CPSC Spokesman Scott Wolfson wants you to read an article:
Scott_Wolfson: If #opengov #gov20 are important to u, pls read this LATimes column: http://t.co/MrrgGwO #SaferProducts.gov #cpsc [From Scott Wolfson's Twitter feed]
Wolfson refers you to a hatchet job by David Lazarus of the LA Times on the CPSIA Product Database. I have taken issue with the blather emitted from Lazarus' PC in the past. In his latest example of irresponsible journalism, endorsed by the CPSC, Lazarus displays his studied ignorance of the issues relating to the database. His lack of research certainly didn't prevent him from making declarative statements. Wolfson wanted to be sure you didn't miss it.
Lazarus ponders what the issues could possibly be with the controversial database: "You've got to wonder why businesses are fighting so hard to keep this resource away from consumers. Is it because their fears are justified that we'll misuse this tool (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding)? Or is it because the last thing they want is a consuming public armed with the latest and most thorough information on the safety of their goods? And if it's the latter, you might now ask, what are they trying to hide?"
I cannot think of any objections to the database other than self-interest, can you? It's all a conspiracy, as anyone on the Left can tell you. Businesses have so much to hide! And did you know that evil billionaires are against the database? Lazarus sorts it all out: "Koch Industries — run by billionaires Charles and David Koch, who are active in conservative causes — also reported spending more than $200,000 lobbying against creation of the database." Lazarus asserts that it is significant that Members of Congress aligned against the database also received campaign contributions from businesses. [Can you find a single member of Congress who has NOT taken contributions from businesses or business people? Just curious.] Lazarus notes that both Reps. Emerson and Pompeo received contributions from business people who are ALSO against the database. It's all making sense now . . . .
Perhaps it was an oversight, but Lazarus fails to mention that the folks on the Left who so vigorously defend the database as implemented have been richly financed by TRIAL LAWYERS. Rep. Henry Waxman raised more than $165,000 in 2010 from lawyers (11% of his total raise). In fact, his top PAC contributor was the American Association for Justice, a group of plaintiff's attorneys actively opposing tort reform. He also received individual contributions from AAJ lobbyists. Rep. Jan Schakowsky raised a mere $224,000 from lawyers in 2010 (about 15% of her raise). Ditto for AAJ support. Poke around on OpenSecrets.org to check out your other favorites in Congress. It goes without saying that the support Waxman, Schakowsky and their ilk lavish on the database has NOTHING to do with campaign contributions by trial lawyers. It all comes from the heart, cloaked in white. Any idea who pays the bill for all the litigation initiated by the AAJ and its members? Hint: it's not Waxmn or Schakowsky.
No Lazarus article would be complete without the quotes of Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America. The strangely influential Weintraub is the Left's favorite mouthpiece on the CPSIA. Here she tries a new angle to preserve the database, the "sunk cost" argument: "The thing that's so insidious is that the database is already up and running, This would basically waste all the money and resources that have gone into creating the database." Insidious! That thrifty Rachel, she literally weeps over government waste. Of course, the database is not controversial simply because it exists; the principal reason the issue lingers on is that Lefties like Weintraub and Bob Adler insisted on unfair administrative procedures that create unreasonable risks for manufacturers unrelated to actual product hazards, like brand slander, misidentified products, lack of accountability by complaint filers, manipulation of civil disputes and unbalanced data creating misleading commercial impressions. These problems are well-documented but have apparently escaped Lazarus' beady-eyed (in)attention.
The Axis of Misinformation is at work here. You have the ignorant journalist (perhaps intentionally so or at a minimum, biased against manufacturers and disinterested in their POV), the shrill consumer "advocate" and the self-serving agency spokesman whose job is to manipulate how we feel about the CPSC (irrespective of reality or the "truth"). CPSC as PR agency is offensive to me. That's not its function and besides, I think it's dangerous to me as a consumer. As a practitioner noted this week in private correspondence: "CPSC stacks the deck by creating alarming recall notices that do not really put hazards in perspective for readers, nor does the agency give consumers enough information to determine whether the amounts that they wind up indirectly paying for the costs of recalls are justified, especially when those costs are spread out to affect products that have not been recalled and present no risk. Hazards and risks are generally overstated, and you will never see any mention of costs to the public even though, as we all know, there is, after all, no free lunch."
It is worth noting that I hear complaints from the CPSC through various channels when they object to the portrayals in this space. It's so unfair that we have freedom of speech in this country. No doubt that makes the job of regulating all of us idiots so much more difficult. Still, if I get to exercise my freedom of speech, so does Wolfson. Go ahead and read Lazarus. It is informative in a way. It will take you less than 30 seconds to recognize the shoddy journalism and the slanted, biased presentation of a one-sided story. Consider the source of this lead - Scott Wolfson and the CPSC. As I said, it's informative.
Showing posts with label News Reports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News Reports. Show all posts
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
CPSIA - I Think I Found Someone Who Lost a Few IQ Points . . . .
Morons on parade . . . .
Never failing to disappoint, the Tribune (via its South Florida Sun-Sentinel) today published the latest left wing tripe about the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA). In an article entitled "Pandering politicians threaten to make hay of product safety", Nicole Brochu unquestioningly falls in line with Henry Waxman and Rachel Weintraub on ECADA and trashes safety legislation she clearly does not understand.
I am pretty sure Ms. Brochu is not a regular reader of this blog. She has successfully remained ignorant of many indisputable facts about safety in children's products, not to mention the detailed nature of the problems caused by CPSIA. That certainly makes it easier to react emotionally to the "threat" posed by ANY effort to change the ill-conceived CPSIA. And that she does . . . .
Ms. Brochu starts by confirming her bias against business and ruling out any consideration of opposing viewpoints (possibly involving FACTS): "I don't know about you, but when it comes to keeping the nation's supply of kids' toys and other consumer products safe, I'm going with the advice of doctors, scientists and watchdogs. I'm not sure we can rely on toymakers and motorcycle distributors to have the public's collective back on this one. . . . [The] only thing [ECADA] proposes to enhance is special interests' bottom lines -- not the CPSC's authority, or its protections of the consumers in its care."
Ah, special interests again! She must have been talking to the estimable Jan Schakowsky. As everyone knows, I am a "very cynical . . . special interest". You should see my lapel pin!
Ms. Brochu regurgitates the platitudes and slogans of the shrill groups opposing any change to the law:
The author finishes up with one of the biggest misconceptions promoted by the opponents of ECADA:
"The bill would do away with the requirement that manufacturers test their products before bringing them to market, putting the onus instead on the tax-funded CPSC to conduct extensive, costly analyses to determine if testing is necessary. Taxpaying consumers shouldn't shoulder the burden, or the cost, of making sure the products they buy are safe. In any reasonable scenario, that responsibility should fall on the businesses -- big or small -- making money selling their wares to the American public."
This remark reflects a gross misunderstanding of how businesses operate and how the proposed change in law affects businesses regulated under the CPSIA. ECADA does not eliminate the need to test children's products for compliance with the strictures of the CPSIA. The lead standards are still on the books, the rabid regulators are still breathing down our necks and THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF YOU COMPLY WITHOUT PERFORMING PRODUCT TESTS. What ECADA accomplishes, Ms. Brochu, is to stop the government from telling us how to run our businesses. We know better how to comply with these rules than they do, and can save vast sums of money wasted on government-mandated testing overkill. We will STILL HAVE TO TEST. There is no way around it. And if we screw up, we pay. This is not really a change, btw. We have always been subject to American tort law and have always been on the hook for our failures.
I wonder if the knuckleheads who believe that ECADA eviscerates the CPSIA understand that the government has no way to force businesses to test. Mandated testing does not mean that every children's product will be tested, any more than posted speed limits mean that you will never get a speeding ticket. To survey compliance, the CPSC will always have to test products - and cops will always need radar guns. Scurrilous businesses that don't want to spend the money to comply will lie - and good businesses will spend themselves into bankruptcy paying for endlessly repetitive tests. The mandated testing regime has little to do with these behaviors because this is the realm of compliance. Rules do not eliminate bad behavior as common experience instructs. The drafters of ECADA get this point, and have incorporated the modest concession that the standards are more important to safety than attempting to manage thousands of businesses. Ms. Brochu would know this if she read my blog.
I want to draw your attention AGAIN to the important point that Ms. Brochu's safety neurotics have yet to answer my query - WHERE ARE THE VICTIMS OF LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE? If we are saving children from a dreaded threat NOW, presumably children were suffering grave consequences in the past. Yet when asked to name these victims and provide case histories and other identifying and validating data, the advocates cannot name even ONE victim - from any country, at any time, using any children's product by any manufacturer under any living conditions. Zero known victims - but we must bear billions in costs to comply with a neurotics' legislative and regulatory wet dream.
Notably, in May 2010 I published my own analysis of 11 years of CPSC recalls from 1999-2010 and found only three alleged injuries (all from lead-in-paint) and one death (from swallowing a lead bangle from a bracelet). That's it - and there are no known victims of lead-in-substrate in the CPSC's publicly-available recall records in that time period to the best of my knowledge. Or at any other time in the history of the world. The absence of lead-in-substrate injuries is stark in comparison to prosaic risks we bear EVERY DAY. Stair falls have killed almost as many people in Japan as fires despite the fact that many structures in Japan are made of wood (1976). In Canada, injuries and fatalities on stairs are at least ten times greater than those from natural disasters (1985). In the UK, it has been estimated that more than 100,000 stair injuries occur annually (1999). Yet the federal government wants us to spend literally BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually to protect against a health threat not associated with a SINGLE documented injury. We are being governed by idiots.
Maybe someday we can expect the media to think before it speaks. Maybe someday the standards for journalism will include knowing what you're talking about, investigating and challenging preconceived notions and a healthy skepticism for pat answers. Until then, we have the Tribune and Ms. Brochu.
VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
Never failing to disappoint, the Tribune (via its South Florida Sun-Sentinel) today published the latest left wing tripe about the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA). In an article entitled "Pandering politicians threaten to make hay of product safety", Nicole Brochu unquestioningly falls in line with Henry Waxman and Rachel Weintraub on ECADA and trashes safety legislation she clearly does not understand.
I am pretty sure Ms. Brochu is not a regular reader of this blog. She has successfully remained ignorant of many indisputable facts about safety in children's products, not to mention the detailed nature of the problems caused by CPSIA. That certainly makes it easier to react emotionally to the "threat" posed by ANY effort to change the ill-conceived CPSIA. And that she does . . . .
Ms. Brochu starts by confirming her bias against business and ruling out any consideration of opposing viewpoints (possibly involving FACTS): "I don't know about you, but when it comes to keeping the nation's supply of kids' toys and other consumer products safe, I'm going with the advice of doctors, scientists and watchdogs. I'm not sure we can rely on toymakers and motorcycle distributors to have the public's collective back on this one. . . . [The] only thing [ECADA] proposes to enhance is special interests' bottom lines -- not the CPSC's authority, or its protections of the consumers in its care."
Ah, special interests again! She must have been talking to the estimable Jan Schakowsky. As everyone knows, I am a "very cynical . . . special interest". You should see my lapel pin!
Ms. Brochu regurgitates the platitudes and slogans of the shrill groups opposing any change to the law:
- ECADA and CPSIA are toy bills.
- CPSIA was passed by an overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress and was signed by "pro-business Republican President George W. Bush".
- As a result of the CPSIA, there has been a "noticeable improvement in the public's wounded confidence" (presumably in children's products and the federal government).
- "[A] bunch of pandering politicians [are trying] to muck it all up for us. Since Republicans took over majority control of the U.S. House last year (and even before), they have set their sights on diminishing the safety act's laudatory provisions in the name of lifting the burden off small-business owners." [Ed. Note: This is a variant of the argument that only Democrats and consumer groups care about kids, certainly not businesses or Republicans.]
- ECADA is "a hyperventilating overreach that would put the country's health and safety at risk. And that's just what an impressive contingent of folks -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Kids In Danger, Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the CPSC's chairman and two of its commissioners -- say this measure would do."
- ECADA "[waters] down the safety act's firm hold on lead content in children's products . . . ."
- The book industry and motorcycle industry are "special interests" seeking a pass for their products. No matter the merits of their claims, the law's protections cannot be weakened in any way. [Ed. Note: This is the "zero sum" argument again - if manufacturers are made better off by ECADA, it follows "logically" that children MUST BE worse off.]
The author finishes up with one of the biggest misconceptions promoted by the opponents of ECADA:
"The bill would do away with the requirement that manufacturers test their products before bringing them to market, putting the onus instead on the tax-funded CPSC to conduct extensive, costly analyses to determine if testing is necessary. Taxpaying consumers shouldn't shoulder the burden, or the cost, of making sure the products they buy are safe. In any reasonable scenario, that responsibility should fall on the businesses -- big or small -- making money selling their wares to the American public."
This remark reflects a gross misunderstanding of how businesses operate and how the proposed change in law affects businesses regulated under the CPSIA. ECADA does not eliminate the need to test children's products for compliance with the strictures of the CPSIA. The lead standards are still on the books, the rabid regulators are still breathing down our necks and THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF YOU COMPLY WITHOUT PERFORMING PRODUCT TESTS. What ECADA accomplishes, Ms. Brochu, is to stop the government from telling us how to run our businesses. We know better how to comply with these rules than they do, and can save vast sums of money wasted on government-mandated testing overkill. We will STILL HAVE TO TEST. There is no way around it. And if we screw up, we pay. This is not really a change, btw. We have always been subject to American tort law and have always been on the hook for our failures.
