CPSIA - How We Were Forced to Deal with A Misleading Database Entry

As you may recall from yesterday, we were confronted with a false, misleading and inaccurate complaint submitted to the CPSIA database in its "soft launch". We submitted definitive information to the CPSC attesting to the error (or whatever) by the filer and were REJECTED. We were told by a senior staff person at the agency (who should know better) that the complaint needed to be posted based on the facts (the filer THOUGHT she spotted a safety issue). Our evidence that the anonymous filer's musings were flat-out WRONG were not persuasive because this is a "consumer database" and as such, our evidence did not reflect on how the anonymous filer felt. As far as I can tell, that's all that matters, unless they misidentify our product. That seems to be the only "out" (although I can't find that sentence in the law).

Get it? I wish I did.

In some respects, this controversy didn't add up to much because the complaint won't go into the database. No filings made during the "soft launch" will go into the database. It's all practice (until tomorrow morning). However, the CPSC made a policy decision in our case. Don't say you weren't warned. NEXT TIME THIS COMPLAINT WILL GO INTO THE DATABASE.

Because everyone's "practicing" now, we decided to practice by filing a "comment" to this complaint even though it won't be published either. This will no doubt become a standard approach for most people. There's little point and maybe even some downside to pushing back on a complaint. [What if the CPSC takes a look and makes a call that THERE IS A RISK OF HARM? It all seems so innocuous until they lower that boom on you . . . .] The soundest practice is probably to not protest these filings at all (feel the shaft yet?) and simply publish your own comments to be juxtaposed with the complaint.

To craft this "comment", we consulted our lawyer. Cha-ching! Don't worry, we're used to legal fees at this point. I would note that this took two person's time at our office and we had to drop everything to process this baloney complaint as if it were the most pressing matter in our little universe. Consider the cumulative waste of resources and the cost of distraction and disruption across the entire economy all owing to this database. Sounds grrrrrreat!

Our comment is reproduced here for your interest:

"The Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings product has been tested for compliance with ASTM F963, the federally mandated safety standard for small parts and has passed all applicable tests with an independent test lab. The company believes this product incident report is materially inaccurate because the product does not present a small parts hazard and the complainant has provided no evidence to the contrary. As such this allegation is completely unsubstantiated."

I wonder if Congress and the CPSC can come up with even more effective ways to piss me off. Chances are they are working on it right now! I can't wait to raise more money for Republicans in the next election cycle . . . .

CPSIA - Washington Times Lashes Out at Database

In an editorial in today's Washington Times, the paper railed against the CPSIA database. Says the Washington Times:

"The Republican-led House of Representatives is fighting back against big-money plaintiffs’ attorneys who use campaign cash to control congressional Democrats. . . . [The database is] an open invitation for competitors or interest groups to destroy a product’s reputation - and sales - without proof. It’s also a major come-on to trial lawyers eager to file class-action suits. Attorneys could tell juries that publication on an official government website is evidence that allegations have weight."

Perhaps the Washington Times should talk to Cheryl Falvey. She'd tell them not to worry, it's just a "complaints" database . . . but that's the rub, isn't it?

The paper carries on: "Previous bogus consumer scares . . . show the dangers of letting unsubstantiated allegations gain premature credibility. The CPSC database would add to the mischief trial lawyers could cause with spurious lawsuits."

The big question is - will the Dems abandon their plaintiff lawyer patrons when faced with the LEGITIMATE CONCERNS of industry - or will they sell American business down the river and kill yet more jobs with a further expansion of the government's reach into our lives?

Please write your Senators and demand their support to de-fund the database!

CPSIA - Jockeying for Position over the Database

The Washington Post published the latest whitewash on the CPSC public database yesterday entitled "Publicly accessible product safety database hits House roadblock". In this article, the Post allowed consumer group favorite Rachel Weintraub to publish her own spin of matters: "'There's a lot of support for the database, but we don't know how the dynamic is ultimately going to play out,' said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety and senior counsel for Consumer Federation of America. 'This is really a last-ditch effort by manufacturers to hold on to this great situation they have right now, where information is not getting out to the public.'" [Emphasis added]

Of course, Rachel was simply borrowing a phrase from last week's New York Times ("Emboldened by a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, manufacturers of toys and other children’s products are making a last-ditch effort to quash new safety regulations that they say are unfair or too onerous"). [Emphasis added] When you have a great phrase, why not use it over and over?!

What's the truth? Does it even matter anymore? Jennifer Kerr of the Associated Press questions the purported (asserted) value of the database, noting:

"Anyone can submit a "report of harm" to the SaferProducts.gov database. They aren't required to have first-hand knowledge of the alleged injury or potential defect that could lead to injury. . . . The U.S. government has a similar auto safety database, also available to consumers online, that describes people's safety complaints in extraordinary detail. It is the government's principal early warning system intended to alert federal investigators to signs of looming safety problems. Yet despite efforts by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to review consumer complaints before they're memorialized in the government's database, an AP review of 750,000 records last year found that the data included complaints about slick pavement during snow, inconsiderate mechanics, paint chips, sloshing gasoline during fill-ups, potholes, dim headlights, bright headlights, inaccurate dashboard clocks and windshield wipers that streak." [Emphasis added]

This is just what we in the small business community need - a government-sponsored, funded and promoted accumulation of unqualified miscellaneous gripes about our products. Do you think the media will ever take an interest in this stuff? Nah . . . .

And lest we forget, a familiar criticism of the database is that accusations can take a long time to resolve . . . but once posted to the Internet, can never be truly expunged from the permanent record. The year-long DryMax diapers controversy, not to mention the trashing of Toyota braking systems, demonstrate the severe risk U.S. manufacturers and importers face under the database. Imagine the long term damage to those brands if the accusations (subsequently proven false) never died . . . . Notably, Wayne Morris of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers called the new database nothing better than a "blog" because of these design defects.

The Washington Post failed to mention this nuance. Rachel must have forgotten to point it out.

I think it's also worth considering the gap in how the CPSC describes the purpose and function of the database. Thanks be to Congress, is it clear WHY we have this database? Cheryl Falvey, General Counsel of the CPSC, says it's a "complaints" database, NOT a "causation" database. She is pinning her interpretation on the disclaimers all over the website that the information on the site has not been proven and may be wrong. In other words, the postings can't be relied upon. They are only "complaints" under this view. Ms. Falvey used this reasoning to dismiss complaints about process raised by pesky last-ditch manufacturers at last week's ICPHSO.

Of course, if the postings are really just "complaints", why did the CPSC name the site "SaferProducts.gov"? Doesn't sound like a complaint website, does it? A long time ago, I complained about the website name to the person who claims to have coined it. I did not win that one, obviously. The URL includes the media-friendly term "safer" and makes an inescapable connection to Ms. Tenenbaum's famous remark on website trustworthiness: "Well, to all of you here today, I say don't believe everything you read on the Internet, except what you read on Web sites that end in dot gov."

I may not be the only one who thinks this, despite the website's disclaimers.

This impression is reinforced by Chairman Tenenbaum's own description of the ideal workings of the database in her keynote speech at last week's ICPHSO: "I also envision the site empowering consumers to make independent decisions that further their own safety and the safety of their family. If a mom uses the search function on the site, sees a series of reports of harm about a product she bought for her child, and decides to take the product away from her child, while behind the scenes we are working to finalize a recall—that is a good thing in my opinion."

That sounds like a "causation" database, doesn't it? The implication is that the mom can rely on the information (it must be true) and besides, doesn't an injury "incident" mean that a recall is coming soon? My immediate concern is that Ms. Tenenbaum is right - unqualified and unverified complaints on SaferProducts.gov WILL induce consumers to take our products away from children - whether or not a recall is forthcoming. We also know that Ms. Falvey is right - no one knows if the complaints are true - but who will reimburse our losses when the government convinces our customers that the safest course of action is to stop using our product pending a decision that may never be forthcoming . . . because nothing's wrong.

The Chairman is encouraging consumers to rely on this information - to draw conclusions on the likelihood of future injury. This is even more alarming, given that Ms. Tenenbaum said in Congressional testimony last week that the agency will likely post unverified or inaccurate information to the database. She knows that this information will be faulty. As she said in testimony, "that's what the rub is".

That's the rub, indeed.

I am tired of the rub, indeed.

CPSIA - House Hearing Testimony of Jolie Fay and Wayne Morris

Testimony of Jolie Fay, HTA Board Member:



Testimony of Wayne Morris, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM):

CPSIA - ICPHSO Mock Civil Penalty Jury Exercise

There has been only ONE court decision relating to late reporting penalties, and it was a resounding victory for the government. A juice company lost a case in California in federal court. Since there is no little law on the subject, the presenters today assert that there is no way to predict how a future case might be decided.

The panel today:

• Eric Rubel, Arnold & Porter LLP
• Cheryl Falvey, GC of CPSC
• Sean Laane, Arnold & Porter LLP
• Richard Levie, retired Judge and current arbitrator/mediator
• Mary Murphy, Asst GC, Div. of Compliance, CPSC

The panel presentation was designed as a mock trial. Both sides of the case will be presented, and you can clearly how both sides will portray this incident and both are compelling.

First to present was Mary Murphy on behalf of the government. She emphasized the facts of the injury to the child. This is clearly how you and your company will be made to look worst. This is no surprise and is standard fare for a plaintiff in a lawsuit. She likewise related the prior reporting of the risk or incidents (to the company and to the CPSC) that suggested the hazard.

