youth model ATVs, mini-bikes and other off-highway vehicles because they contain small amounts of lead.
Yes, you read that correctly: ATVs and motorcycles designed to meet the size and performance needs of young riders ages 6 to 12 became "banned hazardous substances" under the new law.
Because lead must be ingested in order to be a health risk, the small amounts of lead that are embedded in metal parts, like the frame and the battery terminals to enhance the safety and functionality of these components, pose no risk to kids.
While not one case of lead poisoning can be documented from children riding youth model ATVs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's own data shows that more than 90 percent of youth injuries and fatalities occur on larger, adult-size vehicles.
In fact, the CPSC, the ATV industry, safety advocates and parents all agree that it's critical to keep youth riders off adult-sized ATVs, and have cooperated for years to educate ATV riders that children should ride only ATVs that are the correct size for them.
The CPSC's own scientists agree that the presence of lead in these products does not present a health hazard to children. CPSC staff wrote to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who helped write the bill:
"The possibility that children will suffer significant lead exposures from [youth model ATVs] appears to be remote at best....A child using an adult ATV as a substitute would face a far graver and more immediate risk than that of the possible lead exposure from the youth ATVs."
Dingell is now calling for Congress to fix the law.
The CPSC also tried to temporarily address the ban by issuing a stay of enforcement in 2009.
Unfortunately, this hasn't helped because the many manufacturers and dealers have chosen not to sell the smallest youth model ATVs because of the risks of selling under the stay, and there's now a limited availability of these products for consumers.
In fact, half of the major ATV manufacturers are no longer selling youth model off-highway vehicles.
The financial impact on our industry has been devastating. Many dealerships throughout the country have closed because of losing the sales of youth-sized machines on top of an already depressed market. Many dealerships have had to lay off workers to stay open. These actions add job losses to an already challenging economic environment.
ATV and motor-sports enthusiasts have sent hundreds of thousands of letters and e-mails to Congress urging an end to the ban. Sen. Amy Klobuchar has pledged her support, and we urge her and other Minnesota members of Congress to take a leadership role in resolving this ridiculous situation. We've heard a lot of talk from both Republicans and Democrats that this ban must end, but for two years nothing has been done as politics has prevented Congress from addressing this problem.
Kids aren't licking or eating their ATVs, but they just might ride adult-sized ATVs thanks to this ban. Congress is putting kids in danger by refusing to address this problem.
Mike Larson is owner of Larsons Cycle in Cambridge, Minn.
Editor's Postscript: I attended a meeting of stakeholders on January 6th in Washington hosted jointly by Republican and Democratic staff for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to discuss possible changes to the CPSIA. [I wrote about this meeting a couple times earlier this year.] At this meeting, Cindy Pelligrini of the AAP admitted that the fact that the CPSIA tacitly banned youth model ATVs was fine with her and her employer. Why? As she noted, the AAP has long wanted youth model ATVs banned. Changing the law would only open the door to a reversal of this other policy objective of theirs. In other words, the AAP is using its standing with Democratic legislators to push an agenda with a "double benefit". Rather than fighting to ban youth model ATVs directly, a battle it would certainly lose, the AAP used the indirect route of overselling a lead standard that they knew ATVs could not meet. ATVs weren't banned under this law by accident. They were hardly an "unintended consequence." The damage to Minnesota businesses has been significant under this law. Next time, Ms. Klobuchar should pick her allies more carefully.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
CPSIA - Remember the Victims (If You Can Find Them)
Rumorville has it that a draft amendment to the CPSIA is pending in the next few days. As I contemplate what that might mean, I think back to where the CPSIA began and what has been achieved in its wake.
As an aside, there are actual poisoning risks in the world. As previously noted, the Japanese nuclear crisis seems pretty real to me. In the past 24 hours, the owner of the disabled Japanese reactors told the press that they evacuated one of the reactors (again) because the radiation level was now a mere 10 million times "normal" levels. As if to make the point that they are out of their depth, the Japanese utility later announced that it wasn't really 10 million times too high, just 100,000 times. It's always good to check your work.
In the U.S., we remain blissfully, almost quaintly obsessed with lead. Lead is THE problem we need to solve, apparently, according to the junior scientists who called themselves the 110th Congress. As far as I can tell, the CPSC has enthusiastically embraced this point of view.
Why?