I wonder if the knuckleheads who believe that ECADA eviscerates the CPSIA understand that the government has no way to force businesses to test. Mandated testing does not mean that every children's product will be tested, any more than posted speed limits mean that you will never get a speeding ticket. To survey compliance, the CPSC will always have to test products - and cops will always need radar guns. Scurrilous businesses that don't want to spend the money to comply will lie - and good businesses will spend themselves into bankruptcy paying for endlessly repetitive tests. The mandated testing regime has little to do with these behaviors because this is the realm of compliance. Rules do not eliminate bad behavior as common experience instructs. The drafters of ECADA get this point, and have incorporated the modest concession that the standards are more important to safety than attempting to manage thousands of businesses. Ms. Brochu would know this if she read my blog.
I want to draw your attention AGAIN to the important point that Ms. Brochu's safety neurotics have yet to answer my query - WHERE ARE THE VICTIMS OF LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE? If we are saving children from a dreaded threat NOW, presumably children were suffering grave consequences in the past. Yet when asked to name these victims and provide case histories and other identifying and validating data, the advocates cannot name even ONE victim - from any country, at any time, using any children's product by any manufacturer under any living conditions. Zero known victims - but we must bear billions in costs to comply with a neurotics' legislative and regulatory wet dream.
Notably, in May 2010 I published my own analysis of 11 years of CPSC recalls from 1999-2010 and found only three alleged injuries (all from lead-in-paint) and one death (from swallowing a lead bangle from a bracelet). That's it - and there are no known victims of lead-in-substrate in the CPSC's publicly-available recall records in that time period to the best of my knowledge. Or at any other time in the history of the world. The absence of lead-in-substrate injuries is stark in comparison to prosaic risks we bear EVERY DAY. Stair falls have killed almost as many people in Japan as fires despite the fact that many structures in Japan are made of wood (1976). In Canada, injuries and fatalities on stairs are at least ten times greater than those from natural disasters (1985). In the UK, it has been estimated that more than 100,000 stair injuries occur annually (1999). Yet the federal government wants us to spend literally BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually to protect against a health threat not associated with a SINGLE documented injury. We are being governed by idiots.
Maybe someday we can expect the media to think before it speaks. Maybe someday the standards for journalism will include knowing what you're talking about, investigating and challenging preconceived notions and a healthy skepticism for pat answers. Until then, we have the Tribune and Ms. Brochu.
VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
Thursday, June 9, 2011
CPSIA - Fools in Charge
So happy to be so safe . . . and so unemployed!
Today's initial jobless claims report is yet ANOTHER report card on the dense and unthinking approach to economics implemented by Mr. Obama, Mr. Waxman and their Dem minions since the 2008 election. A full three years after the economic cataclysm, and with a diminishing ability to blame this misfortune on someone else, the Dems stubbornly stick to their over-regulation agenda dooming Americans to safe, safe unemployment. Can't be too careful, you know.
The CPSIA is the poster child for the Nanny State. Mr. Obama told David Letterman on September 21, 2009 that the national problem he had to fix was that we had "too little government, too little regulation". Our industry has become a classic example of the cure being worse than the disease. The story has been told again and again. For instance, the CPSC heard (and promptly ignored) at its February 16th hearing from a representative of the bicycle industry, all the small bicycle manufacturers have left the children's market and the big makes of bikes have sharply cut their product lines. They also informed the CPSC that if the 100 ppm lead standard comes into force, the rest of the bikes will disappear from the market. Quite a stimulus plan - you can imagine all the jobs this useful plan has created. Other consequences is a general reduction in choice and availability in child-size bikes, which not only punishes families but also retailers.
Do any of the numskulls running our safety apparatus have evidence that any child has EVER been poisoned by lead-in-substrate from a bike? No, they don't - because there is no evidence that any child was ever injured by lead-in-substrate anywhere using any product at any time. Did you realize that one of the big problems in making a bike comply with this moronic law is that bikes use recycled steel for the frames - and the law provides that paint does not constitute a "barrier" over the steel. The lead content of recycled steel is hard or impossible to consistently control at the levels dictated by the law. The industry representative submitted testimony and evidence to the CPSC (consistent with evidence I have also supplied) showing that tests on the SAME PART in ten places yields ten different lead contents.
This law is killing jobs, products, companies and markets. The evidence and data is right there for any thinking individual to read and consider. The true believers stand in the way of rationality.
Please send Mr. Waxman and Mr. Obama a thank you note for the weak, sinking economy. They have CHOSEN this path of Nanny Statism to keep you "safe" although they really can't demonstrate you were ever unsafe or that you needed this further protection. If you are one of the unlucky 9.1% who can't find a job, perhaps you will take some comfort in knowing that your Dem-led government made this choice for you. Safe but unemployed - that's what you need, what you want, what you got. The best government money can buy . . . .
The solution to fools in charge is to amend the CPSIA and restore sanity in safety administration. PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
Today's initial jobless claims report is yet ANOTHER report card on the dense and unthinking approach to economics implemented by Mr. Obama, Mr. Waxman and their Dem minions since the 2008 election. A full three years after the economic cataclysm, and with a diminishing ability to blame this misfortune on someone else, the Dems stubbornly stick to their over-regulation agenda dooming Americans to safe, safe unemployment. Can't be too careful, you know.
The CPSIA is the poster child for the Nanny State. Mr. Obama told David Letterman on September 21, 2009 that the national problem he had to fix was that we had "too little government, too little regulation". Our industry has become a classic example of the cure being worse than the disease. The story has been told again and again. For instance, the CPSC heard (and promptly ignored) at its February 16th hearing from a representative of the bicycle industry, all the small bicycle manufacturers have left the children's market and the big makes of bikes have sharply cut their product lines. They also informed the CPSC that if the 100 ppm lead standard comes into force, the rest of the bikes will disappear from the market. Quite a stimulus plan - you can imagine all the jobs this useful plan has created. Other consequences is a general reduction in choice and availability in child-size bikes, which not only punishes families but also retailers.
Do any of the numskulls running our safety apparatus have evidence that any child has EVER been poisoned by lead-in-substrate from a bike? No, they don't - because there is no evidence that any child was ever injured by lead-in-substrate anywhere using any product at any time. Did you realize that one of the big problems in making a bike comply with this moronic law is that bikes use recycled steel for the frames - and the law provides that paint does not constitute a "barrier" over the steel. The lead content of recycled steel is hard or impossible to consistently control at the levels dictated by the law. The industry representative submitted testimony and evidence to the CPSC (consistent with evidence I have also supplied) showing that tests on the SAME PART in ten places yields ten different lead contents.
This law is killing jobs, products, companies and markets. The evidence and data is right there for any thinking individual to read and consider. The true believers stand in the way of rationality.
Please send Mr. Waxman and Mr. Obama a thank you note for the weak, sinking economy. They have CHOSEN this path of Nanny Statism to keep you "safe" although they really can't demonstrate you were ever unsafe or that you needed this further protection. If you are one of the unlucky 9.1% who can't find a job, perhaps you will take some comfort in knowing that your Dem-led government made this choice for you. Safe but unemployed - that's what you need, what you want, what you got. The best government money can buy . . . .
The solution to fools in charge is to amend the CPSIA and restore sanity in safety administration. PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!
Monday, May 9, 2011
CPSIA - Database Fun and Games
Quote: “I believe that an informed consumer is an empowered consumer,” added Chairman Tenenbaum. “The ability for parents and consumers to search this database for incidents involving a product they already own or are thinking of purchasing will enable them to make independent decisions aimed at keeping their family safe."
Database Entry: Microwave Oven [Good citizenship award pending . . . .]
Complaint: "Husband & caller were at fire station meeting. 16 yr old son was babysitting, put food in microwave, approximately 20 seconds later 5 yr old son yelled 'fire', 16 yr old thought maybe microwave had arced & caught fire. 16 yr old grabbed fire extinguisher and put 12" flames out. Caller states that marks on her wall are 12" high. Parents came home, checked unit out & saw that the cord approximately two inches from where it comes from the back of the microwave. Cord had not been frayed. Callers would like this incident investigated before there is a fire in someone's home that goes unnoticed until it is too late." [Emphasis added]
Reply: "Unit was picked up from consumer and evaluated. It was completely filthy and infested with live and dead roaches. Cord fire that was reported was due to a fire that was located outside of the unit as neither end of the cord was damaged or affected. Consumer was negligent in caring for the unit and this resulted in the unit not working."
Quote: "The CPSC’s product safety database would serve as an early warning system for unsafe products and has the potential to save lives. . . . This database will provide important safety information to American consumers.” Senator Jay Rockefeller
Database Entry: Bra [One word: Titillation!]
Complaint: "Silicon Bra Strap Cushion, she put it on wore it all on Sunday 3/20/11. After she removed her bra Sunday night, she had a blister and burning sensation on her shoulders. On Monday, the 21st, she took pictures of her shoulders. She took subsequent pcitures (sic)on the 22nd, the 26th, and the 28th. She felt the burning sensation for 3 days after wearing the product. She kept one pad of a pair of the bra strap and sent the other cushion to Miles Kimball at their request."
No Reply. The pictures (yes, PICTURES) speak for themselves. Another noble public service provided courtesy of your tax dollars at work.
Quote: "[Ami] Gadhia [policy counsel] at Consumers Union countered that knowing about a near miss can be just as important as knowing about an actual injury. 'If someone narrowly avoids getting hurt, that's a good piece of information for consumers to have,' she said."
Database Entry: Serated (sic) pie server [Who KNEW knives were sharp?!]
Complaint: "The Pampered Chef brand Slice N Serve serated pie server is razor sharp. I accidentally sliced my finger open with it. There was no defect with the product, it's just a lot sharper than most people would expect from this category of product. I have heard other people say they cut themselves with this same product." [Emphasis added]
Reply: "An individual has submitted a report to the CPSC regarding "Slice ‘N Serve, " a product distributed by The Pampered Chef, Ltd. (“The Pampered Chef”). This individual acknowledged that the product had no defect. Moreover, each Slice ‘N Serve is packaged with a “Use and Care” card, which provides clear instructions on how to safely and properly use the product, as well as Important Safeguards. The Important Safeguards warn that the blade is extremely sharp to offer the customer the best performance and may cause injury if not used properly. Product Use and Care information is also available on our website (www.pamperedchef.com) by clicking to the particular product description on our website." [Emphasis added]
Quote: “So far, we haven’t had any problems with it,” Tenenbaum told the Palmetto Forum in a lunch meeting in Columbia. The forum, affiliated with the University of South Carolina’s Walker Institute, hosts lunch seminars to stimulate discussion of international issues. the database, established in March after years of protests by business interests, allows consumers to submit reports of harm or potential harm by a variety of products. After officials review the complaint, manufacturers are given 10 days to respond to or challenge the submission. [Emphasis added]
Database Entry: Summer Infant Video Monitor [Is there any legal basis to recall consumers, instead of products?]
Complaint: We use the Summer Infant video monitor. We would sit the camera on the top of the crib corner, and at 9 months the baby was able to reach it and pull it down along with the long cord. We would watch her playing with the camera, and when we came into her room noticed that the cord was tightly wrapped around her neck, but there was not injury.
Additional Details: We have modified the cord (tied it together) so it no longer has slack and can not be pulled into the crib by the baby.
No reply. What can you say???
Database Entry: Microwave Oven [Good citizenship award pending . . . .]
Complaint: "Husband & caller were at fire station meeting. 16 yr old son was babysitting, put food in microwave, approximately 20 seconds later 5 yr old son yelled 'fire', 16 yr old thought maybe microwave had arced & caught fire. 16 yr old grabbed fire extinguisher and put 12" flames out. Caller states that marks on her wall are 12" high. Parents came home, checked unit out & saw that the cord approximately two inches from where it comes from the back of the microwave. Cord had not been frayed. Callers would like this incident investigated before there is a fire in someone's home that goes unnoticed until it is too late." [Emphasis added]
Reply: "Unit was picked up from consumer and evaluated. It was completely filthy and infested with live and dead roaches. Cord fire that was reported was due to a fire that was located outside of the unit as neither end of the cord was damaged or affected. Consumer was negligent in caring for the unit and this resulted in the unit not working."
Quote: "The CPSC’s product safety database would serve as an early warning system for unsafe products and has the potential to save lives. . . . This database will provide important safety information to American consumers.” Senator Jay Rockefeller
Database Entry: Bra [One word: Titillation!]
Complaint: "Silicon Bra Strap Cushion, she put it on wore it all on Sunday 3/20/11. After she removed her bra Sunday night, she had a blister and burning sensation on her shoulders. On Monday, the 21st, she took pictures of her shoulders. She took subsequent pcitures (sic)on the 22nd, the 26th, and the 28th. She felt the burning sensation for 3 days after wearing the product. She kept one pad of a pair of the bra strap and sent the other cushion to Miles Kimball at their request."
No Reply. The pictures (yes, PICTURES) speak for themselves. Another noble public service provided courtesy of your tax dollars at work.
