CPSIA - The Futility of Protesting the CPSIA

With Congress about to sign-off on a CPSIA Amendment which seals the fate of the regulated community, for better or worse depending on who you are, the question of what remains is quite relevant.  With rights allocated and responsibilities delegated to a Dem-controlled CPSC Commission, what kind of justice can we expect in the future???

As if to answer this question, last week CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum published a troubling Op-Ed dated July 28th ("CPSC Chief to Detractors: ‘Safety Delayed is Safety Denied’").  In her article, Ms. Tenenbaum asserted that Democrats on the CPSC Commission are responsible for many "major victories" over the resistance of the minority party Republicans:

"We have made great progress at CPSC, and at times, our achievements have come with support from the two Commissioners in the minority party. Though, consumers should know that vigorous resistance is the rule, rather than the exception, with these two Commissioners. Through a coordinated campaign, these Commissioners have sought to delay and distort our actions in an attempt to circumvent the will of American families and Congress. Their tactics have been unsuccessful, as demonstrated by the strength of the new safety measures we have established."

Democrats good, Republicans evil. . . .  She continues, openly accusing minority Commissioners of almost venally favoring pocketbook issues over safety:

"We faced another example of this obstructionism in our effort to make sure cribs are safe. From November 2007 to April 2010, there were 36 deaths associated with crib structural defects. To address this critical issue, the Commission voted unanimously last December to establish new crib safety rules. Sadly, two of my colleagues in the minority party then attempted to delay the rules from going into effect last month. They were for it, and then they were against it, all in an effort to put the interests of a few retailers over the interests of hundreds of thousands of parents and very young children."

Perhaps granting me an honorable mention as an irritant, Ms. T. goes on to lay claim to the higher moral ground.  As you know, this is all about the tug of war between good-and-evil . . . .

"It is ironic that the minority party Commissioners and certain cynical special interests continue to gesture wildly, alleging a failure to take the concerns of businesses into account, while many safety-conscious companies have been manufacturing, testing, and selling children’s products for nearly three years that meet and exceed the requirements set by Congress. The minority party’s approach does not solve problems and does not serve the public interest. The Consumer Product Safety Commission under my stewardship will not succumb to efforts to undermine this law. Like justice, safety delayed is safety denied." [Emphasis added]

[I can't let Ms. T get away with the "safety delayed is safety denied" baloney.  To accept her rationale, one must conclude that safety was at stake in the cited decisions.  Among her claims of "major victories" is the determination that 100 ppm is technologically feasible.  Her own staff indicated that this decision will have "minimal" impact on safety.  And the safety achieved by the decision?  No reply.  She also points to the new phthalates standard.  Her own agency has TWICE considered these same chemicals for safety risks and TWICE given them a clean bill of health.  Isn't it a stretch to call her new standards a "major victory" for consumers or to contend that safety was ever at stake?  Not if data is irrelevant to you.  As is to ensure her own blissful ignorance (and to avoid learning anything inconsistent with her political agenda), Ms. Tenenbaum has never asked for injury statistics to evaluate evidence of the utility of the new rules she KNOWS will choke business.  Why not?  Who wants to spoil a good thing?  Safety delayed is safety denied . . . .  "Safety" perhaps defined in terms of job security.]

Commissioners Nord and Northup replied to Tenenbaum's Op-Ed snarkiness, and you should read their replies. However, I think the real issue is how this Commission will handle its responsibilities once Congress bows out.  Congress is about to let the Commission take it from here.  Now what?

The Tenenbaum article raises a question in my mind.  Does Commission voting records give any insight into the Dems' willingness to listen or their interest in listening to contrary viewpoints?  Is it all so open-and-shut?  Do we even have a fighting chance with these people, given their moral self-justifications?  Commission voting statistics have never been analyzed publicly to my knowledge, so I put them together this afternoon. Please feel free to check my work - here are the Tenenbaum era CPSIA votes.

My tabulation excludes procedural votes and votes related to cribs and infant care, the phthalates CHAP and Pool safety. In other words, it is only those votes which relate to my advocacy on the core issues under the CPSIA. Notably, I am unable to access confidential votes - the spreadsheet only applies to votes cast in open sessions of the Commission.

There have been 46 votes since her confirmation, and 37 since she began to chair the meetings. Each and every decision of the Commission has been controlled by the Democrats. Each and every vote won by Democrats had all Dem Commissions in tow with two exceptions - the two stays objected to by Adler, an avowed stay-hater.  Every 3-2 vote was three Dems to two Republicans.  No doubt each vote was configured for Ms. Tenenbaum's consent - she has never voted against a proposed rule or ruling.

Think about that - all the Dems voted together on everything, except two dissents by one Commissioner on the same issue, the extension of a stay, and in those cases he wanted to be even less forgiving of reasonable business interests. For perspective on this, consider that this is the Commissioner who claims to "agonize" over every vote but always votes against even the mildest form of relief for business. He is also the one who stated that he wouldn't allow cost-benefit analysis to be performed "over my dead body".  He only veered away from his fellow Dems on two votes on stays.  What does that tell you?

After three years of advocacy and the considerable expenditure of cash, time and other resources by so many people affected by this law, it seems apparent from the voting data that nothing we ever said or any data we ever presented were in any way persuasive to the Dems. They were gracious in their expressions of gratitude for our participation in their processes, but given the outcomes, one must conclude that we simply enabled them to give the appearance of justice. After all, we got our day in court, or so they would have you believe. However, if anyone who comes before a particular judge is sentenced to death, one begins to wonder about justice after awhile.

The Dems have used slogans to justify their actions:

- "There's no safe level of lead."
- "Safety delayed is safety denied."
- "Over my dead body . . . ."

Is there a pattern in these slogans?

They are sanctimonious. They wreak of moral superiority, while at the same time pinning their work on other people. Ms. T. tells us that they were just carrying out the will of Congress.  Nevertheless, she would have you believe that their work is necessary and a triumph for you.

They are self-righteous. There's something smug about their contentions. They will block cost-benefit analysis with their dead bodies. They portray themselves as courageous heroes, opposing devious foes. Taking a page out of the estimable Jan Schakowsky's playbook, Tenenbaum labels those who oppose her as "certain cynical special interests". Conspiracy theories bulk up her slender reed of self-justification.

The slogans play to emotions and ignore legal precedent and data. Bob Adler's "How do you measure the life of a little baby?" is a great example. Bob Adler is a lawyer and knows full well that the law provides a solid and respected answer to this question. As one practitioner told me, this kind of assessment is done every day in our courts and by other agencies. Adler knows that brains short out when he mentions "little babies" and who can argue that anything is worth more than the life of a "little baby".  By invoking images of "little babies", Adler and Co. divert attention from incoherent rationales underlying their decisions.

[To save a "little baby", is it okay to eliminate one job? Ten jobs? 100 jobs? 1,000 jobs? 10,000 jobs? 100,000 jobs? 1,000,000 jobs? Where do we draw the line? The implication, if you listen to Mr. Adler (not that he ever listens to me), is that the value of a baby's life is infinite so no economic sacrifice is too great. He won't allow a cost-benefit analysis to be done, despite the fact that it is mandated by an Executive Order and is good law to boot, so the question will never answered.  But isn't it clear - the line must be drawn somewhere. We can't function as a society if it isn't.  Don't expect this kind of thinking as kong as Adler and Tenenbaum hold down the fort at the CPSC, however.]