Well, we have been told monotonously that there is NO safe level for lead. Commissioner Bob Adler wrote a 21-page treatise to "prove" the point (rebutted by yours truly here). And the consumer groups, ably represented by Don Mays of Consumer Union and Dana Best of the AAP, repeated the slogan in their February 16th testimony on the urgent need to reduce lead levels to 100 ppm. When the lead zealots speak of the dire need to protect against this "scourge", they never speak in terms of CPSC injury statistics. That makes sense. As I have documented, there have been fewer lead injuries in a decade than the fingers on your right hand.
But isn't this all about injuries? If there is REALLY no safe level for lead, shouldn't it be easy to find victims? Ahem, the consumer groups state that lead harms "silently". You can't tell you are being harmed, you see! When questioned about "victims", those few deigning to respond to my stupid questions (Jan Schakowsky and a staffer for a Senate Democrat) point to a meeting held in May 2008 with victims of lead poisoning. Nonetheless, they have never produced victim case histories and typically simply wag their fingers at me over lead poisoning.
I am no fan of lead or of lead poisoning, believe me, but I think I am entitled to an answer. If the object of the law is the prevention of childhood injuries, and if this May 2008 meeting was the critical basis for the push for the CPSIA, who were the victims at the meeting? How many victims were seen, and how were they poisoned?
Before we answer this question, it is important to note that the issue here is NOT lead-in-paint. As is well-known, lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades. Victims of lead-in-paint from products sold today are victims of violations of law. We are looking to find victims of lead-in-substrate. The over-arching regulation of lead-in-substrate is the source of the regulatory misery that befell ATVs, bicycles, pens, musical instruments, books, educational materials, rhinestones, t-shirts, shoes, and so on. Do these victims exist? No lead zealot or CPSIA apologist has ever produced even one lead-in-substrate victim in three years. Were they at the May 2008 meeting?
The Internet knows all. Parents of two childhood victims of lead-in-paint were present at the 2008 meeting, as identified in several press reports. See "Parents Visit Congress to 'Get the Lead Out' of Toys", as well as "Congress vs. lobbyists over tainted toys" and this transcript of the Lou Dobbs Show (May 23, 2008) thoughtfully provided by the plaintiffs lawyer front Center for Justice and Democracy. There is no mention of any child harmed by lead-in-substrate. Two victims of lead-in-paint spurred this legislation. That's it.
Without a demonstration that there are actual victims of lead-in-substrate in existence, the CPSIA has no proven factual basis. It's all pure conjecture. Playing fast and loose with the facts, the lead zealots have SOLD the idea that this law was necessary, all without PROOF. Perhaps in the heady days of 2007/8, the legislators didn't recognize the significance of the data problem. But today, members of the 112th Congress, facing the prospect of an amendment to fix the CPSIA, cannot afford the same ignorance. Constituents have been screaming for years now - and apparently with good reason.
The misuse of data, the zealots' twisting of fear of lead-in-paint into a blind fear of everything, got us into this mess. Questions need to be asked as the new amendment is processed. Why are we doing this? Who is really being protected here?
In desperation, the consumer groups are saying just about anything to keep their law in place. Spreading fear of bicycle licking and trombone playing is certainly not beneath them. Dr. Dana Best sums up the consumer groups' dubious, twisted "argument" for the need for a tightened CPSIA:
"An object containing 77 ppm of lead is capable of raising a child's blood lead level to a level that would result in the loss of one IQ point. . . . Ingestion of an item containing 300 ppm of lead would result in the loss of almost four IQ points . . . . When averaged across even a modest population of children, the public health harm caused by lead is significant. Considering that there are about 75 million children in our nation, impacting one-half of one percent of all children would mean an exposure of 3.75 million children. . . . For one million children, [the loss of lifetime income from one IQ point per child] would total over $8.3 billion." [Emphasis added]
Yet Dr. Best cannot deliver the goods to prove her farfetched theories and even more farfetched mathematics. Stating the danger in terms of 3.75 million possible victims is corrupt and immoral when you cannot deliver even one victim.
Let's cross our fingers that Congress is resolved to not be fooled again. If there is a hearing, ask for real data, real case histories, real proof.
I can't wait to hear about the kid who licked the ATV engine block and was poisoned by . . . lead? Give me a break.
As an aside, there are actual poisoning risks in the world. As previously noted, the Japanese nuclear crisis seems pretty real to me. In the past 24 hours, the owner of the disabled Japanese reactors told the press that they evacuated one of the reactors (again) because the radiation level was now a mere 10 million times "normal" levels. As if to make the point that they are out of their depth, the Japanese utility later announced that it wasn't really 10 million times too high, just 100,000 times. It's always good to check your work.