Quote: "[Ami] Gadhia [policy counsel] at Consumers Union countered that knowing about a near miss can be just as important as knowing about an actual injury. 'If someone narrowly avoids getting hurt, that's a good piece of information for consumers to have,' she said."
Database Entry: Serated (sic) pie server [Who KNEW knives were sharp?!]
Complaint: "The Pampered Chef brand Slice N Serve serated pie server is razor sharp. I accidentally sliced my finger open with it. There was no defect with the product, it's just a lot sharper than most people would expect from this category of product. I have heard other people say they cut themselves with this same product." [Emphasis added]
Reply: "An individual has submitted a report to the CPSC regarding "Slice ‘N Serve, " a product distributed by The Pampered Chef, Ltd. (“The Pampered Chef”). This individual acknowledged that the product had no defect. Moreover, each Slice ‘N Serve is packaged with a “Use and Care” card, which provides clear instructions on how to safely and properly use the product, as well as Important Safeguards. The Important Safeguards warn that the blade is extremely sharp to offer the customer the best performance and may cause injury if not used properly. Product Use and Care information is also available on our website (www.pamperedchef.com) by clicking to the particular product description on our website." [Emphasis added]
Quote: “So far, we haven’t had any problems with it,” Tenenbaum told the Palmetto Forum in a lunch meeting in Columbia. The forum, affiliated with the University of South Carolina’s Walker Institute, hosts lunch seminars to stimulate discussion of international issues. the database, established in March after years of protests by business interests, allows consumers to submit reports of harm or potential harm by a variety of products. After officials review the complaint, manufacturers are given 10 days to respond to or challenge the submission. [Emphasis added]
Database Entry: Summer Infant Video Monitor [Is there any legal basis to recall consumers, instead of products?]
Complaint: We use the Summer Infant video monitor. We would sit the camera on the top of the crib corner, and at 9 months the baby was able to reach it and pull it down along with the long cord. We would watch her playing with the camera, and when we came into her room noticed that the cord was tightly wrapped around her neck, but there was not injury.
Additional Details: We have modified the cord (tied it together) so it no longer has slack and can not be pulled into the crib by the baby.
No reply. What can you say???
Thursday, April 28, 2011
CPSIA - CPSC Shows Its True Colors in the Annals of Absurdity
In a move calculated to test the limits of what I can get you to believe, the CPSC last week conducted a raid in New York City to confiscate imported chocolate Easter eggs to save America from a choking hazard.
This event has garnered a little bit of publicity. I wonder why . . . . Seems so logical.
Here is a picture provided by Fox News coverage of this event. I wonder who was there to capture the moment on film . . . .
Admiring retailers could not wait to sing the CPSC's praises:
"Jigs Patel, who recently opened the London Candy Co. on the Upper East Side, where he is importing candy from the U.K., had already run out of his Kinder eggs by the time he got his visit from a CPSC official just before Easter. 'They obviously took this very seriously,' Patel said. 'I actually found it very amusing. It's a bloody chocolate with a toy inside. It's not smuggling crack cocaine.'" [Emphasis added]
Perhaps strangely, the American public did not immediately appreciate the service provided by the federal government: "[Mr. Patel] said that customers in the store that day found it funny, too. 'They were like, 'Don't they have better things to do than hunt down Kinder eggs?' The phone at London Candy Co. rang off the hook after DNAinfo's article ran with people seeking the hard-to-find chocolates. 'The phone went nuts,' Patel said. "The people still want it.'" [Emphasis added]
As the Village Voice notes, "[c]hildren in Europe, where the eggs are manufactured, are apparently more impervious to choking than their American counterparts, or perhaps their parents are less inclined to let them eat plastic." Still, other news outlets noted the severity of the safety threat: "At least two children, one in England and one in Ireland, died after choking on the toys roughly 20 years ago, according to reports. . . . 'It is an ongoing investigation,' [CPSC spokesman Stacey] Palosky said. 'We want to continue to alert parents about these around Easter. We want parents to know these should not be in children's hands.'"
It's an ongoing investigation of the incidents 20 years ago. Must find the real killers . . . .
Thanks, Mom!
Your tax dollars at work! What would we EVER do without these guys protecting us so ably?
Dreaming of another budget crisis so we can find out . . . .
This event has garnered a little bit of publicity. I wonder why . . . . Seems so logical.
Here is a picture provided by Fox News coverage of this event. I wonder who was there to capture the moment on film . . . .
You can see that the CPSC really means business now. The safety of children is just too IMPORTANT.
Admiring retailers could not wait to sing the CPSC's praises:
"Jigs Patel, who recently opened the London Candy Co. on the Upper East Side, where he is importing candy from the U.K., had already run out of his Kinder eggs by the time he got his visit from a CPSC official just before Easter. 'They obviously took this very seriously,' Patel said. 'I actually found it very amusing. It's a bloody chocolate with a toy inside. It's not smuggling crack cocaine.'" [Emphasis added]
Perhaps strangely, the American public did not immediately appreciate the service provided by the federal government: "[Mr. Patel] said that customers in the store that day found it funny, too. 'They were like, 'Don't they have better things to do than hunt down Kinder eggs?' The phone at London Candy Co. rang off the hook after DNAinfo's article ran with people seeking the hard-to-find chocolates. 'The phone went nuts,' Patel said. "The people still want it.'" [Emphasis added]
As the Village Voice notes, "[c]hildren in Europe, where the eggs are manufactured, are apparently more impervious to choking than their American counterparts, or perhaps their parents are less inclined to let them eat plastic." Still, other news outlets noted the severity of the safety threat: "At least two children, one in England and one in Ireland, died after choking on the toys roughly 20 years ago, according to reports. . . . 'It is an ongoing investigation,' [CPSC spokesman Stacey] Palosky said. 'We want to continue to alert parents about these around Easter. We want parents to know these should not be in children's hands.'"
It's an ongoing investigation of the incidents 20 years ago. Must find the real killers . . . .
Thanks, Mom!
Your tax dollars at work! What would we EVER do without these guys protecting us so ably?
Dreaming of another budget crisis so we can find out . . . .
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
CPSIA - A Consequence of Being Governed by Idiots
At what point will we all rise up and say we are SICK of the oppression of the CPSIA?
Today's offense is the discovery that an innovative educational products developer has begun to sell a chemistry kit that advertises that it is "chemical-free". A chemistry kit without chemicals - nice. It's like a rock kit without rocks (perhaps that's next). A quick scan of the Internet reveals many mentions of this kit, a clear response to the arch regime imposed by the CPSIA and its implementer, the CPSC. The reviews are derisive, of course. The linked article recalls cherished memories of playing with chemistry kits as a kid. It notes that these products are being heralded in museum exhibits now. The CPSIA has created INCENTIVES to make sure those days are in the past. It's the caveman era in Washington nowadays.
At our company, we continue to resist the urge to just give up in the face of the onslaught. We are educators and feel a higher calling than appeasing tyrannical bureaucrats. This law is an offense to our reason to exist.
An interesting sidelight to this chemistry kit controversy is that the manufacturer of the kit is incorrectly identified as Elenco, a neighbor of ours. In fact, the actual manufacturer is based in China. Yes, that's right - the Chinese who do create products are adjusting to our troglodyte society by downgrading their products to meet our new low (intelligence) standard. Is this an improvement we should cherish . . . or it is a harbinger of the predicted inevitable devastation ensured by this law? You know where I stand on that one.
Finally, I would note that I spoke about the pressure imposed on science education by the CPSIA in my first speech on the topic on November 6, 2008. Yes, almost three years ago now. . . . You can watch the portion of that speech relating to science kits below. It is unchanged - I spoke these words in NOVEMBER 2008. We have really moved forward since then, haven't we?
The CPSIA remains a total failure of our government to properly do its job. Sad but true. The Dems are hopeless but where are the Republicans? Hey, Republicans, when will help come?
Today's offense is the discovery that an innovative educational products developer has begun to sell a chemistry kit that advertises that it is "chemical-free". A chemistry kit without chemicals - nice. It's like a rock kit without rocks (perhaps that's next). A quick scan of the Internet reveals many mentions of this kit, a clear response to the arch regime imposed by the CPSIA and its implementer, the CPSC. The reviews are derisive, of course. The linked article recalls cherished memories of playing with chemistry kits as a kid. It notes that these products are being heralded in museum exhibits now. The CPSIA has created INCENTIVES to make sure those days are in the past. It's the caveman era in Washington nowadays.
At our company, we continue to resist the urge to just give up in the face of the onslaught. We are educators and feel a higher calling than appeasing tyrannical bureaucrats. This law is an offense to our reason to exist.
An interesting sidelight to this chemistry kit controversy is that the manufacturer of the kit is incorrectly identified as Elenco, a neighbor of ours. In fact, the actual manufacturer is based in China. Yes, that's right - the Chinese who do create products are adjusting to our troglodyte society by downgrading their products to meet our new low (intelligence) standard. Is this an improvement we should cherish . . . or it is a harbinger of the predicted inevitable devastation ensured by this law? You know where I stand on that one.
Finally, I would note that I spoke about the pressure imposed on science education by the CPSIA in my first speech on the topic on November 6, 2008. Yes, almost three years ago now. . . . You can watch the portion of that speech relating to science kits below. It is unchanged - I spoke these words in NOVEMBER 2008. We have really moved forward since then, haven't we?
The CPSIA remains a total failure of our government to properly do its job. Sad but true. The Dems are hopeless but where are the Republicans? Hey, Republicans, when will help come?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
CPSIA - Pool Drain Hearing - Assessing Risk or Doling out Political Favors?
The CPSC has announced hearings on April 5th on the adequacy of TESTING of pool drains under the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (VGB). This follows on the heels of the recent meeting between CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Senators Dick Durbin and Amy Klobuchar. Mr. Durbin requested this meeting urgently in the wake of the disclosure by the Chicago Tribune questioning the adequacy of TESTING of certain VGB drains. No allegations of actual injury have been made yet, to my knowledge. Ms. Klobuchar tagged along, having previously expressed concern about the VGB drain covers. The pending CSPC hearing has been reported by the estimable AboutLawsuits.com blog, an outlet for ambulance chasers.
Ms. Klobuchar is up for reelection in this cycle. Mr. Durbin's term extends to 2014.
The Chicago Tribune apparently was late to the drain game. I have uncovered a much earlier and more detailed investigation by ABC News that presumably spawned the CPSC investigation of this matter last Fall. ABC asserts that variability in flow data suggests less water flow with certain models than expected. The report was not uncontroversial, however. Flow was not zero, and the manufacturers note that flow depends on the pump used in the test and also the test installation method. An ANSI standard governs pool drains and three specific labs have been cleared to test pursuant to those standards: the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO). Not exactly a rogue's gallery of shady operators. The alternative testing cited by the Tribune was NOT performed by any of the three authorized labs.
[Remember how darned critical it was to use "CPSC-certified" labs under the CPSIA? It's absolutely essential . . . unless media or regulators want to do something else. Industry can't be trusted to use any old lab, however.]
The CPSC issued subpoenas to these three labs and received back a tidy sum of 17,000 pages of documents. Hey, that's even more pages than toy safety rules, wow! Anyhow, they have scheduled a show trial to investigate the purportedly nefarious goings-on with these drains.
Perhaps you remember also that the Tribune article was apparently spurred by Paul Pennington, chairman of the "non-profit Pool Safety Council". According to the Tribune article, "Paul Pennington . . . said he has sent 73 e-mails to CPSC and standards officials, pleading with them to do something about unsafe drain covers since the new law took effect in December 2008." What a guy that Pennington is, a public-minded private citizen only interested in pool safety. . . . and maybe also (just a little bit) his company, Vac-Alert Industries, which owns patented technology that could supplement or replace the drains at enormous expense to pool owners.
Pennington previously succeeded in inducing a bevvy of left wingers in Congress (all Dems) to stand up for his technology, including Ms. Klobuchar and notably, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL20):
"Once it is considered unblockable, a single main drain no longer is required to have a backup device, such as a safety vacuum release system. The [Congressional] letter writers believe the new definition for unblockable drains leaves pool users vulnerable. 'A dangerous drain outlet is not safe just because an ‘unblockable’ drain cover is installed,' Congress member Wasserman Schultz said through her spokesman, Jonathan Beeton. 'Drain covers can and do come off, or they can be improperly installed. ... The VGB Act is very clear that multiple layers of protection are needed.' The House letter also revisits what has been a hot-button issue throughout the formulation and interpretation of the legislation — whether backup devices should be required on all pools, even those with multiple drains. 'Backup protection should be installed for every pool or spa, regardless of the number of drain outlets, unless there is no drain, or the drain itself is an unblockable drain,' Wasserman Schultz said." [Emphasis added]
Paul Pennington (a California resident, but a Florida company owner) contributed to Ms. Wasserman-Schultz's reelection campaigns in 2008, 2006 and 2004.
Hmmm.
The company making the allegedly dangerous pool drain covers noted to the Tribune that you would have to weigh 500 pounds to block its drain. Very few children weigh 500 pounds . . . . In case you are dense, Pennington clarified his message to the Tribune: "Some child is going to die."
Get it? Ms. Wasserman-Schultz certainly did.