Needless to say, this is the reason that consumer groups want the database. They want to create a body of evidence to coerce product changes ahead of injuries. Of course, any responsible company monitors market data (such as consumer reports) to do just that sort of thing. The database, however, is fodder for lawsuits and facilitates this kind argument. The likely impact is that the cases of plaintiffs will be strengthened and awards will grow.

Shall we take a trip down memory lane and remind ourselves of the principal source of funding for the consumer groups active in children's product safety? Are you surprised to know that it is trial lawyers and the plaintiffs bar?

Back to the presentation of Ms. Murphy. She's doing a good job making the manufacturer look bad, almost venal. She links the injury back to a failure to report. This is because of the asserted critical role of the CPSC in keeping America safe. She poses the question "would this injury have occurred but for the failure to report?" She argues that ten reports from consumers (of the hazard, loose beads on a high chair, not injuries) created an obligation to report based on a substantial risk of injury or death. She likewise anticipates that the defense will be that the manufacturer had no duty to report. She says that the late reporting only took place when the manufacturer's back was "up against the wall". Again, Murphy emphasizes her story about the motivation or mental state of the company.

More evidence used against the company included multiple written reports by the CPSC to them of consumer complaints. Ms. Murphy is painting a clear picture of a company that is not acting on a known safety issue. She indicates that the company ignored this information based on poor advice, despite internal admissions that "this was an accident waiting to happen".

You can see that the facts of this hypothetical case opens manufacturers up to bad behavior portrayals. I applaud the effort to make this clear - you need to take this on board. The facts of this case appear extreme and objectionable. Media and political over-reaction to this kind of corporate behavior sent the REST OF US down the river under the CPSIA.

The defense was offered by Sean Laane. He noted the responsible behavior of the company by repeatedly testing the goods using CPSC standards and CPSC-accredited independent labs. Noted that the CPSC tested the product TWICE after reports of incidents from consumers - and the products passed! [Note that any safety system that overly depends on testing will ALWAYS expose a company to risk if it is distracted from or chooses to ignore contrary information from the market. This is a basic flaw in the reasoning of the consumer groups and the folks behind the CPSIA.] He goes on to note that the CPSC can't have it both ways, since it never concluded that action was required based on the incidents it was aware of. After all, the CPSC had several reports and did nothing. Claims the CPSC takes a "gotcha" approach because although it claims "late reporting", it was well-aware of the issue long before the injury - and did nothing.

Laane notes the extensive investment of this company in safety. He questions whether there was a reasonable basis to conclude that there was an unreasonable risk of injury or death. Clearly the CPSC didn't feel it was an unreasonable risk itself! Also notes that you don't have to tell the CPSC about information the agency already possesses. Notes repeatedly that the CPSC's actions or inaction are based on their expertise and fact findings, thus confirming the reasonableness of the company's approach. Notes that companies have no obligation to make products utterly indestructible.

Laane noted that the person inside the company who called the condition "an accident waiting to happen" was not a QC person or responsible manager. Instead, he was a customer service rep, and relayed that message to the QC department for their evaluation. Child who was injured later fully recovered, and the company chose to immediately initiate a Fast Track recall.

An interesting point made by Levie is that the company's awareness of similar issues in similar products can be held against them. If they knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about other recalls or notorious injury incidents reflects on their later decisions or inaction. [I am glad I don't make baby monitors . . . . This is a good lesson on the reality of the problem of "emerging hazards". Note that you are going to be judged not just on what you know, but also on what they assert you SHOULD have known.]

CF: One of the most persuasive arguments made by defendants is a track record of reporting to the CPSC. This shows a commitment to safety and cooperation with the CPSC, demonstrating trust that the CPSC will not recall product everytime.

Levie agreed that this fact pattern will also be persuasive to a judge.

All market participants need to think about this kind of issue and how they might fare if they face a similar dilemma.

CPSIA - Save "Lost Souls", Vote for the Slanderbase!

The semi-religious mission of the safety zealots was on full display in today's New York Times. In an article entitled "Deep Divisions as Vote Nears on Product Safety Database", the Times profiled the controversy of the pending public database final rule approval (due on November 24th in a rubber stamp Commission session), highlighting the idealist objectives of the database supporters. As per its typical leftist slant, the Times article gives scant credence to the legitimate concerns of manufacturers or the demonstrable consequences of the unrealistic Utopian vision underlying the CPSIA. After all, we manufacturers only care about money, right?

Every drama needs a hero, villain and victim. The public database controversy has all the right elements - manufacturers and Republicans as "villains", consumer groups and Democrats as "heroes" and consumers as "victims". Positioned this way, why would anyone ever support manufacturers? Who would want to even listen to the black hats? Hmmm. Good strategy, Naderites!

Consider the illustration used in the article - Michele Witte suffered the unspeakable horror of losing her child in a crib death. She asserts that the database might have saved her child. Perhaps that is true, perhaps it is not. Nothing can salve the wounds she has suffered . . . but that does not make the database a good idea. [I might feel differently about the database if, for instance, it was limited to deaths.]

The implication that the database is necessary to protect consumers is not a well-examined assertion. There is already a lot of data available to consumers. For instance, the CPSC maintains a massive national injury database called NEISS. A search of crib injuries on the NEISS database for 2009 (classes 1543-1545) reveals 572 reports which extrapolates into a national injury estimate (for 2009 ALONE) of 16,537 incidents.

Here are a few representative NEISS entries (the first five in the above sample):

- CHILD FELL 3 FEET OUT OF CRIB AND LANDED ON TILE FLOOR. CRIED IMMEDIATELY. D:CHI, FOREHEAD HEMATOMA.
- PT FELL WHILE TRYING TO CLIMB FROM HIS CRIB. LANDED ON L SHOULDER ON THE FLOOR. FELL 4 FT. CRIES WHEN PICKED UP UNDER ARM.
- PT FELL OUT OF HER CRIB AND STRUCK HER HEAD. NO LOC. CRIED IMMED. NOW ACTING NORMALLY.
- FELL OUT OF CRIB. DX HEAD INJURY
- PT STANDING UP IN CRIB, FELL BACKWARD AND HIT HEAD ON CRIB, NO LOC BUT MOM STATES PT HAD DAZED LOOK AND HAS BEEN LETHARGIC; HEAD INJURY

Did you learn a lot from this information? Can you verify that it's true? Can you see ANY issues with attaching (unverified) product identities to this unverified and uninvestigated data? Are you a plaintiff's attorney?

What are the zealots saying to justify their support of the database in the face of persistent and rational criticism of its design? Commissioner Bob Adler, former Henry Waxman staffer and longtime board member of Consumers Union, sums it up:

"Some folks are worried more about lost sales and not worried enough about lost souls."

So, in other words, Adler condescendingly asserts that people like me are only concerned with MONEY. Instead, he claims that what's really at stake here are "lost souls". What is Adler talking about? Here's what Wikipedia says about "souls":

"A soul, in certain spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing. Many philosophical and spiritual systems teach that humans are souls; some attribute souls to all living things and even to inanimate objects (such as rivers); this belief is commonly called animism. The soul is often believed to exit the body and live on after a person’s death, and some religions posit that God creates souls." [Emphasis added]

Mr. Adler's POV makes the question of having a federal database a moral imperative. Wow, now that's a heavy decision - souls are at stake! Furthermore, Mr. Adler positions those who support the database as moral people and those who oppose it as immoral money-grubbers who prize financial well-being over the safety of consumers. Ugh. I would hate to be a Republican Commissioner voting against the final public database rule with Mr. Adler's curse hanging over my head! Ouch.

Catching on to the theme, Ami Gadhia of Consumers Union, chimes in: "It’s a slow death . . . . [The] information never gets out in the public.” [Emphasis added] Death . . . souls . . . database! Do I hear a new slogan???

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, ever sensitive to criticism, archly defends the agency's effort to dialogue with people like me. Please recall that part of their "outreach" was to ask me to spend our company's money to fly to Washington, D.C. to give testimony on the public database. Matt Howsare, Tenenbaum's then Counsel and now Chief of Staff, told me that they needed more perspective from manufacturers and kindly asked me to prepare testimony. As previously noted, NOTHING that I said in my testimony was adopted or used in any way apparent to me. The NYT notes:

"The commission chairwoman, Inez Tenenbaum, disputed the idea that manufacturers’ concerns had not been properly considered. She said the agency offered numerous forums for comment and some of those ideas were incorporated into the final proposal. 'We have been abundantly fair,' Ms. Tenenbaum said." [Emphasis added]

Apparently, testimony at a CPSC hearing is meant as an outlet for venting, not for listening. That's "abundantly fair", we are assured. Makes you wonder what "unfair" might look like . . . .

[A Senate Commerce Committee CPSC oversight hearing is said to be in the offing for next week. One fantasizes that they may take an interest in this issue, but the Senate is still a Dem stronghold. Don't hold your breath. Expect self-congratulatory positioning by the self-serving and deaf Dems.]