In the U.S., we remain blissfully, almost quaintly obsessed with lead. Lead is THE problem we need to solve, apparently, according to the junior scientists who called themselves the 110th Congress. As far as I can tell, the CPSC has enthusiastically embraced this point of view.
Why?
Well, we have been told monotonously that there is NO safe level for lead. Commissioner Bob Adler wrote a 21-page treatise to "prove" the point (rebutted by yours truly here). And the consumer groups, ably represented by Don Mays of Consumer Union and Dana Best of the AAP, repeated the slogan in their February 16th testimony on the urgent need to reduce lead levels to 100 ppm. When the lead zealots speak of the dire need to protect against this "scourge", they never speak in terms of CPSC injury statistics. That makes sense. As I have documented, there have been fewer lead injuries in a decade than the fingers on your right hand.
But isn't this all about injuries? If there is REALLY no safe level for lead, shouldn't it be easy to find victims? Ahem, the consumer groups state that lead harms "silently". You can't tell you are being harmed, you see! When questioned about "victims", those few deigning to respond to my stupid questions (Jan Schakowsky and a staffer for a Senate Democrat) point to a meeting held in May 2008 with victims of lead poisoning. Nonetheless, they have never produced victim case histories and typically simply wag their fingers at me over lead poisoning.
I am no fan of lead or of lead poisoning, believe me, but I think I am entitled to an answer. If the object of the law is the prevention of childhood injuries, and if this May 2008 meeting was the critical basis for the push for the CPSIA, who were the victims at the meeting? How many victims were seen, and how were they poisoned?
Before we answer this question, it is important to note that the issue here is NOT lead-in-paint. As is well-known, lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades. Victims of lead-in-paint from products sold today are victims of violations of law. We are looking to find victims of lead-in-substrate. The over-arching regulation of lead-in-substrate is the source of the regulatory misery that befell ATVs, bicycles, pens, musical instruments, books, educational materials, rhinestones, t-shirts, shoes, and so on. Do these victims exist? No lead zealot or CPSIA apologist has ever produced even one lead-in-substrate victim in three years. Were they at the May 2008 meeting?
The Internet knows all. Parents of two childhood victims of lead-in-paint were present at the 2008 meeting, as identified in several press reports. See "Parents Visit Congress to 'Get the Lead Out' of Toys", as well as "Congress vs. lobbyists over tainted toys" and this transcript of the Lou Dobbs Show (May 23, 2008) thoughtfully provided by the plaintiffs lawyer front Center for Justice and Democracy. There is no mention of any child harmed by lead-in-substrate. Two victims of lead-in-paint spurred this legislation. That's it.
Without a demonstration that there are actual victims of lead-in-substrate in existence, the CPSIA has no proven factual basis. It's all pure conjecture. Playing fast and loose with the facts, the lead zealots have SOLD the idea that this law was necessary, all without PROOF. Perhaps in the heady days of 2007/8, the legislators didn't recognize the significance of the data problem. But today, members of the 112th Congress, facing the prospect of an amendment to fix the CPSIA, cannot afford the same ignorance. Constituents have been screaming for years now - and apparently with good reason.
The misuse of data, the zealots' twisting of fear of lead-in-paint into a blind fear of everything, got us into this mess. Questions need to be asked as the new amendment is processed. Why are we doing this? Who is really being protected here?
In desperation, the consumer groups are saying just about anything to keep their law in place. Spreading fear of bicycle licking and trombone playing is certainly not beneath them. Dr. Dana Best sums up the consumer groups' dubious, twisted "argument" for the need for a tightened CPSIA:
"An object containing 77 ppm of lead is capable of raising a child's blood lead level to a level that would result in the loss of one IQ point. . . . Ingestion of an item containing 300 ppm of lead would result in the loss of almost four IQ points . . . . When averaged across even a modest population of children, the public health harm caused by lead is significant. Considering that there are about 75 million children in our nation, impacting one-half of one percent of all children would mean an exposure of 3.75 million children. . . . For one million children, [the loss of lifetime income from one IQ point per child] would total over $8.3 billion." [Emphasis added]
Yet Dr. Best cannot deliver the goods to prove her farfetched theories and even more farfetched mathematics. Stating the danger in terms of 3.75 million possible victims is corrupt and immoral when you cannot deliver even one victim.