The slogans are cynical, too. Tenenbaum's repeated request (four times by my count) in the hearing on 100 ppm that businesses are welcome, even encouraged, to file for exemptions from the technological feasibility decision is despicable and cynical. Cynical in a sincere voice and with a smile on your face is cynical all the same. The CPSC staff wrote up a 59-page analysis stating that EVERYTHING is technologically feasible.  She knows this.  Her encouragement can't and won't lead to exceptions - The CPSC staff have already "tied her hands".    Still, she persists.  Consider Ms. Tenenbaum's advice in her statement on the 100 ppm standard:

"Although the Commission already has voted on this issue today, if a manufacturer were to discover that it is not technologically feasible to manufacture a children’s product or category of children’s products, the agency always will consider a request for a technological feasibility determination through our normal petitioning process. During my tenure, the Commission has docketed and either has resolved or is considering several petitions requesting action on various issues. The criteria for any petition on the technological feasibility of achieving the .01 percent lead limit are laid out clearly by the statute and further explained in the staff briefing package. The process for writing a petition also is clearly set forth in the agency’s regulations. I encourage any business that discovers it manufactures a children’s product or category of children’s products for which it is not technologically feasible to meet the .01 percent limit to come to us with enough specific data to enable our staff to recommend that the Commission make a finding concerning technological feasibility under section 101(d) of the CPSIA. Our door always will be open to considering future requests. As always, for small businesses that may require additional guidance, our small business ombudsman stands ready to work to work with you on any of your concerns. I realize that this process has presented a challenge for manufacturers, and I commend those in industry who have worked so diligently to bring the lead levels in their products below .01 percent." [Emphasis added]

Makes me want to vomit. This is your government talking.  Or perhaps lying?

So as Congress closes the door on helping us, doling out relief to favored groups like ATVs and books, they left the rest of us to fend for ourselves. The issue of how any of this related to safety was never considered in the pending amendments. Congress also chose not to address the abuses of the panel of hanging judges at the helm of the CPSC. The result is painful and a reminder that fighting City Hall is pointless. In this case, the Dems in charge have proven they are beyond reach and will not listen. Further resistance seems futile.

CPSIA - Rachel Weintraub's Distortions Justify Dem Refusal to Amend the CPSIA

Democrat tool Rachel Weintraub is never at a loss for words on the topic of CPSIA and true to form, she has today published more misstatements, distortions and innuendo to bolster Dem efforts to block amendment of the CPSIA.  In the space below, I rebut Ms. Weintraub's "view of the world". 

It is worth noting that a much more erudite explanation of the pending CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) was published side-by-side with Weintraub's smear campaign, namely "Fix bill would make products safer, not less so" by Eric Stone.  For those who don't know Eric, his credentials include more than 33 years at the CPSC, including as Legal Director in the Office of Compliance and as Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division.  He faced the real questions of safety at the agency and made the judgments subject to the scrutiny of the public, Congress and the legal system. 

As Eric Stone notes, "In crafting its new safety bill, Congress proved that moral outrage and good intentions do not necessarily result in good law."   Amen.

My responses to Ms. Weintraub are in blue and red.



Don't set safety clock backwards for kids products


By Rachel Weintraub
Florida Sun-Sentinel
July 24, 2011

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will soon vote on HR 1939, the "Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011," or ECADA, a bill that guts the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a vital law that keeps unsafe toys and other dangerous products off the shelves.

RW - It is a typical ploy of the Lefties opposing amendment of the CPSIA to frame everything in terms of toys.  Toys are but one category affected by this awful law, but by using it as the CPSIA poster child, Weintraub puts you where she wants you - afraid of ECADA's potential effects on innocents by "evil toymakers".  Aside from the fact that "evil toymakers" are no more or less prevalent in our society than any other category of "evil" something-or-anothers, Weintraub's characterization greatly distorts what CPSIA really is.  CPSIA applies to ANYTHING that is intended to be sold to children.  The list is well-known but, as a reminder, it includes t-shirts and shoes, carpets, pens, ATVs, bikes, books, science kits, DVDs and CDs, furniture, brass musical instruments, rhinestones and so on.  Focusing on toys is just to get you going.

Congress passed CPSIA by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote in 2008, and President Bush signed the bill into law that year. After a year of careful deliberations, CPSIA's passage followed a record number of recalls of children's products that injured and killed children. The measure gave new life to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a weakened federal oversight agency that had failed in its meager efforts to protect the public's safety. The law represents a giant step forward in protecting America's children.

RW - Another defensive ploy of the CPSIA defenders is the "infallibility of Congress" argument, namely that everyone voted for it so why is anyone against it now.  This argument only makes sense if you don't think about it too much.  For one thing, the CPSIA was passed in anger.  Have you ever said or done anything in anger that you later regretted?  That point aside, it is important to consider that this law was devised by a Dem-controlled Congress dominated by the strong-willed Left Winger Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.  Pelosi takes no prisoners and tolerates no dissent among her Dem followers.  The law was dictated by Dems to the Republicans, as insiders acknowledge, and was passed just ahead of the Obama wave in the Presidential election cycle. The votes of Republicans for such an extreme law cannot properly be deemed "voluntary" in any conventional sense. Everyone knew this law was a great chess move by the Dems, forcing Republicans to go along, and even President Bush got into the act by agreeing to sign to protect his party.  Weintraub's distorted rewrite of history is a good illustration of the rule that history is written by the victors.  Consider the source . . . .

CPSIA currently requires that children's products be tested for safety before they arrive on store shelves — something that many consumers already assumed was happening.

RW - Another oft-repeated consumer group assertion, never proven.  It has always struck me that this argument is just transference. I have no doubt that folks like Weintraub always wanted this, and simply assume that everyone shares their "common sense" desires and fears. 

It sets limits on lead in children's products, sets infant product and toy safety standards, and bans certain phthalates, which are chemicals linked to a variety of health risks. The law also creates a much-needed public database where consumers can easily report and research product safety problems.

We have already seen the successful results of CPSIA. Most recently, on June 28, 2011, new crib standards went into effect, which means that cribs sold in stores must meet the most protective safety standards in the world. This will give parents and caregivers the long-overdue peace of mind that when they purchase a new crib, it will be a truly safe place for their baby.

Some small toy manufacturers have raised concerns about the costs of testing their products to the new safety standards. These concerns, and narrowly tailored ways to reduce the costs for very small children's product manufacturers, are useful to discuss.

RW - The nauseating cynicism of this remark cannot go unaddressed.  Ms. Weintraub argued for two years that the agency "needed time" to implement the law and to work out the kinks.  At that time, she and the other Dems argued that there was "nothing wrong" with the CPSIA that the CPSC couldn't fix in its implementation and that consideration of legislative fixes was not merited until that process was complete.  Three years later we are still subject to this on-going implementation . . . that is, those of us who haven't gone belly up.  Weintraub expressed little interest in "discussing" these issues way back then. 