Consumer groups are portraying manufacturers demands for Constitutionally-guaranteed due process and other appropriate procedural safeguards as a grab for "advantage". In other words, procedural safeguards for manufacturers are not legitimate protectible interests in light of the POSSIBILITY that consumers may glean some useful information among the garbage that will accumulate in the "post-it-and-forget-it" slanderbase being put up by the agency. Again, the NYT provides the bully pulpit for the zealots:

"Consumer advocates suggested the opponents were trying to weaken the database to protect business interests. 'They have a great deal now, and I think they are trying to maintain the status quo by levying these unfounded arguments,' said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety for the Consumer Federation of America." [Emphasis added]

If ever-disingenuous Rachel Weintraub is saying that we Americans have a "great deal" because we enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights and other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights protecting groups and individuals against persecution and excessive governmental power, I agree. I agree heartily - and don't want to lose those essential legal protections that form an important basis for our investments. Please REMEMBER, everyone loses something when ANYONE loses their legitimate legal protections. Btw, Bob Adler is a lawyer and a former Scholar in Ethics and Law at the business school at UNC Chapel Hill . . . .

Mr. Adler plays a little fast and loose with his database concepts. Apparently, it's okay to put garbage into the database because the government "disclaims" its accuracy:

"Mr. Adler, the Democratic commissioner, said the database was not meant to be a legal forum like a court but more like a catalog of consumer experiences. He noted that a disclaimer on the database said the commission did not guarantee its accuracy. ‘"I put my baby in a diaper and my baby developed a rash." That goes up. It’s an early warning system to alert other consumers,' Mr. Adler said."

Ahem: "But Ms. Nord said the proposal remained far too vague. She cited the recent case of Pampers Dry Max, made by Procter & Gamble, in which thousands of parents asserted that the diapers were causing their babies to get a rash. A commission investigation found no link between the diapers and the rashes. 'We would have posted all these complaints about them even though they proved to be wrong,' Ms. Nord said."

Any idea why the CPSC "must" put up such a controversial database? The zealots know that there is legal risk in hosting a database that may include erroneous information or information that might slander manufacturers or tortiously interfere with commerce. They know this might violate manufacturers' legal rights and could lead to lawsuits - and don't want the legal liability or the hassle. How to get the data and avoid the legal problems? Get the government to host the legally-dubious information! Clever - but not necessarily in the interests of consumers or American markets.

Is the CPSC supposed to provide Mr. Adler's catalog of "consumer experiences"? Is that part of its mission? [Readers of my blog know that] I realize we have a right of Freedom of Speech (check out the Bill of Rights), but is the federal government really supposed to foster that Freedom of Speech? I appreciate that Mr. Adler thinks a consumer "experiences" database is a really good idea (I disagree) but since when do our tax dollars need to be used to provide it? Is that the only option that makes sense? And that goes double for such a dangerous proposal that presents the realistic prospect of discouraging investment and other economic activity.

So many words wasted on people who won't listen. Expect a "spirited" debate on the database as foreplay followed by the 3-2 partisan screwing that masquerades as safety administration these days. The song plays on . . . .

CPSIA - Last Ditch and Pointless Comments on Public Database

The CPSC Commission will be voting on a final rule governing the new public database for product safety complaints on Wednesday. The final rule tips the scales at 248 pages.

I know I am a public utility. . . but it's confession time - I didn't read it. I know what's in there and the Powers-That-Be don't care what I think anyhow.

Commissioners Nord and Northup have published their own alternate rule. It must be worse than the CPSC's proposed final rule because it's much shorter, only 27 pages long. I read the Nord/Northup rule - they asked for comments and I believe they will actually listen. It won't matter because the Commission now votes on party lines, so our comments are irrelevant. The Dems already know what they intend to do. Adler, Tenenbaum and the out-of-office Moore vote as a pack and do as they collectively please. Perhaps this time they won't even bother to make a pretense of listening to Nord or Northup. I picture the meeting going quickly as the Dems all put on their iPods and ear buds while Nord and Northup have their say. Might as well bop to iTunes, Commissioner communication is at a standstill anyhow.

Relax and enjoy it, kids! You'll love it. What could possibly go wrong???

Before I tell you all the reasons why I detest the public database, I want to give you my comments on the Nord/Northup draft:

1. I greatly appreciate the effort and the gesture. They didn't have to do this, and made a game effort to help out. Their rule has as much of a future as the 2010 Cubs but nonetheless, I admire their commitment to their job responsibilities and to the market the CPSC regulates. Nord and Northup recognize the many risks implicit in the database idea and attempt to fix as much as they can within the context of the deeply-flawed CPSIA, the law of the land. Thank you for trying.
2. The proposal commendably attempts to limit who can post in the database by narrowly interpreting the CPSIA. This is an appropriate regulatory agency response to an excessive law, something a well-run federal agency would do to keep the trains moving on time. Naturally, the agency has not opted for that courageous route over the past two years.
3. Much of the proposed rule involves what can be disclosed, how to protest inaccurate information and the disclosure of confidential information. It is highly technical - your eyes will glaze over. It's all necessary to make the best of a bad situation.

The basic concept of the database is that the government must set up coercive rules to make "bad" companies do the right thing. Apparently, the geniuses behind the database assumed that we cartoonish corporate bad guys would never exercise good judgment without the pressure of the public database. Many steps backward resulted. For instance, the Nord/Northup proposal says that manufacturers will not be provided the name or contact information of the submitter of the complaint or the injured party. We also won't receive photographs of the injury. And this is for what purpose? Apparently by withholding this information, the CPSC enhances the ability of manufacturers to do their job. I believe this is a reversal of current practice.

There are many consumer "advocates" out there who are telling misleading stories about the database. A good example is "Wallet Pop" who provided an update on the database on November 12th. Here's how he portrays the situation:

a. "Trying to keep your family safe from dangerous products is extraordinarily challenging."

RW - Is that really true? What is the evidence that we are all "in danger"? This is not an exaggeration - this is a LIE.

b. "As much energy as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission spends trying to alert consumers to hazardous products, an alarming amount of the information it possesses is kept secret."

RW - Enforcement investigations and enforcements themselves are very closely associated with litigation. Confidentiality is absolutely ESSENTIAL for any semblance of due process, a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, even for corporations. The Rule of Law protects us all, even if we must tolerate some sacrifices, such as the sanctity of confidential investigations.

That DARNED Constitution, so inconvenient.

c. "Releasing all this information is a frightening and annoying prospect to many companies, who fear tarnished reputations."

RW - There's a lot more to fear in the database than just tarnished reputations. Let's not overlook that the Internet exists. We manufacturers live in a world where the consumer is KING - our reputations are on the line every day already. There are already many websites ready and willing to let you bash away at us, as long as you let them sell ads. So it MUST be something more than "tarnished reputations" that is causing all that fear. Could it be . . . heightened litigation and liability risk???

d. "Nancy Nord and Anne Northup want further restrictions on such things as whose reports can be included in the database (no lawyers acting on a victim's behalf, thank you) . . . . Traditionally, Nord and Northup are on the losing side of 3-2 votes, but they're not going down quietly."

RW - Safety is now PARTISAN at the CPSC. In other words, in their spin machine, Democrats CARE deeply about kids and Republicans are heartless money-grubbers. These days the caring Dems run the show and money-grubbers are always outvoted.

I know you like a good story at bedtime! Bad Republicans, good Democrats. Sweet dreams.

e. "Companies will still make huge profits after this database is made public. Is it wrong for a handful of large and powerful corporations to perhaps take complaints a bit more seriously when they come in instead of choosing to dismiss them until hundreds are hurt or innocent children lose their lives?" [Emphasis added]

RW - The CLASSIC mischaracterization of our market that it's all about big companies. This guy has Mattel and Graco on the mind. The irony is that the mass market companies could care less. The ones who will be CRUSHED are the small businesses. Let's not forget that Mattel gets to test its own products - and when it LATER had a recall of 11 million units of its merchandise, no one asked any questions about testing. The rules are hardly even a blip to those guys. The cost to Mattel from that massive recall: ONE PENNY PER SHARE. The database is just another sidelight for them. The story is rather different for small businesses, however.

Not that the CPSC cares . . . .

So why do I hate the database?

1. There is a big difference between restaurant reviews and "United Breaks Guitars", and product liability. The database is all about litigation and liability risk. Reputational reviews are about goodwill, but the database has to do with systemic risk for our businesses. It is a pro-plaintiff distortion in an already out-of-control tort system. Fundamentally, reputation is about consumer as king. Liability is about bloodsucking lawyers as king. This database is not designed to inform consumers well - the information is not certified. So why have a garbage in-garbage out database. It's intended to foster more vexatious litigation. Read the WalletPop article again - it's clear that the database is intended to be coercive. How do you suppose it will be coercive?

2. The government has no business lending a hand to tort lawyers. The tort system which provides the "little guy" with a way to seek redress functions just fine. The New York Times just published a study on hedge fund investing in tort lawsuits. Must be quite the cash cow if those guys are getting into it. The database gives them a new target - you. Why is it appropriate for the CPSC to oversee the disbursement of this information?

Do you think this will raise our standard of living? Create jobs? Increase capital available for investment?

It is worth noting that the database will create an expansion of the role of government in our markets. This is classic government bureaucratic creep where the government attempts to compete with the open market. Yes, there is that Internet thing. All those new tedious jobs, those eyes-glaze-over procedures must be administered by freshly-minted bureaucrats. The database must be built and maintained on government servers. Decisions will need to be made, filings and "transmittals" processed, deadlines watched, complaints followed up. This is PURE overhead. [And there is also the even larger devotion of resources that will need to be deployed by manufacturers.] Read the rules and ask yourself - will the world be better with all the new rules? With this expansion of our government? Isn't this what you read about in the papers every day?