Let's cross our fingers that Congress is resolved to not be fooled again. If there is a hearing, ask for real data, real case histories, real proof.
I can't wait to hear about the kid who licked the ATV engine block and was poisoned by . . . lead? Give me a break.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
CPSIA - Good News and Bad News (Update No. 1)
Tokyo tap water is no longer suitable for babies 12 months or younger. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear disaster spreads. Black smoke is seen coming out of Unit 3 at the nuclear plant and workers are evacuated again. Won't be allowed back for 24 hours. Not to worry you . . . but they have no idea why it's smoking. Japanese Broccoli is now found to give you a healthy glow (an extra "benefit") and the import of many Japanese foods from the region have been banned by the U.S. FDA and by Hong Kong, soon to be followed by South Korea. One Austrian scientist says this disaster will be similar to Chernobyl, and their crud is blowing over here.
Back on the home front, we are not worried about radioactivity from Japan. Harmless! Rather than focusing on the impact of nuclear material showering down on us from the heavens, into our food, our water, our produce, onto our skin and breathed into our lungs every moment of the day now, those valiant defenders of children, the CPSC, will be holding a highly-publicized hearing on pool drains - because a newspaper currently in bankruptcy hired an uncertified lab to perform tests on drain covers that have not apparently been involved in injuries. This is a TOP priority of our nurturing government. Who says we don't need more government? Come on, baby, give me MORE!
Of course, I make light - after all, I am a blogger, I must do so. The real scourge for children, as anyone can tell you, is not airborne radioactive material, but lead - which is why our CPSC has worked so tirelessly for three years to identify dangerous items like ballpoint pens, rhinestones, brass bushings on toy car wheels, ATV engine blocks, bicycle frames and bicycle vinyl seats, branding them as unsuitable for sale (or exposure) to children under 13 years of age.
Of course, there's plenty of legal mumbo-jumbo to consider, provisos and the like. Having carefully sorted out the hazard, our CPSC has determined that pens are only dangerous if they are intended for use by children. [Ballpoint pens have a tiny brass ball at the ink end, and brass contains 2-4% lead by weight. I bet you're scared now!] The ACTUAL USE of pens is not the health concern - what matters instead is what the manufacturer intended - you know, their state of mind at the time of sale. Hasn't your mother ever told you that it's what's in your heart that REALLY matters? The CPSC took this on board. After much cogitating, they determined that it's not a problem if 100% of children use ballpoint pens - no, it's only a problem if kids use a ballpoint pen INTENDED for use by children. THAT'S unacceptably dangerous and big penalties and recalls can result if you step over the line. They must have figured out that the state of mind of the manufacturer changes the physical character of the pen - pens literally take on the power to harm when a manufacturer thinks about selling them to kids!
It's a good thing we employ so many scientists at the CPSC. I hate to think about the crazy rules they'd come up with if they didn't have such a solid grounding in real science. Of course, they also employ many lawyers . . . . Could it be the lawyers???
Of course, I jest. The CPSC is certainly right - how could such an august organization err? And experts have told them they're right - that's a double-check right there. At the February 16th hearing on the 100 ppm lead standard, Don Mays from Consumers Union, a REAL expert, kicked off his testimony by reminding the Commission that there is NO safe level for lead. [I did not provide you with a clip of those magical words, but you can dig them up yourself if you don't believe me.] Mr. Mays was joined on the consumer group panel by another RENOWNED expert, Dr. Dana Best of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Mr. Mays and Dr. Best had a revealing dialogue with Commissioner Anne Northup on the horrors of brass instruments. You will see that the CPSC has no choice, the risks to children are so severe. Here's a transcript (you can see the video here):
AN: "Do you think that children that are in the 3rd and 4th grade should be prohibited from playing brass instruments considering the lead content of that brass?"
DM: "I think children should not be exposed to lead unnecessarily. And children in the 3rd and 4th grade, I have a daughter in the 4th grade and I certainly wouldn't want her to be exposed to lead if that was coming from an instrument."
AN: "So you would not let her play, like, the horn."
DM: "I would be very concerned about that, that's for sure. She does not play the horn, she plays the violin. Ha Ha Ha."
DB: "The mouthpieces on most of those instruments are not brass."
AN: "Yes, exactly. But they're holding them. They sling them around and hold them. . . . They could practice at night and play it every day during class. That would mean an every day exposure. I just wondered if that would alarm you."