So the big question here is - is this a real safety issue? In the post-CPSIA era, it "looks" like a safety issue. Why? Because the TESTS have been questioned. It's not about actual risk or incidents that reveal a risk, it's all about a controversy over a precautionary step in the product cycle, namely testing (the paperwork). The certified lab test by the certified lab is now in question and a publicity event is being staged to "reassure the public". No injuries have been reported which suggests that the public has little reason to actually be alarmed, but then again, the papers are not in order.
Welcome to the Third World . . . .
The CPSC had to do something, since a leading Democrat Senator demanded ACTION, accompanied to the photo opp by another Democrat Senator up for reelection in a state leaning right after voting left for some time. After all, who put the Dems in charge of this CPSC? Appointments to the Commission come from where? The (Democrat-controlled) Senate. One wonders what the political calculations might have been. What can the Democrats running the CPSC do to help out??? Why not let Ms. Klobuchar save some portion of the populace? If there were a hearing, the Minnesota Senator could take credit and use that on the stump to help retain the seat. The next election will be essential and the Minnesota Senatorial race might affect both the balance of power in Congress as well as Mr. Obama and his chances to retain the Presidency. Gotta stick together. . . .
Does anyone care that no one has been injured by these drains? Does anyone care that the person apparently driving this controversy has a vested interest in stirring up the mud? Of course not. This is not about making pools safe, this is about manufacturing of political headlines.
The politicization of safety under this CPSC should be of great concern to every stakeholder. It is a great distortion of the rules of the safety game and of our legal and regulatory system. Random and excessive cost will punish industry. Worse still, no one will be made any safer. The news cycle will help feed a rapacious media and reward the political power elite, as well.
The only one guaranteed to be a loser is industry. Consumers won't win, industry is sure to lose and the politicians will win. Whose country is this anyway?
Like I don't know . . . .
Ms. Klobuchar is up for reelection in this cycle. Mr. Durbin's term extends to 2014.
The Chicago Tribune apparently was late to the drain game. I have uncovered a much earlier and more detailed investigation by ABC News that presumably spawned the CPSC investigation of this matter last Fall. ABC asserts that variability in flow data suggests less water flow with certain models than expected. The report was not uncontroversial, however. Flow was not zero, and the manufacturers note that flow depends on the pump used in the test and also the test installation method. An ANSI standard governs pool drains and three specific labs have been cleared to test pursuant to those standards: the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO). Not exactly a rogue's gallery of shady operators. The alternative testing cited by the Tribune was NOT performed by any of the three authorized labs.
[Remember how darned critical it was to use "CPSC-certified" labs under the CPSIA? It's absolutely essential . . . unless media or regulators want to do something else. Industry can't be trusted to use any old lab, however.]
The CPSC issued subpoenas to these three labs and received back a tidy sum of 17,000 pages of documents. Hey, that's even more pages than toy safety rules, wow! Anyhow, they have scheduled a show trial to investigate the purportedly nefarious goings-on with these drains.
Perhaps you remember also that the Tribune article was apparently spurred by Paul Pennington, chairman of the "non-profit Pool Safety Council". According to the Tribune article, "Paul Pennington . . . said he has sent 73 e-mails to CPSC and standards officials, pleading with them to do something about unsafe drain covers since the new law took effect in December 2008." What a guy that Pennington is, a public-minded private citizen only interested in pool safety. . . . and maybe also (just a little bit) his company, Vac-Alert Industries, which owns patented technology that could supplement or replace the drains at enormous expense to pool owners.
Pennington previously succeeded in inducing a bevvy of left wingers in Congress (all Dems) to stand up for his technology, including Ms. Klobuchar and notably, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL20):
"Once it is considered unblockable, a single main drain no longer is required to have a backup device, such as a safety vacuum release system. The [Congressional] letter writers believe the new definition for unblockable drains leaves pool users vulnerable. 'A dangerous drain outlet is not safe just because an ‘unblockable’ drain cover is installed,' Congress member Wasserman Schultz said through her spokesman, Jonathan Beeton. 'Drain covers can and do come off, or they can be improperly installed. ... The VGB Act is very clear that multiple layers of protection are needed.' The House letter also revisits what has been a hot-button issue throughout the formulation and interpretation of the legislation — whether backup devices should be required on all pools, even those with multiple drains. 'Backup protection should be installed for every pool or spa, regardless of the number of drain outlets, unless there is no drain, or the drain itself is an unblockable drain,' Wasserman Schultz said." [Emphasis added]
Paul Pennington (a California resident, but a Florida company owner) contributed to Ms. Wasserman-Schultz's reelection campaigns in 2008, 2006 and 2004.
Hmmm.
The company making the allegedly dangerous pool drain covers noted to the Tribune that you would have to weigh 500 pounds to block its drain. Very few children weigh 500 pounds . . . . In case you are dense, Pennington clarified his message to the Tribune: "Some child is going to die."
Get it? Ms. Wasserman-Schultz certainly did.
So the big question here is - is this a real safety issue? In the post-CPSIA era, it "looks" like a safety issue. Why? Because the TESTS have been questioned. It's not about actual risk or incidents that reveal a risk, it's all about a controversy over a precautionary step in the product cycle, namely testing (the paperwork). The certified lab test by the certified lab is now in question and a publicity event is being staged to "reassure the public". No injuries have been reported which suggests that the public has little reason to actually be alarmed, but then again, the papers are not in order.
Welcome to the Third World . . . .
The CPSC had to do something, since a leading Democrat Senator demanded ACTION, accompanied to the photo opp by another Democrat Senator up for reelection in a state leaning right after voting left for some time. After all, who put the Dems in charge of this CPSC? Appointments to the Commission come from where? The (Democrat-controlled) Senate. One wonders what the political calculations might have been. What can the Democrats running the CPSC do to help out??? Why not let Ms. Klobuchar save some portion of the populace? If there were a hearing, the Minnesota Senator could take credit and use that on the stump to help retain the seat. The next election will be essential and the Minnesota Senatorial race might affect both the balance of power in Congress as well as Mr. Obama and his chances to retain the Presidency. Gotta stick together. . . .
Does anyone care that no one has been injured by these drains? Does anyone care that the person apparently driving this controversy has a vested interest in stirring up the mud? Of course not. This is not about making pools safe, this is about manufacturing of political headlines.
The politicization of safety under this CPSC should be of great concern to every stakeholder. It is a great distortion of the rules of the safety game and of our legal and regulatory system. Random and excessive cost will punish industry. Worse still, no one will be made any safer. The news cycle will help feed a rapacious media and reward the political power elite, as well.
The only one guaranteed to be a loser is industry. Consumers won't win, industry is sure to lose and the politicians will win. Whose country is this anyway?
Like I don't know . . . .
Sunday, March 13, 2011
CPSIA - Listening but Disagreeing - or Not Listening At All?
We know that the CPSC plunged ahead with the database on Friday despite the outcry of many industry stakeholders. Among the protesters was the National Association of Manufacturers, not exactly a lightweight organization. Industry protests fell on deaf ears. It goes without saying that the resistance of the two Republican Commissioners (who drafted their own database rule) aligned with industry objections. None of this apparently mattered.
As if to make the point that the CPSIA database will be misunderstood, misused and dangerous, the New York Times announced the arrival of the database in an article entitled "Consumer Agency to Post a Database of Unsafe Products". Nice work, New York Times! The information in the database is unverified and in many cases will NOT be true. There is simply no way to conclude that the products referenced in the database are "unsafe". Good luck convincing anyone of that now.
It is embittering and frustrating to be so flagrantly disregarded. There seems to be so much at stake, and the fix was seemingly so simple. No one asked to kill the database, just protect innocent businesses from damaging inaccurate postings on a website enjoying the prestige of a federal safety agency. Even the Pompeo Amendment was promoted as "hitting the pause button". It is hard to fathom why dialogue was so impossible to start. Actually, after a few years of this war, it is not hard to fathom at all.
I know we were rejected - it is hard not to conclude we were ignored completely from the beginning.
My involvement in this issue began when I was asked to testify before the Commission on the issues relating to a searchable database of product incidents. Actually, I had been on record of objecting to the database even before the CPSIA became law (you can see excerpts of letters I sent in my response to Slate). I was called by Matt Howsare, then counsel to Inez Tenenbaum (now her Chief of Staff) who asked me to fly to Washington to testify. He told me that they "needed" me. Wanting to be helpful and to pitch in when asked by the agency (I was charmingly naive at that time), I agreed. I posted video of my testimony in this space, and as you will see, I was cut off by Ms. Tenenbaum. Get it? I was asked by her staff to present because they needed industry testimony, and when I gave my remarks, they cut me off - one suspects they had heard enough . . . .
This experience left me disgusted in a way that, frankly, hasn't worn off.
Later, the agency called for a two-day workshop on the database. Owing to the discourtesy of my treatment at the hearing and because of their apparent utter disinterest in my views, I declined the opportunity to continue banging my head against the wall by attending their database confab. Later, as we know, the Democrats released a 248-page rule that greatly expanded the database rule from Congressional intent. Written as though edited by Consumer Federation of America, the rule produced howls of protest, but as has been the case thusfar in this CPSIA saga, it mattered not. The three Dems voted as they would have in the absence of any protests and the defective rule was adopted.
I continue to believe that the criticisms of the rule were (and remain) legitimate. That is, they were rational and reasonable, and lent themselves to reasonable and understandable resolution. The Dems did not make any effort to address these reasonable concerns, rejecting them out of hand.
This pattern of ignoring stakeholders while calling for comments and participation has been a hallmark of the Tenenbaum era. I am trying not to take it personally but wonder how we can be so consistently "wrong". The Dems barely pause to discuss industry objections other than to simply reiterate that their policy objectives are more pressing. Are we so obviously wrong that our objections don't merit an answer?
I have trouble reaching that conclusion. I have made the same points consistently over and over, yet I cannot put my finger on a single response to my objections other than outright rejection. There is a question of good faith here. The rejection of my company's PROOF of a material error in the one filing made against one of our products in the soft launch of the database seems to call into question whether the agency can ever be trusted under this group of administrators. The response by SENIOR STAFF at the agency that the consumer in question had stated a "risk of harm" when his/her accusation was PLAINLY WRONG means that even the English language is being corrupted in service of the database. How can trust exist in an environment like this?
Ask around among industry stakeholders. Trust is GONE. No one trusts the CPSC these days.
Looking back on the database saga, it makes me all the more certain that I am doing the right thing pushing back against these people. They are not operating in good faith and have no apparent concern for the well-being of our company, our employees or the countless companies, schools, families and children who depend on us. This cancer on our markets must be stopped. We have another election coming up and I will be working hard to put more Democrats OUT OF WORK. They have no one to blame but themselves. They won't listen . . . .
So we need to get rid of them.
As if to make the point that the CPSIA database will be misunderstood, misused and dangerous, the New York Times announced the arrival of the database in an article entitled "Consumer Agency to Post a Database of Unsafe Products". Nice work, New York Times! The information in the database is unverified and in many cases will NOT be true. There is simply no way to conclude that the products referenced in the database are "unsafe". Good luck convincing anyone of that now.
It is embittering and frustrating to be so flagrantly disregarded. There seems to be so much at stake, and the fix was seemingly so simple. No one asked to kill the database, just protect innocent businesses from damaging inaccurate postings on a website enjoying the prestige of a federal safety agency. Even the Pompeo Amendment was promoted as "hitting the pause button". It is hard to fathom why dialogue was so impossible to start. Actually, after a few years of this war, it is not hard to fathom at all.
I know we were rejected - it is hard not to conclude we were ignored completely from the beginning.
My involvement in this issue began when I was asked to testify before the Commission on the issues relating to a searchable database of product incidents. Actually, I had been on record of objecting to the database even before the CPSIA became law (you can see excerpts of letters I sent in my response to Slate). I was called by Matt Howsare, then counsel to Inez Tenenbaum (now her Chief of Staff) who asked me to fly to Washington to testify. He told me that they "needed" me. Wanting to be helpful and to pitch in when asked by the agency (I was charmingly naive at that time), I agreed. I posted video of my testimony in this space, and as you will see, I was cut off by Ms. Tenenbaum. Get it? I was asked by her staff to present because they needed industry testimony, and when I gave my remarks, they cut me off - one suspects they had heard enough . . . .
This experience left me disgusted in a way that, frankly, hasn't worn off.
Later, the agency called for a two-day workshop on the database. Owing to the discourtesy of my treatment at the hearing and because of their apparent utter disinterest in my views, I declined the opportunity to continue banging my head against the wall by attending their database confab. Later, as we know, the Democrats released a 248-page rule that greatly expanded the database rule from Congressional intent. Written as though edited by Consumer Federation of America, the rule produced howls of protest, but as has been the case thusfar in this CPSIA saga, it mattered not. The three Dems voted as they would have in the absence of any protests and the defective rule was adopted.
I continue to believe that the criticisms of the rule were (and remain) legitimate. That is, they were rational and reasonable, and lent themselves to reasonable and understandable resolution. The Dems did not make any effort to address these reasonable concerns, rejecting them out of hand.
This pattern of ignoring stakeholders while calling for comments and participation has been a hallmark of the Tenenbaum era. I am trying not to take it personally but wonder how we can be so consistently "wrong". The Dems barely pause to discuss industry objections other than to simply reiterate that their policy objectives are more pressing. Are we so obviously wrong that our objections don't merit an answer?