Later, Ms. Weintraub tried to justify Henry Waxman's lame-o effort at a cursory amendment of the CPSIA that offers negligible relief.  Here is an excerpt from her House testimony dated April 28, 2010 (15 months ago) on this topic:

"Special provisions for small businesses includes allowing certain businesses to be exempt from third party testing when the Commission finds that reasonable testing methods assure compliance with relevant consumer product safety standards. We believe, however, that the term "small batch manufacturer" is defined too broadly. We commend the fact that the language does not allow small batch manufacturers to obtain exceptions for durable infant or toddler products or lead paint, cribs, pacifiers, small parts, children’s metal jewelry, baby bouncers, walkers and jumpers. Because of the fatal nature of the defects in many of these types of products, as demonstrated by recalls in the past, all manufacturers should be required to meet the same safety and testing requirements. We could not accept a broadening of either the definition of small batch manufacturer or a limitation of those products not covered by this provision."  [Emphasis added] 

The CPSC never did identify any such "reasonable testing methods" even though the "hunt" has gone on for three years now.  Even Ms. Weintraub must blush when she tells you that such issues deserve "discussion".

Unfortunately, instead of fixing concerns of the truly small manufacturers, HR 1939 goes too far and rolls back important consumer protections created by CPSIA in a number of ways.

HR 1939 reduces safety testing for children's products by undermining independent safety testing requirements for most children's products. This would place us in the same dangerous situation we were in 2007 and 2008, when millions of beloved toys were recalled because of excessive lead paint, strong magnets that when swallowed in multiples could rip apart a child's intestines and chemicals that turned into the date-rape drug when swallowed.

RW - The issue in 2007 and 2008 was NOT that the law did not protect consumers.  In fact, if anything, the issue was that the agency did not (adequately) protect consumers. The bad behavior that prompted the CPSIA was clearly illegal, as the agency could act to enforce if it so chose.  After all, they issued hundreds of recalls under prior law.  Please pause and give that a little thought.  Weintraub's argument is pure urban legend, but helpful urban legend for the tall tale she is trying to sell.

It is also worth noting that Gib Mullan, the then head of Compliance at the CPSC admitted during the second session question-and-answer session at the CPSC Tracking Labels hearing on May 12, 2009 that the agency had never seen the strong magnet hazard evidenced by Magnetix previously and at first mistook it as a "small parts" issue.  No law can prevent the unknown and the not previously experienced from happening.  That is a safety fantasy.  In addition, the "date-rape drug" incident involved an unapproved change in materials by a factory which no testing regime would have caught (CPSIA or not). The safety issue was completely unprecedented and the product was immediately recalled without argument by a very safety conscious toymaker.  Only in Weintraub's self-serving world is this incident useful . . . to terrorize.  Under most circumstances, it should be held up as a great public-private partnership and a sign that there are good people in the industry.

Under this bill, virtually all toys would no longer have to be tested for safety before they come into our homes — these products would be safety-tested only if and when CPSC undertook a laborious and complicated series of steps, including a cost-benefit analysis that emphasizes testing costs over health and safety benefits.

RW - Weintraub here spurns the President's Executive Order which MANDATES cost-benefit analysis by the CPSC.  This arch position conforms to the surprising world view of Bob "Over My Dead Body" Adler and Inez Tenenbaum and certainly suits their Dem agenda.  It is, unfortunately, an affront to the President's order.  It is also economic nonsense.  The OPPOSITE is correct, at least according to the Nobel Prize committee which awarded the 1991 Economics Prize to Ronald Coase for his work proving the need for regulatory cost-benefit analysis.  Mr. Coase proved that ignoring cost-benefit analysis exposes all of us to the risk of being impoverished by government regulation.  Thanks, Rachel, for the great idea!

It is unclear if CPSC would ever have the resources, time or information to complete what this bill demands of them, and it is therefore unclear if toys would ever be subject to independent testing. Independent testing not only prevents unnecessary injuries to children, but it can also prevent costly recalls for the manufacturer — a benefit to consumers as well as manufacturers.

RW - Here Rachel spins an even bigger tall tale, that preserving mandatory testing is in manufacturers' best interests.  Apparently she is the only one who knows this.  The people who actually work for companies affected by this rule have been howling for three years-plus.  Here Rachel sets us all straight - the problem is we're wrong and she's right.  Oh, now I see it!  Her reasoning relies on the urban legend that in the absence of mandated testing, testing will cease.  That's nonsense and is not supported by data.  We have been testing since I got to Learning Resources, more than 20 years ago.  So, if mandated testing is necessary to force testing, why were we testing way back then?  Simple - we wanted to know we were complying with the standards.  Standards drive testing, and enforcement can make testing prevalent, even universal.  Mandated testing just raises costs, unfortunately.  I have previously addressed this issue in a blogpost.

HR 1939 increases the amount of lead that would be permitted in children's products. CPSIA currently requires that all parts of children's products comply with a single, unambiguous standard for lead content. The proposed legislation would replace that clarity with a variety of standards that will be different depending on when the product was manufactured, the age of the child for whom the product is designed, whether it contains small parts and other factors. As a result, parents and other consumers will no longer have the confidence that all parts of all children's products are safe for their children. Lead is a known toxin where even small amounts can be harmful by decreasing a child's IQ. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a single, strong standard that simply keeps lead out of children's products.

RW - No reason, huh?  Space does not permit me to reduce this absurd statement to rubble.  I have been writing about the many common sense reasons to modify standards for three years now.  ECADA as a matter of fact does very little to change standards except to codify some sensible concessions already made by the CPSC in stays applying to metals.  If you are terrorized by the prospect of bicycle licking or the horrors of playing brass instruments in the school band, ECADA's changes will no doubt keep you up at night. Your fears are nothing that our proposed National Xanax Fund can't address. 

The idea that different standards for different products aimed at different ages of children are somehow "defective" flies in the face not only of common sense but also the regulatory tradition at the CPSC.  Before whackjobs began to dominate the safety discussion, and before the agency had its brain removed by Congress, the regulators were able to see the sense of crafting different rules for two year olds, six year olds and twelve year olds. And nobody thought the same rules should apply to rhinestones, pens, ATVs and books.  If you are an experienced parent, you might know something about the need to modify rules for different ages of children. I have tried to regulate teenagers with the same rules as toddlers and received some "pushback".  And when I try to keep toddlers safe by applying sensible rules designed for teenagers, that doesn't seem to work either. 

HR 1939 undermines the effectiveness of the new crib safety standard. The bill would carve out a large exception to the bipartisan standard for cribs in child-care facilities. Under the bill, some child-care facilities would not have to replace existing fixed-side cribs even if the cribs violate the most basic crib safety standards — slats too far apart, non-compliant corner posts and failing mattress supports. Parents should be assured that the cribs their babies sleep in meet the strongest crib standards — both at home and in child-care facilities. The new, robust crib standards just went into effect for new cribs consumers can buy in stores and will apply to hotels, motels and child-care facilities in 18 months. Carving out child-care center cribs from this important protection moves the safety bar backwards.