I am so, so sick of it. When will it end?

3. There is no economic justification for the excessive risk that the government is forcing on the market. The children's market has not been killing or maiming kids in large numbers. Let's not forget that we are a country of 300 million and it is not a utopia - some injuries will happen. [My apologies, I don't mean to burst your bubble.] Far more kids are killed or maimed in swimming pools than in any other children's product activity. Apparently those kinds of deaths and injuries are not as troubling as other kinds of childhood deaths and injuries - there is no database on swimming pools.

4. The database is definitely subject to manipulation by competitors and other agents of corporate extortion and destruction (like bloodsucking lawyers). That is, under the proposal that Tenenbaum and Co. will pass when they take off their ear buds on Wednesday. For myself, I am particularly apprehensive about the stress that the database will place on our company. We will get notice in five days and have ten days to reply. Since the agency is going to launch a publicity campaign to convince the public to report every nit in the database, I expect MANY such postings. Now every broken toy will be a potential liability for our company, and trivial incidents will become our top priority. Forget about growing our business - it's catering to the exigencies of the database that will matter. Still, I cannot imagine making the database the centerpiece of my business life. I also don't know how we are supposed to answer a lawyer who asks how we monitor this database if we ignore it. Damned if you do and damned if don't.

Not that the CPSC cares.

I can hear the advocates now - "This is what we want companies to do. They need to be 'responsible' and pay attention to their products and their customers." Well, that presumes that we weren't doing that already. In any event, we choose what we do every day. If you make us miserable enough, we'll get out of this market fast. And that's what the CPSC seems committed to do.

I think the database will quickly supplant the old way of finding out that there was a problem with our products - namely that our customers would call or write us. So they will place this information anonymously in a database and we will not be able to interview them or see their product. This puts us more in the dark and makes our job much harder. Or impossible. Brave new world . . . .

The whole subject depresses me. Be prepared for more fireworks and then the expected outcome on Wednesday. Our opinions will not sway the Majority (remember, Adler told us that anecdotes aren't evidence, so they are free to ignore us and our amusing anecdotes).

And after this ugly business is concluded, you know what's next . . . the 15 Month Rule. Then we're goners, once and for all. Eric Cantor, where are you???

CPSIA - Dear President Obama

An Open Letter to President Obama:

Dear President Obama,

Tuesday's election results were a message to your administration. The "shellacking" you experienced was a referendum on your economic policies as well as a passionate call for smaller government.

Readers of my blog have heard all about these issues for two years. It is frustrating to me that you and your administration remain in the dark. You weren't listening.

My industry, children's products, suffered mightily at the hands of your administration. Admittedly the problem began on Mr. Bush's watch but it was your Democrats who refused to relent or admit their errors. Since passage of the Consumer Product Safety "Improvement" Act in 2008, your party has refused to consider our industry's increasingly pathetic pleas for mercy. The result has been utter market chaos and dramatic financial loss. This regulatory "railroad job" has driven many of us into politics against you and your party out of desperation and profound anger over this undeserved and insensitive treatment.

If you take the midterm election results seriously, you must reexamine the impact of this law on our industry and promptly offer sensible relief.

The problems with the CPSIA can be divided into four categories - Cost, Complexity, Risk and Intrusion. Please give up the idea that these problems can be overcome with tax relief or some sort of economic incentive. If you break my leg, I won't be able to get up and run like an Olympic champion no matter how many carrots you dangle in front of my nose. It's time to be accountable for the damage that the CPSIA wrought - and then directly address it.

Cost: The many ridiculous new rules in the CPSIA dramatically raise the cost of operating our businesses. It goes far beyond the asphyxiating testing costs that the CPSIA imposes. Wasteful administrative costs are skyrocketing in every direction. For instance, tracking labels do not magically appear on our products - we must hire people to redesign each of our products and our manufacturing processes, and we must hire yet more people to make sure we don't screw up these tasks. We sell or manufacture literally thousands of skus (items) - but have had only one tiny recall in the last 26 years. This is PURE UNADULTERATED WASTE. We nevertheless must incur these costs to keep the CPSC happy.

These well-documented costs come from somewhere. You may wonder why we're not hiring. [In fact, I have previously disclosed in this space that our head count continues to decline, an uninterrupted trend since 2007 to this very day.] Well, we must fund these unproductive costs from productive activities - sales, marketing, product development - you know, activities that produce new revenue. [Please note: your proposed tax increases will be paid from the same kitty.] Unlike you, we can't solve our money problems by printing more dollar bills - we have to EARN them. If you make us waste our money, we must shrink our business to pay these new costs. WE GIVE UP GROWTH TO PAY THESE WASTEFUL COSTS.

I find it exasperating to have to explain this to you.

Complexity: We now face perhaps 3,000 pages of new safety rules and laws applicable to our business. I have never included rules on childcare or infant items in this total. For those miserable companies who stubbornly persist in making this kind of item, their total is probably well in excess of 3,000 pages. Each word of those pages is a possible felony.

The pre-CPSIA total was about 100 pages of rules, most of which were inapplicable to our business. There was very little to remember - which made it easy for us to administer our business. We could teach the rules, we could remember the rules, we could follow the rules, we could set up sensible priorities oriented around safety (not merely compliance). This is no longer the case.

Face it, President Obama, NO ONE understands these new rules. I include the CPSC on that list. There are just too many rules, and they are riddled with inconsistencies, flaws and head scratchers. The rules are also a mess, existing in many forms, in many places, never correlated or conformed, and are certainly not indexed. The rules have no underlying logic, so it is not possible to anticipate how any rule should work or does work - you have to find the rule and study it, preferably with an expensive lawyer helping you. Even finding a particular rule is quite a treasure hunt.

We are pretty busy - this does not enhance our productivity.

I believe that unless one is a rabbinic scholar or some kind of savant, it is not possible to master 3,000 pages of dense and inconsistent rules. The CPSC has done little to make sense of these rules.

Consider the paradox of musical instruments - full-sized musical instruments are not considered "Children's Products" even if marketed EXCLUSIVELY to children. Does that make ANY sense to you? Remember, these are SAFETY rules so if musical instruments are unsafe for some reason, wouldn't logic suggest that we should not let children interact with them? And if they're safe, then they shouldn't be regulated at all. Right? Interestingly, the CPSC says that if you shrink the same instruments down for children, they WOULD BE considered "Children's Products" and subject to the CPSIA, even if marketed side-by-side with slightly larger, full-sized instruments which are not regulated. This makes absolutely no sense, is completely indefensible as public policy and creates a terrible quandary for any business attempting to interpret and apply these rules.

The complexity and opacity of the rules outstrips EVERYBODY'S abilities. We are completely stymied - and it's your fault. You and your team refused our advice on how to resolve these issues.

Risk: The CPSIA is a tort lawyers' dream. With the coming public database, our industry will be a feeding trough for these vipers. To say the least, you have permitted the government to set up a system DESIGNED to be gamed by lawyers and litigants.

How do you think business people will react to this massive expansion of the tort system? Please note that NO ONE contends that there are more injuries to address - it is absolutely clear that the effect of the CPSIA is to create many more claims of action. More cost, more risk - and as a result, there WILL be less economic activity.

Good job, guys!

Add to this misery the current practice of this CPSC to press for recalls that do not meet the CPSA's legal standards for recalls (substantial risk of injury or death) and to impose huge vindictive penalties. The agency is on the war path, trying with all its might to scare us to death. This is an especially powerful economic depressant for small businesses which typically lack the resources to resist these pressures. Small businesses are more conservative and tolerate risk less comfortably as they manage their own money and see themselves as having more to lose than mass market companies or public companies.

The aggression of the new CPSC is out of control. The current Chairman likes to BRAG about her big penalties. Trust has been utterly destroyed in the manufacturing community. In two short years, the CPSC squandered its reputation as a partner in safety, someone to be trusted. Who in their right mind would trust this CPSC? If you doubt me, ask McDonald's how they feel about being pressured to recall 12 million acknowledged safe Shrek glasses (and the ensuing media frenzy over cadmium - all without ANY documented injuries from cadmium in children's products EVER). Or ask Schylling Associates or Daiso how they feel about penalties imposed on them for rule violations without any injuries. By all appearances, those penalties reflected regulatory anger, not endangered public safety.

[While you're at it, ask the CSPC why they never completed their FOIA disclosure to me on the Schylling penalty.]

Seemingly, almost any violation of these rules can be twisted into a felony charge now. We joke in our office about visiting each other in jail - but it's not really funny at all. I simply cannot fathom conducting my affairs in a way that risks being charged with a felony. As a lawyer, the criminal risk imposed by the CPSIA is completely unacceptable to me and highly offensive. I often say that felonies cannot be committed accidentally - except in the Children's Product industry. The unavoidable accumulation of trivial infractions with heavy penalty risk gives the CPSC winning leverage in any negotiation. The game is FIXED. Everyone knows it, too.

This is no stimulus plan, by the way.

Intrusion: It's this simple - we have a new partner who showed up two years ago - the U.S. government. They don't know anything about our business and have never run any operation similar to ours but they now reserve the right to check all our work and to second-guess us. Mother May I? That's the new game in our business.