DB: "Uh, it would alarm me that children were exposed unnecessarily to lead. And that's again the responsibility of the CPSC to determine, to look at the studies on individual cases. I'm here to talk about the harms of lead to children and how they need to be protected."
Frankly, I can't remember if Ms. Northup started banging her head against a wall at that point or not . . . .
With this kind of counsel, you can rest assured that the CPSC has its priorities straight. Don Mays and Dana Best are on the case! Just PLEASE don't mention bicycle licking . . . .
Back on the home front, we are not worried about radioactivity from Japan. Harmless! Rather than focusing on the impact of nuclear material showering down on us from the heavens, into our food, our water, our produce, onto our skin and breathed into our lungs every moment of the day now, those valiant defenders of children, the CPSC, will be holding a highly-publicized hearing on pool drains - because a newspaper currently in bankruptcy hired an uncertified lab to perform tests on drain covers that have not apparently been involved in injuries. This is a TOP priority of our nurturing government. Who says we don't need more government? Come on, baby, give me MORE!
Of course, I make light - after all, I am a blogger, I must do so. The real scourge for children, as anyone can tell you, is not airborne radioactive material, but lead - which is why our CPSC has worked so tirelessly for three years to identify dangerous items like ballpoint pens, rhinestones, brass bushings on toy car wheels, ATV engine blocks, bicycle frames and bicycle vinyl seats, branding them as unsuitable for sale (or exposure) to children under 13 years of age.
Of course, there's plenty of legal mumbo-jumbo to consider, provisos and the like. Having carefully sorted out the hazard, our CPSC has determined that pens are only dangerous if they are intended for use by children. [Ballpoint pens have a tiny brass ball at the ink end, and brass contains 2-4% lead by weight. I bet you're scared now!] The ACTUAL USE of pens is not the health concern - what matters instead is what the manufacturer intended - you know, their state of mind at the time of sale. Hasn't your mother ever told you that it's what's in your heart that REALLY matters? The CPSC took this on board. After much cogitating, they determined that it's not a problem if 100% of children use ballpoint pens - no, it's only a problem if kids use a ballpoint pen INTENDED for use by children. THAT'S unacceptably dangerous and big penalties and recalls can result if you step over the line. They must have figured out that the state of mind of the manufacturer changes the physical character of the pen - pens literally take on the power to harm when a manufacturer thinks about selling them to kids!
It's a good thing we employ so many scientists at the CPSC. I hate to think about the crazy rules they'd come up with if they didn't have such a solid grounding in real science. Of course, they also employ many lawyers . . . . Could it be the lawyers???
Of course, I jest. The CPSC is certainly right - how could such an august organization err? And experts have told them they're right - that's a double-check right there. At the February 16th hearing on the 100 ppm lead standard, Don Mays from Consumers Union, a REAL expert, kicked off his testimony by reminding the Commission that there is NO safe level for lead. [I did not provide you with a clip of those magical words, but you can dig them up yourself if you don't believe me.] Mr. Mays was joined on the consumer group panel by another RENOWNED expert, Dr. Dana Best of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Mr. Mays and Dr. Best had a revealing dialogue with Commissioner Anne Northup on the horrors of brass instruments. You will see that the CPSC has no choice, the risks to children are so severe. Here's a transcript (you can see the video here):
AN: "Do you think that children that are in the 3rd and 4th grade should be prohibited from playing brass instruments considering the lead content of that brass?"
DM: "I think children should not be exposed to lead unnecessarily. And children in the 3rd and 4th grade, I have a daughter in the 4th grade and I certainly wouldn't want her to be exposed to lead if that was coming from an instrument."
AN: "So you would not let her play, like, the horn."
DM: "I would be very concerned about that, that's for sure. She does not play the horn, she plays the violin. Ha Ha Ha."
DB: "The mouthpieces on most of those instruments are not brass."
AN: "Yes, exactly. But they're holding them. They sling them around and hold them. . . . They could practice at night and play it every day during class. That would mean an every day exposure. I just wondered if that would alarm you."
DB: "Uh, it would alarm me that children were exposed unnecessarily to lead. And that's again the responsibility of the CPSC to determine, to look at the studies on individual cases. I'm here to talk about the harms of lead to children and how they need to be protected."
Frankly, I can't remember if Ms. Northup started banging her head against a wall at that point or not . . . .
With this kind of counsel, you can rest assured that the CPSC has its priorities straight. Don Mays and Dana Best are on the case! Just PLEASE don't mention bicycle licking . . . .
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