RW - I have tried to avoid biting on the bait of the consumer group attacks on ECADA for the innocuous and sensible crib rule changes.  It is in Ms. Weintraub's interest to make you feel that there is some sort of evil cabal dominating the Republican Party which somehow induces them to play roulette with your babies' lives.  Anyhow, it's all a fiction but a helpful fiction to Ms. Weintraub's purpose, namely to subvert efforts to amend the CPSIA.  Here is the "deadly" language that Ms. Weintraub protests so intensely:

"(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR FIXED-SIDE CRIBS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN STATE OR LOCAL LAW REQUIREMENTS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a fixed-side crib that has not been recalled and that is offered or provided for use in a licensed child care facility (other than a family child care home) that is subject to the following requirements under the law of a State or a political subdivision of a State:  (i) The facility may not allow a child to remain in a crib for any significant amount of time while the child is awake, (ii) The facility may not place in a crib a child over the age of 16 months, (iii) An adult must be present whenever a child is in a crib."

Ms. Weintraub fails to deliver evidence that this exceedingly modest change could harm children based on actual injury data.  She just wants you to push the panic button.  ECADA only permits certain legacy FIXED SIDE cribs to remain in service.  I thought fixed side cribs were the "answer".  Not if their inclusion in ECADA might help get it passed, apparently.

HR 1939 allows the use of dangerous phthalates, which are hormone-disrupting chemicals that have been added to child-care articles like teething rings. This proposed bill would undermine CPSIA's landmark protections against phthalates by allowing large, undefined exemptions to both the prohibition and interim bans on phthalates in toys and child-care articles.

RW - Rachel again ventures into Whopperville to scare you about phthalates.  Let's start by deciding how "dangerous" phthalates are.  Ms. Weintraub reasons that if (the infallible) Congress banned them, the chemicals are ergo dangerous. The law, in fact, only bans three chemicals permanently and has directed the agency to investigate another three.  On two previous occasions the agency has done just that . . . and concluded that phthalates don't present a risk to children.  Ms. Weintraub omits to let you know that this provision was added to CPSIA at the last moment, without hearings or investigation, by California Senator Diane Feinstein of San Francisco and mentor to Nancy Pelosi.  Aha.  The science on phthalates is hardly an open-and-shut case - just watch 60 Minutes for perspective. 

Ultimately, the greatest disservice to truth performed by Ms. Weintraub here is to distort what measly relief is being offered.  ECADA only allows us to stop testing components that cannot be touched or licked by kids.  That's it.  The actual words:  "ACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS- Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, subsections (a) and (b)(1) and any rule promulgated under subsection (b)(3) shall apply to any accessible, plasticized component part of a children’s toy or child care article."

HR 1939 undermines the new CSPC product safety database. This new database allows public access to consumer complaints about product safety problems while giving the industry ample opportunity to view and comment upon such safety-related reports before they are posted. The database, available at http://www.saferproducts.gov, just went live in March. It will help consumers research products, help CPSC identify emerging hazard trends and help prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries. HR 1939 would place onerous hurdles on those seeking to report a safety problem, thereby discouraging the sharing of potentially lifesaving information with other consumers, companies and the government.

RW - Oy vey.  There has been so much written on this subject that I can't bear to write it again.  Ms. Weintraub intentionally ignores any point inconsistent with her political agenda.  I will leave it at that, but feel free to pour over my prior writings on the database (tagged on the side of the blog) for further details.

Consumers demanded and received strong product safety reform from Congress in 2008. Undermining these important product safety improvements puts all of our children at risk. HR 1939 will not protect our children from product safety hazards. Rather, HR 1939 rolls the safety clock backwards and creates huge and unnecessary loopholes in our nation's safety net.

RW - One last point, to quote Eric Stone:  "ECADA gives CPSC broader subpoena and investigational authority. Not surprisingly, opponents do not mention such provisions since they do not fit the 'Republican-industry conspiracy' narrative."  I love the "Republican-industry conspiracy narrative" part.  You can see how that might work well for Rachel.

Rachel Weintraub is director of product safety and senior counsel at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C.

CPSIA - Nancy Nord Op-Ed on the Wasteful 100 ppm Lead Standard

From the Washington Times (July 18, 2011):

NORD: Playing around with toy makers

Stricter lead regulations will cost jobs without making children’s products safer


The Obama administration has recognized that excessive and unnecessarily burdensome regulation is a drag on the economy. As the administration has worked to promote job creation, it has publicized its efforts directing agencies to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient regulations. Apparently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not gotten the word.

The commission’s failure to get the word is no more apparent than in its efforts to implement the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act. The legislation was enacted after agency recalls of imported products illuminated the issue of import safety. The goal of the law is to assure that products intended for children are safe, a goal for which there is universal agreement. The devil, of course, is in the details, and the details of implementing this laudable statutory goal are devilish for sure.

For the rest of the article, please click here.

CPSIA - The Cost of Government Regulation Examined

I recommend that you check out Wayne Crews' article in Forbes dated July 6 entitled "The Cost of Government Regulation". This article predates the recent House Oversight hearing or the Obama Executive Order on Independent Agencies and Regulatory Reform.

Mr. Crews cites regulatory costs in excess of $1 trillion for this excess ($1.4 trillion for the self-destructive overreaction to Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley alone). Costs of this magnitude makes cost-benefit analysis something of joke. He notes:

"Agencies think within their squares and have conflicts of interest in assessing their own benefits. Regulators can ignore the opportunity costs and moral hazard they create. Even now they are in the process of distorting entire industry structures via limiting access to energy, antitrust regulatory abuse and “net neutrality” rules in telecommunications and government “stimulus” with regulatory strings attached."

Enough already!!!

CPSIA - Hypocrisy on Display

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum was home in South Carolina last week and made an appearance to commemorate a new State ATV safety law known as "Chandler's Law".  This law is supported, even encouraged, by the ATV industry.  Notes Paul Vitrano of the SVIA, “Chandler’s Law is a major step in the right direction. It’s something to be celebrated and we extend sincere thanks to everyone involved in its enactment. But there’s much more work to be done in South Carolina and all over America. ATVs are safe when used properly, but they are not toys. No responsible parent would hand the keys to the family car over to their child and send them on their way." [Emphasis added]

ATVs are not toys.  But ATVs are regulated by the CPSIA as though they are toys.  Notably, as a consequence of the CPSIA, access to youth-model ATVs has been all but eliminated.  Incredibly, there is still NOT ONE test lab certified by the CPSC to test ATVs for compliance either.  Testimony to this effect was given at the February 16th CPSC hearing at which I appeared.  Jay Howell of the CPSC acknowledged that the expense of testing ATVs cannot apparently be recovered by labs because there are so few youth model ATVs left on the market.  No lab wants to invest for testing at a loss.  The market speaks?  The absence of youth model ATVs from the market also means that they are not being rented out.  Rental and sales are the same thing under the CPSIA.  They're gone.

Interestingly, Chandler's Law prohibits children under 16 from riding adult-sized ATVs.   If you can connect even two dots, you will realize that this is a tacit ban on children riding ATVs.  Period.  This is the secret agenda of the consumer group zealots like the former AAP majordomo Cindy Pelligrini as she admitted at a meeting of stakeholders with the House Energy and Commerce Committee staff on January 6, 2011.   So in other words, the consumer groups have a political agenda that they cannot accomplish via direct legislation - taking away ATVs from your kids, even using youth model ATVs developed at the request of the CPSC.  ATV riding is too popular regionally for a ban to ever pass Congress - so the consumer groups obtained their objective under the cover of darkness with the CPSIA and sympathetic Dem plants on the CPSC Commission. 