Could we live without ANY of this? Yes, most definitely. While the zealots behind this self-destructive law like to emphasize the POSSIBILITY of injury from lead and love to repeat the simple-minded chestnut that there is "no safe level of lead", they FAIL utterly to tie these claims of POSSIBLE injury to data of ACTUAL injury. There is no "nexus". Lead may be "bad" but it has no history of causing injury in children's products. Leaded gasoline, house paint and industrial pollution are the culprits that caused blood lead levels to rise materially - that's undeniably true. Congress missed the boat entirely with the CPSIA - it's all cost, no benefit.

Lead injuries from children's products are virtually unknown. My study of CPSC recalls in 1999-2010 totals one death (from a piece of jewelry) and three unverified injuries from lead in 11 years. Given the truly massive size of our industry and the children's marketplace, and the literally trillions of interactions with our industry's products each year, this injury total is statistically equivalent to ZERO. Instead of punishing our industry, you should give us a good citizenship award. We have earned the trust of U.S. consumers.

The path forward is clear but frankly, I Still don't think you get it. Trust has been broken. Until you and your administration DEMONSTRATE that you are taking a DIFFERENT path, we will continue to conduct a war against the CPSC and Congress. This defective law deserves a FULL repeal. It is misconceived and has cost countless jobs. I hope you and your associates will not continue to deny the obvious, to fly in the face of data and reason. The voters are on to this scam. They voted many Democrats out of work in midterm elections. If you and your team don't wise up quickly, in the over-regulation of our industry and other industries, they'll vote the rest of you out in two years.

The problem was never the law. Before Congress "improved" it, the CPSA was a powerful law that enabled the CPSC to closely supervise children's markets. Let's not forget that the recalls in 2007/8 were conducted under PRIOR law - the unamended CPSA had plenty of teeth. The recalls in 2007/8 were clearly a COMPLIANCE problem, not a problem with the rules themselves. For various reasons, some people weren't following the law closely enough. As objectionable as that may be, it is also important to remember that the 2007/8 recalls were associated with virtually NO injuries. So what should we have done, in lieu of all the tough new standards and venal penalty provisions in the CPSIA?

The agency should have been reorganized to work on compliance more effectively. The agency needed to invest in education, outreach to industry and more effective partnership with industry. This idea that we in the business community can't be trusted is revolting and completely untrue - it is a populist idea you and your allies flogged to get elected. If you want to keep your jobs for much longer, you need to drop this caustic idea. We are not bad people or incompetent people - we can be trusted and can be good partners (as our record proves). No, not everyone will be good or conscientious. Bad people and incompetent organizations cannot be legislated away (at a reasonable cost). Still, the data indicates that a lower cost approach of partnership and education will produce very good results.

Fixing this law will be a stimulus plan that creates JOBS. Please give us back control of our financial statements and we will find a good way to spend our own money to grow our businesses. We don't need your help - we need you to GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
Vernon Hills, Illinois

CPSIA - August, The Month To Scare (Oops, Save) The Populace

Well, it's August, almost time for Congress to recess for elections which means it's also time for your Dem friends to save you again. Makes a nice story for election time. Remember how Congress saved us two years ago, by passing a little bill called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act on August 14, 2008? I bet you're getting ready for the bill's second birthday party! Anyhow, the Congressional cicadian rhythm drove a couple Pelosi clones, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Jackie Speier (D-CA), to timely release their latest legislative salvos designed to prove up their worth to you, the voters.

Ms. Schakowsky, one of Illinois' "finest" who is rated the Number One Spender in Congress by the National Taxpayers Union (thanks, Jan!), offered up another CPSIA-like morsel, the noxious H.R. 5786 Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Before we go on, who's against safe cosmetics? Everyone raise their hands . . . no one? Okay, we're all for safe cosmetics. So what's the problem?

• Annual registration with the FDA for all manufacturers, including much proprietary and confidential information.
• A federally-mandated schedule of new fees for the FDA to assess on the now poorer cosmetics companies.
• New safety labels (an old Schakowsky standby to make everyone so much safer).
• FDA review of the "physical, chemical and toxicological properties" of each chemical or mixture listed on the label. And lots of testing.
• New FDA regulations on banned chemicals and so on.
• New prohibitions, meaning that penalties and perhaps criminal actions are possible.
• Mandated public reporting of "adverse health effects".

The trial bar has to be licking its chops. And Jan gets to claim to her constituents that they can't live without her. After all, who else is going to save them??? Just like the CPSIA saved our company, our employees and our customers. So, so, soooooo safe and we get an even bigger federal government as an added bonus!

Not content to be outdone, savior-in-training Jackie Speier followed up her ratting out of safe McDonalds Shrek glasses with the newly-minted H.R. 5920 Toxic Metals Protection Act of 2010. Anyone against being protected from toxic metals??? Hmmm, no one? Thank heavens we have such an alert member of Congress ready to sweep in to protect us - right before elections! One of the big effects of this law is to make lots of things illegal and to specify civil and criminal liability for infractions. We really needed this!

Ms. Speier explains her "motivation": “'Children’s developmental health in this country is threatened by exposure to products containing cadmium,' said Congresswoman Speier. 'In May, Wal-Mart removed cadmium-tainted jewelry from its shelves. Last month, McDonald’s recalled over 12 million glasses containing cadmium, and SmileMakers Inc. recalled 68,000 Children’s Happy Charm Bracelets and Football Rings for containing this toxic metal. It’s time to be smart and aggressive about the risks posed by toxic metals that can cause children harm. This legislation is aimed at protecting them from hazardous levels of metals in products they might use.'" Oops, she forgot to mention that the Shrek glasses were acknowledged to be safe by the CPSC or that none of these products is associated with a single injury. Details . . . .

Then there's the swelling pile of Op-Eds and Editorials touting the "urgent" need to tighten the noose on chemicals (LA Times: "The new regulations will be burdensome on industry — and even more so if the state approves the recommendations we've listed here — but they should also pay dividends by lowering health care bills and environmental cleanup costs, as well as spawning a new industry dedicated to developing safer chemicals."). [Ed. Note: I love the part about how the bill will lower costs! I wish newspaper editorial writers knew how to add and multiply - they could really figure stuff out with those skills.] Henry Waxman, current shield of the CPSIA and guardian of the rules and regulations that ensure the business death of the children's product industry, wants to finish the job by making us account for every chemical in every product. TSCA Reform - super! We'll all be so safe . . . in the unemployment line.

Your Congress at work - making the world safe from jobs and prosperity, an August tradition!

CPSIA - Comment Letter on "Children's Product" Definition

I apologize, the letter's long. . . .

June 20, 2010

Todd A. Stevenson
Director, Office of the Secretary
Room 502
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Re: Docket No. CPSC–2010-0029 Interpretation of “Children’s Product”

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am hereby submitting comments in response to the Solicitation of Comments on the Interpretation of “Children’s Product” (Docket No. CPSC–2010–0029) published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2010 (the “Rule”).

In her statement supporting the proposed interpretive rule defining a “Children’s Product” dated March 31, 2010, CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum noted that the issuance of the Rule is not required by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) but was being issued by the CPSC in response to the demonstrated need of stakeholders. I am such a stakeholder. Our company is in the educational materials and educational toy business and is regulated by the CPSIA. Ms. Tenenbaum notes that the regulated community wants predictability and certainty in the rules that govern the marketplace. She notes that the Commission “listens to, hears, and greatly values the input of the regulated community and all stakeholders”.

Ms. Tenenbaum’s statement informs my comments on the Rule. I believe the Rule does not achieve the objectives set out in her statement and must therefore be amended significantly.

Having read other comment letters on the definition of “Children’s Product”, I feel that the legal and technical details of the proposed interpretative rule will be adequately addressed by other stakeholders without my further input. I believe that this interpretative rule extends the reach of the CPSIA to many new products not covered or intended to be covered by the law, and furthermore, changes the “Children’s Product” test from one defined by “primarily” to something more mathematical (as in a 51/49 test). However, I will rely on the other letters to make the case on these points.

In this letter, I will focus on the impact of the Rule on the marketplace. In particular, I will focus on whether the Rule is consistent with the mission of the agency, is fundamentally sound as policy, meets Ms. Tenenbaum’s objective of clarity, certainty and predictability. I conclude that the Rule needs sharp revision.

The Definition of “Children’s Product” is Inconsistent with the Mission of the Agency: I think it is important to think about the Rule in the context of the goals of the agency as set forth in its enabling legislation, the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). Notably, Section 2(b) of the CPSA states:

“(b) The purposes of this Act are – (1) to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products; (2) to assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products; (3) to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products and to minimize conflicting State and local regulations; and (4) to promote research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.”

The definition of “Children’s Product” has been incorporated into this legislative scheme designed to “protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products”. Of course, “Children’s Products” is now a defined term in the CPSA and interpretation of that term, broadly or narrowly, will affect the scope of the law. Under the terms of the CPSIA, the definition of “Children’s Product” draws products into the coverage of the CPSIA, most notably in the regulation of lead-in-substrate and triggers the imposition of many other significant obligations (such as tracking labels). Nothing in the CPSIA overrides the purposes of the CPSC as set forth in the CPSA. Thus, the definition of “Children’s Product” must be evaluated in light of the agency’s mission to protect against unreasonable risk of injury.