I have trouble reaching that conclusion. I have made the same points consistently over and over, yet I cannot put my finger on a single response to my objections other than outright rejection. There is a question of good faith here. The rejection of my company's PROOF of a material error in the one filing made against one of our products in the soft launch of the database seems to call into question whether the agency can ever be trusted under this group of administrators. The response by SENIOR STAFF at the agency that the consumer in question had stated a "risk of harm" when his/her accusation was PLAINLY WRONG means that even the English language is being corrupted in service of the database. How can trust exist in an environment like this?
Ask around among industry stakeholders. Trust is GONE. No one trusts the CPSC these days.
Looking back on the database saga, it makes me all the more certain that I am doing the right thing pushing back against these people. They are not operating in good faith and have no apparent concern for the well-being of our company, our employees or the countless companies, schools, families and children who depend on us. This cancer on our markets must be stopped. We have another election coming up and I will be working hard to put more Democrats OUT OF WORK. They have no one to blame but themselves. They won't listen . . . .
So we need to get rid of them.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
CPSIA - More Good News: RC2 Rewarded with $640MM Buyout!
Remember how Congress gave birth to the CPSIA way back in 2008? A couple big companies goofed up big time on toy safety, in case you forgot. Of course, everyone remembers Mattel, but then there's RC2 and its lead paint-laden Thomas The Tank Engine wooden trains. Yes, these are the folks who offered a reward for consumers returning recalled iconic wooden toys slathered in lead paint, only to have to recall the free gift trains because they TOO were covered in lead paint. Ouch! This boneheaded move was significantly responsible for the drive to enact the CPSIA. Thanks, RC2!
RC2 paid mightily for its errors. I previously published an analysis of the costs of their missteps, which added up to about $60 million. That's real money, folks. They later raised about $60 million in an equity offering, so they were financially sound despite these extraordinary losses. Bully for them.
Of course, the rest of us were screwed because the CPSIA crunched us. Isn't it a little ironic that RC2 was largely unscathed?
Ah, but there's a happy ending! RC2 was sold today to Tomy Co., a large Japanese toy company that shares elements of the Thomas brand with RC2. Tomy is paying $640 million for RC2. Sweet! And it's really nice to know that the CPSIA has been so effective in stopping the people responsible for the bad acts that supposedly endangered children in the Year of the Recall. They'll never profit from their misdeeds . . . .
Now I understand why people get so pissed about big bonuses being paid at bailed out banks. Hmmm. Is there anything to learn here?
Nah. . . .
RC2 paid mightily for its errors. I previously published an analysis of the costs of their missteps, which added up to about $60 million. That's real money, folks. They later raised about $60 million in an equity offering, so they were financially sound despite these extraordinary losses. Bully for them.
Of course, the rest of us were screwed because the CPSIA crunched us. Isn't it a little ironic that RC2 was largely unscathed?
Ah, but there's a happy ending! RC2 was sold today to Tomy Co., a large Japanese toy company that shares elements of the Thomas brand with RC2. Tomy is paying $640 million for RC2. Sweet! And it's really nice to know that the CPSIA has been so effective in stopping the people responsible for the bad acts that supposedly endangered children in the Year of the Recall. They'll never profit from their misdeeds . . . .
Now I understand why people get so pissed about big bonuses being paid at bailed out banks. Hmmm. Is there anything to learn here?
Nah. . . .
CPSIA - My Answer to Slate.com on the CPSIA Database
Dear Mr. Noah,
I read with interest your March 8th article on the CPSC database entitled “Who’s Afraid of the CPSC?” and was disappointed at the inaccuracies in the piece and your blanket dismissal of the business community's legitimate concerns about the database. The database has devolved into a divisive partisan issue simply because of the utter refusal of consumer groups and their Congressional allies to acknowledge the flaws in the database as well as the law that established it – the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).
I'll try to address the inaccuracies one-by-one:
Database cost - $3 million or $29 million? The cost figure of $3 million sparked a public dispute between the CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and her fellow Commissioner Anne Northup at a House hearing last month. In response to Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony on the cost of the database, Ms. Northup testified that the figure of $3 million had never been shared with the CPSC Commission and that the only database cost figure she was familiar with was $29 million. Interestingly, in April 2010, the Associated Press reported, based on information provided by the CPSC, that the cost of the http://www.saferproducts.gov/ website would be about $20 million, and the CPSC apparently saw no reason to update the media with the good news that the cost had shriveled to $3 million until the February 2011 hearing. . . . Hmmm.
The supposedly noncontroversial CPSIA database. Why didn’t anyone kick up a fuss about the database in 2008? A better question is “Why didn’t Congress listen when the business community protested?” Here’s what I said in a letter to each Congressional conferee dated June 25, 2008: “While we support public notice of recalls, we oppose a national database of reports of injury, illness, death or risk of injury. This forum will not be subject to appropriate findings of fact and thus will be a forum subject to considerable abuse. In a society where tort lawsuits are an ever-present risk for all businesses, a risk that can wipe out a lifetime’s work in a heartbeat, the very real potential for abuse by competitors or mischief-makers far outweighs the public’s ‘right to know’. Once the CPSC has adjudicated a case appropriately, made a reasonable finding of fact and determined the right course of corrective action, public notice would be appropriate.”
I continued to try to make my point to CPSIA Congressional conferees in another letter dated July 21, 2008, just ahead of final consideration of the CPSIA: “CPSC Searchable Database: The well-intentioned idea for complete safety transparency is an open invitation to mischief makers. This is a real threat to our business, as we know from hard experience. The better way is to let the CPSC filter this data first. Please remember, even YouTube will take down videos on request. The proposed law won’t give defenseless toy companies the same recourse as YouTube. Is that an appropriate way to regulate an entire industry?”
It wasn't only me. Many others in the business community opposed the creation of a database that would contain inaccurate or misleading accusations and complaints. That’s the story of the CPSIA in a nutshell – no one was listening when the law was originally drafted, and now three years later, we are fighting City Hall to restore common sense to federal safety law. Please consider the assertion that consumers really need this database, that it is essential to their children’s safety. In fact, there are many places on the Internet where consumers can and do post their experiences without controversy. Why would a federal database be a greater cause for concern? Well, for one thing, this one is called “SaferProducts.gov” and is sponsored by the federal government. Notwithstanding the lawyer language disclaimers all over the website, it is crystal clear that the public will place a lot of credence in these postings. After all, why would our federal government allow misleading or inaccurate information to be posted on a website called SaferProducts.gov? Ms. Tenenbaum is famous for her defense of “dot gov” websites: “I say don't believe everything you read on the Internet, except what you read on Web sites that end in dot gov.” [Keynote speech at ICPHSO, February 17, 2010] She may not be the only one who feels this way.
The NHTSA database exists; ergo a CPSIA database is a good idea? The NHTSA database can be distinguished in several important ways: (a) auto accidents are a leading cause of death in this country (consumer products are not), (b) every use of automobiles is known to be hazardous and the risk to human life from reckless use of cars is obviously magnified (not true for consumer products), (c) the auto industry is one of the largest components of our entire economy - we all use cars and many of us owe our livelihoods to automobiles in one way or the other (the average sale of consumer products is far less than a car), and (d) at all levels, the auto industry is highly consolidated among a relatively small number of massive companies that are well-prepared for litigation and regulatory issues (consumer products is not a consolidated market and there are many small companies involved in the trade). I think GM, Ford, Toyota and other multi-billion dollar automakers can handle the burden and risk of a database of consumer deaths and serious injuries from use of their products. Our family business, Learning Resources, on the other hand, ain't no GM or Toyota. The NHTSA database is NOT an appropriate precedent for consumer products for all of the foregoing reasons.
"One of the ironies in Pompeo and others screaming bloody murder that the database will kill jobs is that most of the appliances likely to get dinged in the database won't even be American products." This remark completely misses the point, unfortunately. It is American companies that are going to be hurt by the misinformation in the database, whether those companies are manufacturers, importers, private labelers or retailers. Even worse, thousands of American small businesses are going to be put at risk with no practical means to defend themselves. Is this the “American Way” at work? Who will pay when jobs are lost from companies shifting away from this market or dropping products to limit exposure to liability? This is just going to be another self-inflicted economic injury from misguided and overzealous regulation.
Whether the product is made in China, the U.S. or India, it should not matter from a safety perspective. Companies must ensure that they market safe and appropriate products no matter where the products are made. The reality is that every product can break, and accidents and other bad things happen to good people. The database will be unforgiving and if filled with post-it-and-forget-it garbage, will harm innocent victims – American companies that employ your neighbors and make products for your schools. Unqualified and unverified complaints on SaferProducts.gov WILL induce consumers to take our products away from children - pending a recall that may never be forthcoming . . . because nothing's wrong.
Chairman Tenenbaum has publicly encouraged consumers to rely on the postings in the database - to draw conclusions on the likelihood of future injury. This is quite alarming, given that Ms. Tenenbaum also testified in a Congressional hearing in February that the agency will likely post unverified or inaccurate information to the database. She admits that this information will be faulty. As she said in testimony, "that's what the rub is".
Claims of inaccuracies are low in the soft launch. Given the short life of the database in its test phase and the small population of registered users, reports of few data problems must be greeted with skepticism. Less than 1000 companies have registered with the CPSC for the database, an absurdly small percentage of the number of companies whose products will be in the database. Taking into account that many consumer product companies (such as Disney) will need to register numerous brands, product lines and corporate divisions to ensure that the right data flows to the right paper pusher, the current registrations are even paltrier. If companies are not registered, it is unlikely they are even aware of the soft launch, let alone that there may be inaccurate claims against their products being sponsored by the federal government.
Sadly, we are likely to confirm that the CPSC’s faulty processes are damaging companies only AFTER the damage is done. Let’s not forget that the agency is all set to launch a big “public awareness” campaign for the new database – in other words, the federal government will soon be beating the bushes for consumer complaint submissions. As usual, consumer advocates hype uncertain and unquantifiable losses (someone somewhere might not know about something that COULD have been in the database and later be injured) to distract Congress and the media from the certain losses that will befall companies with damaged reputations. Good for plaintiff lawyers but maybe no one else.
Our small company in Illinois has already experienced a materially inaccurate submission – in the very first “complaint” we faced – and were unable to block it from the database. The anonymous posting concerned a consumer’s “feelings” about one of our products based on a photograph she found on the Internet. Unfortunately, she was clearly wrong and we could prove it. The CPSC wasn’t impressed by our valid CPSIA test reports or photographic evidence of the consumer’s error. I can safely assure you that misleading and inaccurate claims will not only be submitted to the database and but will be posted by the CPSC knowing full well that the claims are untrue. I wrote about my experiences in my blog.
I hope you will reconsider your views on the CPSIA database and weigh more carefully the legitimate concerns of businesses serving the children’s marketplace. We are in this business for a reason – we are devoted to making children’s lives BETTER. The new database will not further our mission, nor will a database filled with garbage benefit consumers. We can do better, and we MUST do better.
Sincerely,
Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
Vernon Hills, IL
My blog: http://www.learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/
I read with interest your March 8th article on the CPSC database entitled “Who’s Afraid of the CPSC?” and was disappointed at the inaccuracies in the piece and your blanket dismissal of the business community's legitimate concerns about the database. The database has devolved into a divisive partisan issue simply because of the utter refusal of consumer groups and their Congressional allies to acknowledge the flaws in the database as well as the law that established it – the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).
I'll try to address the inaccuracies one-by-one:
Database cost - $3 million or $29 million? The cost figure of $3 million sparked a public dispute between the CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and her fellow Commissioner Anne Northup at a House hearing last month. In response to Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony on the cost of the database, Ms. Northup testified that the figure of $3 million had never been shared with the CPSC Commission and that the only database cost figure she was familiar with was $29 million. Interestingly, in April 2010, the Associated Press reported, based on information provided by the CPSC, that the cost of the http://www.saferproducts.gov/ website would be about $20 million, and the CPSC apparently saw no reason to update the media with the good news that the cost had shriveled to $3 million until the February 2011 hearing. . . . Hmmm.
The supposedly noncontroversial CPSIA database. Why didn’t anyone kick up a fuss about the database in 2008? A better question is “Why didn’t Congress listen when the business community protested?” Here’s what I said in a letter to each Congressional conferee dated June 25, 2008: “While we support public notice of recalls, we oppose a national database of reports of injury, illness, death or risk of injury. This forum will not be subject to appropriate findings of fact and thus will be a forum subject to considerable abuse. In a society where tort lawsuits are an ever-present risk for all businesses, a risk that can wipe out a lifetime’s work in a heartbeat, the very real potential for abuse by competitors or mischief-makers far outweighs the public’s ‘right to know’. Once the CPSC has adjudicated a case appropriately, made a reasonable finding of fact and determined the right course of corrective action, public notice would be appropriate.”
I continued to try to make my point to CPSIA Congressional conferees in another letter dated July 21, 2008, just ahead of final consideration of the CPSIA: “CPSC Searchable Database: The well-intentioned idea for complete safety transparency is an open invitation to mischief makers. This is a real threat to our business, as we know from hard experience. The better way is to let the CPSC filter this data first. Please remember, even YouTube will take down videos on request. The proposed law won’t give defenseless toy companies the same recourse as YouTube. Is that an appropriate way to regulate an entire industry?”