And here's the hypocrisy of Ms. Tenenbaum on public display.   Appearing to herald the restrictions on youth access to adult-sized ATVs, Ms. Tenenbaum does not mention that she is ALSO responsible for the removal of youth-model ATVs from the market and that Chandler's Law essentially implements a ban on ATV use by children under 16 years of age in South Carolina.  Had she admitted it, the publicity storm would have been bad for South Carolina legislators and Dems all over the country.  She'll never breathe a word.

Not unlike the rest of the CPSIA mess, the reality is kept beneath a cloak, out of sight.  You will only notice, if you ever do, when you go to the store and try to buy something wonderful that you have used safely in the past . . . and it's gone.  Where did it go?  The self-appointed "fun suckers" have been there first.  Youth model ATVs - they're against them.  Trampolines, backyard pools, fireworks, rhinestones, brass instruments - all too "dangerous" for you to be allowed to use.  They know what's best, and you should be thankful.

It's our country but they're running it.  When are you going to do something about it?  After three years, you don't have much time left to figure it out.

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:

1. ECADA and CPSIA are toy bills.
2. CPSIA was passed by an overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress and was signed by "pro-business Republican President George W. Bush".
3. 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).
4. "[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.]
5. 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." 
6. ECADA "[waters] down the safety act's firm hold on lead content in children's products . . . ."
7. 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.]

In each case, I have already replied to these misstatements and mischaracterizations in this space.  Since I seem to repeat myself endlessly, I am going to spare you one more trip around the same block today.  You can find the answers in my recent postings on ECADA.

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!

CPSIA - Kids Don't Lick ATV's, Apparently. Who Knew?!

In today's Desert Sun newspaper, John Paliwoda, Executive Director of the California Motorcycle Dealers Association, published an Op-Ed entitled "Note to Congress:  Kids don't lick their ATVs".  You're kidding!

A few salient take-aways:

a.  Although ATVs and dirt bikes are now "banned hazardous materials" under the law because of trace levels of lead in metal parts like engine components, scientists agree that the risk of injury is "remote at best".  Even the CPSC staff acknowledge this (in writing).  Mr. Paliwoda notes that "there have been no cases of lead poisoning documented from children riding youth model ATVs".  No one seems to care, however.

b.  The CPSC acknowledges that children face a "far graver and more immediate risk" by being exposed to adult-sized ATVs than exposure to lead in metal components in youth-model ATVs.  The very EXISTENCE of youth-model ATVs is the handiwork of the CPSC - so their ban reverses the safety gains earned by the Commission (work that actually saved lives).  This ban of youth-model ATVs under the CPSIA is part of a larger political objective to ban ATV use by kids altogether, as publicly admitted by Cindy Pelligrini of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Subterfuge as public policy?  Apparently.  Still, Mr. Paliwoda observes:  "The one thing that the government, ATV manufacturers, dealers and consumer groups all agree on is that the key to reducing injuries and fatalities to children riding ATVs is to keep riders younger than 16 off adult-size ATVs."  Hmmm.  Job well done, Congress!

c.  The manufacturing and sale of youth-model ATVs has been severely curtailed by the law despite the temporary stay protecting manufacturers and retailers.  Why?  The stay of enforcement "failed because many manufacturers and dealers are not comfortable selling youth model powersports vehicles while the ban is on the books."  And the impact on the industry?  Mr. Paliwoda:  "[For] motorcycle dealers in California, [the CPSIA] has been devastating."

Sadly, Mr. Paliwoda's reasoning and documentation will not likely sway any Dems.  Why?  Aren't they listening?  No.  Don't they care about data?  Nope.  Don't they care about the creation of jobs in their districts?  Doesn't seem like it.  What motivates them, then?  It's certainly not children's safety, by all appearances.  My best guess is that they want to be reelected as their top priority and feel that taking a reasoned stand to repair an idiotic law ostensibly "protecting" children is too politically dangerous to risk.  The public can't be expected to actually think about the details, after all, and the rabid and equally uncomprehending media will certainly take the other side of any effort to bring relief to this suffocating law.  Data be damned.

Or, you, your company, your market and your customers be damned.

PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

CPSIA - Consumers Union is Hazardous to Your Health

Lies, innuendos, misstatements, twists - which is it this time?

Today Ami Gadhia, one of the Consumers Union CPSIA hacks (a.k.a. "Policy Counsel") weighed in with her usual bunk about the lurking "dangers" in children's products.  In particular, today's tripe is a protest against modifying the CPSIA.  Her writings and utterances are invariably infuriating for their lack of perspective, tall tales and general fear mongering.  In her article "Turning Back the Clock on Child Safety Protections", Ms. Gadhia continues her fine tradition of twisting and obfuscating the facts.  Considering her background in the subject matter and her law degree, one must assume ill-intent.  This can't be accidental.

Let me debunk her junk one-by-one:

a.  "Turning Back the Clock on Child Safety Protections":  The Op-Ed's title is absurd in light of the actual bill's wording.  The CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is a mild and surgical bill intended to offer minimal but effective relief from over-regulation while preserving the structure of the CPSIA.  Killing the CPSIA is politically impossible, it appears, so this is the best that can be offered at this time.  Ms. Gadhia must be asserting that ANY change in the CPSIA is a setback.  This argument is always left unproven - but no one ever holds her accountable so why not tell the tall tale?  The consumer groups rely on the appeal of the "zero sum" argument which also goes unchallenged.  It goes like this:  ANY change in the CPSIA which might benefit a business is THEREFORE a setback for children's safety.  If the Cubs lose 15-5, they are somehow better off if they instead lose 13-5.  Right. . . .

b.  Ms. Gadhia, like her fellow manipulators in the consumer "advocacy" field, relies on an emotional appeal to kick off her crock - the story of a child who swallowed magnets, leading to gory injury.  A few notes on this line of reasoning:

• The CPSIA is NOT a toy law.  Despite Ms. Gadhia's relentlessly repetitive references to toy safety, the law applies equally to ALL children's products, from shoes and t-shirts to pens to rhinestones to ATVs and bikes to books to educational products to carpet to what-have-you.  By focusing on toy gore, Ms. Gadhia lulls her reader into overlooking the awesome overreach of this bill.  We don't want kids injured by magnets . . . ergo, we should ban all hazards in all things.  Huh?
• The magnet hazard she refers to had never been seen by the agency previously.  It was a classic latent hazard, unregulated specifically because it was unrecognized.  You can see Gib Mullan, the current General Counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and former General Counsel and Director of Compliance at the CPSC say ON VIDEOTAPE (at the CPSC Tracking Labels hearing) that the agency first thought the problem was a small parts issue, not a strong magnets issue.  No law can effectively regulate UNKNOWN hazards.  Claiming that the CPSIA "solves" this safety issue is pure baloney.
• The magnet hazard was addressed promptly and effectively by the agency without the need for changes implemented by the CPSIA. The agency had this power under its 1972 enabling legislation and following laws.
• Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

c.  Ms. Gadhia intones ominously about banned phthalates and their links to "a variety of health risks".  As has been well-documented here, that provision was placed in the law at the last minute by Diane Feinstein, true to her San Francisco roots.  This is the same place that worked for years to ban circumcision.  Yes, they are really scientific in that community.  For a discussion of phthalates, please watch the 60 Minutes segment in which I appeared.