How risky are children’s products for their lead content? The data in the CPSC’s historical recall database best describes the risk, in my opinion. These recalls reflect the evolving view of the agency on the threat posed by lead in its various manifestations in children’s products, and reflects the dangers posed by lead via the reported injuries. I analyzed the recalls posted on the CPSC website over the past 11 years and this data indicates that, over a period of approximately 11 years (from March 5, 1999 to April 15, 2010), the CPSC issued a total of 899 recalls of children’s products for all hazards (including lead and lead-in-paint). In this period, 247 recalls were associated with lead and resulted in one death, the well-known death of a four-year-old in Minnesota who swallowed a jewelry charm. [The data can be found at http://bit.ly/aOK4iS] These 247 recalls were also associated with three reported but unverified injuries from lead. Thus – over 11 years - the reported injuries from lead are four – one death and three unverified injuries.

Contrast this with the injuries associated with swimming pools and spas, a well-known source of childhood injuries. According to the CPSC’s press release dated May 24, pool and spa-related drowning deaths have averaged 385 per year for children under 15 (including 299 per year for children under five years of age) and serious injuries requiring emergency room treatments have averaged 4,200 per year. Consider this data in light of lead: lead produced one death and three unverified injuries in 11 years while pools and spas produced more than one death and 11.5 serious injuries PER DAY in recent years. Pools and spas produce more deaths and far more injuries on the average day than lead produced in the last 11 years IN TOTAL according to the CPSC’s own statistics.

The CPSC’s 2010 response to the daily deaths and maimings of children in pools and spas was a short public relations blitz. The CPSIA has imposed annual expenses in the billions of dollars on the children’s product industry to reduce deaths and injuries from lead.

If massive numbers of pool deaths and injuries merit only a public awareness campaign by the CPSC, the definition of “Children’s Products” should be downsized appropriately to reflect the relative nature of the “threat” posed by lead. The agency’s recall data on lead injuries has never been challenged by any advocate. Evidence that lead-in-substrate meets the “unreasonable risk of injury” standard set forth in Section 2(b) of the CPSA has never been disclosed. It is well-known that the CDC and the EPA link evidence of lead poisoning to only two environmental causes – leaded house paint (the primary cause) and the residual effects of pollution from leaded gasoline (generally found in dirt near inner city housing) and from industrial pollution.

The health impact of lead-in-substrate in ATVs, bikes, pens, clothing, apparel, even toys, is entirely absent from the literature as is any empirical evidence that these items could even theoretically cause lead poisoning. The advocates against lead cite studies that lead can be dangerous in small amounts and highlight the assertion that lead harms “silently”. In other words, advocates claim that because harm can befall children from lead undetected, it follows, ergo, that this kind of harm might also caused by children’s products containing trace amounts of lead. This notion is best summed up by the slogan “there is no safe level for lead”. Yet lead poisoning has never been positively identified from ANY children’s product beyond the one death and three unverified lead-in-paint injuries reported in the CPSC’s recall data over the past 11 years.

This absence of data of detectable lead-in-substrate poisoning means that the definition of “Children’s Product” in the Rule must be narrow. The mission of the agency under the CPSA does not permit it to divert resources for anything less than an “unreasonable risk of injury”. The Rule specifies a definition that is too broad for the documented minimal risk of injury from lead-in-substrate.

The Definition of “Children’s Product” Knowingly Permits Children to Remain in Danger: The Rule permits children to remain in “danger” of lead poisoning through its technical interpretation of the CPSIA. If lead-in-substrate is a public health issue suitable for the agency’s attention, this is unacceptable. The CPSC must adopt a clear rule that logically draws the line between regulated and unregulated commerce.

Let me explain:

The Rule attempts to distinguish items of “general use” and items that are primarily intended for children. The Rule notes that items of general use are not included in the definition of “Children’s Product”. An item of general use may in fact be used by children but because it is intended for a general audience, it is outside regulation by the CPSIA. This is an interpretation of the CPSIA under the Rule. The contrast in the treatment of items of general use and Children’s Products under the Rule is quite dramatic: obligations for safety testing, tracking labels, reporting, whistleblower risk, liability risk are all lifted for general use items. Children’s Products suffer the full brunt of the extensive new safety rules, presumably because of an asserted higher “risk” of injury to children.

An irony of the Rule is its acceptance of not regulating “items of general use” even if they are known to be widely or even universally used by children. The illogical and worrisome disparity in treatment of these items is best illustrated by pens. According to the Rule, pens are typically items of general use and are therefore (as a general rule) NOT regulated by the CPSIA. This result is quite helpful to the agency, as the pen industry has purportedly informed the CPSC that ball points must be made with brass, and brass has minimal lead content as a basic ingredient. No one argues that brass ball points have ever exposed anyone to injury from lead poisoning, not do “human factor” experts contend that contact with ball points are likely to present a risk of lead poisoning. Thus, the inclusion of pens in the broad reach of the CPSIA has been called an “unintended consequence”. So the “right” answer for all concerned is that pens shouldn’t be included in the CPSIA. The CPSC has consistently held that pens are outside the definition of “Children’s Products”.

Notably, it is well-known that close to 100% of school-age children routinely use ball point pens. Children carry pens in their backpacks and use them every day in school. Pens are a particularly ironic choice for this rulemaking example because pens are known to be routinely mouthed (chewed) by all ages of consumers including adults. However, use of pens by kids is deemed “unregulated” under the CPSIA and the Rule because pens have been held to be items of general use. Strangely, pens are in fact subject to regulation under the CPSIA if “decorated or embellished by adding certain features that may appeal to children, such as childish themes or play value”. The Rule holds that if the embellishments are “likely” to attract a child’s interaction with a pen, then it would be considered a “Children’s Product”. So the operation of the Rule is that a pen is subject to regulation if it has an embellishment but not subject o regulation if it omits the embellishment. The CPSC does not indicate that the embellishment itself is a public health or safety concern nor argues that the presence of the embellishment will raise the likelihood of use of a pen by children. The CPSC concedes that children are widely using pens now.

This flaw in the Rule will subject the CPSC and its rules to ridicule. There is no justification for the agency’s safety regulations applying only to some pens, not based on evidence of risk but because of a hyper-technical interpretation of the definition of “Children’s Product” under the CPSIA. The Rule simply makes no sense as public health policy. If the presence of lead in ball points is an actual health risk (which it is not), then there is no excuse to omit any pens from supervisory regulation. If the presence of lead in ball points is NOT an actual risk to health, then there is no excuse to regulate ANY pens under this law. Writing an interpretative rule that can’t seem to make up its mind is, frankly, worse than no rule at all.

The Definition of “Children’s Product” Does Little to Add Clarity for Regulated Companies: The convoluted definition of “Children’s Product” set forth in the Rule fails to bring clarity to the broad reach and operation of the CPSIA. Regulated companies will never be able to consistently apply the Rule in the real world, and worse still, will never be able to find peace (agreement) with their retailers (dealers) on the application of the Rule. Chaos is certain to ensue. This problem is again best illustrated by pens. Pens are items of general use and thus deemed to be unregulated under the CPSIA. The Rule notes an important exception, however: “when a general use, such as a pen, is decorated or embellished by adding certain features that may appeal to children, such as childish themes or play value, the general ruse product may be converted or transformed into a children’s product due to these additional features of characteristics.” [Emphasis added]

The Rule goes on to note that there is an exception to the exception: “However, there also are ‘novelty’ pens that could appeal to children 12 years of age or younger as well as older children and adults; such novelty pens would not be considered to be primarily intended for children. For example, a simple ball point stick pen bearing an elementary school’s name, without any other decorations, would likely appeal to anyone (i.e., students, teachers, parents) connected with the school. A pen with a silly head on the top, not associated with any particular mass media (and not sold in toy stores) may have just as much appeal to adults as it would to children. Pens with puzzle features that allow the user to take them apart and reconfigure the design also are likely to appeal to children and adults alike, and thus, are not likely to be considered children’s products because they are not primarily intended for children.” [Emphasis added]

The fact that children were already “interacting” with pens in the absence of the “childish” embellishments seems to be irrelevant under the Rule, raising the issue of how to tell when a product’s use by children is deserving of safety testing or the application of tracking labels. These are “big dollar” questions for the regulated community. If an embellishment is “appealing” to children, then if children “interact” with the pen based on foreseeable use and misuse of the product, it is apparently considered a children’s product . . . unless the embellishment has “just as much appeal” to adults or children, in which case it is a product of general use. And if the pen is unadorned but used by every child due to a marketing scheme directly aimed at the kids market, no testing or labeling is required (see discussion of musical instruments below).

It seems so obvious . . . .

The clear holding of this “policy” is that stick pens used by every child every day in every classroom do NOT require testing. Were you to remove those ordinary pens from the classroom and apply a “childish” embellishment with inks or paint supplied by the CPSC (stipulated to be entirely lead-free) and then return them to the children, the pens would now need to be tested and labeled. This, of course, makes absolutely no sense, and gives the necessary impression that the CPSC is more concerned with technical compliance issues (test reports without meaning or significance) than with notions of safety. How are regulated companies supposed to follow such incomprehensible or nonsensical rules? There is no answer to this question. Retailers (dealers) take a different tack when confronted by nonsensical rules – they crawl into a shell and invent their own “safety rules” designed to create a cushion between their practices and whatever 20-20 hindsight analyses could be used by regulators. This creates a Wild West of safety rules and practices for manufacturers: chaotic, unpredictable, penal and extremely expensive.