It wasn't only me. Many others in the business community opposed the creation of a database that would contain inaccurate or misleading accusations and complaints. That’s the story of the CPSIA in a nutshell – no one was listening when the law was originally drafted, and now three years later, we are fighting City Hall to restore common sense to federal safety law. Please consider the assertion that consumers really need this database, that it is essential to their children’s safety. In fact, there are many places on the Internet where consumers can and do post their experiences without controversy. Why would a federal database be a greater cause for concern? Well, for one thing, this one is called “SaferProducts.gov” and is sponsored by the federal government. Notwithstanding the lawyer language disclaimers all over the website, it is crystal clear that the public will place a lot of credence in these postings. After all, why would our federal government allow misleading or inaccurate information to be posted on a website called SaferProducts.gov? Ms. Tenenbaum is famous for her defense of “dot gov” websites: “I say don't believe everything you read on the Internet, except what you read on Web sites that end in dot gov.” [Keynote speech at ICPHSO, February 17, 2010] She may not be the only one who feels this way.
The NHTSA database exists; ergo a CPSIA database is a good idea? The NHTSA database can be distinguished in several important ways: (a) auto accidents are a leading cause of death in this country (consumer products are not), (b) every use of automobiles is known to be hazardous and the risk to human life from reckless use of cars is obviously magnified (not true for consumer products), (c) the auto industry is one of the largest components of our entire economy - we all use cars and many of us owe our livelihoods to automobiles in one way or the other (the average sale of consumer products is far less than a car), and (d) at all levels, the auto industry is highly consolidated among a relatively small number of massive companies that are well-prepared for litigation and regulatory issues (consumer products is not a consolidated market and there are many small companies involved in the trade). I think GM, Ford, Toyota and other multi-billion dollar automakers can handle the burden and risk of a database of consumer deaths and serious injuries from use of their products. Our family business, Learning Resources, on the other hand, ain't no GM or Toyota. The NHTSA database is NOT an appropriate precedent for consumer products for all of the foregoing reasons.
"One of the ironies in Pompeo and others screaming bloody murder that the database will kill jobs is that most of the appliances likely to get dinged in the database won't even be American products." This remark completely misses the point, unfortunately. It is American companies that are going to be hurt by the misinformation in the database, whether those companies are manufacturers, importers, private labelers or retailers. Even worse, thousands of American small businesses are going to be put at risk with no practical means to defend themselves. Is this the “American Way” at work? Who will pay when jobs are lost from companies shifting away from this market or dropping products to limit exposure to liability? This is just going to be another self-inflicted economic injury from misguided and overzealous regulation.
Whether the product is made in China, the U.S. or India, it should not matter from a safety perspective. Companies must ensure that they market safe and appropriate products no matter where the products are made. The reality is that every product can break, and accidents and other bad things happen to good people. The database will be unforgiving and if filled with post-it-and-forget-it garbage, will harm innocent victims – American companies that employ your neighbors and make products for your schools. Unqualified and unverified complaints on SaferProducts.gov WILL induce consumers to take our products away from children - pending a recall that may never be forthcoming . . . because nothing's wrong.
Chairman Tenenbaum has publicly encouraged consumers to rely on the postings in the database - to draw conclusions on the likelihood of future injury. This is quite alarming, given that Ms. Tenenbaum also testified in a Congressional hearing in February that the agency will likely post unverified or inaccurate information to the database. She admits that this information will be faulty. As she said in testimony, "that's what the rub is".
Claims of inaccuracies are low in the soft launch. Given the short life of the database in its test phase and the small population of registered users, reports of few data problems must be greeted with skepticism. Less than 1000 companies have registered with the CPSC for the database, an absurdly small percentage of the number of companies whose products will be in the database. Taking into account that many consumer product companies (such as Disney) will need to register numerous brands, product lines and corporate divisions to ensure that the right data flows to the right paper pusher, the current registrations are even paltrier. If companies are not registered, it is unlikely they are even aware of the soft launch, let alone that there may be inaccurate claims against their products being sponsored by the federal government.
Sadly, we are likely to confirm that the CPSC’s faulty processes are damaging companies only AFTER the damage is done. Let’s not forget that the agency is all set to launch a big “public awareness” campaign for the new database – in other words, the federal government will soon be beating the bushes for consumer complaint submissions. As usual, consumer advocates hype uncertain and unquantifiable losses (someone somewhere might not know about something that COULD have been in the database and later be injured) to distract Congress and the media from the certain losses that will befall companies with damaged reputations. Good for plaintiff lawyers but maybe no one else.
Our small company in Illinois has already experienced a materially inaccurate submission – in the very first “complaint” we faced – and were unable to block it from the database. The anonymous posting concerned a consumer’s “feelings” about one of our products based on a photograph she found on the Internet. Unfortunately, she was clearly wrong and we could prove it. The CPSC wasn’t impressed by our valid CPSIA test reports or photographic evidence of the consumer’s error. I can safely assure you that misleading and inaccurate claims will not only be submitted to the database and but will be posted by the CPSC knowing full well that the claims are untrue. I wrote about my experiences in my blog.
I hope you will reconsider your views on the CPSIA database and weigh more carefully the legitimate concerns of businesses serving the children’s marketplace. We are in this business for a reason – we are devoted to making children’s lives BETTER. The new database will not further our mission, nor will a database filled with garbage benefit consumers. We can do better, and we MUST do better.
Sincerely,
Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
Vernon Hills, IL
My blog: http://www.learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/
CPSIA - "Must Read" in PSL
In the March 9th edition of the Product Safety Letter, Eric Stone published an analysis entitled "Is There a Need to “Recall to Repair” the Relationship Between the CPSC Compliance Staff and Business Community?"
My response: Amen, brother!
For those of you who don't know Eric, he is the former Director of the Legal Division of the CPSC and also former Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division of the Office of Compliance at the CPSC. He is currently a partner at K&L Gates LLP. To say the least, he is an authoritative figure in all matters CPSC.
Please read Eric's Op-Ed.
My response: Amen, brother!
For those of you who don't know Eric, he is the former Director of the Legal Division of the CPSC and also former Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division of the Office of Compliance at the CPSC. He is currently a partner at K&L Gates LLP. To say the least, he is an authoritative figure in all matters CPSC.
Please read Eric's Op-Ed.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
CPSIA - CPSC Punts on "Material Inaccuracy"
The war over the CPSIA Database continues at high pitch. In today's print edition of Politico, Consumers Union upheld its well-deserved reputation as a fear monger with the below ad entitled "Will this crib leave parents sleepless?" CU intones: "When you buy a crib, you want to know it's safe. Luckily for parents, the [CPSIA] created an easy-to-use database for the public to report unsafe products. But right now, some members of Congress want to stop that database, putting your children at risk. Don't let them."
The ad concludes with this warning "Congress: Don't play politics with our kids' safety."
At the same time, the National Association of Manufacturers launched its own campaign documenting the many incidents of inaccurate data and other related snafus in the database SO FAR. The body of the NAM letter is found here.
The objections to the CPSIA Database by manufacturers, importers, private labelers and retailers is all about inaccurate data. Filling the database with junky, incorrect or idle chatter masquerading as thoughtful analysis presents REAL threats to investments in companies, products and brands. Naturally, this also threatens jobs at many levels in our economy. Were the database maintained by the CPSC with clean and accurate data, I rather doubt the objections to this program would be so intense. However, industry stakeholders know that the media and our government are reactive by nature, tending to report, judge and act on stimuli before adequately investigating or resolving underlying accusations. Consider Toyota braking systems, DryMax diapers, Shrek glasses. It's a long list of manhandled companies or products. There are legitimate reasons to fear what a mismanaged "post it and forget it" database will do to industry.
I realize industry objections may seem theoretical or somehow calculated to serve a larger purpose. It is worth noting, however, that the NAM letter provides concrete illustrations of the problem facing industry. Likewise, it is important to remember that consumer groups gloss over the objections of companies to pluck heart strings - that's how they raise funds. To clarify the picture, I have a REAL EXAMPLE to share. It involves the first (and so far only) submission to the database about our company's products.
The following incident was filed against one of our products during the so-called "soft launch". The soft launch was intended to allow the CPSC to work the "kinks" out of the database and to practice interacting with the entire U.S. economy on consumer products. As you know from prior blogposts, Inez Tenenbaum has admitted in House testimony that the CPSC is not likely to be able to resolve questions of accuracy before posting the data (but they will try very hard). She said "That's what the rub is." Indeed. And you also know that once data appears on the Internet, its traces are all but impossible to remove. The long tail of misinformation is likely to affect brands and companies for years.
The subject product happens to be discontinued. We have protested this particular filing to the CPSC and they replied with the following decision: "[CPSC] staff concluded that the report would be posted in the database but for soft launch". In other words, as a CPSC policy matter, what follows is a legitimate posting to the database when it goes live.
Put yourself in the position of the CPSC and YOU MAKE THE CALL!
First, consider the final rule on the database. The database is to be populated with "reports of harm". What's that? "Report of harm means any information submitted to the Commission through the manner described in § 1102.10(b), regarding any injury, illness, or death; or any risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission, relating to the use of a consumer product." And what is a "harm"? "Harm means injury, illness, or death; or risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission." Who can file? Basically anyone. No direct knowledge of the "incident" is required.
The person making the filing does have to give their name to the manufacturer. In this case, we were faced with an unnamed accuser. Please note that Cheryl Falvey, General Counsel of the CPSC, said at ICPHSO this year that she couldn't imagine why anyone would withhold their identity in a complaint. This was our first "product incident". O for 1 so far, Cheri.
Here is what the anonymous filer said:
"I saw this product on the FAO Schwartz website. It looks like a nice idea not very well thought out. The product is called: 'Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings'. The suggested age states: 2-7 yrs. By: Learning Resources. The Product Description: 'With 28 plastic hearts that lace together vertically and horizontally, 3 laces, candy scoop and storage jar, this Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings set from Learning Resources® offer a delectable introduction to colors, shapes, matching and printed words. Little hands stay busy too as kids gain confidence in fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination. Charming lacing hearts features a word or picture on each side. Children can create colorful candy designs and cute messages while improving fine motor skills. Hearts are color-coded to help children make sentences.' These plastic 'beads' look very much like the candy conversation hearts sold around Valentines day. Maybe I am over concerned, but this seems like these beads could easily be mistakenly ingested or could pose a choking hazard." [Emphasis added]
I certainly hope the readers of this space are confident that, in fact, this item complies withU.S.
Put another way, this accusation has no basis in fact and thus cannot be a "report of harm" under any reasonable interpretation. It is unadulterated and inaccurate conjecture. We sent the CPSC our third party test reports and photographs of the parts proving that they won't pass through a choke tube to support our protest that this complaint is "materially inaccurate".
Nevertheless, the CPSC apparently determined the complaint states a "risk of harm" and thus should be published in the database.
To get a flavor of the "sympathetic" audience we received at the CPSC when we pushed back, please enjoy selections from the written response we received:
"I should make it clear from the outset that I am not the person within the agency with the delegated authority to handle material inaccuracy claims. This email reflects my opinions and not those of the Commission and has not been reviewed by the Commissioners. When you first approached me about this . . . I told you that my gut reaction was that despite the concerns you raised, the Commission staff handling these issues would take the consumer's report at face value as a claim raising a concern of a risk of harm. I explained then that your Firm could provide a comment with your objections to the report or object to the report as materially inaccurate. Given your concerns about the report, I raised the issue with the database team handling the issues and confirmed to you in our call last Friday that the response was the same. I also indicated that the claim of material inaccuracy would likely be denied. I explained that the personnel handling these matters were not making decisions as to whether the product was harmful but rather they would take a quick look at whether the report of harm articulates a risk of harm." [Emphasis added]
The ad concludes with this warning "Congress: Don't play politics with our kids' safety."
At the same time, the National Association of Manufacturers launched its own campaign documenting the many incidents of inaccurate data and other related snafus in the database SO FAR. The body of the NAM letter is found here.
The objections to the CPSIA Database by manufacturers, importers, private labelers and retailers is all about inaccurate data. Filling the database with junky, incorrect or idle chatter masquerading as thoughtful analysis presents REAL threats to investments in companies, products and brands. Naturally, this also threatens jobs at many levels in our economy. Were the database maintained by the CPSC with clean and accurate data, I rather doubt the objections to this program would be so intense. However, industry stakeholders know that the media and our government are reactive by nature, tending to report, judge and act on stimuli before adequately investigating or resolving underlying accusations. Consider Toyota braking systems, DryMax diapers, Shrek glasses. It's a long list of manhandled companies or products. There are legitimate reasons to fear what a mismanaged "post it and forget it" database will do to industry.
I realize industry objections may seem theoretical or somehow calculated to serve a larger purpose. It is worth noting, however, that the NAM letter provides concrete illustrations of the problem facing industry. Likewise, it is important to remember that consumer groups gloss over the objections of companies to pluck heart strings - that's how they raise funds. To clarify the picture, I have a REAL EXAMPLE to share. It involves the first (and so far only) submission to the database about our company's products.