d.  Ms. Gadhia trots out yet another misleading but longstanding justification for not changing the CPSIA - namely that it passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress.  I fail to grasp the intellectual power of this "infallibility of Congress" argument, and further note that dozens of members of Congress have been trying to change the law ever since.  There has been more than a dozen bills floated to amend this "perfect" law since August 2008.  In addition, the timing of passage of this law (three months ahead of the 2008 Presidential poll electing Mr. Obama) made it very dangerous politically to vote against this terrible law if you wanted to keep your job in Congress.  Even Mr. Bush had to sign it for political reasons.  The political and media frenzy in 2008 made rationality impossible, and minds were made up.  Have you ever made a bad call when you were furious?  'Nuf said . . . by everyone except the dangerous Ms. Gadhia.

e.  The Consumers Union storyteller informs us that ECADA "would poke some serious holes in the product safety net".  What a dream if Ms. Gadhia were actually right that this amendment would actually dent the CPSIA that I hate.  It doesn't, regrettably.  To "prove" her points, she lists four lies:

• "The bill undermines safety testing for children's products".  The bill eliminates MANDATORY testing as required by the CPSIA.  It does not ban testing, nor does it discourage or remove the incentive to test.  Excessive testing is one of the original problems cited in the bill, and has cost our company well in excess of $1 million since the passage of the bill - all without making even one product in our product range safer, even a little bit.  This term is the brainchild of the consumer groups (Rachel Weintraub?), reasoning that if the government didn't require mandatory testing, no testing would be done.  This misconception overlooks the enforcement of the new standards.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to assess whether you comply with the standard without testing.  Enforcement of the standard, as is anticipated, means that everyone WILL test.  What is being eliminated is the role of Mother Government "helping" us by telling us how to run our businesses.  If the standard is enforced, people will HAVE TO test.  If they don't enforce the standard, they won't enforce mandatory testing either. What's the big deal here?  Just the opportunity for Ms. Gadhia to mindlessly bang her drum.
• "The bill undermines lead protections".   Ms. Gadhia informs us that consumer confidence would "erode" if the current one-size-fits-all standard is replaced with "a variety of standards that will be different depending on when the product was manufactured, the age of the child for whom the product is designed, whether it contains small parts, and other factors."  OMG - standards that are reasonably tailored to the individual hazard and individual product!  NO - please tell me we still live in a world where books, t-shirts, diamonds and rubies, ATVs, bicycles, appliances, pens, carpets, DVDs and toys are ALL subject to exactly the same rules. What is the world coming to???  I presume Ms. Gadhia thinks we are idiots, or else this is all she has, which ain't much.  Anyone surprised?
• "The bill undermines the effectiveness of the new crib safety standard".  I have previously addressed this issue - the three Dem Commissioners made this same baseless accusation a few days ago.  See my reply in this space.
• "The bill undermines the new public database for people to report and read about product safety problems".  Ms. Gadhia warns "the provisions in this legislation would place onerous burdens on the person making the complaint, thereby discouraging parties with valuable safety information from reporting."  Whoa - you mean we won't get to see stuff like this, this and this again???

Ms. Gadhia needs to get one last jab in:  "The Leisy family's experience shouldn't happen to another child."  Okay, I don't want to see any child injured ever again for any reason . . . but does Ms. Gadhia even make a coherent argument here?  Does one thing have ANYTHING to do with another?

It's time to turn back the clock on irrationality and lowest common denominator government.  Who should set the tone for us - the Anthony Weiners of the world (did you hear that his wife is pregnant?) or people that are interested in children's safety AND the viability of American businesses that provide jobs to your neighbors and valued products to your kids?  I think it's time that our representatives in Congress, especially those in Congress calling themselves Democrats, to stand up for WHAT'S RIGHT rather than what's easy or what's safe (for their job security).  We pay them to lead, not to cower.  PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

CPSIA - The Hill Publishes My Op-Ed on CPSIA Hearings

Enough already! It’s time to amend the lead law

By Richard Woldenberg
04/06/11 02:51 PM ET

After almost three years of bickering over the law regulating lead in children’s products, a comprehensive amendment is finally up for discussion in the House of Representatives. It’s about time.

In August 2008, the 110th Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in an overreaction to notorious lead-in-paint toy recalls. Claiming that weak regulation “caused” these violations of law (lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades), consumer groups coined a slogan to sum it up: “There is NO safe level of lead”. Stooping low to sow fear, they have even warned the CPSC about the perils of bicycle licking and playing brass instruments in the school band. Their lead slogan has been repeated endlessly to justify a stifling, over-reaching law which has accomplished little but damaged many fine companies, killed jobs and depressed markets. The CPSIA deems companies "guilty until proven innocent" by forcing them to test products over and over again at huge expense to prove compliance with the new lead standard.

The screams of law-abiding companies have been consistently ignored by CPSC as it has implemented ever-harsher regulations under the new law. The safety agency is even considering ratcheting down permissible lead from 300 ppm to the unimaginably low 100 ppm level. Economics be damned!  

In contrast to the claims of CPSIA backers warning that the sky is falling, CPSC recall records list only four alleged lead injuries from 1999 to 2010 among the nation’s 50+ million young children. Advocates have never produced victim case histories to justify the draconian rules and simply wag their fingers at anyone daring to question their cherished law. 

As directed by Congress, the CPSC has dutifully banned the sale of rhinestones to children, ended the era of youth model ATVs and forbidden the use of brass bushings in toy car wheel assemblies. Why? They might emit a single atom of lead! The supporters of the law justify these extreme actions on the grounds that lead is a poison but somehow overlook that kids are exposed to more lead every day from eating a snack, drinking water or playing outside in the fresh air. The descent into regulation purgatory is down a slippery slope.

Being governed by this law can give you fits. For example, to be able to continue to legally sell our geology kits to schools (featuring real rocks!), we must give this warning: “Caution: Federal law requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed.” We don’t relish looking like idiots at the hand of the U.S. government.

We’re certainly not alone in feeling the pain. The law affects many safe products spanning the U.S. economy, like books, t-shirts and shoes, ATVs and dirt bikes, bicycles, donated or resale goods, musical instruments, pens and educational products. The number of companies touched by the CPSIA is in the many thousands.

The CPSIA was written in response to failings of big companies, but hammers small and medium-sized companies with particular vengeance. Our small business has already lost customers who now feel that selling toys is too confusing or too much of a “hassle”. Market shrinkage courtesy of the federal government is our new reality. The technical rules and ever-changing legal requirements are beyond the capability of all but the most highly-trained quality managers or lawyers to comprehend. For this reason, small businesses bear the greatest risk of liability under the law, despite being responsible for almost no injuries from lead in the last decade. The double whammy of massive new regulatory obligations and the prospect of devastating liability are driving small businesses out of the children’s market.

Our family business makes educational products, and we work tirelessly to ensure that our products are safe. We have tested our products for decades now.  None of us could ever tolerate lead poisoning. Nevertheless, I believe that our company should not be crushed by our government over some consumer groups' phobias and junk science. 