The Rule seems to delight in this convoluted reasoning. Consider the Rule’s stance on the marketing of musical instruments to schools: “Products with a marketing strategy that targets schools, such as instrument rentals, would not convert such products into children’s products if such products are intended for general use, regardless of how the instruments are leased, rented or sold. These instruments are intended by the manufacturer for use primarily by adults, although there also may be incidental use by children through such programs.” Incidental use? In many schools, the “incidental use” induced by these targeted programs is nearly 100% of the kids. It is difficult to take the CPSC seriously about its “passion” for eliminating lead in all manifestations when it enacts a rule that openly permits unregulated use of brass musical instruments by school kids while banning brass in toy wheel assemblies or requiring testing for certain pens because of the brass content in their ball points. This policy is best described as “two-faced”.

Let’s not forget that this Rule is hardly restricted to pens. Paper clips are known to be in wide use throughout society and also by children in the regulated age ranges. As products of “general use”, paper clips are specifically cited in the Rule as exempt from testing and the other requirements of the CPSIA. That makes sense – despite the uncontested fact that paper clips are routinely chewed on by adults AND children. I assume that the lead content in paper clips would have an equal (or greater) ability to erase IQ points as lead in children’s products that also might be mouthed – but let’s not worry about that now. The Rule sensibly draws the line at paper clips for the foregoing reasons, and whatever “hazard” chewing or sucking on paper clips may present has been overlooked as a public health risk. Unfortunately for our education business, it’s not that simple: “Manufacturers may also include a general use item as one of several items packaged together, such as a paper clip included in a magnet set primarily intended for children ages 7 through 10 years old. The paper clip may be a general use item but when included as part of the magnet set, it would need to be tested to the applicable children’s product safety rules since the product is targeted primarily to children 12 years of age or younger.”

What is achieved by this rule? High expense, much confusion, many arguments with retailers and sharply-reduced respect for the CPSC’s rules.

Please note that the Rule leaves all elements of these subjective judgments open to doubt. Consider pens again – because the Rule encourages us to reason from the pen example. The CPSC took no definite position on anything applying to pens other than that an undecorated stick pen is outside the CPSIA. Anything with an “embellishment” presumably will be the subject of endless debate in the regulated community under the Rule. If you guess wrong on the application of the Rule, the law provides (and CPSC practice now reinforces) tremendous liability risk. Let’s not forget that we in regulated community know about the $2.05 million penalty assessed against Daiso for five recalls of less than 700 units in total. Liability risk under the CPSIA seems virtually unlimited nowadays. Subjective interpretative rules applied with 20-20 hindsight by regulators would likely expose manufacturer to the highest risk at the worst possible time, namely when there’s a real problem. How can manufacturers defend themselves? The wishy-washy design of the Rule provides nothing for a manufacturer to rely upon.

The Rule makes same similar confusing distinction on DVDs and CDs and seems to imply that many promotional products will be subject to doubt under this Rule. Almost anything useful that has a so-called “childish” embellishment might be regulated now, possibly without the manufacturer even knowing! The Rule states that manufacturers “should expect” that adults will give their embellished or “childish” products to children even if made specifically for adults (the example cited is a stuffed animal sold with a candle). The fact that some businesses target adults with such items (intent!), or the fact that the Rule contemplates that adults are often drawn to the same items as children, seems to be forgotten here. At a minimum, the Rule seems entirely subjective. This not being confusing enough, the Rule notes that if the items that children are drawn to happen to be considered “collectibles”, then perhaps they won’t be considered children’s products. Or maybe they will.

To put a bow on the confusion, the Rule concludes that classic games like checkers or Chinese checkers (among other common games) are NOT children’s products. I simply cannot imagine a toy company DARING to leave these classic games untested yet the CPSC has now officially ruled that certain classic games are exempt from the CPSIA. However, if the manufacturer is foolish enough to promote these games with images “or other features . . . that make [the games] more attractive to or suitable for children than a general use product would normally be”, well then they are magically transformed into children’s products.

I literally do not know how to apply a rule so full of convoluted logic and word games. Likewise, I cannot envision smoothly functioning markets governed by a rule like this.

Notably, the weight placed on advertising portrayals with children will only intensify arguments between manufacturers and their customers about what is and what is not a children’s product. For instance, we sell magnifiers and tape measures that are identical to those sold at Home Depot. By any definition (and as acknowledged in the Rule), these items are items of general use. We happen to photograph them with children for our catalog and website to illustrate the products’ utility in educational settings. How are we supposed to determine definitively that these items are not children’s products under the law, much less get our customers to agree with us? To date, no customer has agreed with this conclusion. NOT ONE.

The Rule posits a bizarrely unrealistic deliberative process in which each photograph is “weighed” against each other to determine its “true nature”, as though that were possible: “The prominence, conspicuousness, and/or other emphasis given to each portrayal of a product’s use or intended users on packaging or in advertising media can be weighted differently according to which images or messages are the strongest and most obvious to the consumer at the point of purchase.” This language makes me want to scream. To avoid business risks under this rule, businesses may have to produce catalogs and websites that look like this: http://bit.ly/d4vtZo.

The Rule confounds by assigning responsibility to the manufacturer for its retailers’ independent choices on where they place items in their stores or in their various catalogs, web pages and ads. Of course, each retailer will make this choice differently, possibly store-by-store, catalog-by-catalog, ad-by-ad, web page-by-web page, region-by-region, country-by-country and so on. In reality, this standard is even vaguer than that, as the judgment is whether the images “could imply [the product’s] suitability for a certain age group”. [Emphasis added] In any event, we manufacturers have neither control over, nor knowledge of, these choices by third parties.

All this makes me wonder why the Rule doesn’t simply state that the CPSC will decide after the fact what is and is not a “Children’s Product” based on its subjective personal opinion at the time? That rule formulation would at least be honest and clear.

I believe the agency has given scant thought to the reality of living with this rule. How does the CPSC envision that a manufacturer and a retailer would resolve a dispute over whether a product is subject to regulation? Think about people who sell pens. What is the likelihood that there ever be agreement that a particular embellished pen is outside this law? I fear the effect of this vague, quirky and completely indeterminate rule will be that everyone associated with children’s products will throw up their hands and assume that everything is subject to the full brunt of the CPSIA. If that’s the intent, I wish the CPSC would just come out and say it.

What Should the CPSC Do? The answer to this question is clear in light of two factors: (a) in the Chairman’s statement, she indicated a strong interest in bringing certainty to this rule and further notes the importance of certainty to the marketplace, and (b) the extremely low incidence of injury and death reported from lead in the last 11 years. As noted in great detail above, there is nothing “certain” about the Rule as presently written. It includes far too many phrases like “may”, “could”, “in general”, “weighting”, “factors” and so on. The Rule as written is the antithesis of clarity and certainty.

The CPSC has as its mission “to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products”. With so few injuries and one death from lead over the course of 11 years, the perils of lead have not been demonstrated to rise to the level of an “unreasonable risk of injury”, particularly when viewed in light of the known impact of so many other dangers regulated by the CPSC (such as small parts or pool injuries).

For a rule to bring “certainty” to the market, there must be a way to make a definitive judgment, one that can be relied upon. Subjective judgments and weighing of factors may make sense for a court but has little value to regulated companies in an active marketplace. Who gets to decide which judgment is “right”? Under the present Rule, no one does.

The way to resolve this dilemma is to learn from the statistically significant history of low injuries from lead, and make a concession in favor of certainty. The right rule for the definition of “Children’s Product” is to state that the “reasonable judgment” of the manufacturer on what is and what is not a “Children’s Product” under the CPSIA will be RESPECTED by the CPSC. I believe the term “reasonable judgment” is understood in the marketplace, and is also a well-defined term in the common law. It has been clarified in countless cases, providing clear guidance to all concerned (regulators, regulated companies and consumers). The CPSC should further indicate that it will NOT review the judgments made by manufacturers in the absence of fraud, a recall situation or other serious violations of law or CSPC regulations. Retailers should be entitled to rely on the reasonable determinations of manufacturers by RULE.

My concept is that the reasonable business judgment of manufacturers will appropriately shape the range of products regulated under the CPSIA. In actual fact, the reasonable judgment of manufacturers on determinations of “Children’s Products” is tightly confined by the CPSIA, so little risk to the “will of Congress” can be anticipated. In addition, given the long track record of so few documented injuries from lead (going back for many years before the CPSIA’s enactment), there is little reason to believe this practical rule will expose children to more injuries. In any event, this will allow the agency to focus its energies on greater threats. The agency also has plenty of legislative authority to draft other rules to address lead concerns if the need arises.

A rule drafted in the vague, quirky, subjective, indefinite and convoluted manner of the Rule achieves little other than amplifying the frustration and confusion of the regulated community. Having filed numerous comments letters over the last two years, testified before Congress and the CPSC on several occasions, had personal meetings with CPSC staff, written blog posts, attended rallies, and so on, I can attest to the deep frustrations associated with implementation of the CPSIA. After all this time and effort, we manufacturers are still “in the soup”. With this Rule, the CPSC begins the final stage of the implementation of the law, and potentially, places the capstone on our ruin. This Rule, plus the so-called “15 Month Rule”, taken as a whole, has the potential to put many companies out of business. I do not know how we survive both of these rules in their present form. It’s time for the CPSC to take a reality check. If the Chairman is serious about bringing certainty to the market and to regulate without putting companies out of business, it’s time to make some concessions and let the good companies who produce children’s products run their businesses and accountably produce safe products using reasonable judgment. This strategy will work. Policies like the Rule will not.