The following incident was filed against one of our products during the so-called "soft launch". The soft launch was intended to allow the CPSC to work the "kinks" out of the database and to practice interacting with the entire U.S. economy on consumer products. As you know from prior blogposts, Inez Tenenbaum has admitted in House testimony that the CPSC is not likely to be able to resolve questions of accuracy before posting the data (but they will try very hard). She said "That's what the rub is." Indeed. And you also know that once data appears on the Internet, its traces are all but impossible to remove. The long tail of misinformation is likely to affect brands and companies for years.
The subject product happens to be discontinued. We have protested this particular filing to the CPSC and they replied with the following decision: "[CPSC] staff concluded that the report would be posted in the database but for soft launch". In other words, as a CPSC policy matter, what follows is a legitimate posting to the database when it goes live.
Put yourself in the position of the CPSC and YOU MAKE THE CALL!
First, consider the final rule on the database. The database is to be populated with "reports of harm". What's that? "Report of harm means any information submitted to the Commission through the manner described in § 1102.10(b), regarding any injury, illness, or death; or any risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission, relating to the use of a consumer product." And what is a "harm"? "Harm means injury, illness, or death; or risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission." Who can file? Basically anyone. No direct knowledge of the "incident" is required.
The person making the filing does have to give their name to the manufacturer. In this case, we were faced with an unnamed accuser. Please note that Cheryl Falvey, General Counsel of the CPSC, said at ICPHSO this year that she couldn't imagine why anyone would withhold their identity in a complaint. This was our first "product incident". O for 1 so far, Cheri.
Here is what the anonymous filer said:
"I saw this product on the FAO Schwartz website. It looks like a nice idea not very well thought out. The product is called: 'Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings'. The suggested age states: 2-7 yrs. By: Learning Resources. The Product Description: 'With 28 plastic hearts that lace together vertically and horizontally, 3 laces, candy scoop and storage jar, this Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings set from Learning Resources® offer a delectable introduction to colors, shapes, matching and printed words. Little hands stay busy too as kids gain confidence in fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination. Charming lacing hearts features a word or picture on each side. Children can create colorful candy designs and cute messages while improving fine motor skills. Hearts are color-coded to help children make sentences.' These plastic 'beads' look very much like the candy conversation hearts sold around Valentines day. Maybe I am over concerned, but this seems like these beads could easily be mistakenly ingested or could pose a choking hazard." [Emphasis added]
I certainly hope the readers of this space are confident that, in fact, this item complies with
Put another way, this accusation has no basis in fact and thus cannot be a "report of harm" under any reasonable interpretation. It is unadulterated and inaccurate conjecture. We sent the CPSC our third party test reports and photographs of the parts proving that they won't pass through a choke tube to support our protest that this complaint is "materially inaccurate".
Nevertheless, the CPSC apparently determined the complaint states a "risk of harm" and thus should be published in the database.
To get a flavor of the "sympathetic" audience we received at the CPSC when we pushed back, please enjoy selections from the written response we received:
"I should make it clear from the outset that I am not the person within the agency with the delegated authority to handle material inaccuracy claims. This email reflects my opinions and not those of the Commission and has not been reviewed by the Commissioners. When you first approached me about this . . . I told you that my gut reaction was that despite the concerns you raised, the Commission staff handling these issues would take the consumer's report at face value as a claim raising a concern of a risk of harm. I explained then that your Firm could provide a comment with your objections to the report or object to the report as materially inaccurate. Given your concerns about the report, I raised the issue with the database team handling the issues and confirmed to you in our call last Friday that the response was the same. I also indicated that the claim of material inaccuracy would likely be denied. I explained that the personnel handling these matters were not making decisions as to whether the product was harmful but rather they would take a quick look at whether the report of harm articulates a risk of harm." [Emphasis added]
Our claim of material inaccuracy was denied - even though the issue was disposed by a valid third party test report directly on point . . . . Makes you wonder what WOULD be deemed "materially inaccurate".
So why didn't our test reports and photos PROVE "material inaccuracy"? After all, the filer states: "Maybe I am over concerned, but this seems like these beads could easily be mistakenly ingested or could pose a choking hazard." The CPSC explains:
"However, in assessing whether a report of harm articulates a risk of harm, the staff is not adjudicating whether the product actually presents such a risk of harm. We have other processes for making that determination which require an assessment of the risk by Commission staff, including a subject matter expert - in this case, a physiologist on the issues relating to the likelihood of a choking hazard to children . . . . As I explained on Friday, the database process is set up to allow the manufacturer to state its reasons why the report does not present a risk of harm and have that appear next to the consumer's report. The staff handling claims of material inaccuracy will not be determining the ultimate question of whether the product does, in fact, present a risk of harm. That would only occur after a full assessment of the risk of harm by the subject matters experts and ample opportunity for the firm to address the issues with our compliance staff. The disclaimer is intended to notify users that the information has not been evaluated and specifically states: The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the contents of the Consumer Product Safety Information Database, particularly with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of information submitted by persons outside of the CPSC."
Can anyone out there feel our outrage? Is this what Congress "intended"? Is it acceptable that the CPSC not exercise ANY judgment whatsoever on filings and that manufacturers be powerless to stop the posting of nonsense? Can't we expect more of this agency with its 500 employees?
The CPSC informs us that all is well BECAUSE even though the accusation is known to be false, we are allowed to post comments side-by-side with the accusation.
". . . it would be up to the Firm to decide whether it wants its test reports and photos posted as comments in response to the report. The conclusion was that this is the type of report that has been included in our databases in the past and would be included in the public database along with the manufacturer's comments and the mandatory disclaimer as to the accuracy of the information in the public database."
So, there you have it. The CPSC knows it is posting nonsense and other pap, refuses to filter out the bunk and then boldly asserts that it is up to the manufacturer to choose how it wants to counter the misinformation. The term "materially inaccurate" does not apparently extend to factually inaccurate accusations - I believe it only refers to misidentified products. [This is not the first tortured interpretation of the English language to emerge from the CPSC during this administration.] One wonders to what lengths the CPSC will go to post controversial complaints in the database. They have their justification - they must make consumers "safe" with errant complaint data. It is a rich irony that the CPSC doesn't even argue the complaints are true or accurate and then scurries to hide behind its website disclaimer when asked to defend its lame administrative approach.
No doubt twisting themselves into a linguistic pretzel is only the start for this CPSC.
This position is NOT mandated by the CPSIA - this is a political decision dictated by forces outside the law. Please note that in this case, the CPSC overlooked a valid third party test report mandated by the CPSIA that refutes a conjecture based on a photo posted on a website. Guess that test report doesn't count for much at the CPSC. But it is ESSENTIAL to keep kids safe. . . .
Right. And so is the rest of the CPSIA and this database. Right.
The CPSC didn't just "punt" on the meaning of "materially inaccurate" - they punted on the future of your business and the jobs you provide to your teammates. If only we could punt on the jobs of the people who were doing this to us. . . .
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
CPSIA - Essay Contest or . . . Detention Punishment?
I know what you are thinking: how can I channel all this excess energy I have? What could really soak up a lot of time, and provide intellectual stimulation at the very same time? It can be so frustrating to have oodles of time and nothing to do . . . .
Luckily for you, the Society for Standards Professionals (SES) have a contest for you to enter. It's their 2011 World Standards Day Paper Competition. The topic for your award-winning essay must meet this description: “'Advancing Safety and Sustainability Standards Worldwide,' recognizes that issues of safety and sustainability are important causes for stakeholders around the world, from alternative energies and environmental protection to the safety of products, services, homes, and workplaces. As governments, organizations, and individuals alike strive to address these transnational challenges, globally relevant standards provide the technological and scientific foundations that drive health, safety, and environmental innovation."
Okay, I know that's not English, but heck, they are Standards engineers. What did you expect?
The project might have died there . . . but fortunately, my trade association, the Toy Industry Association, provided outstanding translation services so we could all get in on the fun:
"As recently reported to TIA members, the U.S. Celebration of World Standards Day 2011 taking place on October 13, 2011 in Washington, D.C. includes a unique opportunity for toy industry stakeholders to describe (in writing) the crucial role that global toy safety standards serve in protecting children today and for future generations … and take home some fantastic cash prizes!" [Emphasis added[
Now, that's a Rockin' n Rollin' idea for you. The crucial role of Global Toy Safety Standards - I love it! Of course, the contest also sounds like some sort of detention punishment. "Now write 'Safety is nice' on the chalkboard 100 times in neat handwriting!" Well, Mr. Grumbler, life is how you choose to look at it, so stop moaning and get to work. You'll never win the big prize by feeling sorry for yourself.
Here are a few suggested winning essay titles. I would welcome any other ideas you have because I want one of my readers to WIN that cash prize!
a. "Cadmium-for-Lead: How Global Standards Set Me Straight!"
b. "What?! No One Told Me Small Parts Were Bad! ANSI to the Rescue."
c. "If It's Illegal Here, It Must Be Illegal Everywhere. Waste Haulers Laud New Global Toy Safety Standards."
d. "Let Me Chew on That. . . . Global Toy Standards Finally Regulate Common Sense!"
e. "Never Heard of Selenium? ANSI Has . . . Thank G-d."
f. "Shards of Glass No More. Global Toy Standards Stand Tall!"
g. "There Are New Global Toy Standards? Somebody Should Tell Our Firewalled Test Lab."
Luckily for you, the Society for Standards Professionals (SES) have a contest for you to enter. It's their 2011 World Standards Day Paper Competition. The topic for your award-winning essay must meet this description: “'Advancing Safety and Sustainability Standards Worldwide,' recognizes that issues of safety and sustainability are important causes for stakeholders around the world, from alternative energies and environmental protection to the safety of products, services, homes, and workplaces. As governments, organizations, and individuals alike strive to address these transnational challenges, globally relevant standards provide the technological and scientific foundations that drive health, safety, and environmental innovation."
Okay, I know that's not English, but heck, they are Standards engineers. What did you expect?
The project might have died there . . . but fortunately, my trade association, the Toy Industry Association, provided outstanding translation services so we could all get in on the fun:
"As recently reported to TIA members, the U.S. Celebration of World Standards Day 2011 taking place on October 13, 2011 in Washington, D.C. includes a unique opportunity for toy industry stakeholders to describe (in writing) the crucial role that global toy safety standards serve in protecting children today and for future generations … and take home some fantastic cash prizes!" [Emphasis added[
Now, that's a Rockin' n Rollin' idea for you. The crucial role of Global Toy Safety Standards - I love it! Of course, the contest also sounds like some sort of detention punishment. "Now write 'Safety is nice' on the chalkboard 100 times in neat handwriting!" Well, Mr. Grumbler, life is how you choose to look at it, so stop moaning and get to work. You'll never win the big prize by feeling sorry for yourself.
Here are a few suggested winning essay titles. I would welcome any other ideas you have because I want one of my readers to WIN that cash prize!
a. "Cadmium-for-Lead: How Global Standards Set Me Straight!"
b. "What?! No One Told Me Small Parts Were Bad! ANSI to the Rescue."
c. "If It's Illegal Here, It Must Be Illegal Everywhere. Waste Haulers Laud New Global Toy Safety Standards."
d. "Let Me Chew on That. . . . Global Toy Standards Finally Regulate Common Sense!"
e. "Never Heard of Selenium? ANSI Has . . . Thank G-d."
f. "Shards of Glass No More. Global Toy Standards Stand Tall!"
g. "There Are New Global Toy Standards? Somebody Should Tell Our Firewalled Test Lab."
Thursday, March 3, 2011
CPSIA - ABC News Wants to Know About Your Cadmium Poisoning
ABC News is doing a real public service - they are calling for childhood cadmium poisoning victims to come forward. Here's their invitation:
"Has Your Child Suffered From Cadmium Poisoning? Share your story … Toxic Cadmium in childrens' jewelry poses risk to kids' health.
Cadmium is a highly toxic metal that is appearing more and more in jewelry and toys imported from China. Dangerous effects of ingested cadmium include kidney, bone, lung and liver disease. Kids are especially at risk for complications because of their size and the likelihood that they will suck on or swallow toys or jewelry containing cadmium. Has your child suffered from cadmium poisoning? Did your family have a cadmium poisoning scare? Share your story with ABCnews.com."
I would like to know about those victims, too. So far, there are NO reported childhood injuries from cadmium in children's products that I am aware of. Zero. Of course, it is also a gripe of mine that there are no identified childhood injury victims from lead-in-substrate in children's products either. That's an even more serious issue and a real indictment of the CPSIA. Where are the victims???
I have no idea which side of the issue ABC News is on. I am willing to assume they are curious about the data, which is what a real reporter should care about. What if they get no responses - does that resolve the matter? Probably not, but then again, isn't the absence of injuries important data to consider? And if they DO get case histories, then what? They need to share them and allow the data to be examined. If this is a real health problem, then let's take it seriously and try to understand what has been revealed.
The time for product slander is over - let's look at the real data and make some intelligent decisions.
"Has Your Child Suffered From Cadmium Poisoning? Share your story … Toxic Cadmium in childrens' jewelry poses risk to kids' health.
Cadmium is a highly toxic metal that is appearing more and more in jewelry and toys imported from China. Dangerous effects of ingested cadmium include kidney, bone, lung and liver disease. Kids are especially at risk for complications because of their size and the likelihood that they will suck on or swallow toys or jewelry containing cadmium. Has your child suffered from cadmium poisoning? Did your family have a cadmium poisoning scare? Share your story with ABCnews.com."