The 112th Congress should know better after years of hearings, comment letters, op-eds, pleading and even direct appeals from the five CPSC Commissioners. To quote The Who, "We won’t get fooled again." If Congress is serious about fixing our economy and creating jobs, it’s time to lift the yoke of the CPSIA and set the children’s product market free once again.

Richard Woldenberg is Chairman of Learning Resources, Inc.

CPSIA - Sean Oberle Notes the Risk in the Database

Sean Oberle of the Product Safety Letter noted in an Op-Ed entitled "Andre Maginot and the CPSIA Database" that while the database has the ability to do good, it also presents the risk of causing serious harm. He's right, of course. He goes on to note that proponents may be held to account if disaster results. We can only hope. . . .

I think this is helpful and appreciate that Sean made this point. I want to highlight one short section in his essay:

"The metaphor also helps to belie the dismissive reassurances of a few (by no means all) proponents. The issue is not that industry is failing to acknowledge the protections Congress and CPSC put in place. Rather, industry is concerned whether the protections are proper and sufficient. The irony is not lost on me that with the CPSIA database, we’re dealing with a product that has a lot of potential to do harm. The problem is that when you produce a potentially dangerous product – be it a database or a toy – there is only so much that you can do to reassure people before putting it 'out there.' At some point, people simply are going to have to trust you."

There are two important issues here. First, Sean mentions "trust" - and seems to imply that we should give the agency a chance to prove itself. Well, they have already had a chance to prove themselves, and used the opportunity to prove that they don't deserve to be trusted. The risk that we should bear while we wait to see if the CPSC can be "trusted" could literally be fatal to our businesses. Where does it say that markets are to be administered this way? How can this be defended as "sensible" or a worthy risk to take?

The second issue which Sean brushes up against but doesn't discuss is how the database erodes corporate due process rights so significantly. We have essentially had our rights stripped, arguably illegally and illicitly. The government is now in the business of publishing slander and we have no way to stop it. Trust is impossible when due process rights have been removed. Appeal is pointless (as our company's recent experience illustrates), but some semblance of process creates the illusion of individual rights. It's a joke, of course. Maybe we need to call the Small Business Ombudsman. Yeah, that's the ticket!

At some point, the zealots will push too far. The damage they wrought won't be fixable - the dead companies won't rise again. The cost will be borne by our society, but the perpetrators will just move on to another government job . . . .

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/

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.

CPSIA - Do We Need More Government? [No!]

796 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 14 days left until Election Day.

Hey, have any of you noticed that since I began a daily reminder of our abandonment by this Democrat-led government (reminders began on August 22nd when 738 days had passed without help), no Democrat has done a single thing to help us? Have you also noticed that as they weren't rising up to help us, the Dems were actually engaged in making things WORSE? Definition of Children's Products, the so-called "15 Month Rule", making carpets subject to testing, further implementation of a database certain to make our business environment FAR more hostile.

Do we need a lot more of this?

Mr. Obama says we do: "The basic idea is that if we put our blind faith in the market and we let corporations do whatever they want and we leave everybody else to fend for themselves, then America somehow automatically is going to grow and prosper." The implication is clear - more government is the solution, we can't trust markets. Corporations need overseers, heavy regulation.

This quote is from a remarkable WSJ article that appeared last week by Daniel Henninger entitled "Capitalism Saved the Miners". Beleaguered victims of the awful CPSIA should read this article. Let me sum it up with his concluding remarks:

"The U.S. has a government led by a mindset obsessed with 250K-a-year 'millionaires' and given to mocking 'our blind faith in the market.' In a fast-moving world filled with nations intent on catching up with or passing us, this policy path is a waste of time. The miners' rescue is a thrilling moment for Chile, an imprimatur on its rising status. But I'm thinking of that 74-person outfit in Berlin, Pa., whose high-tech drill bit opened the earth to free them. You know there are tens of thousands of stories like this in the U.S., as big as Google and small as Center Rock. I'm glad one of them helped save the Chileans. What's needed now is a new American economic model that lets our innovators rescue the rest of us." [Emphasis added]

I don't know about you, but I think we operated our company very well before Mother Government invited herself into our affairs. We knew the difference between right and wrong, and were pretty good at allocating our capital to its highest and best use. Now we must play "Mother May I" with the self-appointed experts who arrived to protect against "dangers" they can't accurately describe or measure. The vacuuming up of our money, our resources, our mind share, our energy, destroys our ability and will to compete.

Fine, ignore the reality. Wait for the bodies. Assert your superiority and your authority. But the facts are the facts. The case against the CPSIA is crystal clear and the only ones who don't "get it" are the Democrats. After two years of banging my head against the wall, I can only conclude that they don't WANT to get it.

It's no mystery - I know why the Dems refuse to listen. They are rather transparent about it. When I spoke to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL9) at a candidate forum eight days ago, I asked her why she called me a "cynical special interest" to the WSJ. She asked me who I was, and then told me she didn't know me. That fact didn't stop her from trashing me, a private citizen, to a nationally-prominent newspaper. Pointing the finger at me serves her interest in getting reelected - she's saving the populace . . . again. Who is in a position to argue with her? When I protested that our products had been safe for 26 years, she replied that she "didn't understand what the problem is" and turned to a voter standing nearby to assert that she just wants to protect children against lead. The higher moral ground . . . for people who don't know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, scare tactics sell very well.

I believe the Mob also sells protection. Do you want to buy some protection from them?

The Chilean miners were saved by companies that invested their money to make the world a better place incentivized by the opportunity to make a profit. Our industry, the one that serves children as our reason-to-be, is being depleted by a heavy tax - the intrusion of a heavy-handed government that treats us as "guilty-until-proven-innocent". The government REFUSES to listen to us.

Those of you with children will pay the consequences.

Thank you, Mother Government. The market saved the miners, but you will happliy kill us.

Vote on November 2nd for a fresh start.

CPSIA - What Are We Trying Achieve?

787 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 23 days left until Election Day.

Sean Oberle published a lengthy contemplation of the issue raised in my last post on the relationship between compliance and safety as objectives for regulators and for industry. Mr. Oberle's essay speaks for itself, so I will not attempt to summarize it. He concludes with the following message: "Therein lies the frustrating and frightening aspect of product safety. Those of you tasked with ensuring product safety – industry rep, consumerist, and regulator alike – are trying to quantify ambiguity amid a chaos of demands … all of them in flux … I don't envy you."

Sean, boy are you right!

I think it's worth discussing a few issues on compliance versus safety since Mr. Oberle devoted so much ink (or electrons) to the topic.

1. The law defines what the CPSC can and cannot do. It's a shame no one told them . . . .

First and foremost, the CPSC exists because of the CPSA and its activities are governed by the CPSA. Recall authority is governed by Section 15 which limits the agency's recall authority to "substantial product hazards", namely a product that ". . . creates a substantial risk of injury to the public". [Section 12 gives the agency additional powers to seek a court order for "imminent hazards".] In other words, the CPSC does not have the legislative authority to tilt at windmills - it cannot demand recalls for anything unless it presents a "substantial risk of injury to the public".

Consider recalling 12 million glasses that the CPSC acknowledges in writing are SAFE. Substantial risk of injury?