Thank you for considering my views on this important topic.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg

Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
380 North Fairway Drive
Vernon Hills, IL 60061

CPSIA - ICPHSO Update - Remarks of Gib Mullan, Head of CPSC Enforcement

Gib Mullan's remarks on enforcement:

• Import surveillance staff is now up to 18 people.
• Using Commercial Targeting Analysis Center (CTAC) to stop things at the port. Can see what's coming in before it arrives.
• Is working with the International Trade Commission, the folks responsible for HTS Codes (Harmonized Tariff Schedule). The CPSC is trying to "piggyback" on HTS code to identify the products of interest to the agency. Making "significant headway".
• Imports samples rising at a rapid rate. Only about half of the samples fail.
• Use of XRF is one of the agency's "secrets for success". Will use for cadmium, too. Only one-tenth of items scanned are being sampled. This implies that less than 5% of items scanned fail. Most items are not inspected, which is just a numbers game.
• Field Investigation Division is back to a "growth mode", in 55 locations with 89 investigators. Expanding to Internet surveillance. They have seen a surge in eBay sales of recalled items after recalls are announced. Interesting!
• Created email address for the public to report sales of recalled products. Now everyone can be on a cop on the beat, how wonderful. Hope I can still trust my kids. . . .
• Retailer reports are rising. Participants in this program include WalMart, Sears, Amazon and others. 20,000 reports a year. Also reports by email and on the hot line 800 number are jumping. The total number of reports is cresting at 50,000 per year. All of this is BEFORE the public database. [Soon a system will be fully constructed that will make doing business in the U.S. children's product industry impossible, something to look forward to (this is my thought, not Gib's remarks).]
• Field "blitzes" are increasing. Examples are pool and spas, drywall, drawstrings, cribs. This is a new activity although blitzes at the port are old hat, in my experience.
• Defect Investigations Division has 19 compliance officers.
• Recalls in 2009 DECLINED from 563 to 466. Number of units went up to an all-time high, 229 million units. Lots of big recalls in 2009. Should we feel safer now? I wonder . . . . Gib himself questions whether this is "good or bad".
• Fast Track recalls are pretty steady. "Fast tracks" are recalls initiated by companies and brought to the CPSC's attention by the company itself. CPSC-initiated recalls are steady in the 50-60 range. Cases stemming from regulatory violations declined from 167 to 47.
• Early warning system relating to cribs, bassinets and play yards is resulting in faster recalls. [No info on the availability of cribs and so on was provided, or the cost of those goods now.]
• Joint recalls with Canada was done first on February 19, 2009 (that fills in a hole!). Total of 13 joint recalls in 2009 and 16 in 2010 to date. Expects more joint recalls in the future, broadening to other countries. Gib thinks this makes it simpler for companies going through recalls. Again, not sure how I feel about this but am not opposed in principle.
• Regulatory Enforcement Division has 18 Compliance Officers now. This includes Chemical, Children's, Flammability and Mechanical hazards. Letters of Advice ("LOAs") fell a bit in 2009 by perhaps 12%. Only a small percentage result in recalls. In 2009, found 338 lead content violations and 118 lead in paint violations, mainly at the port. Recalls have come down considerably, almost to zero. Stops at the port are higher than that, but don't result in recalls necessarily. Those are declining, too.
• Compliance Division now has 14 of its own attorneys
• Civil penalties rose a lot in 2009. Gib specifically noted that he was not being "gleeful" about penalties but simply noting that penalties are a more serious risk now. I am okay with this tone, it is common sense. Penalties totalled nearly $9 million. I just hope that penalties moderate and become more purposeful, rather than political.
• Made a STRONG point about fraudulent testing. The CPSC caught fraud in lighter testing and it led to criminal charges. They are working on another case now. This is great news as far as I am concerned. Cheating is a REAL problem (an actual problem, not an imaginary problem). The CPSC should find the bad guys and punish them. The resources of the agency are well-served if focused on removing these unscrupulous people from the market.
• The agency is forging new alliances with the State AGs. They have a monthly conference call with this group. This is the CPSC's proactive effort to reign in the State AGs by making them part of the process. If this works, great. Again, we need to watch out for the lowest common denominator risk.
• Working with China on implementing "best practices". Getting better, faster. China recalls went DOWN in 2009 and he anticipates improved safety in Chinese products. This, too, is a good use of agency resources. If we really are getting better, faster, Gib and his team should take a bow. Safety benefits everyone. Next up, consideration of the relationship between these initiatives and cost. Safety is an inherently economic subject. We need recognition of this basic fact.

I have omitted all reference to drywall here. This is a one-of-a-kind problem that seems unrelated to the CPSIA as far as I can tell. Likewise, I have not attempted to summarize the issues relating to ATVs and other tangential product/safety issues brought up by Gib. [He did say that repairs to the Rhino seem to be working well, btw.]

To Gib's credit, I found his presentation quite balanced with no particular effort to frighten. I appreciate the choice of tone for what could be a quite intimidating topic.

Gib's presentation was one of the few I can recall in the last two years on the topic of enforcement that did not materially raise my blood pressure or make me think dark thoughts about the future. Let's hope that the CPSC can build on this base to restore trust among the business community. Safety and fear mongering is an unholy alliance. The CPSC needs the cooperation and trust of the manufacturing base.

CPSIA - CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 25

The Alliance for Children's Product Safety's "CPSIA Casualty of the Week" highlights how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is disrupting the U.S. marketplace in order to draw attention to the problems faced by small businesses, public institutions, consumers and others trying to comply with senseless and often contradictory provisions of the law. These provisions do nothing to improve product safety, but are driving small businesses out of the market.

Congress and the CPSC need to address the problems with CPSIA implementation to help small businesses by restoring "common sense" to our nation's product safety laws.

CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 25, 2010

CPSIA Means No Bling for Baby

When Elementary School teacher Marcy Cohen had her first baby girl, she and her sister Lori Rockoff, a social worker, started making tiny accessories for the newest addition to the family. With only a few strands of hair to adorn, the sister team developed "no slip" clips and bows. Soon, their sparkling rhinestone creations were catching the eye of friends and strangers, prompting them to launch Pea Soup Accessories for Kids, which quickly became a leading manufacturer of hand-made children's products. Their trendy product line includes a wide variety of accessories from embellished headbands to ornate socks.

Yet, while the sisters behind Pea Soup were busy supplying hundreds of high-end boutiques, Congress was working on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) to devise new testing standards of the metal and crystal embellishments that give Pea Soup accessories their unique flair. While none of Pea Soup's products ever had any safety or lead problems, the confusing nature of the CPSIA forced the sisters to make substantial changes to much of their line.

"We did not want to take any chances with violating the new law," says Marcy. "In order to avoid any risks, we scrapped many of the products in our line and had to manufacture new ones with different and compliant materials."

As a result of the law and the cost of the required testing, Pea Soup was forced to significantly change their product line, eliminating much of the creative embellishments that made their accessories distinctive and leaving them with thousands of dollars worth of perfectly safe (and adorable) unsalable inventory.

For more information about Pea Soup visit, http://www.peasoupaccessories.com/about_us/

For additional information on the Alliance for Children's Product Safety and CPSIA, and to view previous "Casualties of the Week, visit http://www.AmendTheCPSIA.com/

CPSIA - CPSIA Casualty of the Week January 7

The Alliance for Children's Product Safety's "CPSIA Casualty of the Week" highlights how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is disrupting the U.S. marketplace in order to draw attention to the problems faced by small businesses, public institutions, consumers and others trying to comply with senseless and often contradictory provisions of the law. These provisions do nothing to improve product safety, but are driving small businesses out of the market.

Congress and the CPSC need to address the problems with CPSIA implementation to help small businesses by restoring "common sense" to our nation's product safety laws.

CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 11, 2010

NEW SAFETY LAW CLEANING OUT "THE KIDS CLOSET"

Kitty Boyce worked for 18 years to build her resale shop, The Kids Closet, located in Rochester, IL, into a well-known resale shop. With its colorful signage, brightly decorated interior and whimsical whale logo, The Kids Closet built its reputation on offering customers quality second-hand children's products at great values.

Shortly after being voted the "Number One Place to Shop Resale" by the Illinois Times, Kitty announced that because of CPSIA she was converting her store to sell predominately teen and adult clothing, home accessories and furniture, and changing its name to Remarkable Resale. The loss of revenue in her shop due to the changes in inventory forced her to lay off several employees.

"CPSIA has been devastating for us," said Kitty. "We just decided to get rid of all the toys and furniture. It's just not worth the risk."

While the Consumer Product Safety Commission has temporarily stayed requirements for testing and certifying products, all resale shops still must comply with the new lead and phthalate standards. Realistically, resale shops cannot be 100 percent certain that the used items meet the new requirements.

Due to the over-reaching law, Kitty Boyce's dedicated attempts to provide children and families with reasonably priced, gently used baby equipment, furniture and toys have been shut down. For Kitty and others, the risk of enforcement action by state attorneys general or private groups is too great. The result is that during one of the worst economies in decades, resale shops around the country are avoiding selling winter clothing for kids and other children's products.

This winter, ask Congress how denying a perfectly safe used winter coat to a child whose parents can't afford to buy a new one is protecting that child's health.

For more information about Kitty Boyce, visit http://www.thekidscloset.net/closet.htm

For additional information on the Alliance for Children's Product Safety and CPSIA, and to view previous "Casualties of the Week, visit http://www.AmendTheCPSIA.com/.