I would like to know about those victims, too. So far, there are NO reported childhood injuries from cadmium in children's products that I am aware of. Zero. Of course, it is also a gripe of mine that there are no identified childhood injury victims from lead-in-substrate in children's products either. That's an even more serious issue and a real indictment of the CPSIA. Where are the victims???
I have no idea which side of the issue ABC News is on. I am willing to assume they are curious about the data, which is what a real reporter should care about. What if they get no responses - does that resolve the matter? Probably not, but then again, isn't the absence of injuries important data to consider? And if they DO get case histories, then what? They need to share them and allow the data to be examined. If this is a real health problem, then let's take it seriously and try to understand what has been revealed.
The time for product slander is over - let's look at the real data and make some intelligent decisions.
CPSIA - Perhaps Mark Pryor is Detrimental to the American Public
I have resolved to "out" the politicians who stand between federal law and rationality when it comes to the CPSIA. We endured two years of torture at the hands of Henry Waxman in the House, who spent 18 months denying that anything was wrong with the CPSIA - and then tried to put through an amendment to his liking in the dead of night. I exposed that deceptive effort, but it didn't change much in Mr. Waxman's approach.
Now, post-2010 midterm elections, the winds have shifted and there is much more recognition that the CPSIA is deeply flawed. The House is controlled by Republicans who have long recognized and admitted that the law needed to be changed in important ways to save jobs (without sacrificing "safety"). Unfortunately, certain members of the Senate remains wedded to the Waxman script and seem committed to fall on the sword to protect each precious word of that defective and fundamentally flawed law. As they rise up to stand in the way of progress and rationality, I commit to YOU that I will out them in this space.
One person who is already raising his profile to protect this law is Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas. I am told he has a copy of the signed CPSIA framed in his office (I haven't seen it personally, I admit) so presumably he is very proud of "his" law. It's a shame he hasn't been listening since he cast his vote in 2008. In today's USAToday, Mr. Pryor opines that de-funding the CPSIA database would be "detrimental to the American public".
Why does Mr. Pryor think this? "Private consumer complaint websites tend to focus more on performance issues, which is why 'one central place where consumers can go to find accurate information' about safety is needed, says Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who is pushing to keep the funding in place for the database." [Emphasis added]
Perhaps a place with accurate information about consumer product incidents is "needed" but is the CPSIA database such a thing? Why, precisely, does Mr. Pryor thinks the database information will be "accurate"? After all, we know that Inez Tenenbaum admitted in Congressional testimony that the agency will likely post inaccurate or misleading information. Remember, "that's what the rub is". We also know that the General Counsel of the CPSC says that the database will not be trustworthy, featuring "complaints" without shedding light on "causation". Remember, the General Counsel touts the disclaimers all over the website, which she is considering AMPLIFYING. In other words, she admits/acknowledges/trumpets that the information may not be true and can't be relied upon. In other words, it's not accurate.
Senator Pryor, are you listening?
I am sure the answer is "no". Expect more of this from Mr. Pryor. According to Wikipedia, he is quoted in the movie "Religulous" saying "You don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the senate".
No argument here.
Now, post-2010 midterm elections, the winds have shifted and there is much more recognition that the CPSIA is deeply flawed. The House is controlled by Republicans who have long recognized and admitted that the law needed to be changed in important ways to save jobs (without sacrificing "safety"). Unfortunately, certain members of the Senate remains wedded to the Waxman script and seem committed to fall on the sword to protect each precious word of that defective and fundamentally flawed law. As they rise up to stand in the way of progress and rationality, I commit to YOU that I will out them in this space.
One person who is already raising his profile to protect this law is Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas. I am told he has a copy of the signed CPSIA framed in his office (I haven't seen it personally, I admit) so presumably he is very proud of "his" law. It's a shame he hasn't been listening since he cast his vote in 2008. In today's USAToday, Mr. Pryor opines that de-funding the CPSIA database would be "detrimental to the American public".
Why does Mr. Pryor think this? "Private consumer complaint websites tend to focus more on performance issues, which is why 'one central place where consumers can go to find accurate information' about safety is needed, says Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who is pushing to keep the funding in place for the database." [Emphasis added]
Perhaps a place with accurate information about consumer product incidents is "needed" but is the CPSIA database such a thing? Why, precisely, does Mr. Pryor thinks the database information will be "accurate"? After all, we know that Inez Tenenbaum admitted in Congressional testimony that the agency will likely post inaccurate or misleading information. Remember, "that's what the rub is". We also know that the General Counsel of the CPSC says that the database will not be trustworthy, featuring "complaints" without shedding light on "causation". Remember, the General Counsel touts the disclaimers all over the website, which she is considering AMPLIFYING. In other words, she admits/acknowledges/trumpets that the information may not be true and can't be relied upon. In other words, it's not accurate.
Senator Pryor, are you listening?
I am sure the answer is "no". Expect more of this from Mr. Pryor. According to Wikipedia, he is quoted in the movie "Religulous" saying "You don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the senate".
No argument here.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
CPSIA - It's Time To Feel Safe - We're SAVED!
Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Klobuchar (D-MN) rushed to meet with CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum today to investigate the spreading scourge of pool drains that may have failed lab tests. Budget crisis, what budget crisis? The TOP priority of these crack Democrat Senators is stopping $20 pool drains that may have failed lab tests from reaching the market. Oops, thousands of them were installed. . . . Then again, there is no accusation that anyone was hurt by these drains.
As previously disclosed in this space, Mr. Durbin did his research over breakfast, relying on the unbiased hyperbolic reporting of the Chicago Tribune as his bird dog on this one. The Chicago Tribune article relied on an industry "organization" presumably formed to further the interests of a company named Vac-Alert Industries which makes expensive systems that are (presumably) more effective than $20 pool drains. Money is no object, especially when we don't even bother to assess the size of the risk! Not quite sure why the senior Minnesotan Senator tagged along. For moral support? Or perhaps to get her picture in the paper for saving children.
When I knew Amy Klobuchar back in law school, we were graded on how well we did our research. Points off for not scrutinizing the shameful reporting of the Tribune, Amy!
More points off for manufacturing a crisis to pander to your voters! According to the CPSC website, pool drains have NEVER been recalled in U.S. history. Hmmm. There were NO pool entrapment deaths in 2009 according to the always authoritative Scott Wolfson. The cited USAToday article implies that there were none in 2010, either (through July 2nd).
As previously disclosed in this space, Mr. Durbin did his research over breakfast, relying on the unbiased hyperbolic reporting of the Chicago Tribune as his bird dog on this one. The Chicago Tribune article relied on an industry "organization" presumably formed to further the interests of a company named Vac-Alert Industries which makes expensive systems that are (presumably) more effective than $20 pool drains. Money is no object, especially when we don't even bother to assess the size of the risk! Not quite sure why the senior Minnesotan Senator tagged along. For moral support? Or perhaps to get her picture in the paper for saving children.
When I knew Amy Klobuchar back in law school, we were graded on how well we did our research. Points off for not scrutinizing the shameful reporting of the Tribune, Amy!
More points off for manufacturing a crisis to pander to your voters! According to the CPSC website, pool drains have NEVER been recalled in U.S. history. Hmmm. There were NO pool entrapment deaths in 2009 according to the always authoritative Scott Wolfson. The cited USAToday article implies that there were none in 2010, either (through July 2nd).
The Virginia Baker Graeme Pool and Spa Safety Act was designed to prevent a particularly gruesome death that tragically afflicted 11 people over ten years, including the young grandchild of James Baker, former Secretary of State. For the math-addled, that's one pool drain entrapment death per year in our country of 300 million (I assume some Senators are reading this blog). For perspective, my subversive friend Lenore Skenazy notes that five Americans die from venomous spider bites each year. [Ironically, I was able to find a video of Senators Durbin and Klobuchar teaming up to kill a spider - to keep you safe!]
There is another pool safety "risk" that the two esteemed Senators did not come to the CPSC to discuss - drownings. Any idea how many of THOSE there might be? Quite a few, it turns out. Commissioner Anne Northup notes that CPSC death statistics for 1999-2006 (seven years) account for a mere 27, 514 drownings, or 3,439 per year. 6,685 of these drownings occurred to children 14 and under, or 836 per year. Let's see, 836 drowned kids each year, divided by 365 days, that;s more than two dead kids per day. At least that's less than the almost TEN AMERICANS THAT DROWN EVERY DAY.
But I don't want to be accused of misusing statistics. Fun statistics can prove almost anything if you yank and twist hard enough. Just ask Dr. Dana Best! The CPSC acknowledges that only some of those kid deaths come in a pool or spa: "From 2005-2007 there was an annual average of 385 pool and spa-related drownings for children younger than 15; about 78 percent, or 299, of these children were younger than five. From 2007-2009, there were an estimated average of 4,200 pool or spa emergency department-treated submersions for children younger than 15; and children between the ages of 12 to 35 months represented 47 percent of estimated injuries for these years." That's almost one dead kid under five every day of the year and 5-6 serious injuries for kids under three every day. EVERY DAY.
I am just panicked about pool drains . . . .
No wonder the Senators are so worried about the $20 pool drains. It's a national crisis.
Monday, February 28, 2011
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.
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 - Fun with Lead!
Hey kids, don't try this at home! Discovery Channel's MythBusters Show plays with molten lead.
Lead is a neurotoxin, in case you forgot. Molten lead is soluble lead, very dangerous if ingested. Of course, molten lead presents OTHER risks if ingested. We need a law against molten lead now!
Check out their experiment. It's completely irrelevant to the CPSIA but then again, my sense of humor has been underserved for a few years now and I love a good if pointless experiment.
Lead is a neurotoxin, in case you forgot. Molten lead is soluble lead, very dangerous if ingested. Of course, molten lead presents OTHER risks if ingested. We need a law against molten lead now!
Check out their experiment. It's completely irrelevant to the CPSIA but then again, my sense of humor has been underserved for a few years now and I love a good if pointless experiment.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
CPSIA - House Hearings Clips of Questions for Both Panels
A few select clips for you from last week's House Subcommittee hearings. I will provide just a bit of commentary to accompany the clips. I will also be posting two other clips in a separate blogpost to follow.
Questions by Rep. John Dingell for Inez Tenenbaum and Anne Northup:
This clip features John Dingell trashing the CPSIA and pushing HARD for change. Listen to him BASH the Senate for mucking up his law!
Clip of Inez Tenenbaum and Anne Northup arguing about what the public injury/incident database cost - $3 million or $29 million.
The bickering over this critical point reflects a real misunderstanding on the CPSC Commission. What explains this? Not sure, really. Jennifer Kerr wrote about this topic today for the AP and noted that she had previously been quoted at $20 million by the CPSC. Oops. . . .
Clip of Inez Tenenbaum admitting that the CPSC will likely post INACCURATE information into the database . . . .
Shocked?! She also admits that only 723 companies have registered in the "soft launch" of the new database. Is that a lot? We registered seven brand names, so count me for 1% myself. I cannot say we control 1% of the economy. Draw your own conclusions . . . .
Clip of Rep. Jan Schakowsky questioning me!
Smackdown! I ran the Finance Committee for Ms. Schakowsky's opponent in the 2010 midterm elections. She gave the quote above to the Wall Street Journal in a profile of my role in that campaign. Have fun!
Clip of Rep. Olson questioning me about the 15 Month Rule and destructive testing.
Check out how many units the CPSC wants me to destroy in testing EVERY year!
Clip of Rep. Marsha Blackburn questioning Nancy Cowles of Kids in Danger on the sources of lead poisoning in America.
Clip of Rep. Blackburn questioning me about our testing costs.
Clip of Rep. Harper questioning me about testing standards.
Questions by Rep. John Dingell for Inez Tenenbaum and Anne Northup:
This clip features John Dingell trashing the CPSIA and pushing HARD for change. Listen to him BASH the Senate for mucking up his law!
Clip of Inez Tenenbaum and Anne Northup arguing about what the public injury/incident database cost - $3 million or $29 million.
The bickering over this critical point reflects a real misunderstanding on the CPSC Commission. What explains this? Not sure, really. Jennifer Kerr wrote about this topic today for the AP and noted that she had previously been quoted at $20 million by the CPSC. Oops. . . .
Clip of Inez Tenenbaum admitting that the CPSC will likely post INACCURATE information into the database . . . .
Shocked?! She also admits that only 723 companies have registered in the "soft launch" of the new database. Is that a lot? We registered seven brand names, so count me for 1% myself. I cannot say we control 1% of the economy. Draw your own conclusions . . . .
Clip of Rep. Jan Schakowsky questioning me!
Smackdown! I ran the Finance Committee for Ms. Schakowsky's opponent in the 2010 midterm elections. She gave the quote above to the Wall Street Journal in a profile of my role in that campaign. Have fun!
Clip of Rep. Olson questioning me about the 15 Month Rule and destructive testing.
Check out how many units the CPSC wants me to destroy in testing EVERY year!
Clip of Rep. Marsha Blackburn questioning Nancy Cowles of Kids in Danger on the sources of lead poisoning in America.
Clip of Rep. Blackburn questioning me about our testing costs.
Clip of Rep. Harper questioning me about testing standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