Consider recalling more than seven million trikes sold over 14 years that caused six children to cut themselves. Children who were under three years of age and should have been under the care of attentive adults. Substantial risk of injury?

Consider recalling more than 400,000 Sarge cars because the little yellow dot on the wheel hubcap violated the lead-in-paint ban, and those dots were produced from two cans of paint. Substantial risk of injury?

One must distinguish between legerdemain and reality, between policy and what the law intended. It is a little focused-upon responsibility of the agency to exercise this judgment. Is it even possible for everything that happens to be a "substantial" risk? We know of cases where a single broken toy without an injury provoked an official investigation at the agency. Fair? Is this an activity that the CPSA authorizes? It is . . . if you are running the agency and you say it is. Arguably, the recall of the 480,000 Mattel Wheelies on September 30 was just such a case. Consumers apparently reported two broken cars with wheels that fell off, and no injuries were reported or implied. Substantial risk of injury? I question that.

2. The notion that we need all this supervision flies in the face of injury statistics. But it sure makes the CPSC look irreplaceable, doesn't it?

I have already published and discussed ad nauseum the historical injury statistics from lead based on CPSC recall notices - ONE DEATH and THREE UNVERIFIED INJURIES over 11 years (1999-2010). If we were facing such a dire public health crisis, why weren't kids dropping like flies from lead poisoning over such a long time period of "lax regulation"? If the harm was so widespread and so devastating, why aren't any of these actual victims known? Names, addresses, photos, case histories?

A friend replied to me recently reasoning that there is no safe level of lead. Okay, I concede that lead can be dangerous but it is absolutely true that lead in present throughout our environment and in the air, food and water that we consume every minute of every day. So since we take in lead from several sources all the time, we know we are building up lead and this leads to several questions. If lead is so harmful at all levels, why aren't we ALL showing the effect of our cumulative build-up of lead? How can you demonstrate that children's products contribute meaningfully to the asserted "problem"? How can you prove that "fixing" children's products will meaningfully change lead blood levels? And if you could prove those things (which cannot be done), how can you measure the return on investment of our multi-billion dollar annual investment? Remember, we can only spend those dollars one time - so is flushing them down the toilet on test reports REALLY our best use of scarce and irreplaceable dollars? How would you measure that?

But the more that the CPSC enforces the law against "bad" corporations, the more they scam the public into thinking they needed the help all along. They talk about recall statistics but never put them in the context of injury statistics. The proponents never compare lead injury statistics to other injury statistics like swimming pools.

[Is a child injured by lead "worse" that a child killed in a pool? It better be - because we are spending billions to prophylactically eliminate the possibility of purported lead injuries while leaving swimming pools open to continue a continuing skein of killings of more than one child each day. That's okay according to our Democrat-run Congress. Tell that to the family of drowning victim - they can take comfort in knowing that their child didn't have lead poisoning thanks to the relentless and remorseless enforcement of the CPSIA . . . .]

So as the regulators abuse and confuse the definition of hazard, they create an atmosphere of dependence. Oh thank you Mother Government for saving me! What would I do without you?!

3. Mr. Oberle reminds us that "Lack of incidents may not mean a product is safe." And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you.

Mr. Oberle does not take an offensive stance on this topic, btw. He is right, you can sometimes catch something dangerous before it creates harm. Presumably a quicker recognition of the hazard in Magnetix might have prevented injuries. Responsible companies need to always keep a lookout for insights that reveal latent hazards.

On the other hand, injury statistics are a useful tool. If, as is the case for lead, the assertion is that the hazard is widespread and present over a lengthy period of time, injury statistics become QUITE relevant. So, if lead was such a terrible problem in children's products (putting lead-in-paint aside, long ago banned), injury statistics over many years would reveal a latent problem. Think of the breadth of the definition of "Children's Products" and think of the years of recall data available for study. We are looking at TRILLIONS of interactions with children every year in the United States alone. Where are all the lead victims? We cannot say that we don't know the scale of this problem. We have apparently been running an "experiment" on the U.S. public for decades in the period the zealots label as "lax regulations" or "lax enforcement". If lead-in-substrate were so dangerous, wouldn't you expect to see SOME evidence of it?

If we must imagine the scale of the danger, can we spend imaginary dollars to deal with it?

4. The compliance hawks want to frame this as a financial question - how much is your safety worth? I think that's the wrong question - I think the question is "how long do you want to have a job?"

I have already reported that our compliance group is currently up to six people from a historical one or two, and of course, our products are no safer today than in the past. They were always safe and still are, but it costs us a lot more to operate. That's not good for you or for me.

So how do we pay for all this new bureaucracy? We have not raised prices, that's impossible these days. We are lucky to have customers and cannot spit in their faces with a price increase. Think of your business - it won't fly.

We also need to hit profitability targets because we need to remain financable. We do not get money from "money fairies" - we have to deal with a bank, just like you. Our bank prefers to see that we make money. I know that doesn't seem very civic-minded but I can't fault them for their POV. In any event, I think it's elementary that a business needs to make a profit to have the model sustain itself. Therefore, we cannot commit ourselves to ever-eroding profitability. When our costs rise, we cut elsewhere . . . just like you do.

Needless to say, we have skinnied up a lot since 2007. We have a much-reduced headcount and operate far more efficiently. This is how everyone behaved during the financial crisis and the jobs have not returned, in part because the economy remains sluggish. With our rising overhead relating to pointless regulations, what can we do? We must recover the money from activities that are focused on raising revenues. In effect, we are discontinuing activities that create growth to fund activities that are pure costs.

What's the math behind this? Consider how we recover a dollar of bureaucratic cost from productive activities. If you are already operating efficiently and cannot wring out big productivity gains (as may be the case post-financial crisis cost reductions), then how do you pay for an additional dollar of overhead cost? When you eliminate a "productive" dollar of cost to pay for an unproductive dollar of cost (e.g., you trade a dollar of marketing promotion for a dollar of test costs), it's not an even trade. No, because your dollar of productive cost creates gross margin whereas your overhead produces no profit whatsoever. Your productive dollar of cost produces gross profit which defrays your operating costs and produces marginal net profit on top of that. Wiping out the dollar of productive cost also wipes out the contribution to operating costs, so effectively, only the associated marginal net profit can defray the unproductive cost. Since profit percentages are generally low for most of us, the ratio of productive cost dollars needed to be sacrificed to cover unproductive costs is probably on the order of 2:1 or 3:1. Hire another QC person and fire the equivalent of two people elsewhere. In our case, we do it by attrition. We just shrink away.

As if this weren't bad enough, it's also a recipe for disaster or business death in a worst case. The continued erosion of productive spending to finance unproductive spending has a dramatic impact on growth. Revenue flattens out or stays in a downward trend. It's no surprise - you are starving your company of investment dollars as you spend at constant levels. You have simply shifted your spending from productive uses favoring growth to unproductive uses that will not create growth. Presumably, those of you with children have discussed the merits of eating fruits and vegetables versus eating potato chips. It's no different for a business and how it consumes dollars. We will never grow up to be big and strong if Mother Government restricts our financial diet this way.

Sean's right. I don't envy you . . . or me. This makes me very pessimistic about the future.

I hope you are mad as hell and won't take it anymore. In 23 days, you will get to vote. DO IT!